What do you think?
Rate this book
Blood Rush
In this never-before-told story of America's most deviant serial killer--Ricky Lee Green, called by the FBI "more dangerous than Ted Bundy"--readers learn the chilling story of a man whose childhood abuse drove him to a life of violence and perversion, and the preacher's daughter who shared his thrills. Includes 12 pages of shocking photos.
384 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published May 1, 1994
2 people are currently reading
164 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews
June 15, 2009
I started reading English in 2000/2001 I think because I wanted to read more True Crime. This was one of the books I read in that first year and I know I really enjoyed it, (If you are allowed to say that about true crime books)
May 4, 2023
I've read a lot of true crime. Some of the content has definitely turned my stomach and or really disturbed me. Or maybe somewhat surprised me with it's content. There are several true crime books that are "not the squeamish" and this book is definitely one of those true crime books and in some ways is far more extreme then your average "not for the squeamish" true crime book from the 90's...and that isn't even counting the gruesome murders. What really got me was the fairly graphic sexual abuse Ricky Lee Green experienced.
Blood rush is a really good read. A really good book.
The book starts off with the first murder. Which for me at least didn't have as much weight to it as it otherwise would of if we had been introduced to Ricky's life before.
After the first murder we get Ricky's life story; his families life story to be more accurate. So the book sets up the narrative for Ricky's killing spree, painting an incredibly sad and sickening childhood and I couldn't help but think of another book about another serial killer couple; the Gallegos. It just seemed like through out Ricky Green and Gerald Gallego's life they were constantly pushed to where they eventually ended up by several people in their lives. In their past ie reinforcement.
An overwhelming majority of serial killers have had awful childhoods like Ricky Green, but it's another thing to experience severe abuse vs severe abuse with constant reinforcement by multiple people.
This book is not only graphic in terms of the written content, but with photos as well. Several dead body photos. But the photos that really made an impact for me where photos of Ricky as a child and his family...and this is what is important about showing the photos and talking about the killer's background.
A major reason why I support showing childhood photos and photos in general of the killer particularly prior to the murders is that it is to me at least DI-MYSTIFYING. These aren't Mithra type figures; born out of a rock whole cloth.
You know, it's like seeing this figure in the popular imagination eating at Taco Bell, or nude photos leaked, etc. We are all just people, there is nothing SPECIAL.
I think what I am trying to say is "The banality of evil."
Was Ricky Lee Green "evil"? Yes. Was Adolf Hitler "evil"? Yes...but they weren't these powerful DEMONIC INHUMANE creatures.
To quote a true crime documentarian about Richard Speck, specifically about Speck prostituting him self in prison in order to avoid being brutally murdered. Snorting cocaine and drinking liquor as he gets used by 4 men.
"We wanted him to hurt. We wanted him to be in pain. We wanted him to DIE."
"So often we create a monster out of Richard Speck, and sometimes it is worth while to back off and say 'well, maybe he wasn't a monster. Maybe he was all TOO HUMAN. That is the most frightening thing of all."
Because humans are deeply deeply flawed. Again, banality of evil.
Founder of no notoriety:That THING that killed my son.
Founder of no notoriety: I call him inhumane, Because he's NOT HUMAN. What HUMAN would walk in and take a machine gun and start shooting people in a theater. He shot a 6 year old girl. Point blank. If that's a HUMAN BEING. That's a race I don't want to belong to.
What human would GAS JEWS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS?!
What human would genocide an entire group of people?!
So I guess every single German who supported and even actively engaged in the holocaust was nothing more but an evil inhuman being?
Ya, people are still accountable for their behavior, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is HUMANS ARE EASILY MANIPULATED, BRAINWASHED, BIGOTED, AND CAPABLE OF EXTREME EVIL.
Man [as in humanity] is a very stupid and violent creature.
I see this all the time. Sex vs violence in movies.
People often make the argument of "well sex is natural." while violence even if it's fake is like a crime against nature or what ever...REALLY?! Human beings and animals have been killing each other for centuries. Violence happens ALL THE TIME. Sex and sexuality happens ALL THE TIME.
Humans have simply become domesticated for the betterment [survival] of the species and that does include sexuality. That's why certain sexual practices are illegal.
Blood rush is a typical true crime book from the 90's and the best of true crime in a lot of ways.
We really get a feeling for who Ricky Lee Green was, and how everything happened. How sickening and twisted everything was.
I do have an issue...the years and decades are obscured. We never get a birthday for Ricky, it talks about his childhood but never the year or even the decade. Sometimes it would mention the year his sister or a brother was born, or died, when his parents got married, etc. Implying his chiildhood must of been the 60's, and the fact that he was 24 in 1985 when he committed his first muder, obviously he must of been a teenager in the 70's...and I couldn't help but put that into context.
Where the 70's was infamous for it's hitchhikers. Hitchhiking had become common place, and so many serial killers were preying on hitchhikers in the 70's.
From a mini documentary about the crime wave of the 1970's.
Reporter about the Houston mass murders: These shocking murders finally focused national attention on a major problem. That of runaway children and what can happen to them.
Member of Runaway squad: The children who run away from home today are not the children we had running away in the 60's. In the 60's we had what we called then were "flower children' and they ran away basically for socio-political reasons. Today children are running away from a situation rather to a situation.
Criminologist James Fox [my favorite]: Kids were disappearing and the police were sayin 'Well, they probably ran away.' It was to the DEMISE OF MANY who in fact picked up by sexual sadists....like John Wayne Gacy,
And I think Ricky Lee Green could of easily been one of those victims who ended up being brutally murdered by who knows? A ton of serial killers who were picking up male hitchhikers and local kids in the 70's. John Wayne Gacy, Dean Corll, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney. Just to name the most obvious.
And of course that went full circle because several of the victims of Ricky Lee Green and his wife Sharon Dollar were in fact hitchhikers, but in the 80's.
And speaking of that "full circle" and John Wayne Gacy....Gacy suffered severe abuse from his father as well and when he was a teenager he ran away due to the abuse. Then in the 70's he was picking up local kids and runaways who he would brutally rape, torture, and murder.
I should also note the context of Sondra London. Blood rush was published in 1994, but began in 1991. The author Patricia Springer talks about driving to Texas deathrow to interview Ricky Green and this book was the result. How interesting.
Because Danny Rolling committed his killing spree in 1990 at the university of Gainsville. Previously killed a family of 3 in 1989. The university of Gainsville and all of Florida really were shocked and sickened by the murders. Especailly the gruesome details of the murders.
Danny Rolling was caught in 1990. The spree lasted only 2 months. While Danny was awaiting trial he got in touch with Sondra London. She did NOT seek him out. She wrote a book about a snitch, the snitch was put into Rolling's cell to snitch on him for the police and the snitch was the one who tell him about Sondra London.
So Danny Rolling got in touch with Sondra London, and out of that London published the book "The making of a serial killer" about Danny Rolling, his terrible childhood, his confessions of the murders, why he did it, what he was thinking, why he decapitated a victim, why he posed the bodies, etc.
The last book I read was about Sondra London and some of the B.S criticism she got for the book.
Despite 2 other books being written about the case before she had even published her book Sondra London was repeatedly bashed by literally everyone. Even by the Florida police. The family members and friends of the victims actually SUED her and tried to deny her her pay check for the book....and it was so BLATANTLY obvious all of this B.S was happening against Sondra London simply because she had personally talked to Danny Rolling and apparently had a relationship with Danny Rolling and they were F**KING WITH SONDRA LONDON TO HURT DANNY ROLLING and they were threatening the FIRST AMENDMENT to do it.
The lawyers for the victim's friends and family members even tried to make the ludacris argument of "this is a SPECIAL case" as an argument for why their case against London should be decided as valid and therefor have an actual trial. Instead of being rightfully laughed out of the court room. They were basically arguing "this is a SPECIAL CASE and therefor we should be allowed to DISCRIMINATE against Sondra London because it is such a special case."
Which I would then argue against BLACKS MOVING INTO A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD.
"This is a special case. This neighborhood has always been whites only. No blacks have ever moved into this neighborhood. This is unprecedented. This is a special case; this neighborhood has every right to discriminate against blacks or asians or hispanics moving into their neighborhood."
YOU KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT F**KING RESPONSE TO THAT ARGUMENT IS?! MOCKERY! LAUGHTER! "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"
Blood Rush is pretty much the same book as The making of a serial killer. I don't know how similar or how different since I've never read The making of a serial killer. I'm more interesting in all the B.S Sondra London had to go through to make it. I imagine that Blood Rush is more of a typical true crime narrative then The making of a serial killer. And of course we've got many other books in exactly the same vein as these books.such as The night stalker by Philip Carlo. An awesome book. I love that book despite all the child molestation cases being absent from the book. Ya, I get it. Richard made the deal "I'll tell you everything, but your not gonna say I raped/molested children." and you had to accept and live by your word, but still. I don't like it.
Now look at the dates ironically enough.
Blood rush came out in 1994.
The night stalker and The making of a serial killer both came out in 1996. OBVIOUSLY The making of a serial killer would of come out even sooner if it hadn't been for all these petty censorship happy people trying to f**k with Sondra London simply so they could somehow hurt Danny Rolling.
Then you got the two previous books on the Gainsville murders/Danny Rolling.
The Gainesville Ripper and Beyond Murder: The Inside Account of the Gainesville Student Murders. Both came out in 1994. The same year Blood Rush came out by the way.
So my question is....notice ANYTHING?! NOTICE A PATTERN?! Notice anything STRANGE?!
Blood rush came out in 1994, a book that talks heavily about Ricky Lee Green, his life story. Written by a journalist who interviewed him while on death row.
The Gainesville Ripper and Beyond Murder also both came out in 1994. Both about the Danny Rolling case. Then you got The nightstalker in 1996 with Richard Rimarez also speaking from deathrow just like Ricky and Danny.
WHY.THE.F**K.WEREN'T.THEY.SUUUUUUUUUED?! Why weren't they F**KED WITH?! Why didn't anyone try and destroy the lives of those authors and threaten the first ammendment?!
ISN'T THAT STRANGE?!
I think Sondra London should of counter sued for attempting to discrimination and harassment.
And another thing about 90's true crime....damn, I love it. The good old days when true crime authors and journalist had the BALLS and the INTEGRITY to publish this stuff. The integrity and balls to SHOVE THE VIEWERS F**KING FACE into sheer depravity "LOOK AT THIS!" No differrent then videos and photos of war crimes. "Look at all these dead bodies at the concentration camps!" Make the consumer experience man's inhumanity to man.
And that is the WORSE THING about this "rise on true crime" the MAINSTREAMING of true crime. Letting POSERS come in, because now you got to market and sugarcoat everything and true crime - HORRIBLE UGLY GRIM REALITY shouldn't be f**king sugarcoated, or made to appeal to a MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE.
To quote Frank Zappa about the PMRC.
Frank Zappa: They have to understand that rock music was never made to appeal to a conservative audience.
If your NOT the audience, THEN YOUR NOT THE AUDIENCE. Don't f**king come into the furry community, the rock community, the true crime community, the porn community, the horror community and start dictating sh*t. Changing it to CONFORM TO YOU.
To quote Tarantino
"I'm having a great time making a terrific movie people are having fun seeing - MAYBE NOT YOU, but you know what?! I DON'T THINK I MADE IT FOR YOU..."
The ONLY positive thing I see from this "no notoriety" modern, SJW/Alt right/fundamentalist 2023 mainstreaming of true crime is this.
1.More true crime content; often of cases that are obscure, never really talked about, cases that need better books. As opposed to the 70's, and 80's, and even 90's when the true crime shelves either didn't exist or were pretty small. Which is incredibly ironic since the 70's and 80's were the crime wave decades and crime began to die down in the 90's despite true crime being incredibly popular in the 90's,but still being niche enough to maintain integrity. The 90's had an influx of true crime books, TV shows, was all over the news, etc. Wait....I thought true crime CAUSED these crimes?! Then why the f**k did crime go down? Why did serial murder go down?! Mass shootings went up. Tne 90's had the worse mass shootings by far of any decade, but the media coverage barely even existed back then. We had LESS media coverage....ya, doens't make a whole lot of sense, now does it? This "copycat" effect around mass shootings - "No notoriety" came out of 2012 and hit the mainstream in 2014, around the same time as the SJW movement. Another coincidence I am sure. We've had an increase, an extreme increase in news coverage of mass shootings, and yet we still haven't had as many mass shootings as in the 90's. UNLESS you want to believe the skewed statistics of "4 or more SHOT." as opposed to "4 or more shot and killed." which was the definition in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc and of course NONE of these statistics have gone back into the case files of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and started tallying up cases that would fall into their "4 or more shot" definition. Making those definitions and statistics totally flawed.
2.More victim stories. Including the killer's family members.
Those are the only two things I like about the modern true crime genre, everything else is infuriating.
It gets pretty crazy towards the end of the 1980's with Ricky and Sharon. The Green family is easily one of the most dysfunctional families I've read about in a serial killer case. Ricky and Sharon's relationship is far better then other serial killer couples though. Paul and Karla, Gerald and Charlene Gallego, but Ricky's family was just crazy.
At Sharon's trial, more and more facts about Sharon and her relationship with the rest of the Green family is revealed, and her drug problems.
Repeatedly through out the book I kept lamenting "Nonstop reinforcement" Not just to be a total scumbag, but his substance abuse which Sharon reinforced by telling him "he didn't have a problem" when he clearly did, would enter rehab and then when he wanted an out, she not only gave him that out, but bought a six pack for them to share when she picked him up. So back in his addictions IMMEDIATELY before even getting home.
After Ricky is arrested for the muders, confesses, etc. The book gets back to the murder of Wendy Robinson. Her murder was actually solved in 2016. So many ironies about her case and the Ricky Lee Green case.
Ricky Lee Green knew the area, was in the area around the time Wendy was murdered. Fished around the same area, and hanged around the same area where her belongings were discovered.
Also...apparently Ricky and or Sharon didn't kill anyone after Ricky killed his last victim alone Steve Fefferman in 1986. Wendy's murder was in the summer of 1987 and again...Ricky went fishing at the lake where Wendy was sunbathing and then found murdered in the summer of 1987.
But Ricky Lee Green did not kill Wendy Robinson....it was 3 men, one of them named Ricky Lee Adkins....how f**king ironic, uh? They had a Ricky Lee involved in the murder, but not the right Ricky Lee.
Overall, a very good book, but still a 3. Could of been better. The book overall lost me towards the end.
The other near the end does compare Ricky Lee Green to another serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Which I absolutely couldn't help but notice the parallels as well.
The does show a drawing Green did of his family, which I think is pretty revealing. Would of liked more context on that.
Most books I read that I give a 3 out of 5 are a strong 3++ out of 5. Almost a 4. This book I would say is a simple 3, almost a 3+. I absolutely loved the childhood chapters of Ricky, the family dynamic. What bothered me through out the childhood portion though is the fact that it never gives Ricky's birthday and never says what year or decade this was all happening in, you had to base that on certain facts. Like how old he was in 1985, it mentions the birthday of his siblings, etc. Would of liked to have known more about the police investigation, the city and town, and the victims.
Blood rush is a really good read. A really good book.
The book starts off with the first murder. Which for me at least didn't have as much weight to it as it otherwise would of if we had been introduced to Ricky's life before.
After the first murder we get Ricky's life story; his families life story to be more accurate. So the book sets up the narrative for Ricky's killing spree, painting an incredibly sad and sickening childhood and I couldn't help but think of another book about another serial killer couple; the Gallegos. It just seemed like through out Ricky Green and Gerald Gallego's life they were constantly pushed to where they eventually ended up by several people in their lives. In their past ie reinforcement.
An overwhelming majority of serial killers have had awful childhoods like Ricky Green, but it's another thing to experience severe abuse vs severe abuse with constant reinforcement by multiple people.
This book is not only graphic in terms of the written content, but with photos as well. Several dead body photos. But the photos that really made an impact for me where photos of Ricky as a child and his family...and this is what is important about showing the photos and talking about the killer's background.
A major reason why I support showing childhood photos and photos in general of the killer particularly prior to the murders is that it is to me at least DI-MYSTIFYING. These aren't Mithra type figures; born out of a rock whole cloth.
You know, it's like seeing this figure in the popular imagination eating at Taco Bell, or nude photos leaked, etc. We are all just people, there is nothing SPECIAL.
I think what I am trying to say is "The banality of evil."
Was Ricky Lee Green "evil"? Yes. Was Adolf Hitler "evil"? Yes...but they weren't these powerful DEMONIC INHUMANE creatures.
To quote a true crime documentarian about Richard Speck, specifically about Speck prostituting him self in prison in order to avoid being brutally murdered. Snorting cocaine and drinking liquor as he gets used by 4 men.
"We wanted him to hurt. We wanted him to be in pain. We wanted him to DIE."
"So often we create a monster out of Richard Speck, and sometimes it is worth while to back off and say 'well, maybe he wasn't a monster. Maybe he was all TOO HUMAN. That is the most frightening thing of all."
Because humans are deeply deeply flawed. Again, banality of evil.
Founder of no notoriety:That THING that killed my son.
Founder of no notoriety: I call him inhumane, Because he's NOT HUMAN. What HUMAN would walk in and take a machine gun and start shooting people in a theater. He shot a 6 year old girl. Point blank. If that's a HUMAN BEING. That's a race I don't want to belong to.
What human would GAS JEWS IN CONCENTRATION CAMPS?!
What human would genocide an entire group of people?!
So I guess every single German who supported and even actively engaged in the holocaust was nothing more but an evil inhuman being?
Ya, people are still accountable for their behavior, THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE.
The issue is HUMANS ARE EASILY MANIPULATED, BRAINWASHED, BIGOTED, AND CAPABLE OF EXTREME EVIL.
Man [as in humanity] is a very stupid and violent creature.
I see this all the time. Sex vs violence in movies.
People often make the argument of "well sex is natural." while violence even if it's fake is like a crime against nature or what ever...REALLY?! Human beings and animals have been killing each other for centuries. Violence happens ALL THE TIME. Sex and sexuality happens ALL THE TIME.
Humans have simply become domesticated for the betterment [survival] of the species and that does include sexuality. That's why certain sexual practices are illegal.
Blood rush is a typical true crime book from the 90's and the best of true crime in a lot of ways.
We really get a feeling for who Ricky Lee Green was, and how everything happened. How sickening and twisted everything was.
I do have an issue...the years and decades are obscured. We never get a birthday for Ricky, it talks about his childhood but never the year or even the decade. Sometimes it would mention the year his sister or a brother was born, or died, when his parents got married, etc. Implying his chiildhood must of been the 60's, and the fact that he was 24 in 1985 when he committed his first muder, obviously he must of been a teenager in the 70's...and I couldn't help but put that into context.
Where the 70's was infamous for it's hitchhikers. Hitchhiking had become common place, and so many serial killers were preying on hitchhikers in the 70's.
From a mini documentary about the crime wave of the 1970's.
Reporter about the Houston mass murders: These shocking murders finally focused national attention on a major problem. That of runaway children and what can happen to them.
Member of Runaway squad: The children who run away from home today are not the children we had running away in the 60's. In the 60's we had what we called then were "flower children' and they ran away basically for socio-political reasons. Today children are running away from a situation rather to a situation.
Criminologist James Fox [my favorite]: Kids were disappearing and the police were sayin 'Well, they probably ran away.' It was to the DEMISE OF MANY who in fact picked up by sexual sadists....like John Wayne Gacy,
And I think Ricky Lee Green could of easily been one of those victims who ended up being brutally murdered by who knows? A ton of serial killers who were picking up male hitchhikers and local kids in the 70's. John Wayne Gacy, Dean Corll, William Bonin, Patrick Kearney. Just to name the most obvious.
And of course that went full circle because several of the victims of Ricky Lee Green and his wife Sharon Dollar were in fact hitchhikers, but in the 80's.
And speaking of that "full circle" and John Wayne Gacy....Gacy suffered severe abuse from his father as well and when he was a teenager he ran away due to the abuse. Then in the 70's he was picking up local kids and runaways who he would brutally rape, torture, and murder.
I should also note the context of Sondra London. Blood rush was published in 1994, but began in 1991. The author Patricia Springer talks about driving to Texas deathrow to interview Ricky Green and this book was the result. How interesting.
Because Danny Rolling committed his killing spree in 1990 at the university of Gainsville. Previously killed a family of 3 in 1989. The university of Gainsville and all of Florida really were shocked and sickened by the murders. Especailly the gruesome details of the murders.
Danny Rolling was caught in 1990. The spree lasted only 2 months. While Danny was awaiting trial he got in touch with Sondra London. She did NOT seek him out. She wrote a book about a snitch, the snitch was put into Rolling's cell to snitch on him for the police and the snitch was the one who tell him about Sondra London.
So Danny Rolling got in touch with Sondra London, and out of that London published the book "The making of a serial killer" about Danny Rolling, his terrible childhood, his confessions of the murders, why he did it, what he was thinking, why he decapitated a victim, why he posed the bodies, etc.
The last book I read was about Sondra London and some of the B.S criticism she got for the book.
Despite 2 other books being written about the case before she had even published her book Sondra London was repeatedly bashed by literally everyone. Even by the Florida police. The family members and friends of the victims actually SUED her and tried to deny her her pay check for the book....and it was so BLATANTLY obvious all of this B.S was happening against Sondra London simply because she had personally talked to Danny Rolling and apparently had a relationship with Danny Rolling and they were F**KING WITH SONDRA LONDON TO HURT DANNY ROLLING and they were threatening the FIRST AMENDMENT to do it.
The lawyers for the victim's friends and family members even tried to make the ludacris argument of "this is a SPECIAL case" as an argument for why their case against London should be decided as valid and therefor have an actual trial. Instead of being rightfully laughed out of the court room. They were basically arguing "this is a SPECIAL CASE and therefor we should be allowed to DISCRIMINATE against Sondra London because it is such a special case."
Which I would then argue against BLACKS MOVING INTO A WHITE NEIGHBORHOOD.
"This is a special case. This neighborhood has always been whites only. No blacks have ever moved into this neighborhood. This is unprecedented. This is a special case; this neighborhood has every right to discriminate against blacks or asians or hispanics moving into their neighborhood."
YOU KNOW WHAT THE CORRECT F**KING RESPONSE TO THAT ARGUMENT IS?! MOCKERY! LAUGHTER! "Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out!"
Blood Rush is pretty much the same book as The making of a serial killer. I don't know how similar or how different since I've never read The making of a serial killer. I'm more interesting in all the B.S Sondra London had to go through to make it. I imagine that Blood Rush is more of a typical true crime narrative then The making of a serial killer. And of course we've got many other books in exactly the same vein as these books.such as The night stalker by Philip Carlo. An awesome book. I love that book despite all the child molestation cases being absent from the book. Ya, I get it. Richard made the deal "I'll tell you everything, but your not gonna say I raped/molested children." and you had to accept and live by your word, but still. I don't like it.
Now look at the dates ironically enough.
Blood rush came out in 1994.
The night stalker and The making of a serial killer both came out in 1996. OBVIOUSLY The making of a serial killer would of come out even sooner if it hadn't been for all these petty censorship happy people trying to f**k with Sondra London simply so they could somehow hurt Danny Rolling.
Then you got the two previous books on the Gainsville murders/Danny Rolling.
The Gainesville Ripper and Beyond Murder: The Inside Account of the Gainesville Student Murders. Both came out in 1994. The same year Blood Rush came out by the way.
So my question is....notice ANYTHING?! NOTICE A PATTERN?! Notice anything STRANGE?!
Blood rush came out in 1994, a book that talks heavily about Ricky Lee Green, his life story. Written by a journalist who interviewed him while on death row.
The Gainesville Ripper and Beyond Murder also both came out in 1994. Both about the Danny Rolling case. Then you got The nightstalker in 1996 with Richard Rimarez also speaking from deathrow just like Ricky and Danny.
WHY.THE.F**K.WEREN'T.THEY.SUUUUUUUUUED?! Why weren't they F**KED WITH?! Why didn't anyone try and destroy the lives of those authors and threaten the first ammendment?!
ISN'T THAT STRANGE?!
I think Sondra London should of counter sued for attempting to discrimination and harassment.
And another thing about 90's true crime....damn, I love it. The good old days when true crime authors and journalist had the BALLS and the INTEGRITY to publish this stuff. The integrity and balls to SHOVE THE VIEWERS F**KING FACE into sheer depravity "LOOK AT THIS!" No differrent then videos and photos of war crimes. "Look at all these dead bodies at the concentration camps!" Make the consumer experience man's inhumanity to man.
And that is the WORSE THING about this "rise on true crime" the MAINSTREAMING of true crime. Letting POSERS come in, because now you got to market and sugarcoat everything and true crime - HORRIBLE UGLY GRIM REALITY shouldn't be f**king sugarcoated, or made to appeal to a MAINSTREAM AUDIENCE.
To quote Frank Zappa about the PMRC.
Frank Zappa: They have to understand that rock music was never made to appeal to a conservative audience.
If your NOT the audience, THEN YOUR NOT THE AUDIENCE. Don't f**king come into the furry community, the rock community, the true crime community, the porn community, the horror community and start dictating sh*t. Changing it to CONFORM TO YOU.
To quote Tarantino
"I'm having a great time making a terrific movie people are having fun seeing - MAYBE NOT YOU, but you know what?! I DON'T THINK I MADE IT FOR YOU..."
The ONLY positive thing I see from this "no notoriety" modern, SJW/Alt right/fundamentalist 2023 mainstreaming of true crime is this.
1.More true crime content; often of cases that are obscure, never really talked about, cases that need better books. As opposed to the 70's, and 80's, and even 90's when the true crime shelves either didn't exist or were pretty small. Which is incredibly ironic since the 70's and 80's were the crime wave decades and crime began to die down in the 90's despite true crime being incredibly popular in the 90's,but still being niche enough to maintain integrity. The 90's had an influx of true crime books, TV shows, was all over the news, etc. Wait....I thought true crime CAUSED these crimes?! Then why the f**k did crime go down? Why did serial murder go down?! Mass shootings went up. Tne 90's had the worse mass shootings by far of any decade, but the media coverage barely even existed back then. We had LESS media coverage....ya, doens't make a whole lot of sense, now does it? This "copycat" effect around mass shootings - "No notoriety" came out of 2012 and hit the mainstream in 2014, around the same time as the SJW movement. Another coincidence I am sure. We've had an increase, an extreme increase in news coverage of mass shootings, and yet we still haven't had as many mass shootings as in the 90's. UNLESS you want to believe the skewed statistics of "4 or more SHOT." as opposed to "4 or more shot and killed." which was the definition in the 70's, 80's, 90's, etc and of course NONE of these statistics have gone back into the case files of the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and started tallying up cases that would fall into their "4 or more shot" definition. Making those definitions and statistics totally flawed.
2.More victim stories. Including the killer's family members.
Those are the only two things I like about the modern true crime genre, everything else is infuriating.
It gets pretty crazy towards the end of the 1980's with Ricky and Sharon. The Green family is easily one of the most dysfunctional families I've read about in a serial killer case. Ricky and Sharon's relationship is far better then other serial killer couples though. Paul and Karla, Gerald and Charlene Gallego, but Ricky's family was just crazy.
At Sharon's trial, more and more facts about Sharon and her relationship with the rest of the Green family is revealed, and her drug problems.
Repeatedly through out the book I kept lamenting "Nonstop reinforcement" Not just to be a total scumbag, but his substance abuse which Sharon reinforced by telling him "he didn't have a problem" when he clearly did, would enter rehab and then when he wanted an out, she not only gave him that out, but bought a six pack for them to share when she picked him up. So back in his addictions IMMEDIATELY before even getting home.
After Ricky is arrested for the muders, confesses, etc. The book gets back to the murder of Wendy Robinson. Her murder was actually solved in 2016. So many ironies about her case and the Ricky Lee Green case.
Ricky Lee Green knew the area, was in the area around the time Wendy was murdered. Fished around the same area, and hanged around the same area where her belongings were discovered.
Also...apparently Ricky and or Sharon didn't kill anyone after Ricky killed his last victim alone Steve Fefferman in 1986. Wendy's murder was in the summer of 1987 and again...Ricky went fishing at the lake where Wendy was sunbathing and then found murdered in the summer of 1987.
But Ricky Lee Green did not kill Wendy Robinson....it was 3 men, one of them named Ricky Lee Adkins....how f**king ironic, uh? They had a Ricky Lee involved in the murder, but not the right Ricky Lee.
Overall, a very good book, but still a 3. Could of been better. The book overall lost me towards the end.
The other near the end does compare Ricky Lee Green to another serial killer Henry Lee Lucas. Which I absolutely couldn't help but notice the parallels as well.
The does show a drawing Green did of his family, which I think is pretty revealing. Would of liked more context on that.
Most books I read that I give a 3 out of 5 are a strong 3++ out of 5. Almost a 4. This book I would say is a simple 3, almost a 3+. I absolutely loved the childhood chapters of Ricky, the family dynamic. What bothered me through out the childhood portion though is the fact that it never gives Ricky's birthday and never says what year or decade this was all happening in, you had to base that on certain facts. Like how old he was in 1985, it mentions the birthday of his siblings, etc. Would of liked to have known more about the police investigation, the city and town, and the victims.
August 15, 2024
i mainly read this book because I wanted to know more. My husband's aunt was one of the victims. It was sad, awful, and disturbing the way she died. I knew the story but wanted to read more. It did bother me that she said she had one daughter that died but she left another daughter as a baby in Ohio to be raised by her grandma. At least she finally got some closure to find out what happened to her mom because they couldn't identify her for years.
August 20, 2017
Very graphic sex so if this bothers you, do not read the book. Well written book but very depressing.
January 15, 2020
Sleaziest true crime I've ever read. . .really wallows in sexual perversion. Great fun! I bet the author is the life of a party!
February 6, 2021
Can't seem to read the book i have picked out. When i hit want to read it won't do anything.
March 3, 2021
A well written book with a lot of detail. It begins and ends well. I like that the murderer was interviewed by the author and did try to dress it up or make excuses for the crimes.
February 28, 2024
Finished? Abandoned it.
March 2, 2021
This book is about Ricky Lee Green and his wife Sharon, who were a murderous duo. They went on a rape, torture, and murder spree in 1985. This book has a lot of information straight from the horse's mouth, though Patricia Springer does interview several other people and has plenty of information from records. Some of the stuff that Green says doesn't add up to me, and I just do not feel like he was being entirely truthful. I do believe his story of abuse at the hands of his father, which was corroborated by his siblings. I believe that abuse could help explain his errant ways, though I am not sure it was the only reason like some people claim. I am also not entirely sure that I believe his wife was forced to participate instead of participating willingly, but some people are certainly brainwasher or pressed into doing things out of fear. This was a pretty good book. I really enjoyed it.
June 27, 2012
this is a very true story. this happened in my home town. my dad a Ricky Lee Green were friends and my dad's name is in the book as Ricky thought it would be funny to see if they would blame my dad for this. I played with his step daughter as a child. this book is well written and if you can stomach true crime then it is an interesting read.
Want to read
December 25, 2015#
NC
Own in paperback.
FS: "On a sunny April morning in 1985, twenty-four-year-old Ricky Green pulls Sharon Dollar's 1981 Ford into the parking area of Casino Beach."
LS: "Each day that goes by my time' grows near, when that time comes at least I'll be free and clear."
NC
Own in paperback.
FS: "On a sunny April morning in 1985, twenty-four-year-old Ricky Green pulls Sharon Dollar's 1981 Ford into the parking area of Casino Beach."
LS: "Each day that goes by my time' grows near, when that time comes at least I'll be free and clear."
November 4, 2008
Writing was good. But to think that this was a true story made me sick.
Displaying 1 - 12 of 12 reviews