What do you think?
Rate this book
My Life Among the Serial Killers: Inside the Minds of the World's Most Notorious Murderers
Over the course of twenty-five years, Dr. Helen Morrison has profiled more than eighty serial killers around the world. What she learned about them will shatter every assumption you've ever had about the most notorious criminals known to man.Judging by appearances, Dr. Helen Morrison has an ordinary life in the suburbs of a major city. She has a physician husband, two children, and a thriving psychiatric clinic. But her life is much more than that. She is one of the country's leading experts on serial killers, and has spent as many as four hundred hours alone in a room with depraved murderers, digging deep into killers' psyches in ways no profiler before ever has.
In My Life Among the Serial Killers, Dr. Morrison relates how she profiled the Mad Biter, Richard Otto Macek, who chewed on his victims' body parts, stalked Dr. Morrison, then believed she was his wife. She did the last interview with Ed Gein, who was the inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. John Wayne Gacy, the clown-obsessed killer of young men, sent her crazed Christmas cards and gave her his paintings as presents. Then there was Atlanta child killer Wayne Williams; rapist turned murderer Bobby Joe Long; England's Fred and Rosemary West, who killed girls and women in their "House of Horrors"; and Brazil's deadliest killer of children, Marcelo Costa de Andrade.
Dr. Morrison has received hundreds of letters from killers, read their diaries and journals, evaluated crime scenes, testified at their trials, and studied photos of the gruesome carnage. She has interviewed the families of the victims -- and the spouses and parents of the killers -- to gain a deeper understanding of the killer's environment and the public persona he adopts. She has also studied serial killers throughout history and shows how this is not a recent phenomenon with psychological autopsies of the fifteenth-century French war hero Gilles de Rais, the sixteenth-century Hungarian Countess Bathory, H. H. Holmes of the late ninteenth century, and Albert Fish of the Roaring Twenties.
Through it all, Dr. Morrison has been on a mission to discover the reasons why serial killers are compelled to murder, how they choose their victims, and what we can do to prevent their crimes in the future. Her provocative conclusions will stun you.
In My Life Among the Serial Killers, Dr. Morrison relates how she profiled the Mad Biter, Richard Otto Macek, who chewed on his victims' body parts, stalked Dr. Morrison, then believed she was his wife. She did the last interview with Ed Gein, who was the inspiration for Alfred Hitchcock's Psycho. John Wayne Gacy, the clown-obsessed killer of young men, sent her crazed Christmas cards and gave her his paintings as presents. Then there was Atlanta child killer Wayne Williams; rapist turned murderer Bobby Joe Long; England's Fred and Rosemary West, who killed girls and women in their "House of Horrors"; and Brazil's deadliest killer of children, Marcelo Costa de Andrade.
Dr. Morrison has received hundreds of letters from killers, read their diaries and journals, evaluated crime scenes, testified at their trials, and studied photos of the gruesome carnage. She has interviewed the families of the victims -- and the spouses and parents of the killers -- to gain a deeper understanding of the killer's environment and the public persona he adopts. She has also studied serial killers throughout history and shows how this is not a recent phenomenon with psychological autopsies of the fifteenth-century French war hero Gilles de Rais, the sixteenth-century Hungarian Countess Bathory, H. H. Holmes of the late ninteenth century, and Albert Fish of the Roaring Twenties.
Through it all, Dr. Morrison has been on a mission to discover the reasons why serial killers are compelled to murder, how they choose their victims, and what we can do to prevent their crimes in the future. Her provocative conclusions will stun you.
288 pages, Hardcover
First published April 30, 2004
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 315 reviews
February 25, 2012
Dated, but brilliant. The author, a doctor, says she uses the scientific method but it's all personal interpretation.
I never supported the death penalty before reading the book. I always thought that a quick needle then going bye-byes was too good for murderers. That the best of all possible punishments was what happened to Myra Hindley. Life imprisonment and always the hope of freedom, which was never granted despite all her protestations of religion and repentance, and then she died in prison. Her partner in crime, Brady, (they killed children and teenagers for sexual pleasure and taped them as they were tortured) is still alive. He's been trying to starve himself to death for years but they force-feed him :-)
Having read the book though, having read the details of what some of these serial killers do to their victims purely because they are addicted to the act of torturing someone, usually women, to death, details that never appear in the press, I just don't think it is fair to ask the general run-of-the-mill prisoner to have to mix with people like these. Kill them I say. Preferably in a very slightly-defective electric chair. Not nice. No. I never said I was and I WANT them to suffer as they die, even if it's only 1% of the suffering they inflicted on their victims, I want them to know what the pain and terror is like. It's not enough just to ... put them out of their misery.
This book isn't the only book on serial killers, there are many, but perhaps the most repugnant and possibly the most interesting is The Gates of Janus written by Brady, the serial killer himself.
I never supported the death penalty before reading the book. I always thought that a quick needle then going bye-byes was too good for murderers. That the best of all possible punishments was what happened to Myra Hindley. Life imprisonment and always the hope of freedom, which was never granted despite all her protestations of religion and repentance, and then she died in prison. Her partner in crime, Brady, (they killed children and teenagers for sexual pleasure and taped them as they were tortured) is still alive. He's been trying to starve himself to death for years but they force-feed him :-)
Having read the book though, having read the details of what some of these serial killers do to their victims purely because they are addicted to the act of torturing someone, usually women, to death, details that never appear in the press, I just don't think it is fair to ask the general run-of-the-mill prisoner to have to mix with people like these. Kill them I say. Preferably in a very slightly-defective electric chair. Not nice. No. I never said I was and I WANT them to suffer as they die, even if it's only 1% of the suffering they inflicted on their victims, I want them to know what the pain and terror is like. It's not enough just to ... put them out of their misery.
This book isn't the only book on serial killers, there are many, but perhaps the most repugnant and possibly the most interesting is The Gates of Janus written by Brady, the serial killer himself.
July 12, 2011
Helen Morrison has come into a lot of criticism for this book and I must say that I agree with most of it. Here is a list of problems with the book:
1. There is absolutely no evidence that she has interviewed 80 serial killers. Most other experts deny that this is possible.
2. Her definitions of serial killers are inconsistent at best and flat out wrong at worst. This includes things such as:
A. They have confused minds incapable of impulse control or order, yet they can methodically kill and dispose of victims (Inconsistent)
B. They are never women (Wrong-- see Dorothea Puente, Aileen Wuornos, Velma Barfield, etc.).
C. They are never addicted to drugs or alcohol (Wrong-- see Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dalhmer.)
D. They are never motivated by sexual urges (Wrong-- see nearly every serial killer ever.)
E. They are not psychopaths. (Huh? Again, if she's right, every other expert is wrong)
3. She testified for the DEFENSE. That's right. This woman testified to keep John Wayne Gacy from going to the electric chair. Oh, and it's pretty clear that she did this not because she's against the death penalty, but because she wanted to keep him alive for scientific purposes-- to do more tests on him.
4. She dedicates an entire chapter to two cases she REFUSED to help with. One of them was the infamous Atlanta Child Murder case. The FBI supposedly asked her to help on a task force. She essentially says, "Nope. I'm not interested in saving children's lives because I don't like working on task forces." My guess is that she's either lying about being asked, or she's just cold blooded and selfish.
5. She seems very easily duped by these men. They complain about their childhoods, conditions in prison, or seem to be hypochondriacs,and she believes them. Serial killers are sociopaths. They lie to try to gain sympathy and trust. They have no remorse, shame, or framework for typical emotions. And yet, she seems to believe these people and feel sorry for them.
In all, it seems that Morrison is sloppily inconsistent in her methodology and incorrect in her conclusions. I recommend reading The Strnager Beside Me by Ann Rule, a chilling account of Ted Bundy by a woman who worked with him and befriended him before she realized he was a sociopath. Or, The Sociopath Next Door for a better description of sociopathic behaviors. Or, I Have Lived in the Monster, which has better actual interviews with Gacy and Dahlmer.
1. There is absolutely no evidence that she has interviewed 80 serial killers. Most other experts deny that this is possible.
2. Her definitions of serial killers are inconsistent at best and flat out wrong at worst. This includes things such as:
A. They have confused minds incapable of impulse control or order, yet they can methodically kill and dispose of victims (Inconsistent)
B. They are never women (Wrong-- see Dorothea Puente, Aileen Wuornos, Velma Barfield, etc.).
C. They are never addicted to drugs or alcohol (Wrong-- see Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dalhmer.)
D. They are never motivated by sexual urges (Wrong-- see nearly every serial killer ever.)
E. They are not psychopaths. (Huh? Again, if she's right, every other expert is wrong)
3. She testified for the DEFENSE. That's right. This woman testified to keep John Wayne Gacy from going to the electric chair. Oh, and it's pretty clear that she did this not because she's against the death penalty, but because she wanted to keep him alive for scientific purposes-- to do more tests on him.
4. She dedicates an entire chapter to two cases she REFUSED to help with. One of them was the infamous Atlanta Child Murder case. The FBI supposedly asked her to help on a task force. She essentially says, "Nope. I'm not interested in saving children's lives because I don't like working on task forces." My guess is that she's either lying about being asked, or she's just cold blooded and selfish.
5. She seems very easily duped by these men. They complain about their childhoods, conditions in prison, or seem to be hypochondriacs,and she believes them. Serial killers are sociopaths. They lie to try to gain sympathy and trust. They have no remorse, shame, or framework for typical emotions. And yet, she seems to believe these people and feel sorry for them.
In all, it seems that Morrison is sloppily inconsistent in her methodology and incorrect in her conclusions. I recommend reading The Strnager Beside Me by Ann Rule, a chilling account of Ted Bundy by a woman who worked with him and befriended him before she realized he was a sociopath. Or, The Sociopath Next Door for a better description of sociopathic behaviors. Or, I Have Lived in the Monster, which has better actual interviews with Gacy and Dahlmer.
October 17, 2008
A little too much about "my life" and not enough about "among the serial killers." I don't really care about this woman's personal life. Just tell me about the nuts, already. A lot of name dropping (if you can call it that with serial killers). The chapter about Ed Gein was totally pointless. Only included, I think, to prove she'd talked to him in person -- added nothing to the book.
September 12, 2007
As a individual who holds a psychology major, and a criminology minor I was very excited to read this book... However behind the very intriguing title, lies a very disappointing read. Dr. Morrison, has supposidly spent a great deal of her life interviewing serial killers.. but she doesn't come to any concrete conclusions regarding their personality origins in this book. After trying to read the book - maybe completing 3 chapters... possibly 4, I felt that I could have done a better job describing the inner workings of the violent criminal's mind. The book provides little in the way of explanation of the behaviors. It provides some description of crimes that I found interesting; however, the author claims that she has unraveled mysteries for which she has no substantial evidence for. She's very proud of her career and accomplishments and it shows in her "praise me" attitude.
January 23, 2013
Initially, I thought this book would be a pretty engaging, first-person account of one psychiatric expert's travel through the world of serial killers. That was the introduction. Then we got into what was supposed to be the factual portion of the book, and things went awry. "No serial murderers are addicted to drugs, drink, or even smoking." Really? None, ever? A serial killer who likes to chew on panties does it because he likes soft things, and panties are the softest - there's no sexual angle to it? Really truly? There are no sexual angles to serial murders. Well, I'm not going to say I'm an expert or anything, but that soooort of contradicts most of what I've read on the subject. Will we get any stats or facts to back up these assertions? We will not!
So, being a modern human, I turned to google, and spent more enjoyable time reading all the point by point dissections of the stupidities of this book, than I'd spent reading the book itself. The best part was finding out that a law enforcement officer she apparently worked closely with, and refers to repeatedly as an FBI Special Agent, is in fact a Special Agent for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. If she can't even get that right, then why am I bothering to read this book?
And the answer is - I'm not! Two chapters was more than enough. And that's sort of unfortunate; there was a potential here for something entertaining, and I don't mind reading alternative or marginal theories, but if you're going to fly in the face of the mainstream view, then you need more justification behind your arguments than just saying you're right. Did you know that all serial killers come from Venus? It's true!
Also, if you are going to write about a guy in your book, you may want to determine which agency he works for. Maybe he has a business card. Just ask!
So, being a modern human, I turned to google, and spent more enjoyable time reading all the point by point dissections of the stupidities of this book, than I'd spent reading the book itself. The best part was finding out that a law enforcement officer she apparently worked closely with, and refers to repeatedly as an FBI Special Agent, is in fact a Special Agent for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. If she can't even get that right, then why am I bothering to read this book?
And the answer is - I'm not! Two chapters was more than enough. And that's sort of unfortunate; there was a potential here for something entertaining, and I don't mind reading alternative or marginal theories, but if you're going to fly in the face of the mainstream view, then you need more justification behind your arguments than just saying you're right. Did you know that all serial killers come from Venus? It's true!
Also, if you are going to write about a guy in your book, you may want to determine which agency he works for. Maybe he has a business card. Just ask!
October 6, 2011
I really think this woman has no idea what she's talking about. She makes broad definitive statements that really don't make any sense when put up against actual science; like her theory that being a serial killer is genetic and people are either born bad or they aren't. There are several other examples but I'm too irritated to get into it.
She also flip-flops and back pedals to suit what ever point she is trying to make at the time. One example is when she states that it's a myth that serial killers are at all influenced by their childhoods and that being abused has nothing to do with it, and then she goes out of her way to point out that every serial killer she has ever met was abused as a child. She also has a shocking hypocritical streak. One small example (again, one of many) she that she is disgusted by killers keeping trophies, but then brags about always carrying a piece of John Wayne Gacy's brain with her whenever she travels.
This book is a mess. This doctor person seems to be it bit of a crackpot, and an entirely egotistical, pretentious crackpot at that.
Not recommended. In fact I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I read it at all. Awful, awful.
She also flip-flops and back pedals to suit what ever point she is trying to make at the time. One example is when she states that it's a myth that serial killers are at all influenced by their childhoods and that being abused has nothing to do with it, and then she goes out of her way to point out that every serial killer she has ever met was abused as a child. She also has a shocking hypocritical streak. One small example (again, one of many) she that she is disgusted by killers keeping trophies, but then brags about always carrying a piece of John Wayne Gacy's brain with her whenever she travels.
This book is a mess. This doctor person seems to be it bit of a crackpot, and an entirely egotistical, pretentious crackpot at that.
Not recommended. In fact I'm a little embarrassed to admit that I read it at all. Awful, awful.
June 15, 2017
UGH....this book is bad. Despite reading just about everything on John Wayne Gacy I can get my hands on, I have put off reading this book for years. Every time I have ever seen an interview with Helen Morrison, she has seemed like a total wing nut, so I avoided it. Finally decided to give it a try. I shouldn't have bothered.
Basically this just comes off as Morrison wanting to give herself a pat on the back for how brilliant she is. Her theories are far fetched and weird and different than anything I have ever read. Which might be OK if she backed up what she said or explained why she believed it but she basically just says "I am right, everybody else is wrong, look how amazing I am!!"
She also uses the words NEVER and ALWAYS way too much. Not everything is so black and white. For instance, Seattle is ALWAYS cold and misty. Really? Always?
Read the other reviews here, written by people more articulate than I if you want more specific details, but the bottom line is this is a bad book written by a woman I think gives herself way more credit than she deserves.
Basically this just comes off as Morrison wanting to give herself a pat on the back for how brilliant she is. Her theories are far fetched and weird and different than anything I have ever read. Which might be OK if she backed up what she said or explained why she believed it but she basically just says "I am right, everybody else is wrong, look how amazing I am!!"
She also uses the words NEVER and ALWAYS way too much. Not everything is so black and white. For instance, Seattle is ALWAYS cold and misty. Really? Always?
Read the other reviews here, written by people more articulate than I if you want more specific details, but the bottom line is this is a bad book written by a woman I think gives herself way more credit than she deserves.
May 6, 2009
My gut feeling on this book was that the author did not learn very much in her years of study. I think the book was more to convince people that she is a normal sane, empathetic person. She probably has been attacked as being odd for wanting to study serial killers. She theorizes that it is not childhood abuse that is one of the big factors that cause people to become serial killers and yet I believe all of the ones she discussed had abuse or at the least an odd childhood. I did not listen to all of it. I did not enjoy the gory details and the theories were few and far between. Her theory is that it is genetics that make these people addicted to killing. MY theory is that genetics is a part of it only.
July 25, 2011
The author's primary aim here seems to be to chronicle how awesome she is. (Granted, this is something I've come to expect from authors who prominently mention their professional degree on books intended for general audiences.) In between episodes of talking about herself, Morrison throws in horrific stories about the deeds of various serial killers, some of whom she has corresponded with and some of whom she hasn't. (A few of these seem really gratuitous, despite the fact that she introduces the book by saying that she is absolutely not trying to titillate the audience.) Her hidden assumption that the audience already knows who she is and what she does makes the text a little hard to access. She spends the resolution section of the book making a lengthy proposal for a neurological study of serial killers that would be much more appropriate for an academic journal than a book intended for everyone. Between the author's self-gratification and the truly gruesome murder scenes, there's frankly not much payoff from reading this book. Unless you just get off on this kind of thing.
August 17, 2010
I was very disappointed in this book. It did deliver interesting synopses of various serial killers histories and crimes, and parts were interesting. However, mostly the book just came across as very defensive - this woman has often testified on behalf of the defense, and half the book seemed devoted to her re-iterating her critics words and then responding to them. Lady, I don't care what your critics say, I'm just interested in what it was like to meet and work with serial killers. On a side note, her excessive defensiveness and non-scientific methods (hypnosis...lame) had what I assume is the opposite of her intended effect and did make me feel like she was deserving of criticism.
September 20, 2008
on Monday, August 25, 2008 I wrote about this book:
Well Now I remember why I did not like this book although it was such an interesting subject.
I totally do not agree with most of Helen Morrison's theories. Yes I am not a doctor but I've read so many books about serial killers and books from the people that have a different opinion than she does, I think I know a little bit and she is wrong.
One thing that comes to mind. She was asked if John Wayne Gacy would have killed if there would have been a policeman in the room. She said YES! Well we all know how sly Gacy was, how he treated the cops who followed him, and I can assure you, he would not have murdered with a police man in the room.
I gave it a 6.6 last time I read it, now i give it a 5. . Thanks for sharing and if you don't know much about those serial killers this book is interesting. You get to know a bit more about them, how they were in jail.
Just discovered the review of publishers weekly.
it seems I am not the only one who thinks this broad is crazy. lol
With serial killers a hot topic in the wake of Charlize Theron's Oscar-winning performance in Monster, forensic psychiatrist Morrison's memoir of working with more than 80 serial killers couldn't be more timely. The author's countless hours of interviews with John Wayne Gacy and others of his ilk have led her to a controversial conclusion: she believes there's a serial killer gene ("He is a serial killer when he is a fetus, even as soon as sperm meets egg to create the genes of a new person"). Unfortunately, she offers little in support of this deterministic view, and she will offend some readers with an implied exoneration of criminals whom she describes as "completely unaware of the process leading up to murder," despite the detailed planning and preparation displayed by many of them. And even readers who are willing to have an open mind about Morrison's theories are likely to find some aspects of her report a little creepy, as when she discusses a treasured trophy she keeps in her basement: "I place John Gacy's brain back in the box because my kids are calling for me upstairs."
Well Now I remember why I did not like this book although it was such an interesting subject.
I totally do not agree with most of Helen Morrison's theories. Yes I am not a doctor but I've read so many books about serial killers and books from the people that have a different opinion than she does, I think I know a little bit and she is wrong.
One thing that comes to mind. She was asked if John Wayne Gacy would have killed if there would have been a policeman in the room. She said YES! Well we all know how sly Gacy was, how he treated the cops who followed him, and I can assure you, he would not have murdered with a police man in the room.
I gave it a 6.6 last time I read it, now i give it a 5. . Thanks for sharing and if you don't know much about those serial killers this book is interesting. You get to know a bit more about them, how they were in jail.
Just discovered the review of publishers weekly.
it seems I am not the only one who thinks this broad is crazy. lol
With serial killers a hot topic in the wake of Charlize Theron's Oscar-winning performance in Monster, forensic psychiatrist Morrison's memoir of working with more than 80 serial killers couldn't be more timely. The author's countless hours of interviews with John Wayne Gacy and others of his ilk have led her to a controversial conclusion: she believes there's a serial killer gene ("He is a serial killer when he is a fetus, even as soon as sperm meets egg to create the genes of a new person"). Unfortunately, she offers little in support of this deterministic view, and she will offend some readers with an implied exoneration of criminals whom she describes as "completely unaware of the process leading up to murder," despite the detailed planning and preparation displayed by many of them. And even readers who are willing to have an open mind about Morrison's theories are likely to find some aspects of her report a little creepy, as when she discusses a treasured trophy she keeps in her basement: "I place John Gacy's brain back in the box because my kids are calling for me upstairs."
August 29, 2008
I find the author of this book pretentious, arrogant, and not an engaging writer. The work she presents is interesting, but her theory certainly isn't the ONLY one to explain serial killers, although she presents it as dogma. Also, the lack of appropriate use of DSM in the book is disheartening. Psychiatric terms are thrown about in the most ridiculous, inappropriate way, and the appropriate context of terms like, "borderline" and "schizophrenia" aren't explained, so the average reader has no idea how off base the terms are and what symptoms and disease process they do represent. And as for her description of her inclusive diagnosis center, where she sees if patients have decreased blood flow and then a surgeon does a bypass, it makes it sound like psychiatric and neurologic illness can be cured with a quick nip and tuck. This is an illustration of how she oversimplifies and is grandiose. There was WAY too much self-disclosure. As somebody trying to keep boundries, and modulate transference with a deadly population of patients, she does a great job of giving them all the information they need, and insight into her character, to cause her harm or distress. I just can't recommend this book for either it's content or the author's insight.
January 23, 2016
BEWARE THIS BOOK. Do I ever feel like a dope for buying this brand-new hardcover. This author is a trained psychiatrist who claims to be a specialist in forensic work, but she seems to know almost nothing about her own field. She doesn't know what Borderline Personality Disorder is. She dismisses the possibility that head injuries are connected to impulse control. She thinks she's made a breakthrough in forensic psychiatry when she realizes that some killers are emotionally and developmentally immature. Hello? Freud came up with that, what, 150 years ago? On the bright side, she certainly deserves the company she's in. The main virtue of this book is the interview with John Gacy's mother.
August 18, 2012
I tried so hard to keep an open mind while reading this book and tried to find something to like. I gave up all trying half way through; something I've never done before.
I'm not in school for psychology or anything at all relating to this field. But I've always been interested in serial killers and have done reports in High School relating to the topic. So I have no proper or legitimate education in this area but I feel like (and I'm not trying to be arrogant) I knew automatically that most of her "conclusions" and "findings" were, in my opinion of course, totally wrong.
From the beginning I found her to be into herself and dwelled too long on the fact that she had to deal with being a woman in a "man's profession." Of course that was a big deal for women in that time but I took this book out to learn more about serial killers, not to hear about women's rights.
The author also came off as very into herself and often times, in my opinion, she didn't know what the hell she was talking about.
I'm not in school for psychology or anything at all relating to this field. But I've always been interested in serial killers and have done reports in High School relating to the topic. So I have no proper or legitimate education in this area but I feel like (and I'm not trying to be arrogant) I knew automatically that most of her "conclusions" and "findings" were, in my opinion of course, totally wrong.
From the beginning I found her to be into herself and dwelled too long on the fact that she had to deal with being a woman in a "man's profession." Of course that was a big deal for women in that time but I took this book out to learn more about serial killers, not to hear about women's rights.
The author also came off as very into herself and often times, in my opinion, she didn't know what the hell she was talking about.
July 11, 2012
I didn't know that a book about serial killers could be so boring. And nothing that this aurthor says about her beliefs of why people become serial killers make since. It's all her opinions, with no concrete evidence. If you have sexual relations with a dead person. Is that not necrophiliac? According to this aurthor it is not. Because the guy was just wandering what it was like. Uhm....pretty sure that if you rape only oncce, that that still makes you a rapist. Right? And she says that being phisically or mentally abused does not lead to a serial killer yet, all the serial killers that she writes of were either mentally or phisically abused. The book itself is one big contradiction. I did not like this book at all. It gives us no further understanding into the mind of a serial killer , no more than we already understood. I dont think this lady knew her ass from a hole in the ground.
November 2, 2012
I get that this lady has talked to a lot of serial killers and got into a field that was, and still is, very male-dominated. Good for her, girl power. However I don't need to read an entire book of her name dropping and feeding me her theories on serial killers with little to no evidence aside from personal opinion. She also makes absurd claims like "No serial killers are alcoholics or drug users," and likewise "No serial killer is a psychopath." Really?
She states that this book wasn't written so she could boast on her facts, but instead to advocate the testing of serial killers via brain electrodes and genetics, allowing early detection of a serial killer gene in children. She doesn't have a very clear idea what to do once the gene has been identified in said children, but she figures she'll leave that up to science. I think she sees this idea that she "came up with" - that serial killers are driven to kill via a compulsion - as some radical new groundbreaking idea and her major contribution to the field. Wow, that is so shocking, I've never heard of that before.
Also, she keeps Gacy's brain in her basement...? Wonder what will happen when one of her children go looking for their ice skates and find that down there. The book read more like she was appearing on Oprah rather than an attempt to present a case for her genetic testing theories.
She states that this book wasn't written so she could boast on her facts, but instead to advocate the testing of serial killers via brain electrodes and genetics, allowing early detection of a serial killer gene in children. She doesn't have a very clear idea what to do once the gene has been identified in said children, but she figures she'll leave that up to science. I think she sees this idea that she "came up with" - that serial killers are driven to kill via a compulsion - as some radical new groundbreaking idea and her major contribution to the field. Wow, that is so shocking, I've never heard of that before.
Also, she keeps Gacy's brain in her basement...? Wonder what will happen when one of her children go looking for their ice skates and find that down there. The book read more like she was appearing on Oprah rather than an attempt to present a case for her genetic testing theories.
February 12, 2008
This was a very interesting book, but I don't think that much of the author's theory. She believes a genetic, neurological problem causes serial murder and environment, upbringing, etc., has nothing to do with it. In order to get her theory to work she used a very narrow, arbitrary definition of a serial killer. If Ed Gein was a serial killer, why wasn't Elizabeth Bathory? This book is good to read for all the information it contains about certain serial murderers, including some relatively obscure ones, but I don't think it's the answer to everything.
June 11, 2012
1 word to describe this book? DISAPPOINTING
The author is inconsistent, regularly contradicts her own statements, sometimes it seems as if she wanted to write a novel, and she comes across as a pretentious arrogant person.
Next to that; I read the dutch version of the book, and it reminded me why I try to read most books in their original language. It is poorly translated which led to more confusion from my side.
No, I really didn't enjoy reading this book. The cover promised me so much more.
The author is inconsistent, regularly contradicts her own statements, sometimes it seems as if she wanted to write a novel, and she comes across as a pretentious arrogant person.
Next to that; I read the dutch version of the book, and it reminded me why I try to read most books in their original language. It is poorly translated which led to more confusion from my side.
No, I really didn't enjoy reading this book. The cover promised me so much more.
November 9, 2020
I had a hard time deciding what to rate this because really it depends on what you want to get out of it...
If you are interested in the author and her personal scientific opinions than you might enjoy it. if you are genuinely interested in the study of serial killers (backed by scientific research) than i would highly suggest not picking this up.
personally, i couldn’t look past the author’s controversial practices (esp having briefly studied forensic psychology); however i continued reading because it was interesting to hear from another perspective.
If you are interested in the author and her personal scientific opinions than you might enjoy it. if you are genuinely interested in the study of serial killers (backed by scientific research) than i would highly suggest not picking this up.
personally, i couldn’t look past the author’s controversial practices (esp having briefly studied forensic psychology); however i continued reading because it was interesting to hear from another perspective.
May 15, 2009
Another book I picked up at the Customs House in Sydney. On chapter three and so far A LOT of fluff and not enough substance or perhaps not enough on the interviews with the serial killers. Not impressed so far.
October 9, 2007
if i were an annoying, unconvincing psychiatrist with an irritating voice, i too would look into an audience that was, literally, captive.
August 16, 2022
She’s a psychiatrist who works as a profiler and claims to have interviewed 80 serial killers. A lot of it feels like bullshit, like how she talked to Ed Gein… but has nothing new to add about him. She says she had a correspondence with UK accessory to murder Rose West, but sorry, she doesn’t have permission to share any of the content. True crime name dropping?
Her own theories seem like personal opinion - she thinks serial killers aren’t psychopaths but are stuck at an infant level of emotional development, and she says there are no female serial killers, which is demonstrably false. The only interesting parts were descriptions of a few cases I wasn’t aware of.
Though I’ll admit my jaw dropped at the fact that Rose West, in prison for life, became engaged to the bass player from Slade, a glam band I like. Turns out it was Slade II, a later lineup of new musicians, and they fired him “for the good name of the band”.
Her own theories seem like personal opinion - she thinks serial killers aren’t psychopaths but are stuck at an infant level of emotional development, and she says there are no female serial killers, which is demonstrably false. The only interesting parts were descriptions of a few cases I wasn’t aware of.
Though I’ll admit my jaw dropped at the fact that Rose West, in prison for life, became engaged to the bass player from Slade, a glam band I like. Turns out it was Slade II, a later lineup of new musicians, and they fired him “for the good name of the band”.
January 4, 2019
Disappointed
I was expecting a book along the lines of what I read, but I was not expecting to dislike it so much. The author jumps around in the chapters so much that it makes it exhausting to follow along with what the essence of the chapter is about. And the way that she made it feel as though she had disdain for the field of behavioral science left a bad taste in my mouth. The book is, in a nutshell, snippets of interviewers, letters, moments in her life, and more opinions than I cared to read.
I was expecting a book along the lines of what I read, but I was not expecting to dislike it so much. The author jumps around in the chapters so much that it makes it exhausting to follow along with what the essence of the chapter is about. And the way that she made it feel as though she had disdain for the field of behavioral science left a bad taste in my mouth. The book is, in a nutshell, snippets of interviewers, letters, moments in her life, and more opinions than I cared to read.
November 16, 2018
Kinda outdated now with some of the opinions. Think shes a little in love with herself and how much she thinks she knows lol
September 14, 2011
It's time to put this one out of its misery. I thought I might be interested in serial killers in an "it'll be good for research" kind of way, in an "I'd like to better understand why this happens" way. Turns out I'm not all that interested in serial killers.
Barely out of school, a young Helen Morrison was asked by an FBI agent who'd seen her seminar on hypnosis to interview and hypnotize murderer Richard Macek. The agent wanted to find information that might show Macek wasn't guilty of the murder he was being held for, though he'd committed plenty of others. You might think hypnotizing a serial killer might not be the greatest idea, and you'd be right. It wasn't; Macek lost his shit, and Morrison rethought the whole hypnotizing murderers bit, but she stayed on, probing his mind for weeks, building a relationship and breaking him down with exhaustive interviews. Turned out he had indeed done the brutal murder in question. This was how Dr. Morrison began her odd career as a serial killer expert.
It was sometimes hard for me to remember that she was one of the first people to get close to serial killers. It seemed naive for her to think upon meeting these men that they just didn't seem like the types. She thought perhaps the authorities had gotten the wrong man; they were so personable! Eventually she learned that this was part of pattern. Even with the learning curve, some of her conclusions come across--and I feel mean saying this--as loopy.
Additionally, Dr. Morrison's tone is often defensive; she comes off as having been openly scorned during her career, and decries the men who fought the idea of having a woman in the field. That much seemed understandable, but she must also have caused a lot of astonishment and anger from certain choices made. For instance, she testified for the defense in John Wayne Gacy's trial, saying that Gacy lacked "substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct at the time of the alleged acts." All 33 of them. This testimony undoubtedly could not make her popular. The over-defensive court case takes up a whole chapter of the book.
She does have stories to tell about serial killers though, heaps of them, and she's not afraid to tell you the creepy stuff you thought you wanted to know. There's a particularly interesting chapter on the history of serial killers; she rolls out names and deeds I'd never heard of, and now wish I hadn't.
In trying to figure out the "why," Morrison concludes that serial killers don't have motives for their murders, nor do they have personality structures in place. She tells us we should think of them as psychologically incomplete, stunted, as if they've never grown emotionally beyond age 4 or 6.
Many of her statements come across like she's arguing with her past, even preemptively arguing with you before you have the time to make a judgement, even in your own head. That defensiveness is half the reason why I didn't care for the book. Another is because the style is sensationalistic. Finally was the author's desire to be able to test future people to find out their genetic destinies, and upon finding markers for serial killers, monitor those individuals ... somehow. Crikey.
I'm convinced the author would have been better off with a ghost writer or biographer doing the heavy lifting. She may have been too close to the story to know what to focus on and what to leave out.
If you're looking for a peek into the heads and lives of serial killers, you will get that; a long, dark look. I won't list any grisly details here, except for this morsel. Upon the death of John Wayne Gacy, Helen Morrison assisted in his autopsy. When it was done, she "got into my car and returned home with Gacy's brain in tow ..." as stipulated in Gacy's will. After searching, she finally found an anonymous neuropathologist willing to test the sections of the brain put aside in the autopsy. When the envelope came with the findings, she was disappointed to find that nothing useful had been gleaned. The brain remains in her home.
Barely out of school, a young Helen Morrison was asked by an FBI agent who'd seen her seminar on hypnosis to interview and hypnotize murderer Richard Macek. The agent wanted to find information that might show Macek wasn't guilty of the murder he was being held for, though he'd committed plenty of others. You might think hypnotizing a serial killer might not be the greatest idea, and you'd be right. It wasn't; Macek lost his shit, and Morrison rethought the whole hypnotizing murderers bit, but she stayed on, probing his mind for weeks, building a relationship and breaking him down with exhaustive interviews. Turned out he had indeed done the brutal murder in question. This was how Dr. Morrison began her odd career as a serial killer expert.
It was sometimes hard for me to remember that she was one of the first people to get close to serial killers. It seemed naive for her to think upon meeting these men that they just didn't seem like the types. She thought perhaps the authorities had gotten the wrong man; they were so personable! Eventually she learned that this was part of pattern. Even with the learning curve, some of her conclusions come across--and I feel mean saying this--as loopy.
Additionally, Dr. Morrison's tone is often defensive; she comes off as having been openly scorned during her career, and decries the men who fought the idea of having a woman in the field. That much seemed understandable, but she must also have caused a lot of astonishment and anger from certain choices made. For instance, she testified for the defense in John Wayne Gacy's trial, saying that Gacy lacked "substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct at the time of the alleged acts." All 33 of them. This testimony undoubtedly could not make her popular. The over-defensive court case takes up a whole chapter of the book.
She does have stories to tell about serial killers though, heaps of them, and she's not afraid to tell you the creepy stuff you thought you wanted to know. There's a particularly interesting chapter on the history of serial killers; she rolls out names and deeds I'd never heard of, and now wish I hadn't.
In trying to figure out the "why," Morrison concludes that serial killers don't have motives for their murders, nor do they have personality structures in place. She tells us we should think of them as psychologically incomplete, stunted, as if they've never grown emotionally beyond age 4 or 6.
Many of her statements come across like she's arguing with her past, even preemptively arguing with you before you have the time to make a judgement, even in your own head. That defensiveness is half the reason why I didn't care for the book. Another is because the style is sensationalistic. Finally was the author's desire to be able to test future people to find out their genetic destinies, and upon finding markers for serial killers, monitor those individuals ... somehow. Crikey.
I'm convinced the author would have been better off with a ghost writer or biographer doing the heavy lifting. She may have been too close to the story to know what to focus on and what to leave out.
If you're looking for a peek into the heads and lives of serial killers, you will get that; a long, dark look. I won't list any grisly details here, except for this morsel. Upon the death of John Wayne Gacy, Helen Morrison assisted in his autopsy. When it was done, she "got into my car and returned home with Gacy's brain in tow ..." as stipulated in Gacy's will. After searching, she finally found an anonymous neuropathologist willing to test the sections of the brain put aside in the autopsy. When the envelope came with the findings, she was disappointed to find that nothing useful had been gleaned. The brain remains in her home.
February 19, 2025
John Wayne Gacy. Wayne Williams. The Green River Killer. Well-known names by those who pay attention to serial killers. Men whom Dr. Helen Morrison has known and studied. Morrison writes about their lives and her life as a forensic psychiatrist studying the worst of the worst. She has dedicated her life to trying to understand why some people feel compelled to kill. She wants to figure out how society can predict who these killers will be and how to stop them, or at least to open a conversation among people about those possibilities.
Morrison discusses some of these characters in more than one chapter and others in less than a full chapter. They are basically in chronological order. She explains what she has learned about serial killers in general from the specific cases.
This is an interesting look at serial killers without delving too deeply in any one killer's mind and crimes. It is not as emotionally heavy as Ann Rule's The Stranger beside Me.
Morrison discusses some of these characters in more than one chapter and others in less than a full chapter. They are basically in chronological order. She explains what she has learned about serial killers in general from the specific cases.
This is an interesting look at serial killers without delving too deeply in any one killer's mind and crimes. It is not as emotionally heavy as Ann Rule's The Stranger beside Me.
June 11, 2009
La doctora Helen Morrison es una de las expertas en asesinos en serie de mayor prestigio en Estados Unidos y ha pasado más de cuatrocientas horas a solas en una celda con algunos de los más renombrados criminales, internándose en las profundidades de sus mentes.
El libro pretende establecer un patrón del porqué actúan los asesinos en serie, que les hace "click" y a pesar de que la experta no llega a una conclusión o un motivo determinante (nadie lo ha hecho) nos deja un buen tajo de información interesante.
La doctora Morrison narra sus experiencias con algunos de los asesinos en serie más famosos: Richard Macek, el de los grandes mordiscos; Ed Gein, quien inspiraría a Norman Bates (Psicosis, 1960); John Wayne Gacy, "el payaso asesino"; Peter Sutcliffe, el destripador de Yorkshire; Bobby Joe Long, el Hannibal Lecter de Florida; Robert Berdella, el carnicero de Kansas City; el matrimonio Fred y Rosemary West, los verdugos de la "Casa de los horrores", entre otros.
Algunas de cosas interesantes aquí mostradas son las cartas que formaron parte de la correspondencia que mantenía la doctora con sus pacientes, digamos que es un lado más íntimo e introspectivo que se puede apreciar en cada uno de los casos. Otra cosa positiva son sus análisis y descubrimientos en la materia; relevantes y pertinentes.
Sin embargo, en los diferentes perfiles hay muy pocas cosas que los conocedores de la materia ya no sepan, digamos que no es un libro para quienes quieren saber más detalles morbosos o detallistas sobre los crímenes acometidos por alguno de estos asesinos.
De igual manera hay una par de capítulos de relleno o pretenciosos como cuando se refiere a Ed Gein, dicho capítulo no aporta nada a su investigación, conclusiones o para el lector, simplemente está allí para que la gente sepa que conoció (ya muy viejo) al terrible asesino, como para chapear pues.
El libro pretende establecer un patrón del porqué actúan los asesinos en serie, que les hace "click" y a pesar de que la experta no llega a una conclusión o un motivo determinante (nadie lo ha hecho) nos deja un buen tajo de información interesante.
La doctora Morrison narra sus experiencias con algunos de los asesinos en serie más famosos: Richard Macek, el de los grandes mordiscos; Ed Gein, quien inspiraría a Norman Bates (Psicosis, 1960); John Wayne Gacy, "el payaso asesino"; Peter Sutcliffe, el destripador de Yorkshire; Bobby Joe Long, el Hannibal Lecter de Florida; Robert Berdella, el carnicero de Kansas City; el matrimonio Fred y Rosemary West, los verdugos de la "Casa de los horrores", entre otros.
Algunas de cosas interesantes aquí mostradas son las cartas que formaron parte de la correspondencia que mantenía la doctora con sus pacientes, digamos que es un lado más íntimo e introspectivo que se puede apreciar en cada uno de los casos. Otra cosa positiva son sus análisis y descubrimientos en la materia; relevantes y pertinentes.
Sin embargo, en los diferentes perfiles hay muy pocas cosas que los conocedores de la materia ya no sepan, digamos que no es un libro para quienes quieren saber más detalles morbosos o detallistas sobre los crímenes acometidos por alguno de estos asesinos.
De igual manera hay una par de capítulos de relleno o pretenciosos como cuando se refiere a Ed Gein, dicho capítulo no aporta nada a su investigación, conclusiones o para el lector, simplemente está allí para que la gente sepa que conoció (ya muy viejo) al terrible asesino, como para chapear pues.
June 25, 2014
I am no expert on serial killers and I won't pretend to be. But this book was filled with vague unsupported assumptions to the point where I was constantly rereading chapters in attempt to see where Morrison gleaned her information. She made statements like "there was no sexual component in this act" and "the parents of this killer had no impact in his making" (not direct quotes) These statements seem random, if not a little ludicrous. Morrison goes on to write that addiction was their sole reason for killing, disregarding the factors that actually lead them to gaining this addiction.
The book's redeeming qualities were in the content of the interviews she held with the killers. Richard Macek (the Mad Biter) mistakes her for his wife, Bobby Joe Long personally tells his nightmares, and she even manages to obtain Gacy's brain after his death for scientific study.
I found the ending very interesting as well, specifically the parts concerning the specific anatomy of the brain. The tests that she hypothesized were fascinating, and I must research to see if any results came through.
Overall the up close and personal insight into the quirks of the killers was invaluable. But the considerably more important psychoanalysis factor was missing, with references to silly linguist tests and many simplifications used to relate serial killers' emotional states to those of infants. Morrison tells interesting tales but interprets them distortedly.
The book's redeeming qualities were in the content of the interviews she held with the killers. Richard Macek (the Mad Biter) mistakes her for his wife, Bobby Joe Long personally tells his nightmares, and she even manages to obtain Gacy's brain after his death for scientific study.
I found the ending very interesting as well, specifically the parts concerning the specific anatomy of the brain. The tests that she hypothesized were fascinating, and I must research to see if any results came through.
Overall the up close and personal insight into the quirks of the killers was invaluable. But the considerably more important psychoanalysis factor was missing, with references to silly linguist tests and many simplifications used to relate serial killers' emotional states to those of infants. Morrison tells interesting tales but interprets them distortedly.
September 16, 2018
Dr. Helen Morrison claims to be an expert in the field of Forensic Psychiatry but I find it hard to believe her theories are the best she can come up with after 20 years of training and 25 years in the field. Gems including: it might be they act like children, they might have an addiction to killing, and then claims it might be genetic or, put differently, God's choice.
She spent too much time on, as another reviewer said, "my life" and not as much on "among the serial killers." However, her tellings of the murderers themselves were much better than others I've seen in the true crime field. Her most interesting note recorded was the killer's described people as objects, the same way autistic children describe people; because of this, I wonder if there is a correlation between autism and serial killing (with the caveat of parental abuse).
She spent too much time on, as another reviewer said, "my life" and not as much on "among the serial killers." However, her tellings of the murderers themselves were much better than others I've seen in the true crime field. Her most interesting note recorded was the killer's described people as objects, the same way autistic children describe people; because of this, I wonder if there is a correlation between autism and serial killing (with the caveat of parental abuse).
February 6, 2008
Very good book! However during my read I realized I needed to stop my true crime spree that I had started :) Some parts of this book truly disgusted me. However if you can get over that she has some interesting opinions in this book!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 315 reviews