What do you think?
Rate this book
The Phantom Killer: Unlocking the Mystery of the Texarkana Serial Murders: The Story of a Town in Terror
Set in the rowdy, often lawless town of Texarkana shortly after WWII, The Phantom Killer is the history of the most puzzling unsolved cases in the United States The salacious and scandalous murders of a series of couples on Texarkana's "lovers lanes" in seemingly idyllic post-WWII America created a media maelstrom and cast a pall of fear over an entire region. What is even more surprising is that the case has remained cold for decades. Combining archival research and investigative journalism, Pulitzer Prize nominated historian James Presley reveals evidence that provides crucial keys to unlocking this decades-old puzzle. Dubbed "the Phantom murders" by the press, these grisly crimes took place in an America before dial telephones, DNA science, and criminal profiling. Even pre-television, print and radio media stirred emotions to a fever pitch. The Phantom Killer , exhaustively researched, is the only definitive nonfiction book on the case, and includes details from an unpublished account by a survivor, and rare, never-before-published photographs. Although the case lives on today on television, the Internet, a revived fictional movie and even an off-Broadway play, with so much of the investigation shrouded in mystery since 1946, rumors and fractured facts have distorted the reality. Now, for the first time, a careful examination of the archival record, personal interviews, and stubborn fact checking come together to produce new insights and revelations on the old slayings. 16 pages B&W photographs
400 pages, Hardcover
First published November 15, 2014
61 people are currently reading
1252 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 - 30 of 88 reviews
October 13, 2017
[library]
This is another excellent book like The Midnight Assassin: Panic, Scandal, and the Hunt for America's First Serial Killer, equally local history & true crime. This time, the location is Texarkana (TX/AR) and the true crime is the so-called Phantom Killer of 1946.
I first learned about the Phantom Killer through an indie documentary called Killer Legends , which is about four urban legends & the real life crimes that might have inspired them. (Zeman and Mills investigate the Phantom Killer and The Town That Dreaded Sundown , which really was, for some benighted reason, remade in 2014; the babysitter as target of psychopath ( Halloween , Scream , etc.) & a serial killer in Missouri who actually did target babysitters (otherwise, they find, babysitting is a remarkably safe occupation); poisoned Halloween candy and the vile Ronald Clark O'Bryan; and the epidemic of clown sightings in Chicago (which apparently hit again in 2016, after Killer Legends) and John Wayne Gacy.) This documentary is a follow-up to Cropsey (2009), which Zeman and a different research partner filmed about the same idea on their native Staten Island: the link between the urban legends they grew up on and the crimes of Andre Rand.) Presley is interviewed in Killer Legends.
Presley patiently untangles a snarl of personal histories: the victims, the investigators, the panicked people of Texarkana, and Presley's choice for the killer, Youell Swinney. Swinney was never tried for the murders (nor was anyone else), which is why they're still considered unsolved, but Presley's research (including interviews with cops who survived long enough to talk to Presley as very old men but were dead before he wrote the book) presents a compelling case for why Youell Swinney wasn't tried for murder; they chose to try him for something they knew they could make stick instead of relying on a witness who they knew equally was telling the truth and not telling the whole truth, which is just asking for disaster in cross-examination, reasoning that the important thing was to stop him. Presley goes back and forth between theory (FBI profiling developed in the years since Swinney's murders) and practice (what Swinney did) to try to tease out his motives. While I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the FBI's organized/disorganized schema, their theories about what sorts of things you see in the early childhood of signature killers does seem to hold up pretty well across the cases I've read about. In this case, Presley does a good job of lining up the reasons why Swinney would go after couples and what was at the root of his overpowering rage.
This was charming as a history of Texarkana and fascinating as criminology.
This is another excellent book like The Midnight Assassin: Panic, Scandal, and the Hunt for America's First Serial Killer, equally local history & true crime. This time, the location is Texarkana (TX/AR) and the true crime is the so-called Phantom Killer of 1946.
I first learned about the Phantom Killer through an indie documentary called Killer Legends , which is about four urban legends & the real life crimes that might have inspired them. (Zeman and Mills investigate the Phantom Killer and The Town That Dreaded Sundown , which really was, for some benighted reason, remade in 2014; the babysitter as target of psychopath ( Halloween , Scream , etc.) & a serial killer in Missouri who actually did target babysitters (otherwise, they find, babysitting is a remarkably safe occupation); poisoned Halloween candy and the vile Ronald Clark O'Bryan; and the epidemic of clown sightings in Chicago (which apparently hit again in 2016, after Killer Legends) and John Wayne Gacy.) This documentary is a follow-up to Cropsey (2009), which Zeman and a different research partner filmed about the same idea on their native Staten Island: the link between the urban legends they grew up on and the crimes of Andre Rand.) Presley is interviewed in Killer Legends.
Presley patiently untangles a snarl of personal histories: the victims, the investigators, the panicked people of Texarkana, and Presley's choice for the killer, Youell Swinney. Swinney was never tried for the murders (nor was anyone else), which is why they're still considered unsolved, but Presley's research (including interviews with cops who survived long enough to talk to Presley as very old men but were dead before he wrote the book) presents a compelling case for why Youell Swinney wasn't tried for murder; they chose to try him for something they knew they could make stick instead of relying on a witness who they knew equally was telling the truth and not telling the whole truth, which is just asking for disaster in cross-examination, reasoning that the important thing was to stop him. Presley goes back and forth between theory (FBI profiling developed in the years since Swinney's murders) and practice (what Swinney did) to try to tease out his motives. While I'm becoming increasingly dubious of the FBI's organized/disorganized schema, their theories about what sorts of things you see in the early childhood of signature killers does seem to hold up pretty well across the cases I've read about. In this case, Presley does a good job of lining up the reasons why Swinney would go after couples and what was at the root of his overpowering rage.
This was charming as a history of Texarkana and fascinating as criminology.
January 25, 2015
A rather tedious read when compared with others of this genre. The Texarkana serial killings are somewhat forgotten today, and this book presents the facts clearly enough, but the writing is not at all compelling.
November 20, 2014
Meticulously researched, this book details the true story behind the string of murders committed in the spring of 1946 in Texarkana AR and TX. Officially the case remains unsolved, but the man responsible for the murders was captured and spent 27 years in prison on car theft and habitual criminal convictions. This book clears away the rumors, exaggerations, and misinformation that has circulated through the years. Examination of primary source material and interviews with those involved make this the definitive history for the case that put Texarkana on the map, and became the stuff of legend (literally.)
February 5, 2015
True crime is really not my genre, but I thought this one was fairly readable, and it kept me turning the pages. The serial killer operated around Texarkana in 1946 and was never convicted of murder, although he spent most of his life in prison for a variety of other crimes, from assault and car theft to counterfeiting. The case is now considered closed by those who care about it; most of the people who were directly involved have died by now. The book is full of inconsequential detail, often repeated. It would be a far better book if it were half as long.
November 14, 2014
A decent, but somewhat bland, account.
June 19, 2024
My review is for a physical copy of the book.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦
This book is about the "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦"-A unknown serial killer, whose identity was never revealed or discovered so the crimes they committed & murders remain unsolved.
The methodology of this serial killer is somewhat similar to the violent murders committed by The Zodiac Killer (he is/was a sadist, after murdering his victims he would make a phone call to the family members and the Police department just to taunt them and gloat about what he did, he wanted to shock and disgust people)
This case has always been interesting to me, I think the Texarkana Phantom serial killer potentially has a Military, Police background.
For the first interaction with the Texarkana Phantom, there is a weird, sexually deviant aspect to the interaction with the teenagers- (Jimmy Hollis & Mary Jeanne Larey) it's the weirdest interaction a serial killer had with their victims that i've ever read about.
Both the victims were humiliated, brutally beaten the Mary Jeanne Larey was hit on her head with a blunt object, hunted and then disgustingly sexually assaulted with a gun
(I don't understand why they did that unless, it's symbolic of their intention to rape women, or it represents sexual repression & sexual frustration, hatred & intolerance of women)
It's possible that the Texarkana Phantom is either from another country or a Southern American.
I can't believe the Texarkana Police Department had the audacity to victim shame Mary Jeanne, to accused her of potentially knowing the assailant that hit her on the head with a blunt object, hunted her and sexually assaulted her with a gun, when he was a unknown stranger to her and her boyfriend Jimmy Hollis.
Why would Mary Jeanne claim the assailant was wearing a mask-(a white sheet, with holes cut out for the eyes and mouth) or to say she saw a black man with a lighter complexion if she supposedly knew the assailant?
I don't understand why the Texarkana Police Department, were downplaying what happened to Mary Jeanne as if she wasn't also a victim, both of them could have been murdered, not just her boyfriend.
The Texarkana Police Department seem to have confirmation bias-whatever the simplest, easiest solution there is to solving the assaulted, attempted murder of hte teenagers is the correct answer apparently, despite there being inconsistencies, a specific type of sadistic, cruel interaction the teenagers had with the Texarkana Phantom.
I have the same opinion as Jimmy Hollis that their encounter with the Texarkana Phantom wasn't just a one-off encounter they are a sadist, that is motivated by savage, sadistic, unprovoked violence inflicted on innocent strangers.
He murders 5 people which were never solved and he disappeared like a phantom never too seen or heard from ever again, which is creepy and mysterious.
The Texarkana Phantom targeted couples, in a similar methodology to the Zodiac serial killer-he targeted couples, the man was killed first, they were tied up and stabbed to death.
The female victim always had the most severe wounds, injuries, because the Zodiac serial killer hated women.
I see similarities between the two serial killers, so i'm curious if there is any connection between them.
The Modus Operandi of the unknown serial killer: approach a vulnerable couple that are teenagers in a car, ask for money, physically assault of the the male & female victims, shoot them in the head.
the victim types are always vulnerable, innocent teenagers, the unknown serial killer is a sadist, authoritative, controlling, they seem like a Police officer, a Soldier with a Military background, a Teacher or another profession that would involve him being in a position of authority.
Two victims were assaulted and survived, but four teenagers were murdered over a three-week period, the same weapon was used, but one of the female victims was raped before being murdered.
I think she was raped while still being clothed, due to the victim being found fully clothed and a lead that was fund in her blouse.
The violence of the Texarkana Phantom is escalating, his modus operandi to prey on innocent victims is the same but his signature to rape his victims is now a part of his crimes.
Modus Operandi-methodology of who the victim(s) are, and how they are killed.
Signature-any behaviour related to fantasies, overpowering, torturing, raping their victims, taking trophies, this pattern of behaviour has to take place for the murderer to enact their fantasies and to kill their victims.
The quote said by the FBI Agent John Douglas is inaccurate of some serial killers, for example The Zodiac serial killer contacted the family members & the Police Department in San Francisco via a payphone to taunt the family members of his victims & to taunt the Police Department because he is a sadist, it gave him a sick pleasure to cause distress, disgusted, horrified reactions from innocent people. He confessed his crimes & he also said about very specific details that only a serial killer or murderer would know.
There is also Michael Stephani-"The Weepy-Voiced KIller" he had sick, perverted, sadistic and violent fantasies of physically & fatally harming women, then committed murders but he felt disgusted, ashamed, remorseful.
He didn't understand why he had such disgusting fantasises or the impulse to murder women.
This disproves the quote, I think that a particular type of serial killer such as The Zodiac serial killer a sadist, likes attention, they enjoy taunting, mocking people and think they are superior to other people, they have all the power & control, you can't do anything about it, which would drive people crazy, due to the murders cases that still remain unsolved.
It's interesting that the "Texarkana Phantom" didn't know that the Starks married couple didn't have a phone, he had enough time to observe Virgil Starks & his wife while they were minding their own business while in their home.
In my opinion the motive for the shooting and murder of Virgil Starks & the attempted murder of his wife had nothing to do with money or robbery of any kind, the types of crimes/murders the "Texarkana Phantom" commits are all about power, control, sadism, narcissism they like having authority over their unsuspecting, innocent victims, they are a sadist.
They enjoy inflicting, sadistic, pain & suffering, physical violence to their victims.
He seems like the type of serial killer that would hunt their potential victim, relentlessly pursue them and them murder them, but going to the Starks home was risky, so the serial killer fled to safety.
He wasn't going to lovers lanes anymore due to the police regularly patrolling specific isolated, lovers lanes, they were attempting to apprehend the serial killer by tricking them with mannequins in a car, but it wasn't working teenagerswere warned about the "Texarkana Phantom" serial killer.
The serial killer is/was smart enough to lay low and avoid suspicion, they seem like the type of person that is a antisocial loner, or they keep to themselves to blend in easily, to appear to be a normal/ordinary person.
After fatally shooting Virgil Starks execution style (in their head) & then shooting his wife when she attempted to use the phone, the "Texarkana Phantom" broke into their home to admire his handiwork, with a sick, macabre fascination, like they were proud and satisfied with what he did, however he didn't anticipate that Virgil's wife was a survivor, she has strength, the will to live, so she was smart to leave her home immediately to seek help elsewhere but unfortunately the neighbours weren't home, but she eventually received the medical help she needed and survived.
I personally think the crime reporters/investigative reporters are very invasive, nosey, they over step their boundaries, including all the members of the public that were morbidly curious and trampled multiple crime scenes and destroyed any chance of gathering any type of credible evidence.
There was no credible way to gather crime scene evidence or test it for microscopic traces of blood, DNA, other bodily fluids due to the lack of forensic science in the (1940's), no ballistics testing existed yet, crime scene etiquette was severly lacking at the time, so crime scenes were easily contaminated so any potential evidence would be admissible in a court of law, there wasn't any psychological/criminal, geographical analysis & profiling of criminal especially murderers or serial killers, lack of any in-depth knowledge of serial killers, murderers, types of serial killers, murderers, no medical examiner existed to perform autopsies so the Sheriff's could determine what caliber of weapon was used to murder some of the victims-this is a vital piece of evidence, more than one calibre of guns were used to murder the victims.
So it's understandable why Texarkana Sheriff's struggled to figure out who the "Texarkana Phantom" is.
It's frustrating that a eyewitness saw the Phantom's car but they were too far away to see or write down the licence plate on their car.
Chapter 14 is informative and it's good to explain the difference between the types of serial killers however I think it's inaccurate to label The "Texarkana Phantom" as a mass murderer or a Terrorist when they are a serial killer.
There is no comparison between The Texarkana Phantom & Alexander Pichushkin the "Chessboard Killer" at all except both are serial killers.
I don't understand why the author doesn't see the similarities between the "Texarkana Phantom" & the "Zodiac serial killer" because they are similar!
Both are/were a sadist, they hate women, but they kill the male victim first, The Zodiac serial killer taunted the San Francisco Police department, wasn't identified until recently and maybe dead now, the Texarkana Phantom would be likely to do something similar once they gained confidence that they would be identified and caught.
Examples of types of serial killers: Spree Killers-Charles Starkweather (19) & his teenager girlfriend Carol Ann Fugate (14) or the main characters in the film Natural Born Killers are spree killers that murder multiple people for the sick, perverse, thrill, because it excites them.
A mass murderer: a person that kills multiple people in one day-an example would be a person going out in public and stabbing random people to death, or using a bomb in crowded area like a bank, apartment complex or on a aeroplane.
A serial killer: some are a peeping tom, that are voyeur & they stalk their potential victims and they murder three or more victims over time, but there is usually a cooling off period which eventually decreases over time and at that point the serial killer is perfecting their Modus Operandi, some have a signature that they have to do to fully engage in their crimes because their signature relates to their perverse, sick fantasies at this point the serial killer is addicted to murdering their victims.
It's interesting that various cars were stolen, then switched for other cars on the nights that some of the victims were targeted, assaulted and some were murdered.
I don't think that Youell Lee Swinney is the "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦" but there is suspicious evidence that correlates to when the vicious assaults/beatings of Jimmy Hollis and Mary Jeanne Larey occured & when the murders occurred as well.
Peggy Swinney gave the Police officers conflicting statements which don't add up and something is off about them.
I believe she pinned the assaults/beatings & murders on her husband because he was abusive and she was afraid of him.
If he assaulted Jimmy Hollis and Mary Jeanne Larey and supposedly beat them viciously almost to death then why would the Texarkana Phantom serial killer tell him to collect Betty Jo Booker's saxophone from the trunk of a car?
Youell Lee Swinney's comment about "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦" serial killer was very specific about them, which s suspicious.
That doesn't make sense, unless the "Texarkana Phantom" had a accomplice, due to the serial killer committing crimes alone, he was/is a solitary loner.
I don't personally think the relationship that Youell Lee Swinney & Peggy Swinney have has any comparison to Bonnie Parker & Clyde Barrow-they were provocative, rebellious, violent outlaws, bank robbers and murderers, they liked what they did they were thrill seekers, it was dangerous and exciting to them.
They lived their lives on their own terms and eventually they suffered the consequences of their actions by being shot to death in their car by Police officers/Sheriffs which is now on display in a museum.
After reading a majority of this book, I personally don't believe that Youell Lee Swinney is the Texarkana Phantom serial killer, the evidence against Youell is circumstantial, so unless the Sheriff's or Texas & Arkansas Police departments can conclusively prove that Youell Lee Swinney physically assaulted to teenagers, raped to of the female victims & murdered 5 people then I think someone else is the Texarkana Phantom.
Why wasn't the other suspect-W ever investigated in more depth?
Why wouldn't Youell's wife not testify against in a court of law?
What did she know/stills knows about? This is suspicious, what is she hiding.
Why wasn't Virgil Starks wife not questioned in more depth?
She saw the Texarkana Phantom, she could identify him!
Where are the guns that were used for all the crimes that were committed?
For anyone that reads my review of this book, the FBI released 1000 pages about the Texarkana Phantom which might be interesting to some people to read although it may not still be relevant to the Texarkana Phantom, since opinions about suspects or evidence related to the case may have changed or may have been updated since the information was released by the FBI.
This murder case is still unsolved, but I hope that it will be eventually conclusively solved because it's a interesting unsolved serial killer case from 1946, in Texarkana, Texas.
Youell Lee Swinney may fit the psychological profile but he doesn't really fit with the personality of the serial killer except for expressing his rage when the first two victims were severely beaten but there isn't really enough evidence to say that Youell Lee Swinney was at the other crimes scenes, his wife never testified either so she still has knowledge she could reveal about her ex-husband Youell, there isn't enough evidence to conclusively prove that Youell Lee Swinney was at the other crimes scenes that resulted in murder & attempted murder or to conclusively say without any reasonable doubt that he was the Texarkana Phantom serial killer either.
Youell Lee Swinney is a psychopath, but a sociopath is not the same thing, however a psychopath & a sociopath can have narcissistic traits, both lack empathy, compassion, they can both be a sadist and physically & sexually violent.
Some confusing aspects of this book is what did or didn't happened to some o the female victims, a few times the author has stated that two of the female victims were raped before being murdered, but there is only conclusive evidence that this happened to one of the victims.
The authors originally stated that two of the female victims were raped before being murdered but then they kept saying in the book that this happened allegedly, so did it happen or not then?
It's confusing to read.
I understand that there was a lack or forensic science in 1946, but a physical examination of the female victims would have conclusively proved signs of rape, due to the evidence of seminal fluid at the crime scene. before they were murdered.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦
This book is about the "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦"-A unknown serial killer, whose identity was never revealed or discovered so the crimes they committed & murders remain unsolved.
The methodology of this serial killer is somewhat similar to the violent murders committed by The Zodiac Killer (he is/was a sadist, after murdering his victims he would make a phone call to the family members and the Police department just to taunt them and gloat about what he did, he wanted to shock and disgust people)
This case has always been interesting to me, I think the Texarkana Phantom serial killer potentially has a Military, Police background.
For the first interaction with the Texarkana Phantom, there is a weird, sexually deviant aspect to the interaction with the teenagers- (Jimmy Hollis & Mary Jeanne Larey) it's the weirdest interaction a serial killer had with their victims that i've ever read about.
Both the victims were humiliated, brutally beaten the Mary Jeanne Larey was hit on her head with a blunt object, hunted and then disgustingly sexually assaulted with a gun
(I don't understand why they did that unless, it's symbolic of their intention to rape women, or it represents sexual repression & sexual frustration, hatred & intolerance of women)
It's possible that the Texarkana Phantom is either from another country or a Southern American.
I can't believe the Texarkana Police Department had the audacity to victim shame Mary Jeanne, to accused her of potentially knowing the assailant that hit her on the head with a blunt object, hunted her and sexually assaulted her with a gun, when he was a unknown stranger to her and her boyfriend Jimmy Hollis.
Why would Mary Jeanne claim the assailant was wearing a mask-(a white sheet, with holes cut out for the eyes and mouth) or to say she saw a black man with a lighter complexion if she supposedly knew the assailant?
I don't understand why the Texarkana Police Department, were downplaying what happened to Mary Jeanne as if she wasn't also a victim, both of them could have been murdered, not just her boyfriend.
The Texarkana Police Department seem to have confirmation bias-whatever the simplest, easiest solution there is to solving the assaulted, attempted murder of hte teenagers is the correct answer apparently, despite there being inconsistencies, a specific type of sadistic, cruel interaction the teenagers had with the Texarkana Phantom.
I have the same opinion as Jimmy Hollis that their encounter with the Texarkana Phantom wasn't just a one-off encounter they are a sadist, that is motivated by savage, sadistic, unprovoked violence inflicted on innocent strangers.
He murders 5 people which were never solved and he disappeared like a phantom never too seen or heard from ever again, which is creepy and mysterious.
The Texarkana Phantom targeted couples, in a similar methodology to the Zodiac serial killer-he targeted couples, the man was killed first, they were tied up and stabbed to death.
The female victim always had the most severe wounds, injuries, because the Zodiac serial killer hated women.
I see similarities between the two serial killers, so i'm curious if there is any connection between them.
The Modus Operandi of the unknown serial killer: approach a vulnerable couple that are teenagers in a car, ask for money, physically assault of the the male & female victims, shoot them in the head.
the victim types are always vulnerable, innocent teenagers, the unknown serial killer is a sadist, authoritative, controlling, they seem like a Police officer, a Soldier with a Military background, a Teacher or another profession that would involve him being in a position of authority.
Two victims were assaulted and survived, but four teenagers were murdered over a three-week period, the same weapon was used, but one of the female victims was raped before being murdered.
I think she was raped while still being clothed, due to the victim being found fully clothed and a lead that was fund in her blouse.
The violence of the Texarkana Phantom is escalating, his modus operandi to prey on innocent victims is the same but his signature to rape his victims is now a part of his crimes.
Modus Operandi-methodology of who the victim(s) are, and how they are killed.
Signature-any behaviour related to fantasies, overpowering, torturing, raping their victims, taking trophies, this pattern of behaviour has to take place for the murderer to enact their fantasies and to kill their victims.
The quote said by the FBI Agent John Douglas is inaccurate of some serial killers, for example The Zodiac serial killer contacted the family members & the Police Department in San Francisco via a payphone to taunt the family members of his victims & to taunt the Police Department because he is a sadist, it gave him a sick pleasure to cause distress, disgusted, horrified reactions from innocent people. He confessed his crimes & he also said about very specific details that only a serial killer or murderer would know.
There is also Michael Stephani-"The Weepy-Voiced KIller" he had sick, perverted, sadistic and violent fantasies of physically & fatally harming women, then committed murders but he felt disgusted, ashamed, remorseful.
He didn't understand why he had such disgusting fantasises or the impulse to murder women.
This disproves the quote, I think that a particular type of serial killer such as The Zodiac serial killer a sadist, likes attention, they enjoy taunting, mocking people and think they are superior to other people, they have all the power & control, you can't do anything about it, which would drive people crazy, due to the murders cases that still remain unsolved.
It's interesting that the "Texarkana Phantom" didn't know that the Starks married couple didn't have a phone, he had enough time to observe Virgil Starks & his wife while they were minding their own business while in their home.
In my opinion the motive for the shooting and murder of Virgil Starks & the attempted murder of his wife had nothing to do with money or robbery of any kind, the types of crimes/murders the "Texarkana Phantom" commits are all about power, control, sadism, narcissism they like having authority over their unsuspecting, innocent victims, they are a sadist.
They enjoy inflicting, sadistic, pain & suffering, physical violence to their victims.
He seems like the type of serial killer that would hunt their potential victim, relentlessly pursue them and them murder them, but going to the Starks home was risky, so the serial killer fled to safety.
He wasn't going to lovers lanes anymore due to the police regularly patrolling specific isolated, lovers lanes, they were attempting to apprehend the serial killer by tricking them with mannequins in a car, but it wasn't working teenagerswere warned about the "Texarkana Phantom" serial killer.
The serial killer is/was smart enough to lay low and avoid suspicion, they seem like the type of person that is a antisocial loner, or they keep to themselves to blend in easily, to appear to be a normal/ordinary person.
After fatally shooting Virgil Starks execution style (in their head) & then shooting his wife when she attempted to use the phone, the "Texarkana Phantom" broke into their home to admire his handiwork, with a sick, macabre fascination, like they were proud and satisfied with what he did, however he didn't anticipate that Virgil's wife was a survivor, she has strength, the will to live, so she was smart to leave her home immediately to seek help elsewhere but unfortunately the neighbours weren't home, but she eventually received the medical help she needed and survived.
I personally think the crime reporters/investigative reporters are very invasive, nosey, they over step their boundaries, including all the members of the public that were morbidly curious and trampled multiple crime scenes and destroyed any chance of gathering any type of credible evidence.
There was no credible way to gather crime scene evidence or test it for microscopic traces of blood, DNA, other bodily fluids due to the lack of forensic science in the (1940's), no ballistics testing existed yet, crime scene etiquette was severly lacking at the time, so crime scenes were easily contaminated so any potential evidence would be admissible in a court of law, there wasn't any psychological/criminal, geographical analysis & profiling of criminal especially murderers or serial killers, lack of any in-depth knowledge of serial killers, murderers, types of serial killers, murderers, no medical examiner existed to perform autopsies so the Sheriff's could determine what caliber of weapon was used to murder some of the victims-this is a vital piece of evidence, more than one calibre of guns were used to murder the victims.
So it's understandable why Texarkana Sheriff's struggled to figure out who the "Texarkana Phantom" is.
It's frustrating that a eyewitness saw the Phantom's car but they were too far away to see or write down the licence plate on their car.
Chapter 14 is informative and it's good to explain the difference between the types of serial killers however I think it's inaccurate to label The "Texarkana Phantom" as a mass murderer or a Terrorist when they are a serial killer.
There is no comparison between The Texarkana Phantom & Alexander Pichushkin the "Chessboard Killer" at all except both are serial killers.
I don't understand why the author doesn't see the similarities between the "Texarkana Phantom" & the "Zodiac serial killer" because they are similar!
Both are/were a sadist, they hate women, but they kill the male victim first, The Zodiac serial killer taunted the San Francisco Police department, wasn't identified until recently and maybe dead now, the Texarkana Phantom would be likely to do something similar once they gained confidence that they would be identified and caught.
Examples of types of serial killers: Spree Killers-Charles Starkweather (19) & his teenager girlfriend Carol Ann Fugate (14) or the main characters in the film Natural Born Killers are spree killers that murder multiple people for the sick, perverse, thrill, because it excites them.
A mass murderer: a person that kills multiple people in one day-an example would be a person going out in public and stabbing random people to death, or using a bomb in crowded area like a bank, apartment complex or on a aeroplane.
A serial killer: some are a peeping tom, that are voyeur & they stalk their potential victims and they murder three or more victims over time, but there is usually a cooling off period which eventually decreases over time and at that point the serial killer is perfecting their Modus Operandi, some have a signature that they have to do to fully engage in their crimes because their signature relates to their perverse, sick fantasies at this point the serial killer is addicted to murdering their victims.
It's interesting that various cars were stolen, then switched for other cars on the nights that some of the victims were targeted, assaulted and some were murdered.
I don't think that Youell Lee Swinney is the "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦" but there is suspicious evidence that correlates to when the vicious assaults/beatings of Jimmy Hollis and Mary Jeanne Larey occured & when the murders occurred as well.
Peggy Swinney gave the Police officers conflicting statements which don't add up and something is off about them.
I believe she pinned the assaults/beatings & murders on her husband because he was abusive and she was afraid of him.
If he assaulted Jimmy Hollis and Mary Jeanne Larey and supposedly beat them viciously almost to death then why would the Texarkana Phantom serial killer tell him to collect Betty Jo Booker's saxophone from the trunk of a car?
Youell Lee Swinney's comment about "𝐓𝐞𝐱𝐚𝐫𝐤𝐚𝐧𝐚 𝐏𝐡𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐨𝐦" serial killer was very specific about them, which s suspicious.
That doesn't make sense, unless the "Texarkana Phantom" had a accomplice, due to the serial killer committing crimes alone, he was/is a solitary loner.
I don't personally think the relationship that Youell Lee Swinney & Peggy Swinney have has any comparison to Bonnie Parker & Clyde Barrow-they were provocative, rebellious, violent outlaws, bank robbers and murderers, they liked what they did they were thrill seekers, it was dangerous and exciting to them.
They lived their lives on their own terms and eventually they suffered the consequences of their actions by being shot to death in their car by Police officers/Sheriffs which is now on display in a museum.
After reading a majority of this book, I personally don't believe that Youell Lee Swinney is the Texarkana Phantom serial killer, the evidence against Youell is circumstantial, so unless the Sheriff's or Texas & Arkansas Police departments can conclusively prove that Youell Lee Swinney physically assaulted to teenagers, raped to of the female victims & murdered 5 people then I think someone else is the Texarkana Phantom.
Why wasn't the other suspect-W ever investigated in more depth?
Why wouldn't Youell's wife not testify against in a court of law?
What did she know/stills knows about? This is suspicious, what is she hiding.
Why wasn't Virgil Starks wife not questioned in more depth?
She saw the Texarkana Phantom, she could identify him!
Where are the guns that were used for all the crimes that were committed?
For anyone that reads my review of this book, the FBI released 1000 pages about the Texarkana Phantom which might be interesting to some people to read although it may not still be relevant to the Texarkana Phantom, since opinions about suspects or evidence related to the case may have changed or may have been updated since the information was released by the FBI.
This murder case is still unsolved, but I hope that it will be eventually conclusively solved because it's a interesting unsolved serial killer case from 1946, in Texarkana, Texas.
Youell Lee Swinney may fit the psychological profile but he doesn't really fit with the personality of the serial killer except for expressing his rage when the first two victims were severely beaten but there isn't really enough evidence to say that Youell Lee Swinney was at the other crimes scenes, his wife never testified either so she still has knowledge she could reveal about her ex-husband Youell, there isn't enough evidence to conclusively prove that Youell Lee Swinney was at the other crimes scenes that resulted in murder & attempted murder or to conclusively say without any reasonable doubt that he was the Texarkana Phantom serial killer either.
Youell Lee Swinney is a psychopath, but a sociopath is not the same thing, however a psychopath & a sociopath can have narcissistic traits, both lack empathy, compassion, they can both be a sadist and physically & sexually violent.
Some confusing aspects of this book is what did or didn't happened to some o the female victims, a few times the author has stated that two of the female victims were raped before being murdered, but there is only conclusive evidence that this happened to one of the victims.
The authors originally stated that two of the female victims were raped before being murdered but then they kept saying in the book that this happened allegedly, so did it happen or not then?
It's confusing to read.
I understand that there was a lack or forensic science in 1946, but a physical examination of the female victims would have conclusively proved signs of rape, due to the evidence of seminal fluid at the crime scene. before they were murdered.
September 7, 2024
Horrible audio quality. Filled with facts but also padded with unnecessary information about minor crimes and traffic accidents!? That have nothing to do with the attacks in Texarkana.
September 7, 2016
This review contains spoilers.
I learned about the Phantom serial killings after watching Killer Legends, a horror-documentary that examines the origins of various urban legends. The director, Joshua Zeman, also directed Cropsey, a documentary well-worth seeing. The book came to my attention when James Presley, the author of The Phantom Killer, was interviewed in the documentary about the murders.
Here are the basic facts: a person or persons unknown attacked eight young people in the Texarkana area, targeting couples necking in cars in lover’s lanes. He killed five people; three escaped. This was in 1946, decades before Robert Ressler coined the term serial killer. The author does a fine job detailing the investigation, which by today’s standards was shoddy. The lawmakers in question had never dealt with serial killings and focused on motives like robbery or revenge, trying to locate enemies of the couples. This was the wrong approach, as most serial killers do not know their victims.
A man named Youell Swinney was picked up by the police and immediately became the Number One Suspect, for reasons I still don’t quite understand. It seems that one of the investigators came up with the theory that the killer might be using stolen cars, and Swinney was a known car thief who operated in the area. Investigators placed Swinney near the crime scenes on the nights of the murders. However, they had nothing more than circumstantial evidence on him.
Peggy, Swinney’s wife, gave a statement to the effect that her husband was the Phantom, claiming that she witnessed two of the murders, but as his wife Texas law forbade her from testifying against him. From the author’s account, it’s doubtful she would have made a good witness. Eventually, Swinney was convicted as a habitual offender – he had a long list of crimes, ranging from petty theft, burglary and counterfeiting and escalating to assault and car theft – and given a life sentence (Texas had a three strikes and you’re out law). He was released in 1973 and spent the rest of his life in and out of jail.
The first half of The Phantom Killer is by far more interesting. Mr. Presley paints a vivid picture of Texarkana in 1946 and gives us a detailed description of the crime and subsequent investigation, conducted by a number of colorful lawmen. The second half of the book lagged, focusing on Swinney and how investigators attempted and ultimately failed to build a case against him.
The obvious question is whether Swinney was indeed the Phantom. The author is convinced he was. Please note that Mr. Presley’s uncle was a sheriff deeply involved in the Phantom case, so he can hardly be called unbiased. After reading this book, I wasn’t convinced. Lawmakers never had anything more than circumstantial evidence against Swinney, and it seems doubtful a jury would have sent him to the electric chair on that basis. The other question that comes up is whether Swinney had adequate legal representation, which is perhaps of greater interest to legal scholars.
I drew three conclusions from reading The Phantom Killer: 1. Swinney could have been the Phantom; 2. Lawmakers couldn’t prove Swinney was the Phantom; 3. Swinney was sent to prison – fairly or unfairly – for a number of lesser crimes using laws then on the books.
I’m still unsure why Swinney suddenly became the main suspect. To me, it looks like lawmen decided that the killer was also a car thief, which automatically made Swinney – a known car thief – their number one suspect. Strangely, they never had two of the survivors try to pick Swinney out of a lineup, even though one of them said her assailant had a voice she’d never forget.
And then there’s Peggy Swinney’s statement. Actually, statements would be more accurate. Her first account of the night of the double murder is full of inconsistencies. Her revised statement, made months later, is much more coherent, mentioning a number of crucial details she’d omitted in her first account. Amazingly, Ms. Swinney’s memory of the events of that night seemed to become clearer with the passage of time; either that, or she was coached, picking up salient details over the course of multiple interrogations.
The Phantom Killer contains a fair bit of psychobabble about why Swinney was such an unpleasant character. It is undeniable that Swinney was a sociopath, displaying violent and antisocial tendencies. He could have been The Phantom, and the murders ceased after his imprisonment. It is also undeniable that lots of people in Texarkana –by the author’s own admission, a hotbed of crime – had similar psychological profiles and could have been the Phantom also.
So did the Phantom Killer escape justice? It’s hard for me to believe that he just stopped killing, although apparently sometimes serial killers do. My feeling is that he either killed himself or was jailed for another crime. Was the Phantom Killer Youell Swinney? He fits the profile, but we’ll never know.
I learned about the Phantom serial killings after watching Killer Legends, a horror-documentary that examines the origins of various urban legends. The director, Joshua Zeman, also directed Cropsey, a documentary well-worth seeing. The book came to my attention when James Presley, the author of The Phantom Killer, was interviewed in the documentary about the murders.
Here are the basic facts: a person or persons unknown attacked eight young people in the Texarkana area, targeting couples necking in cars in lover’s lanes. He killed five people; three escaped. This was in 1946, decades before Robert Ressler coined the term serial killer. The author does a fine job detailing the investigation, which by today’s standards was shoddy. The lawmakers in question had never dealt with serial killings and focused on motives like robbery or revenge, trying to locate enemies of the couples. This was the wrong approach, as most serial killers do not know their victims.
A man named Youell Swinney was picked up by the police and immediately became the Number One Suspect, for reasons I still don’t quite understand. It seems that one of the investigators came up with the theory that the killer might be using stolen cars, and Swinney was a known car thief who operated in the area. Investigators placed Swinney near the crime scenes on the nights of the murders. However, they had nothing more than circumstantial evidence on him.
Peggy, Swinney’s wife, gave a statement to the effect that her husband was the Phantom, claiming that she witnessed two of the murders, but as his wife Texas law forbade her from testifying against him. From the author’s account, it’s doubtful she would have made a good witness. Eventually, Swinney was convicted as a habitual offender – he had a long list of crimes, ranging from petty theft, burglary and counterfeiting and escalating to assault and car theft – and given a life sentence (Texas had a three strikes and you’re out law). He was released in 1973 and spent the rest of his life in and out of jail.
The first half of The Phantom Killer is by far more interesting. Mr. Presley paints a vivid picture of Texarkana in 1946 and gives us a detailed description of the crime and subsequent investigation, conducted by a number of colorful lawmen. The second half of the book lagged, focusing on Swinney and how investigators attempted and ultimately failed to build a case against him.
The obvious question is whether Swinney was indeed the Phantom. The author is convinced he was. Please note that Mr. Presley’s uncle was a sheriff deeply involved in the Phantom case, so he can hardly be called unbiased. After reading this book, I wasn’t convinced. Lawmakers never had anything more than circumstantial evidence against Swinney, and it seems doubtful a jury would have sent him to the electric chair on that basis. The other question that comes up is whether Swinney had adequate legal representation, which is perhaps of greater interest to legal scholars.
I drew three conclusions from reading The Phantom Killer: 1. Swinney could have been the Phantom; 2. Lawmakers couldn’t prove Swinney was the Phantom; 3. Swinney was sent to prison – fairly or unfairly – for a number of lesser crimes using laws then on the books.
I’m still unsure why Swinney suddenly became the main suspect. To me, it looks like lawmen decided that the killer was also a car thief, which automatically made Swinney – a known car thief – their number one suspect. Strangely, they never had two of the survivors try to pick Swinney out of a lineup, even though one of them said her assailant had a voice she’d never forget.
And then there’s Peggy Swinney’s statement. Actually, statements would be more accurate. Her first account of the night of the double murder is full of inconsistencies. Her revised statement, made months later, is much more coherent, mentioning a number of crucial details she’d omitted in her first account. Amazingly, Ms. Swinney’s memory of the events of that night seemed to become clearer with the passage of time; either that, or she was coached, picking up salient details over the course of multiple interrogations.
The Phantom Killer contains a fair bit of psychobabble about why Swinney was such an unpleasant character. It is undeniable that Swinney was a sociopath, displaying violent and antisocial tendencies. He could have been The Phantom, and the murders ceased after his imprisonment. It is also undeniable that lots of people in Texarkana –by the author’s own admission, a hotbed of crime – had similar psychological profiles and could have been the Phantom also.
So did the Phantom Killer escape justice? It’s hard for me to believe that he just stopped killing, although apparently sometimes serial killers do. My feeling is that he either killed himself or was jailed for another crime. Was the Phantom Killer Youell Swinney? He fits the profile, but we’ll never know.
May 28, 2015
The Phantom Killer- Unlocking the Mystery of the Texarkana Serial Murders: The Story of a Town in Terror by James Presley is a 2015 Pegasus Books LLC publication. I was provided a copy of this book by the publisher in exchange for an honest review.
This case has been the subject of much speculation over the years. Officially, it remains an unsolved mystery, but in this book, James Presley builds a case against the prime suspect which left me feeling, at least in my mind, as though the case was finally solved.
In 1946, the term “serial killer” wasn't on the tips of everyone's tongue like it is today. While there were multiple killings in this case, I'm wondering if “spree killer” might not be a more apt description. Nevertheless, this type of crime was practically unheard of, especially in the small boom town of Texarkana, a city with the unique notoriety of being placed between the borders of both Texas and Arkansas. Yes, there is an Arkansas side and a Texas side. Otherwise, there was nothing especially remarkable about Texarkana, but this case put it “on the map” so to speak.
The first vicious attack on a dark, isolated lover's lane is the stuff horror movie legends are made of. Two young people parking are approached by a gunman wearing a hood or mask and brutally attacked. The couple miraculously survived, but law enforcement had a nearly blasé sort of attitude about the crime. However, when another attack occurs, and this time the victims are murdered, the case took on a whole new dimension and law enforcement sat up and took notice and then... another attack took place.
The first part of the book which outlines details of the crime spree was riveting. It will make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Random shootings and attacks like these, where there doesn't appear to be any kind of personal motive or pattern, is one the most difficult to process and understand and it's hard to pinpoint who is responsible.
The atmosphere in the town of Texarkana was nearly one of mass hysteria and the media wasted no time hyping the story making the situation even more tense.
But, once the book moves past the initial shock of the murders themselves and the author begins to make a case for one particular person who most likely had an accomplice, the pace of the book slows down to crawl. This part is pretty dry reading despite the fact I thought the author had the killer pegged.
The book comes with a set of photographs which give faces to names and lets us know what happened to all the people involved, either as victims or officers in the case.
The book also, of course, reminds us that the movie “The Town that Dreaded Sundown” was loosely based on this crime, and I do mean loosely. The crime, the publicity, the movie and TV true crime shows have all left Texarkana with a bit of notoriety it might not have otherwise and there are people there today who are still attempting to cash in on that fifteen minutes of fame, some of which I found to be in poor taste.
Overall the author did a great job of laying out the crime, the era of time, the aftermath and the investigation. He went into great detail in making his case and had me convinced, without a doubt, that the man he fingered was in fact “The Phantom Killer”. The book is well researched and thought out, and even though the book was a little dull in places, it accomplishes it's goal. I am so glad someone has written a book about this crime and put to rest that awful image people have due to the Hollywood version of events. If you want to know what really happened, read this book. 3.5 rounded to 4
This case has been the subject of much speculation over the years. Officially, it remains an unsolved mystery, but in this book, James Presley builds a case against the prime suspect which left me feeling, at least in my mind, as though the case was finally solved.
In 1946, the term “serial killer” wasn't on the tips of everyone's tongue like it is today. While there were multiple killings in this case, I'm wondering if “spree killer” might not be a more apt description. Nevertheless, this type of crime was practically unheard of, especially in the small boom town of Texarkana, a city with the unique notoriety of being placed between the borders of both Texas and Arkansas. Yes, there is an Arkansas side and a Texas side. Otherwise, there was nothing especially remarkable about Texarkana, but this case put it “on the map” so to speak.
The first vicious attack on a dark, isolated lover's lane is the stuff horror movie legends are made of. Two young people parking are approached by a gunman wearing a hood or mask and brutally attacked. The couple miraculously survived, but law enforcement had a nearly blasé sort of attitude about the crime. However, when another attack occurs, and this time the victims are murdered, the case took on a whole new dimension and law enforcement sat up and took notice and then... another attack took place.
The first part of the book which outlines details of the crime spree was riveting. It will make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Random shootings and attacks like these, where there doesn't appear to be any kind of personal motive or pattern, is one the most difficult to process and understand and it's hard to pinpoint who is responsible.
The atmosphere in the town of Texarkana was nearly one of mass hysteria and the media wasted no time hyping the story making the situation even more tense.
But, once the book moves past the initial shock of the murders themselves and the author begins to make a case for one particular person who most likely had an accomplice, the pace of the book slows down to crawl. This part is pretty dry reading despite the fact I thought the author had the killer pegged.
The book comes with a set of photographs which give faces to names and lets us know what happened to all the people involved, either as victims or officers in the case.
The book also, of course, reminds us that the movie “The Town that Dreaded Sundown” was loosely based on this crime, and I do mean loosely. The crime, the publicity, the movie and TV true crime shows have all left Texarkana with a bit of notoriety it might not have otherwise and there are people there today who are still attempting to cash in on that fifteen minutes of fame, some of which I found to be in poor taste.
Overall the author did a great job of laying out the crime, the era of time, the aftermath and the investigation. He went into great detail in making his case and had me convinced, without a doubt, that the man he fingered was in fact “The Phantom Killer”. The book is well researched and thought out, and even though the book was a little dull in places, it accomplishes it's goal. I am so glad someone has written a book about this crime and put to rest that awful image people have due to the Hollywood version of events. If you want to know what really happened, read this book. 3.5 rounded to 4
January 23, 2015
For those of you who saw the 1970s B movie, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, this is the story of the real murders in Texarkana that inspired the movie. I've always been curious about what happened and was quite excited to see a book released on this topic.
First, let me point out the positive. I thought the book was well done, flowed nicely, and was easy to read. In addition, the author had obviously done his research and answered a lot of questions that were unanswered prior to this book.
However, in my opinion the author did what many people who have never been involved int he legal system do, he put too much faith in what the police did being correct in coming to his assumptions and he gave extra credence to their testimony simply by virtue of them being police officers. In several places he mentions how the statements of an "eyewitness" matched parts of the crime scene that they would have had no way of knowing unless they were there when the crime was committed. In doing so he ignored the idea that the police may have coached the witness in their statements, which is a not uncommon occurrence today much less back in the 1940s when confessions were still being beaten out of suspects (a fact he does acknowledge). In addition, many of the statements given weren't actually from the witness, they were narratives of the police writing up what they had been told by the witness, obviously causing credibility issues with these accounts.
As you get further into the book more and more assumptions are made and resolved in favor of the identification of a killer.
I think Mr. Presley was likely correct in his identification of the person who committed the murders but I would have liked to see more hard facts and less assumptions as to the veracity of the police officers.
Overall I would definitely recommend the book and I enjoyed it immensely but would have liked to have seen it written from a more neutral viewpoint.
First, let me point out the positive. I thought the book was well done, flowed nicely, and was easy to read. In addition, the author had obviously done his research and answered a lot of questions that were unanswered prior to this book.
However, in my opinion the author did what many people who have never been involved int he legal system do, he put too much faith in what the police did being correct in coming to his assumptions and he gave extra credence to their testimony simply by virtue of them being police officers. In several places he mentions how the statements of an "eyewitness" matched parts of the crime scene that they would have had no way of knowing unless they were there when the crime was committed. In doing so he ignored the idea that the police may have coached the witness in their statements, which is a not uncommon occurrence today much less back in the 1940s when confessions were still being beaten out of suspects (a fact he does acknowledge). In addition, many of the statements given weren't actually from the witness, they were narratives of the police writing up what they had been told by the witness, obviously causing credibility issues with these accounts.
As you get further into the book more and more assumptions are made and resolved in favor of the identification of a killer.
I think Mr. Presley was likely correct in his identification of the person who committed the murders but I would have liked to see more hard facts and less assumptions as to the veracity of the police officers.
Overall I would definitely recommend the book and I enjoyed it immensely but would have liked to have seen it written from a more neutral viewpoint.
December 23, 2014
This is a very definitive book on a series of murders that took place in Texarkana in the late 1940s. I can remember the movie that was spawned from this, The Town That Dreaded Sundown, back when I was a youngster. I found from this book that, of course, the movie was really nothing like what happened in real life. Close but no cigar. The first part of this book that details the actual crime reads pretty quickly. However once a suspect is caught the book does bog down a bit. Of course real life criminal investigation and courtroom is nothing like most people perceive it to be. Also interesting to note is that the Sheriff on the Texas side of town at the time of the murders was the authors uncle. A very interesting book that takes a step back in time.
September 4, 2016
As the title suggests, Presley tackles the unsolved murders in Texarkana. These murders have inspired countless speculation as well as two movies.
Presley expertly lays out the history of Texarkana, the murders, the people involved, and the chief suspect. He also has gained access to previously unreleased information, which helps make his book what I suspect will the definitive tome on the subject.
I definitely recommend this book for true crime readers.
Presley expertly lays out the history of Texarkana, the murders, the people involved, and the chief suspect. He also has gained access to previously unreleased information, which helps make his book what I suspect will the definitive tome on the subject.
I definitely recommend this book for true crime readers.
June 3, 2015
Meticulously researched and I think he actually uncovered and put together some interesting and new material but it was presented in such a bland manner that I just couldn't get into it.
February 26, 2017
This is a thoroughly researched account of the Texarkana murders, but it's bogged down by poor editorial choices and a lack of objectivity.
The details of each attack are given in a straightforward, smoothly written style. Unfortunately, the rest of the book doesn't keep that clarity of focus. Passages meant to contextualize the murders often lead to tedious asides or clumsy foreshadowing, and the author repeats things quite a bit. One of the final chapters is a twenty-page summary that takes us back through facts and theories that we'd already been presented with, which reads like somebody bound a book report up with the actual book.
Another of the book's weaknesses may be partly caused by the author's Texarkana roots, including the fact that his uncle was a sheriff who investigated these killings. While he does criticize the way that the early crime scenes and evidence were handled, he shows complete faith in law enforcement accounts once they settle on Youell Swinney as a suspect. When discussing the shifting statements of Swinney's wife, the author flat-out says, "Every time she spoke, she seemed to edge closer to the kind of eyewitness evidence the officers sought." But he never follows that thought through to the possibility that someone may have been coaching her.
My biggest issue is probably with the book's armchair psychoanalysis. The author explores an unconvincing system of examining every little word in a witness statement for traces of dishonesty, and he also spends an awkward amount of time theorizing about Swinney's sexuality and motives. (That iffy subject also kept reminding me of the author's questionable word choice when referring to the assault of the first female victim.)
The book does present some very good evidence that Youell Swinney was the Texarkana Phantom. But the author's case would have been far stronger if he'd stuck closer to the proven facts and had admitted that one key witness may have been influenced by investigators.
The details of each attack are given in a straightforward, smoothly written style. Unfortunately, the rest of the book doesn't keep that clarity of focus. Passages meant to contextualize the murders often lead to tedious asides or clumsy foreshadowing, and the author repeats things quite a bit. One of the final chapters is a twenty-page summary that takes us back through facts and theories that we'd already been presented with, which reads like somebody bound a book report up with the actual book.
Another of the book's weaknesses may be partly caused by the author's Texarkana roots, including the fact that his uncle was a sheriff who investigated these killings. While he does criticize the way that the early crime scenes and evidence were handled, he shows complete faith in law enforcement accounts once they settle on Youell Swinney as a suspect. When discussing the shifting statements of Swinney's wife, the author flat-out says, "Every time she spoke, she seemed to edge closer to the kind of eyewitness evidence the officers sought." But he never follows that thought through to the possibility that someone may have been coaching her.
My biggest issue is probably with the book's armchair psychoanalysis. The author explores an unconvincing system of examining every little word in a witness statement for traces of dishonesty, and he also spends an awkward amount of time theorizing about Swinney's sexuality and motives. (That iffy subject also kept reminding me of the author's questionable word choice when referring to the assault of the first female victim.)
The book does present some very good evidence that Youell Swinney was the Texarkana Phantom. But the author's case would have been far stronger if he'd stuck closer to the proven facts and had admitted that one key witness may have been influenced by investigators.
August 26, 2018
For a case that's so old, creepy, and slightly fascinating telling of post-war America, the author of this book really made this book....boring. The author felt the need to go in depth on certain areas that I didn't feel like needed in depth analysis. Also, the author didn't need to say "according to the Census of..." when describing the people involved in the case, please just tell us about the person. Yes, most people know that the Census is taken every ten years in essentially count the people in the US (I think it's more complicated than that, but that's the basic idea), so the author could've just written something like "this person grew up in this place and then moved here in this year." I'm not a professional writer, all I know is that there are clearer ways to write things that don't make the writing sound clunky.
Anyway, the city of Texarkana saddles two states, Texas and Arkansas, so it's more like a twin city. In 1946, a serial killer was running around town killing couple, or people he believed to be couples. The victims tended to be young, two of the victims were in high school at the time and two victims were shot at through the window of their house (the wife in that situation survived the attack). The newspapers at the time began calling the guy "The Phantom Killer." The author goes into a major suspect, who seems to be the only suspect in the case, a man named Swiney. But the police relied on the testimony of his wife, who didn't seem to be very reliable in my opinion.
Anyway, the city of Texarkana saddles two states, Texas and Arkansas, so it's more like a twin city. In 1946, a serial killer was running around town killing couple, or people he believed to be couples. The victims tended to be young, two of the victims were in high school at the time and two victims were shot at through the window of their house (the wife in that situation survived the attack). The newspapers at the time began calling the guy "The Phantom Killer." The author goes into a major suspect, who seems to be the only suspect in the case, a man named Swiney. But the police relied on the testimony of his wife, who didn't seem to be very reliable in my opinion.
May 25, 2018
The salacious and scandalous murders of a series of couples on Texarkana's "lovers lanes" in seemingly idyllic post-WWII America created a media maelstrom and cast a pall of fear over an entire region. What is even more surprising is that the case has remained cold for decades. Combining archival research and investigative journalism, Pulitzer Prize nominated historian James Presley reveals evidence that provides crucial keys to unlocking this decades-old puzzle.
Dubbed "the Phantom murders" by the press, these grisly crimes took place in an America before dial telephones, DNA science, and criminal profiling. Even pre-television, print and radio media stirred emotions to a fever pitch. The Phantom Killer, exhaustively researched, is the only definitive nonfiction book on the case, and includes details from an unpublished account by a survivor, and rare, never-before-published photographs.
Although the case lives on today on television, the Internet, a revived fictional movie and even an off-Broadway play, with so much of the investigation shrouded in mystery since 1946, rumors and fractured facts have distorted the reality. Now, for the first time, a careful examination of the archival record, personal interviews, and stubborn fact checking come together to produce new insights and revelations on the old slayings.
Dubbed "the Phantom murders" by the press, these grisly crimes took place in an America before dial telephones, DNA science, and criminal profiling. Even pre-television, print and radio media stirred emotions to a fever pitch. The Phantom Killer, exhaustively researched, is the only definitive nonfiction book on the case, and includes details from an unpublished account by a survivor, and rare, never-before-published photographs.
Although the case lives on today on television, the Internet, a revived fictional movie and even an off-Broadway play, with so much of the investigation shrouded in mystery since 1946, rumors and fractured facts have distorted the reality. Now, for the first time, a careful examination of the archival record, personal interviews, and stubborn fact checking come together to produce new insights and revelations on the old slayings.
April 29, 2022
This is why I love good historical true crime. If you aren’t from Texarkana, Texas then you’ve probably never heard of the Phantom Killer. The city was so scared of this guy that gun stores ran out of weapons to sell. In Texas. We all realize how amazing a statement that is, right?
The killer focused on couples not unlike the Son of Sam would later on. He was amazingly adept at not leaving much of a trace at crimes scenes and his reign of terror only lasted about 3 months. Presley does a great job here making the dread build as the crimes continue. He also makes you feel the terror as people huddled in their houses hoping not to become the next victims.
I’d be remiss not to point out that Presley also presents a crime scene in an incredibly detailed manner. This all happened in 1946 but Presley pieces together the facts to create a great visual of each crime scene through his prose.
The killer focused on couples not unlike the Son of Sam would later on. He was amazingly adept at not leaving much of a trace at crimes scenes and his reign of terror only lasted about 3 months. Presley does a great job here making the dread build as the crimes continue. He also makes you feel the terror as people huddled in their houses hoping not to become the next victims.
I’d be remiss not to point out that Presley also presents a crime scene in an incredibly detailed manner. This all happened in 1946 but Presley pieces together the facts to create a great visual of each crime scene through his prose.
October 3, 2022
The mystery surrounding the phantom killer has fascinated me since I saw the 1970's film "The Town that Dreaded Sundown". Back when I was in college about 20 + years ago I remember printing tons of pages out about the slayings and I had this idea that one day I might write the definitive work on the subject. Well, time and other interests got in the way and James Presley has done what I was going to do and that is write the definitive treatise on the subject.
While I enjoyed the subject, the book did drag at points. I found myself, especially towards the end just waiting for it wrap up. I don't know if that's the fault of the author or that I just ran out of interest. Either way, the last quarter of the book was a tad boring in my opinion.
I will keep the book as a reference but I don't think I will re-read it.
While I enjoyed the subject, the book did drag at points. I found myself, especially towards the end just waiting for it wrap up. I don't know if that's the fault of the author or that I just ran out of interest. Either way, the last quarter of the book was a tad boring in my opinion.
I will keep the book as a reference but I don't think I will re-read it.
November 15, 2025
While not perfect, this book is excellent and deserves to be a best seller. Cheers to Dr. Presley, and all the wonderful historians, like this author. Definitely one of the most compelling and thorough crime books I have read. I do wish there would have been some update into the killer’s accomplice, but it’s possible that she wasn’t found and therefore not available for further research. I am already haunted by the incidents and people documented here. This book pays tribute to the Phantom Killer’s many victims, some murdered, others not, whose traumas and hurts continue to ripple out even now. I am also very spooked after reading it and note that this is no dry history, but written as well as any good story. The courtroom drama at the end, which really took place, had my heart pounding because the stakes were so high.
December 9, 2022
I had family near Texarkana at the time so this one always creeped me out and I saw The Town That Dreaded Sundown way too young. So, I was primed to enjoy the book and the author did a good job distinguishing legend from fact. He certainly did his research and appeared to have run down a lot of leads and alternate perspectives.
The second half of the book slows down conspicuously as he focused in on the life of who he thinks of as the prime suspect. This is fine, but the author seems very committed to one reading of the evidence with that person responsible, to the point where it strains credibility at points. Even so, it’s a very interesting read and you do walk away feeling like you know the town and how it changes over time.
The second half of the book slows down conspicuously as he focused in on the life of who he thinks of as the prime suspect. This is fine, but the author seems very committed to one reading of the evidence with that person responsible, to the point where it strains credibility at points. Even so, it’s a very interesting read and you do walk away feeling like you know the town and how it changes over time.
December 14, 2023
The first half of the book was an interesting account of the Phantom killings in Texarkana. The second half has Presley laying out his case that Youell Swinney was the killer. The evidence is hardly compelling. Police incompetence meant there was little hard evidence. The case against Swinney largely consisted of his wife telling police he was the killer. Presley went into her testimony exhaustively including trying to show how her inconsistencies proved she was telling the truth. I think it's far more likely the police guided her testimony (inadvertently or not) because they were desperate to pin the case on someone. Swinney is a reasonable suspect, but it's hardly the slam dunk case Presley makes it out to be.
December 17, 2024
True crime is always interesting, always a bit much, always fine but not fantastic. This event in particular is considered with a depth that I can't find in other sources on the topic, which tend to lean towards the folkloric rather than factual. Youell Sweeny is a more interesting subject than what his role in the lore would suggest, but he's also an unremarkable person who fell through the cracks of a system aimed at preserving comfort for the affluent. He isn't as much a victim as the Phantom's targets, perhaps, but his story is all too common and almost more tragic. Whether he was guilty or not is irrelevant next to the fact that our society is too dismissive of the lower classes.
June 11, 2017
Very well done, but I'm not sure I agree with Presley's cut and dried solution. The evidence against Youell Swinney is compelling, and he may have been the Phantom. The other potential suspect, HB Tennison, barely got a mention. I would rather have seen some discussion on that possibility versus the chapters on Swinney's court cases. And what happened to Peggy Swinney after the divorce? Did she have any more to add once Swinney was put away?
Alas, the "Moonlight Murders" continue to baffle. Just don't watch that awful second movie they made in 2014.
Alas, the "Moonlight Murders" continue to baffle. Just don't watch that awful second movie they made in 2014.
July 1, 2017
I really wanted to like this book. The facts should have made for an engrossing read, but the writing left so much to be desired. The author may be an accomplished journalist, but unfortunately that was not apparent by the tedious pace of this book. Maybe including minutia in a newspaper article adds something, but not in a 300+ page book. It was just filled with irrelevant facts and asides that made reading it a tiresome chore. I do not recommend anyone wasting money on this. Better to get the story on Wikipedia or Google
May 23, 2024
A meticulously written book tracing the crimes of the 1946 Texarkana Moonlight Murders, a forgotten unsolved mystery that would inspire the 1976 horror movie “The Town that Dreaded Sundown”
This is the DEFINITIVE book that covers the victims, the killer, the police investigation, the suspects and gives a fair but not outright answer on who was most likely responsible for the horrific killings on lovers lane.
This is the DEFINITIVE book that covers the victims, the killer, the police investigation, the suspects and gives a fair but not outright answer on who was most likely responsible for the horrific killings on lovers lane.
December 9, 2025
Comprehensive but fairly dry rundown of the details surrounding the unsolved Phantom Killer murders. While it's generally accepted that Youell Swinney was the killer (and for good reason, his wife implicated him but was too afraid to testify against him), charges were never brought in the case. In the end, thanks to other charges, he kept himself in prison long enough to reach an age where it was unlikely he would kill again. Not a bad book, just a bit on the boring side.
January 18, 2021
I thought it was well researched and written. Richard Griffin, one of the victims, was my Grandfather’s first cousin and grew up on the farm next to his. I knew very little about the case or it’s impact on my family. I never heard my cousin Welborn, Richard’s brother, speak of the case. Reading his interview gave very good insight into how it affected the family. I thoroughly enjoyed this book.
January 30, 2022
The book started as an interesting read and you wanted to keep reading but when it gets to chapter 10 it just becomes tedious. Chapters devoted to the potential suspect could have been written in a way without the repetitive details. The book was well researched but it did not required 26 chapters to tell the story.
March 11, 2022
Having just watched "The Town That Dreaded Sundown" (1976), I became interest in reading about the incident that led to this movie.
The book is informative and interesting. It was kind of long in the tooth in sections. Some of the information in the book seemed to be repeated several times. If you are interested in "who-dunnit" type books, this is worth it.
The book is informative and interesting. It was kind of long in the tooth in sections. Some of the information in the book seemed to be repeated several times. If you are interested in "who-dunnit" type books, this is worth it.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews