I dole out 2.5 stars as I wander into the wrong town.
It’s a case of me wandering into the wrong town; now THAT’S the true crime. But really, what is this fiction broad doing in true crime? The author helps solve tough cases by using social media. Interesting idea—but a whole book about how he came to do this? And then a how-to for others? I don’t think so. I went from bored to furious.
I knew it, I knew it, I knew it!! I should have stayed in my own lane, continued reading exciting, made-up stories. I guess I was expecting something different. I had read a couple of positive reviews from friends, and I thought, hm, the psychology of the criminal fascinates me, so I’ll check it out. Like the rest of the world, I shiver when I think of The Boston Strangler, Son of Sam, Charlie Manson, and I read a lot about them—ha, especially when my mom clipped every Boston Strangler article ever written and sent them to me when I moved to Boston at age 18! (Please explain to me why she would do that—by reading them, I would ward off murder?)
The book is a memoir (or a report) by a man who has made it his life work to solve murders and, to a lesser extent, find missing people. What’s unique about him is that he has figured out how to get tips through social media. He was involved in other new ideas about how the Internet can help solve crimes, like using familial DNA to track criminals. He has solved a couple of murders, no small feat.
Joy Jar
-Jensen is a good guy who is passionate about catching the bad guys. Persistence is his middle name. That he cares so much and works so hard at it earns him many gold stars.
-He kept gore out of it. This was much appreciated. He didn’t get off on shocking us with all the gross details of crimes. There were a few mentions of the bizarre things a sicko had done, like burying a body in cat litter, but he didn’t dwell on them.
-The teensy blob of story about the author’s father’s edgy past, and the father-son relationship, was the best part of the book.
-The few statistics were interesting. For example, I can’t fathom that there are 5,000 unsolved crimes a year in America!!
-It was interesting to hear about how you can target areas, genders, age groups, etc., when you’re trying to reach strangers on Facebook.
Complaint Board
That’s not what I THOUGHT I was going to hear…. When am I going to figure out how to ditch those expectations? I thought I would hear the author’s take on the twisted minds of the sickos who commit heinous murders. I wanted psychology! And I guess I expected the author to zero in on one or two crimes. Nope, that wasn’t what the book was about.
Don’t tell me about crimes that still aren’t solved. The author gave many (too many) details about what he did to try to solve particular crimes, only to conclude by saying he never solved most of them. That got obnoxious, frustrating, and disappointing real fast-like. I realized early on that I’m only interested in hearing a detailed report of all the steps you went through to solve a crime, IF, in fact, you DID solve the crime. Why do I want to know about what didn’t work?? I think it’s natural to want closure—that’s true in fiction, of course, but also when you’re talking about true crime. “Yeah, we did this and this and we even did this, but no, we didn’t solve the crime. Sorry to say the bandito is still out there. We’re back at square 1.” It’s like telling me you lost your keys, then described in excruciating detail all the nooks and crannies where you searched for them, only to end with “I never did find the damn keys.” I wanted you, needed you, to find the keys; the story of the search isn’t interesting unless there is success at the end. I know cold cases fascinate people, and they sort of fascinated me, too—until I read this book!
Oh, I was so bored. I mean really bored—for the first 90 percent of the book, in fact. I dreaded picking the book up. The author presented a jumbled report about a few crimes that he tried to solve, going on and on, spewing out details of his methods and perseverance. It was pretty show-offy. I’m sorry, yawn city. I didn’t need to know about what day he met with other crimefighters, and details of the conversations they had. I wanted lively, I got droning. Many journalists are good storytellers; this author is not. He jumped around, going back and forth between crimes, and his language was dull and repetitive. Because of the sort of staccato, scattered monotone, I didn’t end up truly feeling enough for the victims. The purpose of the book, I realize, wasn’t to talk much about the victims, but instead, to outline how the author went about trying to solve crimes. He name-dropped crimes (and solvers) that I was unfamiliar with, and this was annoying. I’m sure people who follow true crimes and crime-fighters loved it.
The last 10 percent made me see red. So I was bored for 90 percent, but the last 10 percent made me furious. It was a how-to for jo-schmos who want to solve crimes themselves. Before you attack, let me just say that I KNOW that there’s a whole group of people who want to be amateur sleuths (they’re all part of a club, and they are avid listeners to the author’s podcasts and his crime-solving efforts). I think it’s cool that the public can occasionally help solve a crime. I know some people found the last section fascinating and useful. I, on the other hand, felt like I been plopped down into at a UFO convention and I didn’t fit in--and I wasn’t going to report any sightings because I wasn’t “onboard.” Here’s the deal: The author uses social media to track down the bad guys. He is a smart, passionate, responsible man who wants everyone to share his hobby of catching the bad guys. But not everyone is like him. The last 10 percent of the book is a detailed DIY instruction manual.
Okay, deep breath. I don’t think untrained citizens should try to be detectives, period. First, it’s dangerous! There are trained, experienced, paid detectives who do this job. One of the things you’re supposed to do is buy space on Facebook or other social media, targeting certain demographics, so you can circulate pictures of the criminal you’re trying to catch. Then you wait for tips to come in. The author gives you a couple of no-no’s so you’ll be safe from crazy criminals trying to find you, but I think it’s irresponsible of the author to lead people down this road. Some people aren’t going to remember or want to adhere to the “what not to do’s,” and they may end up being stalked or even dead. The author tells one story about an amateur sleuth with a day job as a doctor who got herself killed by a gang in Mexico she was investigating. And sometimes these zealous hobbyists ruin the lives of innocent people: once they post a photo of a suspect, the suspect’s reputation is toast even if they didn’t do the crime. In these Internet days, when stories and pictures are eternal, it’s hugely bad to point a finger at an innocent person.
Second, you better be a rich person with no job if you want to be an amateur sleuth. So it’s not true that “even you can find bad guys” because you may be too poor to do so. The author explains that you have to buy space on Facebook (or other social media) so you can send out pictures of potential criminals. The more money you throw into it, the more people you can reach. Yeah, I have hundreds of dollars to throw around so I can maybe help solve a crime. And about the time required—he says it’s a 24/7 job. Really? This comment assumes that no one has a day job! Wouldn’t it be nice if we had the time and luxury to have a selfless, virtuous, and applaudable volunteer job as a crime fighter?
One final nit about that last, maddening 10 percent: The author, in his earnest thoroughness, even tells you the location of icons you need to click on the Facebook interface. We all know what it’s like when web builders decide to redo the site, moving buttons randomly left to right and taking away features and whole menus. (I go on a cussing jag and fantasize sending letters telling “them” a thing or two.) It happens all the time. I used to edit and write online Help, and believe me, I was horrified when the interface was radically redesigned after I carefully described which button to click and where. No fun. So back to this book—the instructions the author outlined won’t apply (and will surely frustrate people) whenever a new designer decides to impress their boss and change the look of the site. The author should not have gone into that much detail; the information will become obsolete.
Okay, I’ll stop my rant. As I said, I know the author’s heart is in the right place, and solving crimes is laudable. People who love true crime will love this book. It just wasn’t for me.
Thanks to NetGalley for the advance copy.