If Ann rule wants a simple story of right and wrong, then she should pick a simple story in which there is clearly a victim and clearly an evil person and there is no overlap. If she chooses to pick a more complex case, like this case, then she should have enough respect for the intelligence and analytical thinking skills of her readers to represent the details of the complex case as such. Rule chooses murder cases that I am interested in. Despite the fact that she is a profoundly terrible writer (very similar to Jerry Bledsoe), I keep coming back for more. That just goes to show you that you don't have to be a great writer to rake in the bucks. You simply have to provide the reader with an addicting, even if poorly told, story. Without exception, Rules is more interested in right and wrong dichotomies than she is in analyzing complexities of human nature. It's almost as if her need for justice and punishment turns off the critical thinking parts of her brain, making everything black and white-- when it's not. I want Josh Greene to study people like her.
There is no excuse for killing the mother of his children. There is no doubt that the murderer in the book is just that, a horrible murderer who doesn't deserve the sympathy he pandered for. Should we hate him? Sure, go right ahead. i could not help but hate him while reading this story. I am so thankful I never married someone who killed me and ruined the lives of the children we brought into this world. At the same time, this divorce was ugly. The wife did not deserve to die for her very deliberate part in making things contentious, but that doesn't mean that just because she is dead, she was perfect while a live. She was a human being. She had good qualities and bad. Both her children, who no longer speak to their father and are absolutely devastated by the murder of their mother, have said that she lied about the sexual abuse allegations made against their father. ( I had to look all of this up using outside sources since Rule cannot be counted on to present *all* the facts). The mother wanted the kids and did everything she could to make up lies about the father and then use those lies to threaten him and forcefully take his children from him, even though they very much wanted to see him. He too lied about her abusing the girls (even though there is evidence that both she and their step father were very hard handed-- just not quite *as* hard handed as the father had alleged. If I were her, I too might have wanted to keep my kids away from him. After all, he did murder her in the end. The point is, there was so much complexity that Ann Rule refused to acknowledge. Every time the wife hurt the children, lied about sexual abuse, or did anything else that was *clearly* wrong, Rule justified it. It was never the wife's fault. So stupid. She can be at fault for doing some of the stupid things that human beings do from time to time and still not be at fault for being murdered. Rule should do a better job of representing the whole picture.