What do you think?
Rate this book
A Deadly Game: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation – The #1 NYT Bestseller: A Disturbing Portrait of a Sociopathic Killer
In this #1 New York Times bestseller, Catherine Crier, a former judge and one of television's most popular legal analysts, offers a riveting and authoritative account of one of the most memorable crime dramas of our time: the murder of Laci Peterson at the hands of her husband, Scott, on Christmas Eve 2002. Drawing on extensive interviews with key witnesses and lead investigators, as well as secret evidence files that never made it to trial, Crier traces Scott's bizarre behavior; shares dozens of transcripts of Scott's chilling and incriminating phone conversations; offers accounts of Scott's womanizing from two former mistresses before Amber Frey; and includes scores of never-before-seen police photos, documents, and other evidence.
The result is thoroughly engrossing yet highly disturbing -- an unforgettable portrait of a charming, yet deeply sociopathic, killer.
The result is thoroughly engrossing yet highly disturbing -- an unforgettable portrait of a charming, yet deeply sociopathic, killer.
512 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2005
297 people are currently reading
2852 people want to read
About the author
Catherine Crier
10 books96 followersAn Emmy and duPont-Columbia Award-winning journalist, and the youngest state judge to ever be elected in Texas, Catherine Crier is now a managing partner in Cajole Entertainment developing television, film and documentary projects.
A Dallas native, Crier earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and international affairs from the University of Texas and her Juris Doctor from Southern Methodist University School of Law. She began her career in law in 1978 as an Assistant District Attorney then Felony Chief Prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. From 1982 to 1984, Crier was a civil litigation attorney with Riddle & Brown, handling complex business and corporate matters. In 1984, she was elected to the 162nd District Court in Dallas County, Texas as a State District Judge. During her tenure on the bench, Crier also served as Administrative Judge for the Civil District Courts and worked extensively with the ABA, National Judicial College, and Texas Legislature on legal issues. Shortly after her reelection to a second term on the bench, a chance meeting with a television news executive led to a dramatic career change.
In September, 1989, Crier was hired to co-anchor the premiere evening newscast on CNN. Additionally, she co-anchored Inside Politics, all election coverage, and hosted Crier & Company, a talk show covering news, politics and international issues.
Crier joined ABC News in 1993, where she served as a correspondent and as a regular substitute anchor for Peter Jennings on ABC’s World News Tonight, as well as a substitute host for Ted Koppel’s Nightline. She also worked as a correspondent on 20/20, the network’s primetime news magazine program. Crier was awarded a 1996 Emmy for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her work on the segment “The Predators” which examined nursing home abuses throughout the United States.
In October of ’96, Crier became one of the founding television anchors for the Fox News Channel, with her prime time program, The Crier Report, a live, hour-long nightly show, during which she interviewed the leading newsmakers of the day. Additionally, she co-anchored the evening news, election coverage and Fox Files, a magazine news show aired on the parent network.
Catherine joined Court TV’s distinguished team of anchors in November 1999. She served as Executive Editor, Legal News Specials, in addition to hosting Catherine Crier Live, a fast-paced, live daily series, covering the day’s “front-page” stories, until joining Cajole Entertainment in 2007.
Crier released her first book, the NYTimes bestseller, The Case Against Lawyers in October, 2002. Her second book, A Deadly Game: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation became a #1 NYTimes bestseller and was followed by Contempt—How the Right is Wronging American Justice, and Final Analysis: The Untold Story of the Susan Polk Murder Case. Her fifth book, Patriot Acts—What Americans Must Do to Save the Republic, is scheduled for publication on November 1, 2011.
A Dallas native, Crier earned her Bachelor of Arts degree in political science and international affairs from the University of Texas and her Juris Doctor from Southern Methodist University School of Law. She began her career in law in 1978 as an Assistant District Attorney then Felony Chief Prosecutor for the Dallas County District Attorney’s office. From 1982 to 1984, Crier was a civil litigation attorney with Riddle & Brown, handling complex business and corporate matters. In 1984, she was elected to the 162nd District Court in Dallas County, Texas as a State District Judge. During her tenure on the bench, Crier also served as Administrative Judge for the Civil District Courts and worked extensively with the ABA, National Judicial College, and Texas Legislature on legal issues. Shortly after her reelection to a second term on the bench, a chance meeting with a television news executive led to a dramatic career change.
In September, 1989, Crier was hired to co-anchor the premiere evening newscast on CNN. Additionally, she co-anchored Inside Politics, all election coverage, and hosted Crier & Company, a talk show covering news, politics and international issues.
Crier joined ABC News in 1993, where she served as a correspondent and as a regular substitute anchor for Peter Jennings on ABC’s World News Tonight, as well as a substitute host for Ted Koppel’s Nightline. She also worked as a correspondent on 20/20, the network’s primetime news magazine program. Crier was awarded a 1996 Emmy for Outstanding Investigative Journalism for her work on the segment “The Predators” which examined nursing home abuses throughout the United States.
In October of ’96, Crier became one of the founding television anchors for the Fox News Channel, with her prime time program, The Crier Report, a live, hour-long nightly show, during which she interviewed the leading newsmakers of the day. Additionally, she co-anchored the evening news, election coverage and Fox Files, a magazine news show aired on the parent network.
Catherine joined Court TV’s distinguished team of anchors in November 1999. She served as Executive Editor, Legal News Specials, in addition to hosting Catherine Crier Live, a fast-paced, live daily series, covering the day’s “front-page” stories, until joining Cajole Entertainment in 2007.
Crier released her first book, the NYTimes bestseller, The Case Against Lawyers in October, 2002. Her second book, A Deadly Game: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation became a #1 NYTimes bestseller and was followed by Contempt—How the Right is Wronging American Justice, and Final Analysis: The Untold Story of the Susan Polk Murder Case. Her fifth book, Patriot Acts—What Americans Must Do to Save the Republic, is scheduled for publication on November 1, 2011.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 216 reviews
November 21, 2014
The Epub Edition © SEPTEMBER 2012 ISBN:9780060849634 that I've just finished was an absolute disgrace! The errors were so numerous it was almost unreadable.
There were incorrect words, missing words, letters missing from words, spelling errors and full stops (periods) inserted randomly in the middle of sentences.
An incorrect date was given for Scott being at a July 4th pool party when he had been arrested and held without bail since April.
In one instance, one of Scott Peterson's earlier paramour's surname was given as Isle instead of Use.
In the last one third of the book, Laci's name was given as LCI, 55 times! FFS, the poor girl's dead and they can't even get her name right.
I thought the author was biased and overly fond of putting her two cents worth in about what Scott's words, thoughts and actions may have meant, would seem to mean, in all probability meant. I'd rather she had stuck to the facts and let me form my own conclusions.
The book made me really angry, but the case itself was engrossing and, with the help of Google and Wiki, I got through it.
August 9, 2019
I picked this up after reading Anne Bird's memoir, as I wanted a much meatier, fact-based account of the Laci Peterson murder. This book delivered.
It's a dense, but engaging read. I was able to power through 10-15% of it a day, and was hanging on every bit of it (even if it felt like a slow read, for me, it was because it was a lot to process). The format is smart: Crier moves chronologically through Laci's disappearance/murder all the way through the trial and sentencing, with the exception of some background/key information in the very beginning that is delivered off the timeline. It's effective. Those key things were planted in my mind, and then being walked through everything day-by-day I was able to clearly see the threads of everything. I mean, the man is guilty as shit. And a sociopath.
If you're fascinated by the Laci Peterson murder/Scott Peterson, especially if you're coming off the Very Bad A&E documentary as I was, this book is the perfect read. It refutes most of the ridiculous "alternate theories" presented in that documentary, as well as shows you the critical side of the whole thing the documentary skimmed: the Rocha family. It rightfully highlights their grief and feelings, while showcasing the extreme callousness of the Petersons. I found the whole A&E documentary disgusting with how heavily it favored their family, as well as Scott's defense team and other people (all men! ALL MEN!) who offered up bullshit excuses for Scott's misogynist and sociopathic behavior. Really, it's a great portrait of a charming, incognito sociopath.
One note for the current ebook version: it is lousy with typos. Really bad throughout, but specially toward the end. At about the 65% mark it switched to referring to Laci as LCI and never stopped. Clearly a case of an older title being converted sloppily/lazily to ebook and never properly typeset or corrected. Really a shame, given this is a Big 5 publisher! Wish they'd fix it, but it's probably not worth their time/money now. Womp.
It's a dense, but engaging read. I was able to power through 10-15% of it a day, and was hanging on every bit of it (even if it felt like a slow read, for me, it was because it was a lot to process). The format is smart: Crier moves chronologically through Laci's disappearance/murder all the way through the trial and sentencing, with the exception of some background/key information in the very beginning that is delivered off the timeline. It's effective. Those key things were planted in my mind, and then being walked through everything day-by-day I was able to clearly see the threads of everything. I mean, the man is guilty as shit. And a sociopath.
If you're fascinated by the Laci Peterson murder/Scott Peterson, especially if you're coming off the Very Bad A&E documentary as I was, this book is the perfect read. It refutes most of the ridiculous "alternate theories" presented in that documentary, as well as shows you the critical side of the whole thing the documentary skimmed: the Rocha family. It rightfully highlights their grief and feelings, while showcasing the extreme callousness of the Petersons. I found the whole A&E documentary disgusting with how heavily it favored their family, as well as Scott's defense team and other people (all men! ALL MEN!) who offered up bullshit excuses for Scott's misogynist and sociopathic behavior. Really, it's a great portrait of a charming, incognito sociopath.
One note for the current ebook version: it is lousy with typos. Really bad throughout, but specially toward the end. At about the 65% mark it switched to referring to Laci as LCI and never stopped. Clearly a case of an older title being converted sloppily/lazily to ebook and never properly typeset or corrected. Really a shame, given this is a Big 5 publisher! Wish they'd fix it, but it's probably not worth their time/money now. Womp.
May 25, 2020
This review is focused solely on this book as a work and not the tragic case. I am not a lawyer, an invested party, or a juror.
The big problem with this kind of know-all, tell-all commercial book is that it does not cite sources. Even when an author mentions a source in passing, it's a declaration that often can't be confirmed by anyone. Reconstructing a narrative of a crime is a tedious process that can't be told in a book unless you already know the events have all been factually confirmed. Without that confirmation, which we don't have here, a reader is just taking an author at their word, a corporate-sponsored author who is going to profit immensely in most cases. Profit, bias, error, interpretation, emotion, exaggeration, and non credible theories hover over books like this like a dark cloud.
The worst part, which is why I have to rate this particular book so low, is the danger in so many people believing every word of it. They read the narrative and really think it's exactly the way everything happened. The narrative is in third person and the author's personal voice is removed to give a neutral appearance. The "findings" are presented with such confidence and authority that they must be factual. Yet when you look at a statement about a spot on Peterson's jeans, or any point of insignificant or coincidental event, none of these are explained or proven on the spot or even later in the book. Crier drops over a hundred breadcrumbs throughout the book and never returns to these hints with evidence. Something someone said twenty years ago is hearsay; as a lawyer she knows that, yet this book relies on hearsay that can't be corroborated by a court of law, much less a reader in their living room. This book is journalism run amuck.
It seems Catherine Crier was just trying to cash in on a tragedy. Her bio states that she's "An Emmy and duPont-Columbia Award-winning journalist" yet there are logic fallacies throughout this book (I can live with the typos some have complained about). Crier either knows readers aren't going to catch her in these flawed emotionally-fired points OR she's just lost touch with what logical evidence is supposed to be. It's difficult to comprehend how or when someone who passed the LSAT, went through law school, passed the bar, and tried successful cases somehow loses a grip on logic. My only explanation is they do so on purpose for profit or they get so enraptured in the world of entertainment (now her actual line of work). I find it interesting that she wrote a previous book about right wing politics affecting justice, when the right rode this Peterson case all the way home with a Iraq war distraction and a right to life fetus law. It's even more disturbing that Crier wrote a later book about the media and the impact it has on justice, when the media completely and dangerously controlled the narrative of the Peterson case. It seems Crier is willing to profit off of all of the heads as they eat each other.
But enough about her. I wouldn't have gone on so long about an author if there weren't serious issues in this book. The book claims it uses evidence right from unseen files, yet so many of the points were recycled from other opinion sources out there. There were a few new pictures I haven't seen, but that's about it. Crier consistently relies on hearsay in this book. The emotional "sense" and absolute confidence that Nancy Grace expressed night after night about this case is what you get here repackaged with a focus on the weirdest possible details that might lead you to "believe" someone is guilty.
On page three the author writes: "Sharon knew it was unlikely that Laci had taken a walk." What conclusions do you draw from a declarative sentence like this? That Sharon must have said this somewhere and really believed it? But even if Sharon really said this and believed her daughter would not have gone for a walk, that does nothing to establish facts. The statement only leads a reader into thinking because this author says her mother didn't think it was likely Laci had taken a walk, then she must not have taken a walk and something is wrong with the possibility that others say she took a walk, insinuating that there is a cover up conspiracy. But the facts show Laci had indeed walked their dog throughout the month of December, that very week, and was even spotted that day by various witnesses. The book leads the reader through these kinds of unproven, even completely false declarations string after string.
Take the entire prologue, which focuses on the wild story about Scott Peter's girlfriend walking in on Scott and Laci in bed. There is no way to verify this explosive story hook that lures readers in, yet it is the opening to the book that shocks the reader into an automatic distrust of Scott, but it really disqualifies the author from having any objectivity. At one point later in the book, Crier points to how Scott punched his father in the stomach at four years old. Okay? That's it? A toddler had a fit once? This book is silly time and makes a mockery out of readers. Profit, bias, error, interpretation, emotion, exaggeration, and non credible theories make for great books to read, but they damage our sense of justice and truth.
Reviewer's Note: I'm investigating this case objectively and so far all of the books I've read, including this one, just don't hold up to scientific inquiry and legal logic.
The big problem with this kind of know-all, tell-all commercial book is that it does not cite sources. Even when an author mentions a source in passing, it's a declaration that often can't be confirmed by anyone. Reconstructing a narrative of a crime is a tedious process that can't be told in a book unless you already know the events have all been factually confirmed. Without that confirmation, which we don't have here, a reader is just taking an author at their word, a corporate-sponsored author who is going to profit immensely in most cases. Profit, bias, error, interpretation, emotion, exaggeration, and non credible theories hover over books like this like a dark cloud.
The worst part, which is why I have to rate this particular book so low, is the danger in so many people believing every word of it. They read the narrative and really think it's exactly the way everything happened. The narrative is in third person and the author's personal voice is removed to give a neutral appearance. The "findings" are presented with such confidence and authority that they must be factual. Yet when you look at a statement about a spot on Peterson's jeans, or any point of insignificant or coincidental event, none of these are explained or proven on the spot or even later in the book. Crier drops over a hundred breadcrumbs throughout the book and never returns to these hints with evidence. Something someone said twenty years ago is hearsay; as a lawyer she knows that, yet this book relies on hearsay that can't be corroborated by a court of law, much less a reader in their living room. This book is journalism run amuck.
It seems Catherine Crier was just trying to cash in on a tragedy. Her bio states that she's "An Emmy and duPont-Columbia Award-winning journalist" yet there are logic fallacies throughout this book (I can live with the typos some have complained about). Crier either knows readers aren't going to catch her in these flawed emotionally-fired points OR she's just lost touch with what logical evidence is supposed to be. It's difficult to comprehend how or when someone who passed the LSAT, went through law school, passed the bar, and tried successful cases somehow loses a grip on logic. My only explanation is they do so on purpose for profit or they get so enraptured in the world of entertainment (now her actual line of work). I find it interesting that she wrote a previous book about right wing politics affecting justice, when the right rode this Peterson case all the way home with a Iraq war distraction and a right to life fetus law. It's even more disturbing that Crier wrote a later book about the media and the impact it has on justice, when the media completely and dangerously controlled the narrative of the Peterson case. It seems Crier is willing to profit off of all of the heads as they eat each other.
But enough about her. I wouldn't have gone on so long about an author if there weren't serious issues in this book. The book claims it uses evidence right from unseen files, yet so many of the points were recycled from other opinion sources out there. There were a few new pictures I haven't seen, but that's about it. Crier consistently relies on hearsay in this book. The emotional "sense" and absolute confidence that Nancy Grace expressed night after night about this case is what you get here repackaged with a focus on the weirdest possible details that might lead you to "believe" someone is guilty.
On page three the author writes: "Sharon knew it was unlikely that Laci had taken a walk." What conclusions do you draw from a declarative sentence like this? That Sharon must have said this somewhere and really believed it? But even if Sharon really said this and believed her daughter would not have gone for a walk, that does nothing to establish facts. The statement only leads a reader into thinking because this author says her mother didn't think it was likely Laci had taken a walk, then she must not have taken a walk and something is wrong with the possibility that others say she took a walk, insinuating that there is a cover up conspiracy. But the facts show Laci had indeed walked their dog throughout the month of December, that very week, and was even spotted that day by various witnesses. The book leads the reader through these kinds of unproven, even completely false declarations string after string.
Take the entire prologue, which focuses on the wild story about Scott Peter's girlfriend walking in on Scott and Laci in bed. There is no way to verify this explosive story hook that lures readers in, yet it is the opening to the book that shocks the reader into an automatic distrust of Scott, but it really disqualifies the author from having any objectivity. At one point later in the book, Crier points to how Scott punched his father in the stomach at four years old. Okay? That's it? A toddler had a fit once? This book is silly time and makes a mockery out of readers. Profit, bias, error, interpretation, emotion, exaggeration, and non credible theories make for great books to read, but they damage our sense of justice and truth.
Reviewer's Note: I'm investigating this case objectively and so far all of the books I've read, including this one, just don't hold up to scientific inquiry and legal logic.
November 5, 2013
For those interested in the Scott and Laci Peterson case, there is much that is new here. Crier had access to most of the prosecution's case, including hours of recorded phone conversations from taps on Scott's phone. Crier is not a great writer, but she lays out what she learned and what she witnessed as a member of the press throughout the trial.
One oddity in the Nook version. It would appear that the text was entered via a not very accurate optical reader. Throughout the book are mistakes such as Urn for Uhh, ail for all, LCI for Laci, and many more. Feels pretty sloppily edited.
One oddity in the Nook version. It would appear that the text was entered via a not very accurate optical reader. Throughout the book are mistakes such as Urn for Uhh, ail for all, LCI for Laci, and many more. Feels pretty sloppily edited.
May 6, 2012
I liked reading about all the work that went into the Laci Peterson investigation and the behind-the-scenes info about Scott Peterson. His parents should be so proud of raising such a narcissistic psychopath! They don't seem to be much better themselves and seemed to me to have no empathy for Sharon Rocha. However, this book really needed a better editor!
October 14, 2024
9/11-so I’m not saying douchebag is not guilty, BUT there is zero chance of me EVER taking a polygraph. I’ve stressed that for my daughter as well. Often the one asking the questions will leave the room to “ just look at the results” next thing you know you’re a prime suspect because they lie and state you failed, which they know is a lie and they will double gang on you to break you down. There are various health issues that can give off a false result. I’ve read you can put a thumbtack (one of those round headed ones) place it in your shoe under your big toe and puncture it when answering to skew answers, if your sweat when you’re nervous false results, etc. that’s why they are not acceptable in the court. So I agree with attorneys say don’t take it. Honestly I think Scott so far has been more open as a guilty sociopath than I ever would be before I would be served a search warrant. That’s what the fifth is all about. I don’t care if I’m innocent. I’m not saying a word, esp if the detectives decide to use the Reid technique. No way you’ll come out of that unscathed. And thank you for reading my Ted talk.
9/9-A ROLLS ROYCE!? Are you frickin kidding me? I think I want someone to write a book about Scott’s mother! She’s all scrambled eggy. Nature vs nurture indeed
Whenever I hear or read that someone is a “clotheshorse” I always wonder what the meaning and evidence is behind that statement. How much money is spent; where and when do they spend; are they trendy or classic; do they have personal shoppers; what do they feel most comfortable in and what are the oldest items in their wardrobe, etc. that’s my dream job. If I can’t work with books, allow me to work with clothing, shopping and putting outfits together for others. The author said Laci was a clotheshorse. I wonder if her landlord has ever walked into her bedroom or inspected all of her closets in amazement only to be told, “oh my gosh, you own so much, you need to open a store”, or gone 15 weeks without repeating an outfit at work as a humorous joke so all of her coworkers can have cake? And that was over a year ago and I barely scratched the surface. Comorbid bipolar 2 and ADHD-a blessing and a curse.
9/8b-oh now that’s an interesting tidbit about Scott’s mother. Very interesting indeed. If it means what I think it means about her personality and parenting skills, that would explain a tad about Scott. Sorry I can’t give a page number but it’s at the beginning of the chapter called Scott and Laci.
9/8-“there’s no electricity “, says Scott as he comments on the fax he received earlier in the day. And the detective didn’t make any connection. Smdh
Srsly Scott has an answer for EVERYTHING! It’s ice pond smooth in timing and any redirection. He’s confident and controlled. It’s like watching a cougar in the pounce position whilst it’s thinking it isn’t in any real danger.
I’m still in the midst of Laci is not in the house, but I’m really wondering how did they afford all of this? I know the bare minimum of this story.early 2000s I think I was getting my masters? And like now I never really watched television. But they seem, or at least Scott seems, to know how to spend money.
9/9-A ROLLS ROYCE!? Are you frickin kidding me? I think I want someone to write a book about Scott’s mother! She’s all scrambled eggy. Nature vs nurture indeed
Whenever I hear or read that someone is a “clotheshorse” I always wonder what the meaning and evidence is behind that statement. How much money is spent; where and when do they spend; are they trendy or classic; do they have personal shoppers; what do they feel most comfortable in and what are the oldest items in their wardrobe, etc. that’s my dream job. If I can’t work with books, allow me to work with clothing, shopping and putting outfits together for others. The author said Laci was a clotheshorse. I wonder if her landlord has ever walked into her bedroom or inspected all of her closets in amazement only to be told, “oh my gosh, you own so much, you need to open a store”, or gone 15 weeks without repeating an outfit at work as a humorous joke so all of her coworkers can have cake? And that was over a year ago and I barely scratched the surface. Comorbid bipolar 2 and ADHD-a blessing and a curse.
9/8b-oh now that’s an interesting tidbit about Scott’s mother. Very interesting indeed. If it means what I think it means about her personality and parenting skills, that would explain a tad about Scott. Sorry I can’t give a page number but it’s at the beginning of the chapter called Scott and Laci.
9/8-“there’s no electricity “, says Scott as he comments on the fax he received earlier in the day. And the detective didn’t make any connection. Smdh
Srsly Scott has an answer for EVERYTHING! It’s ice pond smooth in timing and any redirection. He’s confident and controlled. It’s like watching a cougar in the pounce position whilst it’s thinking it isn’t in any real danger.
I’m still in the midst of Laci is not in the house, but I’m really wondering how did they afford all of this? I know the bare minimum of this story.early 2000s I think I was getting my masters? And like now I never really watched television. But they seem, or at least Scott seems, to know how to spend money.
July 12, 2019
After reading Anne Bird's book Blood Brother: 33 Reasons My Brother Scott Peterson Is Guilty (she's Scott Peterson older sister, given up for adoption as a baby), I picked up this book to get a fuller background of the whole sordid story. While Crier is wildly biased and interjects her opinion way too much, it's an interesting true crime story that provides mountains of details, and a lot of inside information never presented in the court case.
The way Peterson's family is presented is pretty terrifying in its own right, with a mother that seemed to idolize her "golden boy" son and always had an excuse for anything Scott did. Scott was an easy-going sociopath who just could not feel the pain of others and seemed to have actually thought that a missing pregnant woman would just "blow over" and he'd be free.
The editing on this book was HORRIBLE, as in someone used search/replace on the last part of the book and as a result Laci's name is shown as LCI. Also lots of misspelled words and incoherent sentences.
The way Peterson's family is presented is pretty terrifying in its own right, with a mother that seemed to idolize her "golden boy" son and always had an excuse for anything Scott did. Scott was an easy-going sociopath who just could not feel the pain of others and seemed to have actually thought that a missing pregnant woman would just "blow over" and he'd be free.
The editing on this book was HORRIBLE, as in someone used search/replace on the last part of the book and as a result Laci's name is shown as LCI. Also lots of misspelled words and incoherent sentences.
September 10, 2016
Does this author have an editor of any sort? There are so many typos and mistakes it is ridiculous. It made it very distracting from the actual story itself.
June 1, 2012
I never knew about Scott Peterson when the story hit. I just heard about the verdict. This book was highly recommended and I can see why. It was written very well and gripped me from the beginning. I stayed up several nights and finished this book quickly. It is a sad story but it was written by a great writer.
This book is highly recommended. My friend is reading it now and two others are waiting to read it when she finishes.
This book is highly recommended. My friend is reading it now and two others are waiting to read it when she finishes.
January 7, 2022
My first book of 2022 and what a worthy true crime read. A comprehensive look at the murder of Laci Peterson, it was both devastating and gripping. This book served to make Laci feel like more than the victim of a crime or a still picture on the news. Laci was a sister, a daughter, a friend and a mother-to-be. She was full of life, bubbly, a chatterbox, she had dreams of being a stay at home mom. She was a happy, bossy, and devoted wife and an important presence in the lives of her family- she was planning to prepare a special Christmas brunch for their get together right before she went missing.
This was in stark contrast to the slick talented Mr. Ripley type husband, weaving a callous web of lies, and continuing to deceive her devastated family. This was a very informative and thorough look at the case, from the detectives heading the investigation, to responses of family members at the time, and navigating the reflexes and psychology of Scott Peterson as the investigation begins to pinpoint on him. 5 stars.
This was in stark contrast to the slick talented Mr. Ripley type husband, weaving a callous web of lies, and continuing to deceive her devastated family. This was a very informative and thorough look at the case, from the detectives heading the investigation, to responses of family members at the time, and navigating the reflexes and psychology of Scott Peterson as the investigation begins to pinpoint on him. 5 stars.
July 22, 2012
An interesting read, although the author will occasionally make conclusions about aspects of the case that are more rooted in her bias against Scott Peterson than they are in reality. For example, she asserts that just because Peterson left unnecessary messages on his answering machine proves that he needed those messages as an alibi. There are plenty of law-abiding people in this world who leave unnecessary messages on their machines for all kinds of reasons. It doesn't mean those messages are nefarious in nature.
Other than the occasional rush to judgment, however, I found this book informative. Much of what is in this book was taken from transcripts of the case, and the reader is able to form his or her own conclusions.
Other than the occasional rush to judgment, however, I found this book informative. Much of what is in this book was taken from transcripts of the case, and the reader is able to form his or her own conclusions.
August 4, 2009
A well researched, documented, behind-the scenes chronicle of why Scott Peterson was found guilty in the murder of his eight-month pregnant wife and unborn baby son.
A sad tale of a sociopathic person, incapable of feeling.
A sad tale of a sociopathic person, incapable of feeling.
December 7, 2011
Catherine Crier named this book "A Deadly Game" because at times during the investigation of the disappearance of Laci Peterson is seemed that Scott Peterson spent a lot of his time playing games, especially with the police. This book focuses very much on the investigation, and you definately get the feeling that when dealing with sociopaths of Scott's type, the criminal thinks he is cleverer than the police, media and relatives/friends of the victim, and can easily fool everybody. Fortunately, he was wrong.
Crier does an outstanding job of presenting the case against Scott Peterson which, whilst almost entirely circumstantial, is wholly compelling. You are left in no doubt after this book that Scott is guilty and should be justly punished. She does so in a chronological narrative that begins with the murder and ends with the determintation of the jury to enforce the death penalty in this case. Crier maintains as unbiased a standpoint as possible in this case, but is also careful to be sensitive in what she writes to the needs of Laci's family, and so this is not your usual over-sensational true crime book.
This is, despite the subject matter, a hard book to put down. Crier makes the story compelling, and does an excellent job of giving you a real sense of what all the main protagonists are like in reality. Pleasingly she is careful to ensure she does this for Laci also, reminding us all that she was a real person who deserves to be remembered, as is so often forgotten about victims of violent crime.
Amber Frey, Scott's mistress, is also treated very fairly throughout the book, which is important as she was such an important witness in the case. She is quoted extensively in the book and her insight is both shocking and compelling. I also felt that the author dealt very fairly with Scott - she didn't say anything about him which exagerrated his crime/personality and stuck to the facts rather than sensational speculation about him and his activities.
Crier clearly has a good understanding of the law. She and Cole Thompson, who helped her write the book, have clearly done extensive research into the Peterson case, making this a detailed account with much material which appears in the public arena for the first time, with a strong narrative. If there is any justice it will become a true crime classic. This is definative account of this shocking case, and is also an excellent tribute to both Laci, Connor and all those who helped bring their killer to justice.
Crier does an outstanding job of presenting the case against Scott Peterson which, whilst almost entirely circumstantial, is wholly compelling. You are left in no doubt after this book that Scott is guilty and should be justly punished. She does so in a chronological narrative that begins with the murder and ends with the determintation of the jury to enforce the death penalty in this case. Crier maintains as unbiased a standpoint as possible in this case, but is also careful to be sensitive in what she writes to the needs of Laci's family, and so this is not your usual over-sensational true crime book.
This is, despite the subject matter, a hard book to put down. Crier makes the story compelling, and does an excellent job of giving you a real sense of what all the main protagonists are like in reality. Pleasingly she is careful to ensure she does this for Laci also, reminding us all that she was a real person who deserves to be remembered, as is so often forgotten about victims of violent crime.
Amber Frey, Scott's mistress, is also treated very fairly throughout the book, which is important as she was such an important witness in the case. She is quoted extensively in the book and her insight is both shocking and compelling. I also felt that the author dealt very fairly with Scott - she didn't say anything about him which exagerrated his crime/personality and stuck to the facts rather than sensational speculation about him and his activities.
Crier clearly has a good understanding of the law. She and Cole Thompson, who helped her write the book, have clearly done extensive research into the Peterson case, making this a detailed account with much material which appears in the public arena for the first time, with a strong narrative. If there is any justice it will become a true crime classic. This is definative account of this shocking case, and is also an excellent tribute to both Laci, Connor and all those who helped bring their killer to justice.
September 6, 2008
I remember the story. I wasn’t really focused on it but I remember bits and pieces. This was a great book for the lay person who may not understand police or legal process, lingo etc. I am glad the case turned out the way it did. It is obvious Scott killed his wife and unborn child and almost got away with it. This is a good example of how sometimes good circumstantial evidence convicts the guilty one. Scott’s lack of emotion, pathological lies and smug, cocky attitude was the ultimate conviction. I thought Ms. Crier did a pretty good job with this book. The ending was exceptionally good bringing the emotion out from the families during the penalty phase, as well as, her honest opinion of the death penalty.
May 27, 2018
First, I do love this author. I did not enjoy this book though. It is very detailed which took away some of the suspense. God bless the police officers who were able to keep everything straight for the most part. If you like little games, you might want to count the phrase "never before revealed" as you go through this book. It is an achievement documenting a case of huge popular interest. But, I found all the nooks and crannies to be too much for my attention span. I do admire the law enforcement people who detected all the lies, all the items that were inconsistent with a grieving husband and organized them into a successful prosecution. The writing is solid but it almost feels more of a doctoral dissertation than a book for the mass market.
December 17, 2015
This is one of the best true crime novels that I have read. It really opened up just how dark Scott Peterson really was. It also emphasized just how many victims there were in this.
Catherine Crier really presents the case clearly and completely. I look forward to reading any other true crime novels she may have written.
Catherine Crier really presents the case clearly and completely. I look forward to reading any other true crime novels she may have written.
June 19, 2018
This book contains quite a bit of 'inside' information (previously unreleased police reports and such), but I can't explain why the author feels the need to make assumptions and speculate so much (not to mention playing psychologist over and over). As noted by many previous reviewers, the ebook edition is loaded with distracting typos.
February 2, 2009
I' agree with Wendy, I really liked this book but it's hard to say you really like a book about something so heinous as this. Cathrine Crier did a very good and analytical job with this book. Scott is where he belongs.
April 27, 2009
Even with the 24/7 news coverage - I found this to be a really interesting book. Catherine Crier did a great job in presenting all the individuals involved in this case. Scott Peterson is just an absolutely chilling person. One of the best true crime books I've read.
June 2, 2021
The book, while being a thorough (as far as I can tell) account of the investigation, isn’t well written. Some information was repeated multiple times, so a little more editing could have helped. Scott Peterson is red flag city though.
August 17, 2007
Yeah, another one I'm embarrassed to give four stars to. I should just start going out in public with a bag over my head and get it over with.
November 24, 2018
The story was fascinating. I couldn’t put the book down. However, the editing was terrible. It felt like I was reading a very rough draft...
August 1, 2019
A Deadly Game is considered to be the definitive book about the Scott and Laci Peterson case. In part, this is because it contains a whole lot of forensic information that was never released to the public. In part, however, it’s because this case hasn’t attracted the same kind of attention from book-length writers as other cases of comparable notoriety. This may be because the case was so heavily publicized at the time, or because it occurred in 2002, just when the rise of Google and Web 2.0 meant more and more people were going online for information, rather than resorting to books.
Catherine Crier’s account deals with the crime chronologically, starting with the moment that Scott Peterson arrived home in Modesto, California on Christmas Eve 2002 to find his wife Laci missing, and ending with his eventual imprisonment for first-degee murder. Crier works for Court TV, so the book has quite a pulpy, tabloid quality, with lots of editorializing, authorial interjection and broad moralizing about the nature of Scott Peterson. This made it quite an unusual read, since recent true crime often pits itself against this “Nancy Grace” kind of expose, whereas Crier invokes Gracy approvingly as a colleage and fellow sleuth.
The editorializing does sometimes detract from the book, especially whenever Crier is discussing Scott Peterson’s psychology. This is often a bit silly, whether because it’s hyperbolic (at one point she compares him to Hitler) or because it feels like a bit of an amateur, armchair response (especially in her discussions of sociopathy). Part of what makes Scott so disturbing is his normality, and the way he blends sociopathy and normality, and Crier’s lurid account sometimes takes away from his profouns ability to dissemble normality, which is, of course, one of the key traits of the sociopath in the first place.
Still, I appreciated this pulpy approach at times too. Reading around the case, I discovered that there was a backlash against Scott’s conviction in certain sectors of the true crime community. In a way, I can understand this, since the case is almost entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and even that is sometimes questionable. Crier does a really good job of leading the reader through all the different behaviours Scott demonstrated after Laci’s disappearance that point towards his guilt and his disinterest in finding her alive.
Crier is able to draw this composite portrait of Scott as a result of the pacing of the book, and two structural decisions in particular. First, she leaves the discovery of Laci’s body in the San Francisco Bay – the most sensational part of the case – until fairly late, so that she can establish Scott’s guilt before this critical evidence comes to light. Second, she leaves the trial even later, condensing it to a few short chapters. Having just read Joe McGinness’ Fatal Vision, which devotes hundreds of pages to trial transcript, it was quite refreshing to read a book that dealt with a trial as breezily and concisely as a courtroom drama.
Although it could sometimes be heavy-handed, I also appreciated Crier’s moral investment in the case. From what I understand, many of the objections to Scott’s incarceration came from a small but vocal minority of men’s rights activists within the true crime community. Whatever is at stake in Scott’s conviction, it is not a question of men being victimized. Crier does a good job of capturing all the ways in Scott painted himself as a victim, and turned himself into the protagonist of the story, rather than genuinely attempting to locate Laci.
This brings me to the most fascinating part of the book – the detailed descriptions of the tap placed on Scott’s cell phone. Much of this information had never been released to the public, and it goes a long way towards establishing his guilt. As might be expected, there are details of different conversations, as well as analysis of the “micro expressions” and “vocal stress” that indicate when appeared to be lying, or when he appeared to be under extreme duress.
More interestingly, however, Crier dwells on the way Scott relates to his cell phone outside of individual conversations. In what often approaches a surveillance narrative, Crier describes how Scott used his phone to manage and mask the situation, making me wonder whether this was one of the first sustained cell phone taps in American forensic history. I know that the Adnan Syed case was the first time that cell tower triangulation had been admitted at trial, so there can’t have been too many cell phone taps at this point in time.
Scott’s incriminating use of his phone falls into two broad categories. First, Crier focuses on the discrepancy between different conversations. In some cases, he cries profusely in one conversation, and then adopts a totally different register for another conversation immediately after. In other cases, there is a discrepancy between where he says he is during a phone conversation, and where the police tail demonstrates him to be. This is especially clear in his phone calls with his lover Amber Frey, who is led to believe that he is travelling around Europe, even though police know that he is still at home in Modesto.
Crier’s second focus is the way that Scott responded to voice mail. This was the most fascinating part of the book for me, since I’d never realized that a wire tap can focus on a phone user’s relation to their voice mail. This is also where the book gets really chilling, and where we start to glimpse the real Scott. At one point, he goes back and relistens twice to the “decoy” message that he left for Laci on the day she vanished, just as he repeatedly returns to the Berkeley Marina and stares out over the water after police narrow their search to the San Francisco Bay.
At other points, Scott’s response to the messages suggests his indifference to the search for Laci. Not only does he cut off a message about a vigil early, but he can be heard laughing while listening to a message about putting up posters in the local area. Later, he would be discovered to have hoarded these posters instead of distributing them to volunteers helping with the search. All of these factors understandably made the police suspicious of Scott’s motives, and led them to question whether he was really invested in finding Laci alive.
For me, the single most chilling moment comes shortly after an object is located by sonar in the San Francisco Bay in early 2003. At first, police think this might be Laci’s body, but it turns out to be a submerged anchor. When Scott receives the voice mail about this false lead, he whistles. Crier spends some time parsing that whistle – is it relief, amazement, incredulity? – and what it suggests about Scott’s confidence, arrogance and resilience in weathering out the first part of an investigation in which he is the prime suspect.
Of course, the whistle becomes even eerier once Laci’s body is discovered in the bay, and for me remains the most unsettling part of A Deadly Game, especially since Crier makes it central in her account. Only in this intimate and unconscious relationship with his own voice mail do we truly glimpse the sociopathic Scott – the person capable of committing a crime whose exact details will probably never be known. The ellipsis between Laci’s last movements, and her discovery in the San Francisco Bay, is thus converged with the space between Scott’s utterances and his voicemail messages, allowing Crier to eerily and evocatively capture the blank spaces that still remain at the heart of this shattering crime.
Catherine Crier’s account deals with the crime chronologically, starting with the moment that Scott Peterson arrived home in Modesto, California on Christmas Eve 2002 to find his wife Laci missing, and ending with his eventual imprisonment for first-degee murder. Crier works for Court TV, so the book has quite a pulpy, tabloid quality, with lots of editorializing, authorial interjection and broad moralizing about the nature of Scott Peterson. This made it quite an unusual read, since recent true crime often pits itself against this “Nancy Grace” kind of expose, whereas Crier invokes Gracy approvingly as a colleage and fellow sleuth.
The editorializing does sometimes detract from the book, especially whenever Crier is discussing Scott Peterson’s psychology. This is often a bit silly, whether because it’s hyperbolic (at one point she compares him to Hitler) or because it feels like a bit of an amateur, armchair response (especially in her discussions of sociopathy). Part of what makes Scott so disturbing is his normality, and the way he blends sociopathy and normality, and Crier’s lurid account sometimes takes away from his profouns ability to dissemble normality, which is, of course, one of the key traits of the sociopath in the first place.
Still, I appreciated this pulpy approach at times too. Reading around the case, I discovered that there was a backlash against Scott’s conviction in certain sectors of the true crime community. In a way, I can understand this, since the case is almost entirely based on circumstantial evidence, and even that is sometimes questionable. Crier does a really good job of leading the reader through all the different behaviours Scott demonstrated after Laci’s disappearance that point towards his guilt and his disinterest in finding her alive.
Crier is able to draw this composite portrait of Scott as a result of the pacing of the book, and two structural decisions in particular. First, she leaves the discovery of Laci’s body in the San Francisco Bay – the most sensational part of the case – until fairly late, so that she can establish Scott’s guilt before this critical evidence comes to light. Second, she leaves the trial even later, condensing it to a few short chapters. Having just read Joe McGinness’ Fatal Vision, which devotes hundreds of pages to trial transcript, it was quite refreshing to read a book that dealt with a trial as breezily and concisely as a courtroom drama.
Although it could sometimes be heavy-handed, I also appreciated Crier’s moral investment in the case. From what I understand, many of the objections to Scott’s incarceration came from a small but vocal minority of men’s rights activists within the true crime community. Whatever is at stake in Scott’s conviction, it is not a question of men being victimized. Crier does a good job of capturing all the ways in Scott painted himself as a victim, and turned himself into the protagonist of the story, rather than genuinely attempting to locate Laci.
This brings me to the most fascinating part of the book – the detailed descriptions of the tap placed on Scott’s cell phone. Much of this information had never been released to the public, and it goes a long way towards establishing his guilt. As might be expected, there are details of different conversations, as well as analysis of the “micro expressions” and “vocal stress” that indicate when appeared to be lying, or when he appeared to be under extreme duress.
More interestingly, however, Crier dwells on the way Scott relates to his cell phone outside of individual conversations. In what often approaches a surveillance narrative, Crier describes how Scott used his phone to manage and mask the situation, making me wonder whether this was one of the first sustained cell phone taps in American forensic history. I know that the Adnan Syed case was the first time that cell tower triangulation had been admitted at trial, so there can’t have been too many cell phone taps at this point in time.
Scott’s incriminating use of his phone falls into two broad categories. First, Crier focuses on the discrepancy between different conversations. In some cases, he cries profusely in one conversation, and then adopts a totally different register for another conversation immediately after. In other cases, there is a discrepancy between where he says he is during a phone conversation, and where the police tail demonstrates him to be. This is especially clear in his phone calls with his lover Amber Frey, who is led to believe that he is travelling around Europe, even though police know that he is still at home in Modesto.
Crier’s second focus is the way that Scott responded to voice mail. This was the most fascinating part of the book for me, since I’d never realized that a wire tap can focus on a phone user’s relation to their voice mail. This is also where the book gets really chilling, and where we start to glimpse the real Scott. At one point, he goes back and relistens twice to the “decoy” message that he left for Laci on the day she vanished, just as he repeatedly returns to the Berkeley Marina and stares out over the water after police narrow their search to the San Francisco Bay.
At other points, Scott’s response to the messages suggests his indifference to the search for Laci. Not only does he cut off a message about a vigil early, but he can be heard laughing while listening to a message about putting up posters in the local area. Later, he would be discovered to have hoarded these posters instead of distributing them to volunteers helping with the search. All of these factors understandably made the police suspicious of Scott’s motives, and led them to question whether he was really invested in finding Laci alive.
For me, the single most chilling moment comes shortly after an object is located by sonar in the San Francisco Bay in early 2003. At first, police think this might be Laci’s body, but it turns out to be a submerged anchor. When Scott receives the voice mail about this false lead, he whistles. Crier spends some time parsing that whistle – is it relief, amazement, incredulity? – and what it suggests about Scott’s confidence, arrogance and resilience in weathering out the first part of an investigation in which he is the prime suspect.
Of course, the whistle becomes even eerier once Laci’s body is discovered in the bay, and for me remains the most unsettling part of A Deadly Game, especially since Crier makes it central in her account. Only in this intimate and unconscious relationship with his own voice mail do we truly glimpse the sociopathic Scott – the person capable of committing a crime whose exact details will probably never be known. The ellipsis between Laci’s last movements, and her discovery in the San Francisco Bay, is thus converged with the space between Scott’s utterances and his voicemail messages, allowing Crier to eerily and evocatively capture the blank spaces that still remain at the heart of this shattering crime.
August 14, 2024
So this is interesting because I had never heard about this case until a tv documentary a few months ago, but it supposedly was a huge case and big news in America. I suppose our news and international tv didn’t show it because we were all more worried about what was happening in Iraq and they showed the war.
I am a bit confused though why it was such a covered case, because, if you put the crime channel on, most cases seem to be husbands murdering their wives. I am just not sure what made this case unique that it was supposedly very huge news.
But the book was good.
The author is supposedly a tv presenter.
It is long because it is incredibly detailed and it covers all aspects, even giving a lot of trial info and transcripts.
She gives all points of view fairly.
I contrast her book compared to an author I tried and can’t stand, M. William Felps.
His books are shorter, he focuses and puts more details of the side he feels sympathy with, and he hardly covers trials and transcripts properly, his books feel more like sensationalist crime writing where much important detail the reader would want to know is left out.
Other true crime writers I have read do the same, I am just using him as an example, because, in his one book, We thought We Knew You, he didn’t bother, for example to give details and much info about the second trial, no transcripts, no how exactly the digital forensics guy’s testimony explained things, nothing.
And, unlike this author who really shows you the hearts and minds and backgrounds of all sides, both the family of the victim and murderer, Felps does not.
I was so disappointed, because of his gaps and selective telling, that I could not find transcripts of the Conley trials online to study them, and her interrogation tapes.
But, unlike all those other true crime writers, this author and her book covers the crime properly.
I wish all true crime writers would rather behave and write like she does.
I am a bit confused though why it was such a covered case, because, if you put the crime channel on, most cases seem to be husbands murdering their wives. I am just not sure what made this case unique that it was supposedly very huge news.
But the book was good.
The author is supposedly a tv presenter.
It is long because it is incredibly detailed and it covers all aspects, even giving a lot of trial info and transcripts.
She gives all points of view fairly.
I contrast her book compared to an author I tried and can’t stand, M. William Felps.
His books are shorter, he focuses and puts more details of the side he feels sympathy with, and he hardly covers trials and transcripts properly, his books feel more like sensationalist crime writing where much important detail the reader would want to know is left out.
Other true crime writers I have read do the same, I am just using him as an example, because, in his one book, We thought We Knew You, he didn’t bother, for example to give details and much info about the second trial, no transcripts, no how exactly the digital forensics guy’s testimony explained things, nothing.
And, unlike this author who really shows you the hearts and minds and backgrounds of all sides, both the family of the victim and murderer, Felps does not.
I was so disappointed, because of his gaps and selective telling, that I could not find transcripts of the Conley trials online to study them, and her interrogation tapes.
But, unlike all those other true crime writers, this author and her book covers the crime properly.
I wish all true crime writers would rather behave and write like she does.
May 22, 2022
So the amount of information in this book makes it a very slow read but I wanted to absorb all the facts presented here. I have always been fascinated with this case since Laci went missing really close to when my first daughter was born and she was about my same age at the time.
I have read Sharon Rocha’s heartbreaking book and for as much a person can enjoy something related to such I horrible situation, I was effected by her book truly. I do recall her words that Laci had no arms to hold her baby in her coffin all these years later still. Ugh it makes me tear up.
Anyway, Crier’s book is very detailed in the investigation and obviously deeply researched. It’s well done and balanced.
I have read Sharon Rocha’s heartbreaking book and for as much a person can enjoy something related to such I horrible situation, I was effected by her book truly. I do recall her words that Laci had no arms to hold her baby in her coffin all these years later still. Ugh it makes me tear up.
Anyway, Crier’s book is very detailed in the investigation and obviously deeply researched. It’s well done and balanced.
May 19, 2025
I saw this book in a used bookstore and had to have it. I learned things I never knew before. I followed this case as it was happening in 2002 - 2004. I’m glad Scott Peterson was convicted although, to this day, he maintains his innocence. The evidence was too much for his pitiful pleas to overcome. He is a piece of crap.
November 20, 2023
A riveting, yet heartbreaking book. There's a special place in hell for Scott Peterson.
July 20, 2019
The investigation, step by step, engagingly presented
Crier dubbed this book "A Deadly Game" because it seemed at times during the investigation--and this book focuses squarely on the investigation--that Scott Peterson spent a lot of his time playing games, especially with law enforcement. There is the sense that one gets when dealing with this particular kind of sociopath, that the perp thinks he is smarter than the cops, smarter than the media, and can pull the wool over the eyes of just about everybody, and most easily over family and friends. One might call that "a deadly delusion."
But it was hardly a game, not for the hundreds of people involved in the investigation, and not in fact for Scott Peterson. Pretending it was a game of hide and seek, chase and dodge, was perhaps his way of deflecting the truth from himself, the truth that his carefully planned crime of monstrous proportions was a house of cards about to come tumbling down.
Here's a guy so arrogant and so dumb that he thinks he can murder his wife and unborn son, dump the body in the San Francisco Bay and get on with being a wine 'em and dine 'em and bed 'em player with no responsibilities. Risk? Well, if he had ever read up on the stats of who did the crime when the spouse is murdered, he'd have known who suspect number one would be. What he thought was--and by the way, this was the exact thinking of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald of "Fatal Vision" infamy--the crime I am committing is so monstrous and I am such a charming and upstanding guy with such a totally non-violent and loving history, that nobody but nobody is ever going to believe that I could do something like this. As you might recall MacDonald murdered his wife and two young daughters and tried to blame some hippies. The sheer audacity and the cold-blooded, reptilian equation (my discomfort verses their deaths = my discomfort is the worse to bear) is the sort of thinking that can only come from a sociopath: someone with no conscience.
Most sociopaths are cowards and most do not commit violent crimes or any crime they cannot be sure they are going to get away with. (They look out for number one first, foremost and exclusively.) What happens with people like Scott Peterson is that they have parents who have let them get away with so much all their lives, parents who defend them and excuse them and do not confront them with their consciousless behavior. What this does is create a slightly unreal environment for the young sociopath, allowing him (for violent sociopaths, it's usually a "him") to believe he can get away with almost anything. Scott's parents, Lee and Jackie Peterson, come across in this book as enabling parents, parents who are more concerned about superficial appearances and status than about societal or moral values. They are the kind of people who believe if you deny, deny, and deny enough and attack the accusers, that denial and attack will carry the day. They certainly denied the overwhelming evidence that their son Scott and only their son Scott could have committed this horrendous crime.
Catherine Crier does an outstanding job of presenting the case against Scott Peterson in a chronological narrative that begins with the murder and ends with the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial. This is not an easy book to put down. The story is engaging and told in a manner that makes the characters and the circumstances come to life. Fertilizer salesman Scott Peterson is especially vivid as is the central California milieu in which the crime was committed. Amber Frey is shown in a clear light and quoted extensively. Still, one wonders why she put so much time and energy into the case. Certainly she was highly motivated. Whether to get back at Scott for what he did to her, or to bring celebrity upon herself, or to help the cause of justice--anyone of these are understandable motives--is unclear. Perhaps Amber Frey felt the impetus from all of them.
Crier knows the law and she knows this case. She and Cole Thompson, who helped her write the book, put a tremendous amount of work into making this a very detailed best-seller kind of narrative and a truth crime classic.
Bottom line: start reading this early in the day and expect to burn the midnight oil. It's really that good: truly a "must read" for true crime fans, especially since some of the material appears here for the first time.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
Crier dubbed this book "A Deadly Game" because it seemed at times during the investigation--and this book focuses squarely on the investigation--that Scott Peterson spent a lot of his time playing games, especially with law enforcement. There is the sense that one gets when dealing with this particular kind of sociopath, that the perp thinks he is smarter than the cops, smarter than the media, and can pull the wool over the eyes of just about everybody, and most easily over family and friends. One might call that "a deadly delusion."
But it was hardly a game, not for the hundreds of people involved in the investigation, and not in fact for Scott Peterson. Pretending it was a game of hide and seek, chase and dodge, was perhaps his way of deflecting the truth from himself, the truth that his carefully planned crime of monstrous proportions was a house of cards about to come tumbling down.
Here's a guy so arrogant and so dumb that he thinks he can murder his wife and unborn son, dump the body in the San Francisco Bay and get on with being a wine 'em and dine 'em and bed 'em player with no responsibilities. Risk? Well, if he had ever read up on the stats of who did the crime when the spouse is murdered, he'd have known who suspect number one would be. What he thought was--and by the way, this was the exact thinking of Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald of "Fatal Vision" infamy--the crime I am committing is so monstrous and I am such a charming and upstanding guy with such a totally non-violent and loving history, that nobody but nobody is ever going to believe that I could do something like this. As you might recall MacDonald murdered his wife and two young daughters and tried to blame some hippies. The sheer audacity and the cold-blooded, reptilian equation (my discomfort verses their deaths = my discomfort is the worse to bear) is the sort of thinking that can only come from a sociopath: someone with no conscience.
Most sociopaths are cowards and most do not commit violent crimes or any crime they cannot be sure they are going to get away with. (They look out for number one first, foremost and exclusively.) What happens with people like Scott Peterson is that they have parents who have let them get away with so much all their lives, parents who defend them and excuse them and do not confront them with their consciousless behavior. What this does is create a slightly unreal environment for the young sociopath, allowing him (for violent sociopaths, it's usually a "him") to believe he can get away with almost anything. Scott's parents, Lee and Jackie Peterson, come across in this book as enabling parents, parents who are more concerned about superficial appearances and status than about societal or moral values. They are the kind of people who believe if you deny, deny, and deny enough and attack the accusers, that denial and attack will carry the day. They certainly denied the overwhelming evidence that their son Scott and only their son Scott could have committed this horrendous crime.
Catherine Crier does an outstanding job of presenting the case against Scott Peterson in a chronological narrative that begins with the murder and ends with the conclusion of the penalty phase of the trial. This is not an easy book to put down. The story is engaging and told in a manner that makes the characters and the circumstances come to life. Fertilizer salesman Scott Peterson is especially vivid as is the central California milieu in which the crime was committed. Amber Frey is shown in a clear light and quoted extensively. Still, one wonders why she put so much time and energy into the case. Certainly she was highly motivated. Whether to get back at Scott for what he did to her, or to bring celebrity upon herself, or to help the cause of justice--anyone of these are understandable motives--is unclear. Perhaps Amber Frey felt the impetus from all of them.
Crier knows the law and she knows this case. She and Cole Thompson, who helped her write the book, put a tremendous amount of work into making this a very detailed best-seller kind of narrative and a truth crime classic.
Bottom line: start reading this early in the day and expect to burn the midnight oil. It's really that good: truly a "must read" for true crime fans, especially since some of the material appears here for the first time.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
October 3, 2022
A headstrong risk-taker marries the WRONG man.
This is one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read. Considering that I'm an avid reader and read mostly non-fiction, that says a lot!
I read this book last year and have thought about it and recommended it to others many, many times. It's far more than a simple retelling of a tragic crime. In addition to being a talented writer, Ms. Crier is an experienced lawyer, judge, and crime reporter. She wrote this book because she felt that there were things that needed to be said, not just about the Laci Peterson murder, but about sociopaths.
Like most people, I'd always assumed that sociopath=murderer. Ms. Crier explains in detail the characteristics of a sociopath and that the majority never commit crimes. They cause DAMAGE, but in a completely legal way.
Scott Peterson is a classic sociopath - arrogant, shallow, and obsessed with the world's opinion of him. Like all sociopaths, he's a master manipulator and liar. When you're unable to feel the pain of other people (even those who love you) it's easy to lie with complete conviction. No guilty conscience causes you to give yourself away. Ms. Crier dug deep to find a pattern of deception that went beyond Amber Frey, Scott's girlfriend at the time he killed his wife. There had been others before. If he weren't in prison, there would have been others since. A sociopath never changes.
The author leads you through it so carefully that you begin to see a pattern of behavior that's alarmingly common. Do you know someone who's a chronic liar? Does that person persist in his lies even when he's caught? Does he refuse to accept any responsibility for his own actions? Is someone else (wife, ex-wife, boss, parent) ALWAYS to blame for his problems? Do you know someone whose opinion of himself is wildly inflated? Who becomes angry when others don't show him the adulation he feels he deserves? Who lies to impress people, even when those people are of no importance to him?
Congratulations. You're probably dealing with a sociopath. The good news is he probably WON'T kill you. The bad news is he may ruin your life.
So what turned Scott Peterson from a garden-variety sociopath into a killer? Was he so conceited that he believed he could (literally) get away with murder? Did his childhood in a well-to-do family with lots of secrets and no moral compass create a feeling of self-entitlement so immense that even murder wasn't too extreme a measure to consider?
Or does the answer lie (as it often does) in the personality of the dead? I don't think this author can be accused of "blaming the victim" but she isn't afraid to give all the facts. Laci Peterson was a beautiful, vibrant young woman with a loving family and many friends, but even those closest to her admit that she was far from perfect. "Headstrong" is the adjective they use most often and it explains a pattern of risky behavior that's difficult to explain otherwise.
Nothing wrong with wearing expensive jewelry, but it's unwise to do so while walking alone in a secluded park. It's not a crime to meet an attractive man and instantly decide that you're going to marry him, but it IS risky. Did Laci ever look underneath Scott's smooth, plausible exterior? Did she consider how he treated others or was she simply content with the attention he lavished on her? Was it enough that she believed that he could be molded into the man she wanted?
Was the pressure she exerted on him too much to bear? Laci had champagne tastes and her husband was expected to supply the means to satisfy them. The "modest" three-bedroom, two-bath home in a pleasant neighborhood would be fine for most young couples expecting their first child and living on one income. But Laci was shopping for a much more expensive house, in spite of the fact that their budget was stretched as it was.
"Have you never heard of divorce, Scott?" Laci's angry mother shouted at him. She seemed to be saying that she could understand that marriage to her daughter may have been stressful and that she would have understood if he chose to bail out.
But Scott Peterson didn't see that as an option. Divorce is a very public sign of failure and sociopaths must always appear to be perfect. He believed that he deserved more than public humiliation and 18 years of paying child support. And he thought he was smart enough to get away with it.
This is one of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read.
This is one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read. Considering that I'm an avid reader and read mostly non-fiction, that says a lot!
I read this book last year and have thought about it and recommended it to others many, many times. It's far more than a simple retelling of a tragic crime. In addition to being a talented writer, Ms. Crier is an experienced lawyer, judge, and crime reporter. She wrote this book because she felt that there were things that needed to be said, not just about the Laci Peterson murder, but about sociopaths.
Like most people, I'd always assumed that sociopath=murderer. Ms. Crier explains in detail the characteristics of a sociopath and that the majority never commit crimes. They cause DAMAGE, but in a completely legal way.
Scott Peterson is a classic sociopath - arrogant, shallow, and obsessed with the world's opinion of him. Like all sociopaths, he's a master manipulator and liar. When you're unable to feel the pain of other people (even those who love you) it's easy to lie with complete conviction. No guilty conscience causes you to give yourself away. Ms. Crier dug deep to find a pattern of deception that went beyond Amber Frey, Scott's girlfriend at the time he killed his wife. There had been others before. If he weren't in prison, there would have been others since. A sociopath never changes.
The author leads you through it so carefully that you begin to see a pattern of behavior that's alarmingly common. Do you know someone who's a chronic liar? Does that person persist in his lies even when he's caught? Does he refuse to accept any responsibility for his own actions? Is someone else (wife, ex-wife, boss, parent) ALWAYS to blame for his problems? Do you know someone whose opinion of himself is wildly inflated? Who becomes angry when others don't show him the adulation he feels he deserves? Who lies to impress people, even when those people are of no importance to him?
Congratulations. You're probably dealing with a sociopath. The good news is he probably WON'T kill you. The bad news is he may ruin your life.
So what turned Scott Peterson from a garden-variety sociopath into a killer? Was he so conceited that he believed he could (literally) get away with murder? Did his childhood in a well-to-do family with lots of secrets and no moral compass create a feeling of self-entitlement so immense that even murder wasn't too extreme a measure to consider?
Or does the answer lie (as it often does) in the personality of the dead? I don't think this author can be accused of "blaming the victim" but she isn't afraid to give all the facts. Laci Peterson was a beautiful, vibrant young woman with a loving family and many friends, but even those closest to her admit that she was far from perfect. "Headstrong" is the adjective they use most often and it explains a pattern of risky behavior that's difficult to explain otherwise.
Nothing wrong with wearing expensive jewelry, but it's unwise to do so while walking alone in a secluded park. It's not a crime to meet an attractive man and instantly decide that you're going to marry him, but it IS risky. Did Laci ever look underneath Scott's smooth, plausible exterior? Did she consider how he treated others or was she simply content with the attention he lavished on her? Was it enough that she believed that he could be molded into the man she wanted?
Was the pressure she exerted on him too much to bear? Laci had champagne tastes and her husband was expected to supply the means to satisfy them. The "modest" three-bedroom, two-bath home in a pleasant neighborhood would be fine for most young couples expecting their first child and living on one income. But Laci was shopping for a much more expensive house, in spite of the fact that their budget was stretched as it was.
"Have you never heard of divorce, Scott?" Laci's angry mother shouted at him. She seemed to be saying that she could understand that marriage to her daughter may have been stressful and that she would have understood if he chose to bail out.
But Scott Peterson didn't see that as an option. Divorce is a very public sign of failure and sociopaths must always appear to be perfect. He believed that he deserved more than public humiliation and 18 years of paying child support. And he thought he was smart enough to get away with it.
This is one of the most thought-provoking books I've ever read.
January 10, 2013
This is one of the better true-crime books I've read (and I've read a lot of them, since it's one of my favorite genres.) Catherine Crier doesn't dig into the hearts, minds and souls of people in the way Ann Rule does, but that's probably to be expected since she's a lawyer and, I would assume, naturally more focused on details and analysis. Still, there is no way to read this book without realizing that Scott Peterson is a classic sociopath; she definitely gives us enough to figure that out.
She also doesn't delve into backgrounds of the "main players" quite as much as I would have liked. Then again this may be because as a lawyer, she was more focused on the actual crime and the trial than the reasons for it and the personalities of the people involved. Don't get me wrong: she did her research and provides a lot of details that we never heard from the media; she just has a slightly different focus than some other true-crime writers.
Having said that, I was surprised that I felt she didn't actually give enough time to the trial itself; that section of the book seemed rushed to me.
The book was published in 2005 but may be finding a new audience since Scott Peterson's appeal of his death sentence was filed in Summer 2012. Definitely an interesting read.
She also doesn't delve into backgrounds of the "main players" quite as much as I would have liked. Then again this may be because as a lawyer, she was more focused on the actual crime and the trial than the reasons for it and the personalities of the people involved. Don't get me wrong: she did her research and provides a lot of details that we never heard from the media; she just has a slightly different focus than some other true-crime writers.
Having said that, I was surprised that I felt she didn't actually give enough time to the trial itself; that section of the book seemed rushed to me.
The book was published in 2005 but may be finding a new audience since Scott Peterson's appeal of his death sentence was filed in Summer 2012. Definitely an interesting read.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 216 reviews