What do you think?
Rate this book
I DON'T LIKE MONDAYS: The True Story Behind America’s First Modern School Shooting
In 1979, Brenda Spencer, a seemingly average teenage girl living in a nice suburban neighborhood, made and executed plans that would place her in infamy and set a violent and terrifying national precedent. She receives a rifle for Christmas and a month later set her sights and opens fire on the elementary school across the street. The event is forever glorified by the song ‘I Don’t Like Mondays’ by The Boomtown Rats and marks the bloody beginning of the American phenomenon of school shootings. Long before Columbine and Sandy Hook, there was Brenda Spencer… I DON’T LIKE The True Story of America’s First Modern School Shooting sifts through the mythology that has sprung up around this fateful day, presenting the raw and riveting facts for the first time. This book lays bare this seemingly average teenage girl’s brutal motives and subsequent arrest. N. Leigh Hunt spent years researching and uncovering shocking details from officers, investigators, and lost police dispatches. He has interviewed people who were on the scene and local reporters who spoke with the perpetrator directly after her shooting spree. Hunt has even cultivated an unlikely rapport with the killer and through personal interviews, has shed light on previously unknown details about her upbringing and influences.
358 pages, Paperback
Published August 25, 2022
163 people are currently reading
1480 people want to read
About the author
N. Leigh Hunt
1 book11 followersI am a South African born crime historian and broadcaster living in the United Kingdom. I am a member of the American Society of Criminology and considered an expert on the "I Don't Like Monday's" school shooting in 1979 and the Cokeville School Crisis in 1986.
My formative years were spent in sunny California after moving from the UK. I started my career at a small radio station in the Bay Area, Northern California after attending university in San Diego and the Academy of Radio & Television Broadcasting. My first broadcast job was an intern at an alternative rock station in San Jose and I later produced talk shows, as well as presenting on several stations in Northern California.
I moved back to England in 1999 and contributed to the BBC and many other large broadcasting corporations. I became the director of a radio station in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and produce shows and podcasts for broadcasters in the Midlands, UK.
Currently i live in the small town of Olney with my wife and am researching the Cokeville School Crisis (1986) and a local missing persons case.
My formative years were spent in sunny California after moving from the UK. I started my career at a small radio station in the Bay Area, Northern California after attending university in San Diego and the Academy of Radio & Television Broadcasting. My first broadcast job was an intern at an alternative rock station in San Jose and I later produced talk shows, as well as presenting on several stations in Northern California.
I moved back to England in 1999 and contributed to the BBC and many other large broadcasting corporations. I became the director of a radio station in Milton Keynes, Buckinghamshire and produce shows and podcasts for broadcasters in the Midlands, UK.
Currently i live in the small town of Olney with my wife and am researching the Cokeville School Crisis (1986) and a local missing persons case.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews
August 4, 2023
Interesting Facts
Great information with a sometimes difficult narrative to follow. Was it bland? Yes. I read and re-read much of the story. The writing style seemed to cause me to lose interest and drift away without realizing it. The story is interesting enough to want to get back to though.
This book has typos and it hung me up at times. Perhaps I'm especially sensitive to that sort of thing, and maybe it just annoys me.
Great information with a sometimes difficult narrative to follow. Was it bland? Yes. I read and re-read much of the story. The writing style seemed to cause me to lose interest and drift away without realizing it. The story is interesting enough to want to get back to though.
This book has typos and it hung me up at times. Perhaps I'm especially sensitive to that sort of thing, and maybe it just annoys me.
November 11, 2022
I truly can’t recall how I first heard about this case, being a young Millennial and not being alive when the shooting occurred. From what I do remember, I just kind of stumbled on bits on at a time and could never quite put the pieces of the puzzle together. Which was incredibly strange to me, because how, in an American society now characterized by mass shootings (especially relating to schools), can so much of the general public remain blissfully ignorant of this shooting?
I suppose you could answer that question with "well, just two people were killed, and they weren’t children". Nowadays, it’s so commonplace that the amount of coverage in the shooting is directly correlated with the body count - the higher the number, the more it is relentlessly reported on. Even if it may not make headlines in today's insane world, it still seems as though it would be embedded into psyche of those who were alive when it occurred (considering it really set the precedent for random acts of mass violence against innocent schoolchildren - even if none were killed, this was the first known incident of anything like this ever occurring in America).
So, I believe I started to become interested in the case when I heard something about the phrase “I Don’t Like Mondays” being some type of pop-culture reference. I had never heard the song by the Boomtown Rats, so it wasn’t that. I just knew it was a phrase that had something to do with pop culture, but no idea just how its meaning truly was. It took me a long time, even searching through Google, to find much, if any, information.
As Hunt reported in the book, so much of the information was contradictory, as well as misreported. When starting this book, my knowledge was limited to the fact that it was a phrase uttered by a 16-year-old female school shooter, who opened fire on elementary students walking to school in the morning. That was literally all I knew, that she'd opened fire on the kids from a window in her house, and when asked her motive, she'd responded with eerie calmness, "I don't like Mondays. Do you? I thought this would be a fun way to liven things up." As far as the deaths, I had no idea. Not very much info for such a horrific crime that would become prescient of American culture in the next few decades - with Columbine really setting the tone for the frequency and high body count, but Spencer being the first to do this for no apparent reason other than boredom and her own entertainment.
I was really excited to read this book and finally get all of the details I was unable to find on the Internet before. I do appreciate Hunt using the amazing resources and connections to publish a full account of this story (his father was editor-in-chief of the San Diego Tribune at the time the crime occurred - the same newspaper that had first broke the story, as well as the newspaper who'd had the reporter that first established contact – and started a conversation – with Brenda Spencer). However, it was very unnecessarily bogged down into too many details. I wanted information, but the entire police dispatches? That was of no relevance and didn't need to be included in the book.
I'm talking about reading pages upon pages of police dispatches that literally read like this:
Police Dispatch Radio
Dispatcher – “42 z is behind the suspect house. The house behind has been evacuated, and he’s been trying to watch the rear of the house…. 42 z are you still at the rear of the house?”
42Z – “I can have a view of the whole back of the house (inaudible) and I let you know if anything moves but I just can’t keep my head poked over the roof.”
Dispatcher – “42 zee is on Lake Ariana behind the house.”
42Z – “42 zee, also this would be a good spot for a SWAT officer if we could get one over here.”
Dispatcher – “Yeah, 42 zees.”
42Z – “Can someone get a shot back over here until we get a SWAT guy up here?”
Dispatcher – “Can someone get shotgun back to them? They’re behind the house… on Lake Ariana.”
120J – “Shaun, I’m a SWAT officer, and I have a shotgun.”
42Z – “Above patrol unit 479, it’s the house right beside it.”
120J – “Where’s the area on Ariana, directly behind the house that needs a shotgun?”
There's just no good reason for its inclusion. It’s not demonstrating police ineptitude. It’s not furthering the story or reporting on Brenda’s mind state. It’s just talking about safety protocols, ambulances, sniper positions. All important to the story, yes, but could be summed up in a few paragraphs. Then, if people really cared to read that much into the details, the full police dispatch summary could be worked into the book's appendix rather than into chapters as if it was a natural part of the storyline. It just didn't mesh or flow well whatsoever. Also, many things were repeated over and over and it could have been a lot shorter. For instance, we learn over and over again how Brenda was a loner, how she had no female friends, how she liked to brag and exaggerate stories about shoplifting, fighting, taking drugs, shooting guns, etc., etc. A teenage narcissist looking for attention... there's a new one!
I feel it was a bit odd that Hunt befriended Spencer during the writing of the book. Even though it didn't seem to bias the author too much, it is quite hard to ignore the fact that the author is pen pals with the killer, having intimate correspondence with one another over a lengthy period of time. That's going to make it very difficult to maintain neutrality in your reporting, no matter how hard you try. As I said, while perhaps there weren't examples of overt bias, unfortunately, at times, it did seem to creep in (at least in my opinion). It seemed like he really felt she had served her time and should be granted parole.
First, he reports on how the police found no drugs or alcohol in her system, and how the reporter and the police negotiator (both of whom spoke with her long enough to notice) told of how she spoke with “complete calmness. Not irrational, not mad, not hysterical. There was no slurring of her speech. She wasn’t high or drunk.”
The official line on this seems to remain for quite some time after she's apprehended. Until all of a sudden, Spencer realizes - "oh shit! This isn't a petty theft crime. I actually killed people. I was truly being a naïve 16-year-old when I thought I'd just go home soon after, same as when I'd been busted for shoplifting." Then suddenly, her story seems to change. She has "foggy memories." She doesn't recall any of the conversation nor ever claiming to want to shoot children as a way to "liven up the day."
Seemingly, once it dawns on her that the community fears her, and signs a petition to keep a cold-blooded murderer off their streets, she miraculously appears to develop a conscience (apparently she couldn't from the moment of her arrest because she spent a couple weeks coming down from all the drugs or something...LOL, sure). Suddenly she's very sorry for the crimes she committed, the pain she caused, and how she "knows it won't bring the loved ones back that she killed."
I'm not saying that killers NEVER feel sorry for their crimes, but not only does it seem especially unlikely when it's a mass shooting or a serial killer, it becomes even less believable when the killer only professes to this "guilt" once they realize the severity of their crime, how much prison sucks, and take note of how killers who don't show remorse don't get paroled. Yet it took her years to "show remorse" at her parole hearings, which really leaves you in almost complete doubt as to her intentions and lack of a conscience.
The author even uses an entire chapter to entertain the fact that she may have had some extremely rare form of epilepsy. Experts on neurological disorders spoke out against this defense, saying even if she indeed had this rare form of epilepsy, they had a thousand patients undergoing clinical trials who had never been triggered into extreme violence, then claiming to not remember any of it. It wasn't that it wasn't worth mentioning, but given it was no legitimate defense for her actions, there shouldn't have been more than a couple sentences devoted to it at most. An entire chapter was excessive, and rather than telling a story, it seemed to be more of an argument (even if not phrased as such) for why she committed the crime, and subsequently, why she should receive parole.
The excuses just start piling up. Her dad sexually abused her, along with her older brother. Her dad, older brother, and older sister both physically and verbally abused her. She apparently repressed these memories for a decade or more, but once she saw just how much more lenient the parole board was on minors who had committed murder after a lifetime of abuse, she seems to have taken that story and run with it. Never mind the fact that no friends or family ever claimed or suspected that he sexually abused her.
Was him marrying her cellmate, Sheila, a full year younger than her, then having a child with her - totally pedophilic and repulsive? Yes, obviously. Did he seem to not know how the hell to be a single dad to a teenage girl? Absolutely. The guy clearly wasn't winning any father of the year awards. But she not only visited regularly with her father after she was initially apprehended, she continued to even AFTER the allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, somehow being able to "work things out with one another." Okay... surely if that were true, that would not be advised by any sane psychologist.
As I previously mentioned, it seems as though after what happened between her father and her cellmate, as well as viewing how other girls who'd committed heinous crimes as well were freed after exposing their sexual abuse – Spencer may have just found that this could be a very convenient time to mention her own "sufferings."
Apparently, he “apologized”, but he never made any direct statement of acknowledgement of sexual abuse. Also, when asked by a British news channel (that was taping a documentary on the shooting) if he’d ever sexually abused her, he had empathetically denied it, and seemed horrified by the accusations.
It's just... "interesting" that she never mentioned this immediately following her arrest. It was the same situation as with the “remorse” she supposedly felt over her crimes – neither of these two claims were mentioned until she'd been denied parole several times by that point, and she had to try a different tack in the parole eligibility hearings later on if she ever expected to gain her freedom back.
If the claims really were true, I’d feel absolutely terrible. I just don’t see any evidence that supports them. Zero. None. Nada. Again, the timing is just too terribly convenient when looking for sympathy from the parole board in order to grant her an early release.
Oh, two more crazy explanations. One was that she just “blacked out” and didn’t remember the shooting whatsoever. None of it. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think she was high during this version of events (I think it had more to do with her shockingly rare supposed epilepsy). Then another explanation was that she was “so high out of her mind on PCP and so wasted from alcohol that she didn’t remember doing any of it until she finally came down from the drug.”
There's a lot more I could say about this, but I've already gone on long enough. There's simply too many holes in her story. And if she truly was "blackout drunk" during the events, why would the reporter and negotiator say otherwise? And I don't care how fast her metabolism is, if she downs three-quarters of a bottle of Southern Comfort and is apprehended and drug tested within a couple hours, there is going to me SOME alcohol that shows up in her system.
I believe the reality of it all was simple, and her first motive offered was her true motive: she was bored. She saw this as a game. She has no remorse or sympathy for the children she injured and traumatized that day, nor does she feel any guilt over the two adults she killed and the families they left behind, either.
I’m happy I know all of the details now, but it was a terrifically boring story. Classic girl-needs-attention, wants to appear to be a badass, wants to “make the news” (as she tells her friend), has no qualms about shooting innocent kids to achieve this goal. Then, as I mentioned, when she realized she wasn’t just going to get a slap on the wrist for all this, she suddenly pivots and cries sexual abuse, heavy drug use, epilepsy, regret!
This story was reprehensible but nevertheless, these stories do need to be told. It just didn’t need to be as detailed as it was. Heavily detailed books are only good when the person or the circumstances are interesting. There was nothing interesting or remarkable about Brenda Spencer.
I suppose you could answer that question with "well, just two people were killed, and they weren’t children". Nowadays, it’s so commonplace that the amount of coverage in the shooting is directly correlated with the body count - the higher the number, the more it is relentlessly reported on. Even if it may not make headlines in today's insane world, it still seems as though it would be embedded into psyche of those who were alive when it occurred (considering it really set the precedent for random acts of mass violence against innocent schoolchildren - even if none were killed, this was the first known incident of anything like this ever occurring in America).
So, I believe I started to become interested in the case when I heard something about the phrase “I Don’t Like Mondays” being some type of pop-culture reference. I had never heard the song by the Boomtown Rats, so it wasn’t that. I just knew it was a phrase that had something to do with pop culture, but no idea just how its meaning truly was. It took me a long time, even searching through Google, to find much, if any, information.
As Hunt reported in the book, so much of the information was contradictory, as well as misreported. When starting this book, my knowledge was limited to the fact that it was a phrase uttered by a 16-year-old female school shooter, who opened fire on elementary students walking to school in the morning. That was literally all I knew, that she'd opened fire on the kids from a window in her house, and when asked her motive, she'd responded with eerie calmness, "I don't like Mondays. Do you? I thought this would be a fun way to liven things up." As far as the deaths, I had no idea. Not very much info for such a horrific crime that would become prescient of American culture in the next few decades - with Columbine really setting the tone for the frequency and high body count, but Spencer being the first to do this for no apparent reason other than boredom and her own entertainment.
I was really excited to read this book and finally get all of the details I was unable to find on the Internet before. I do appreciate Hunt using the amazing resources and connections to publish a full account of this story (his father was editor-in-chief of the San Diego Tribune at the time the crime occurred - the same newspaper that had first broke the story, as well as the newspaper who'd had the reporter that first established contact – and started a conversation – with Brenda Spencer). However, it was very unnecessarily bogged down into too many details. I wanted information, but the entire police dispatches? That was of no relevance and didn't need to be included in the book.
I'm talking about reading pages upon pages of police dispatches that literally read like this:
Police Dispatch Radio
Dispatcher – “42 z is behind the suspect house. The house behind has been evacuated, and he’s been trying to watch the rear of the house…. 42 z are you still at the rear of the house?”
42Z – “I can have a view of the whole back of the house (inaudible) and I let you know if anything moves but I just can’t keep my head poked over the roof.”
Dispatcher – “42 zee is on Lake Ariana behind the house.”
42Z – “42 zee, also this would be a good spot for a SWAT officer if we could get one over here.”
Dispatcher – “Yeah, 42 zees.”
42Z – “Can someone get a shot back over here until we get a SWAT guy up here?”
Dispatcher – “Can someone get shotgun back to them? They’re behind the house… on Lake Ariana.”
120J – “Shaun, I’m a SWAT officer, and I have a shotgun.”
42Z – “Above patrol unit 479, it’s the house right beside it.”
120J – “Where’s the area on Ariana, directly behind the house that needs a shotgun?”
There's just no good reason for its inclusion. It’s not demonstrating police ineptitude. It’s not furthering the story or reporting on Brenda’s mind state. It’s just talking about safety protocols, ambulances, sniper positions. All important to the story, yes, but could be summed up in a few paragraphs. Then, if people really cared to read that much into the details, the full police dispatch summary could be worked into the book's appendix rather than into chapters as if it was a natural part of the storyline. It just didn't mesh or flow well whatsoever. Also, many things were repeated over and over and it could have been a lot shorter. For instance, we learn over and over again how Brenda was a loner, how she had no female friends, how she liked to brag and exaggerate stories about shoplifting, fighting, taking drugs, shooting guns, etc., etc. A teenage narcissist looking for attention... there's a new one!
I feel it was a bit odd that Hunt befriended Spencer during the writing of the book. Even though it didn't seem to bias the author too much, it is quite hard to ignore the fact that the author is pen pals with the killer, having intimate correspondence with one another over a lengthy period of time. That's going to make it very difficult to maintain neutrality in your reporting, no matter how hard you try. As I said, while perhaps there weren't examples of overt bias, unfortunately, at times, it did seem to creep in (at least in my opinion). It seemed like he really felt she had served her time and should be granted parole.
First, he reports on how the police found no drugs or alcohol in her system, and how the reporter and the police negotiator (both of whom spoke with her long enough to notice) told of how she spoke with “complete calmness. Not irrational, not mad, not hysterical. There was no slurring of her speech. She wasn’t high or drunk.”
The official line on this seems to remain for quite some time after she's apprehended. Until all of a sudden, Spencer realizes - "oh shit! This isn't a petty theft crime. I actually killed people. I was truly being a naïve 16-year-old when I thought I'd just go home soon after, same as when I'd been busted for shoplifting." Then suddenly, her story seems to change. She has "foggy memories." She doesn't recall any of the conversation nor ever claiming to want to shoot children as a way to "liven up the day."
Seemingly, once it dawns on her that the community fears her, and signs a petition to keep a cold-blooded murderer off their streets, she miraculously appears to develop a conscience (apparently she couldn't from the moment of her arrest because she spent a couple weeks coming down from all the drugs or something...LOL, sure). Suddenly she's very sorry for the crimes she committed, the pain she caused, and how she "knows it won't bring the loved ones back that she killed."
I'm not saying that killers NEVER feel sorry for their crimes, but not only does it seem especially unlikely when it's a mass shooting or a serial killer, it becomes even less believable when the killer only professes to this "guilt" once they realize the severity of their crime, how much prison sucks, and take note of how killers who don't show remorse don't get paroled. Yet it took her years to "show remorse" at her parole hearings, which really leaves you in almost complete doubt as to her intentions and lack of a conscience.
The author even uses an entire chapter to entertain the fact that she may have had some extremely rare form of epilepsy. Experts on neurological disorders spoke out against this defense, saying even if she indeed had this rare form of epilepsy, they had a thousand patients undergoing clinical trials who had never been triggered into extreme violence, then claiming to not remember any of it. It wasn't that it wasn't worth mentioning, but given it was no legitimate defense for her actions, there shouldn't have been more than a couple sentences devoted to it at most. An entire chapter was excessive, and rather than telling a story, it seemed to be more of an argument (even if not phrased as such) for why she committed the crime, and subsequently, why she should receive parole.
The excuses just start piling up. Her dad sexually abused her, along with her older brother. Her dad, older brother, and older sister both physically and verbally abused her. She apparently repressed these memories for a decade or more, but once she saw just how much more lenient the parole board was on minors who had committed murder after a lifetime of abuse, she seems to have taken that story and run with it. Never mind the fact that no friends or family ever claimed or suspected that he sexually abused her.
Was him marrying her cellmate, Sheila, a full year younger than her, then having a child with her - totally pedophilic and repulsive? Yes, obviously. Did he seem to not know how the hell to be a single dad to a teenage girl? Absolutely. The guy clearly wasn't winning any father of the year awards. But she not only visited regularly with her father after she was initially apprehended, she continued to even AFTER the allegations of sexual abuse were made against him, somehow being able to "work things out with one another." Okay... surely if that were true, that would not be advised by any sane psychologist.
As I previously mentioned, it seems as though after what happened between her father and her cellmate, as well as viewing how other girls who'd committed heinous crimes as well were freed after exposing their sexual abuse – Spencer may have just found that this could be a very convenient time to mention her own "sufferings."
Apparently, he “apologized”, but he never made any direct statement of acknowledgement of sexual abuse. Also, when asked by a British news channel (that was taping a documentary on the shooting) if he’d ever sexually abused her, he had empathetically denied it, and seemed horrified by the accusations.
It's just... "interesting" that she never mentioned this immediately following her arrest. It was the same situation as with the “remorse” she supposedly felt over her crimes – neither of these two claims were mentioned until she'd been denied parole several times by that point, and she had to try a different tack in the parole eligibility hearings later on if she ever expected to gain her freedom back.
If the claims really were true, I’d feel absolutely terrible. I just don’t see any evidence that supports them. Zero. None. Nada. Again, the timing is just too terribly convenient when looking for sympathy from the parole board in order to grant her an early release.
Oh, two more crazy explanations. One was that she just “blacked out” and didn’t remember the shooting whatsoever. None of it. I don’t know for sure, but I don’t think she was high during this version of events (I think it had more to do with her shockingly rare supposed epilepsy). Then another explanation was that she was “so high out of her mind on PCP and so wasted from alcohol that she didn’t remember doing any of it until she finally came down from the drug.”
There's a lot more I could say about this, but I've already gone on long enough. There's simply too many holes in her story. And if she truly was "blackout drunk" during the events, why would the reporter and negotiator say otherwise? And I don't care how fast her metabolism is, if she downs three-quarters of a bottle of Southern Comfort and is apprehended and drug tested within a couple hours, there is going to me SOME alcohol that shows up in her system.
I believe the reality of it all was simple, and her first motive offered was her true motive: she was bored. She saw this as a game. She has no remorse or sympathy for the children she injured and traumatized that day, nor does she feel any guilt over the two adults she killed and the families they left behind, either.
I’m happy I know all of the details now, but it was a terrifically boring story. Classic girl-needs-attention, wants to appear to be a badass, wants to “make the news” (as she tells her friend), has no qualms about shooting innocent kids to achieve this goal. Then, as I mentioned, when she realized she wasn’t just going to get a slap on the wrist for all this, she suddenly pivots and cries sexual abuse, heavy drug use, epilepsy, regret!
This story was reprehensible but nevertheless, these stories do need to be told. It just didn’t need to be as detailed as it was. Heavily detailed books are only good when the person or the circumstances are interesting. There was nothing interesting or remarkable about Brenda Spencer.
September 25, 2022
Interesting read about a crime I had not heard of
This was a very interesting read about a crime that I personally had not heard of (I was born in 1990). I grew up in the “Columbine era” so it was very interesting to read about the first school shooting and how shocking it was to American culture at the time. Other facts were interesting to me as well, such as the shooter’s choice of weapon (a gun that would normally only kill small animals), the lack of 911 phone system in 1979, the fairly new introduction of psychological defenses in the court system, and more. The writer presented a very unbiased and informative overview of the case, the perpetrator, and her story, without forgetting the victims of the horrible tragedy. It was definition worth the time to read.
This was a very interesting read about a crime that I personally had not heard of (I was born in 1990). I grew up in the “Columbine era” so it was very interesting to read about the first school shooting and how shocking it was to American culture at the time. Other facts were interesting to me as well, such as the shooter’s choice of weapon (a gun that would normally only kill small animals), the lack of 911 phone system in 1979, the fairly new introduction of psychological defenses in the court system, and more. The writer presented a very unbiased and informative overview of the case, the perpetrator, and her story, without forgetting the victims of the horrible tragedy. It was definition worth the time to read.
May 10, 2023
Read this as a resource for something I'm researching. While it had a fair amount of good information, yikes it was atrocious to read. It's written in snippets instead of as a cohesive narrative, and the editing (if there was any) is shameful. I ended up skipping some chapters because they were completely irrelevant. I celebrated once I finished it.
January 28, 2024
I don't like Mondays.
Dr.H.H.Holmes is commonly known as "America's first serial killer" which is not true, at all. Before Holmes America had a ton of other serial killers active. The Harpes for instance were well before Holmes. The Bender family were also before Holmes. Not to mention Franklin Evans. In fact the Bender family and Evans were both exposed as serial killers within the same time frame. Evans in 1872 and the Bender's in 1873. But Holmes was the first serial killer to be called a "multiple murderer." While every other serial killer was called a "lust murderer" and a handful of other names that aren't similar to "multiple" or "serial" murderer.
Brenda Spencer, just like Howard Unruh is often referred to as the "first". Howard Unruh is called the "The father of mass murder." and "The first mass shooting in U.S. history." Which just like Brenda is false.
Gilbert Twigg shot and killed 9 people at a Band stand on August 13th, 1903, using a shotgun. He then used a pistol to commit suicide. Then we got several other mass shooters from the 1910's and 1920's well before Unruh in the 40's.
Prior to Brenda Spencer we had Charles Whitman and Robert Smith in 1966. But Whitman's massacre was at a college and Smith's was at a Beauty school. But if those don't count, well then we got Anthony Barbaro, who in 1974 went to his high school on a suicidal mission. He set fire to the school during winter/Christmas freak and began sniping at random cars outside the school. Killing 3 and injuring 11. But then you could argue "well it took place at a school, but not directly at students." I guess you could go back further where a teacher in the 1800's shot and killed his students during class.
Personally, I always like to think about Canada because in 1975 they had two school shootings within 6 months of eachother. Both committed by students.
The book starts off very very well and is very well written. It begins with the shooting, which is very well detailed and really does show the reality of what happened that day and what it was like for everybody, and the full actions of the heroes that day and there were many. As I read this part of the book I couldn't help but put my self into that situation and ask "WHAT WOULD I DO?!"
I also couldn't help but compare Charles Whitman and Brenda Spencer. Both snipers.
Whitman was an expert shot and a trained sniper. Everyone called his sniping skills "incredibly".
He was able to kill 13 people, with another dying years later from the bullet. His method was to do exactly what he was trained to do - aim for the heart and a single shot. Whitman never shot a victim more then once. Brenda Spencer on the other hand, was a 16 year old girl with no military training and she aimed anywhere and shot her victims multiple times. Two, three times.
See the thing is, and people might find this odd, disturbing, or irrelevent - "I mean, why make this point?" Why make this an observation." I see it the same way as a fire that killed 100 people. I see it in the same way as like the Titanic.
The reason why Brenda Spencer was able to do this was a myriad of factors, NOT JUST the rifle and her aiming and I think to my self "Man, this could of so much worse." and that is something to be thankful for. I mean, even the garbage truck. I always assumed the police intentionally brought it. Turns out the truck was near by, coming down the road, a police officer saw the truck and decided it would be perfect to block the shooting position. So just imagine if that didn't happen. Would of taken longer to take victims to the hospital and so forth.
I like everyone else was apparently misinformed on how the shooting actually happened.
The book starts right off with that Monday and we get a detailed description of the attack and the heroics of the school staff, paramedics and police.
The "fact" that Brenda was sniping out her bedroom window, depicted and stated in multiple documentaries, according to this book is not true. Brenda like Stephen Paddock who shot and killed 58 people in Las Vegas in 2017. First he smashed the window of the casino hotel room he was renting before sniping concert goers across the street. Brenda smashed out the window of the front door of the house and began sniping children and then staff and then police. I assume she had drunk alcohol before sniping and continued to get drunk, taking sips through out the event.
Towards the end, after laying out all the facts, the author gives his opinion on his view of what happened and he seems to think Brenda probably was on drugs during the attack, and even implied she might of been high on PCP and implying she did driven to do it due to the drugs. Which is Brenda's version of events. I can't disagree more.
I've always been skeptical of the drug claim, and just reading the description of the shooting, in my mind totally refutes this "I was high on drugs. That's why I did it".
Multiple victims were deliberately targeted and shot multiple times. One victim, Brenda was clearly trying to blow their head off. If she was on drugs and hallucinating like she claims - explain that? And these were small children. Kind of hard to argue she was seeing scary monsters or what ever, but was so precise as to what she was doing/attempting to do.
Even more evidence that totally debunks this idea, is the fact that she told her friend to wait for "monday" "it's be on the news" Clearly implying intent and premeditation BEFORE she actually did it. Not a spontaneous act.
Then you get into the actual phone interview she gave during the massacre. She called them "Easy pickings." "like shooting ducks in a pond" and said she "made sure to take care of him"
referring to custodian Suchar, because he was always "Bossing people around". She knew him as the custodian when she attended the school 5 years before.
All of this implies that she KNEW what she was doing and clearly wasn't hallicinating or anything else.
Her shooting Suchar on purpose "I made sure to take care of him." complaining he was an authority figure telling the students what to do, and among many other things about Brenda, what people said about her, her attitude towards the police, etc certainly implies to me the possiblity that Brenda suffered from what is known as Oppositional defiant disorder.
"Children with ODD are uncooperative, defiant, and hostile toward peers, parents, teachers, and other authority figures. Developmental problems may cause ODD."
Apparently her mother said her ex husband [Brenda's father] was a "push over".
And Brenda probably was neglected as a child. Like many many other mass shooters/killers. Isolated. At least to some degree.
To quote a song
"There ain't nobody, asking me, where I've been"
"There ain't nobody, that's droppin' by, to say hi
There ain't nobody, that's caring whether I live or die
I have nobody, to tell about, my growing angers
I have nobody, to tell about me, following strangers
There ain't nobody making sure I'm taking all of my pills
There ain't nobody, slowing me down and keeping me still
I'm truly alone"
But there is an issue I have with this, because it does seem slightly contradicted by Wally's loner tendencies. His wife saying he would never go out "Rather just stay home" all day. So I got two questions. When did Wally get off work, and where was he after work?! Or was he there, but ignored her most of the time?
The author does point out that Brenda wasn't "truly alone" ie not really a loner at all. She had multiple friends, even a younger boy who idolized and looked up to her. But as Eminem would ask decades later in 2000, post Columbine -
"When a dude's gettin' bullied and shoots up his school
And they blame it on Marilyn (On Marilyn) and the heroin
Where were the parents at? (Parents at?) And look where it's at!
Middle America, now it's a tragedy."
Another reason for why I don't at all buy into the drug narrative is the fact that Brenda seemed perfectly calm and rational during the entire event. She was lucid basically.
Later the author talks about the famous song by The Boomtown Rats.
At one point the author tries to argue the leader singer was "mocking" San Diegonians. Translating a quote he made which was basically "I think the Spencer case is very Californian and very American." and that was what fascinated and interested him in writing the song. All of which is totally 100% understandable and factually true.
This was in 1979. The 70's was a crime wave in America. The 70's saw an explosion of serial killers, most of them active in California. As other true crime authors/experts/fans have said "It's no secret that at that time [70's] California was serial killer central." But this makes particular sense in terms of not just the decade but where the band was from. Europe; Ireland.
The leader singer was not mocking San Diego, California, or even America. He was pointing out that America was foreign in respect to it's crime wave and "senseless violence" "senseless crimes like shooting children because mondays are so boring." A sentiment that still persists to this very day.
I mean, is the satire article from the Onion
""'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" mocking America, or mass shootings?! No, they are pointing out that from an American perspective and foreign perspective "Stuff like this is NORMAL and TYPICAL in America." Or as criminologist James Fox puts it "We've kind of cornered the market when it comes to mass killings. We don't have a monoply, but more then our fair share." and then adds "But that's true of our homicide rate generally. In fact our non gun homicide rate is higher then most european nations over all. In which we are more violent."
Even in a true crime documentary from 1985 the narrator and experts in the documentary say it.
Narrator: We are number 1...in violence.
Narrator: 20,000 times a year that crime is murder. Which happens here in America more often then ANYWHERE ELSE other then the killing fields of the third world.
One of my all time favorite true crime documentaries, which came out in 1983 starts with this.
Narrator: America is the only industrialized nation with the high murder rate of countries at civil war. Like Cambodia and Nicaragua. An attempted murder every 3 minutes. A murder victim every 20 minutes. Japan, England, and West Germany with a combined population equal to America have 6,000 murders a year. America has 27,000.
To quote a docu short about the 70's and in this episode about the 70's crime wave.
Commentator: The statistics were stupendous. I mean, violent crime of all kinds were soaring. The spectacles that people were seeing on their TV screen were unlike they had ever seen before.
Even the daughter of principal Wragg, who was shot and killed trying to save children said this.
"I do believe the song was more of a comment on what society can make you feel like."
There are obvious issues and problems with this book.
The book is littered with boring and irrelevent information like police dispatches. We also barely learn any real insight into why it happened.
The description of the book states "This book lays bare this seemingly average teenage girl’s brutal motives" That is total B.S in more then one way. We get some possible motives, but without any real substance, maybe a little bit - mainly that she was angry at the world, but the author completely contradicts saying "oh it was the drugs. She was on drugs" Despite no evidence of that and evidence implying other wise. He also claims in the book that the murders were entirely reckless and accidental. She didn't mean to kill anyone, she had used a 22. rifle and must of known the low impact it would have on her targets and thinks she might of sniped with her pellet gun first, but due to that having no effect at all, she decided to use the gun.
Now I get that she was sniping, but come on...she couldn't tell people were getting seriously hurt? Even might be dying? Probably dying? The police arrive at the school and try and help the injured and dying and have to try and avoid your sniping. AT WHAT POINT DO YOU STOP SHOOTING?!
Also, he tries to argue "she would of known" about the lack of impact the rifle would have....first off, she was 16 years old and she just got it. She only had the rifle for a month. She got it for Christmas in December and this happened in January. So I highly doubt this.
This also explains the low body count.
The author mentions how he was 10 years old at the time and how him and his friends "all knew" she stole the line "I don't like Mondays" from the recently released Garfield and friends cartoon.
Not something I knew, nice piece of trivial and is probably true.
The book is kind of boring at times. Not that well written to be honest. Not that well put together.
As another person put it "Bland".
Easily a comfortable 3/5. A lot of books I give a 3/5 to, are a strong 3/5. Almost a 4. This book is boring at times, Not that well written. Bogged down by too much detail and at the same time lack of detail.
Dr.H.H.Holmes is commonly known as "America's first serial killer" which is not true, at all. Before Holmes America had a ton of other serial killers active. The Harpes for instance were well before Holmes. The Bender family were also before Holmes. Not to mention Franklin Evans. In fact the Bender family and Evans were both exposed as serial killers within the same time frame. Evans in 1872 and the Bender's in 1873. But Holmes was the first serial killer to be called a "multiple murderer." While every other serial killer was called a "lust murderer" and a handful of other names that aren't similar to "multiple" or "serial" murderer.
Brenda Spencer, just like Howard Unruh is often referred to as the "first". Howard Unruh is called the "The father of mass murder." and "The first mass shooting in U.S. history." Which just like Brenda is false.
Gilbert Twigg shot and killed 9 people at a Band stand on August 13th, 1903, using a shotgun. He then used a pistol to commit suicide. Then we got several other mass shooters from the 1910's and 1920's well before Unruh in the 40's.
Prior to Brenda Spencer we had Charles Whitman and Robert Smith in 1966. But Whitman's massacre was at a college and Smith's was at a Beauty school. But if those don't count, well then we got Anthony Barbaro, who in 1974 went to his high school on a suicidal mission. He set fire to the school during winter/Christmas freak and began sniping at random cars outside the school. Killing 3 and injuring 11. But then you could argue "well it took place at a school, but not directly at students." I guess you could go back further where a teacher in the 1800's shot and killed his students during class.
Personally, I always like to think about Canada because in 1975 they had two school shootings within 6 months of eachother. Both committed by students.
The book starts off very very well and is very well written. It begins with the shooting, which is very well detailed and really does show the reality of what happened that day and what it was like for everybody, and the full actions of the heroes that day and there were many. As I read this part of the book I couldn't help but put my self into that situation and ask "WHAT WOULD I DO?!"
I also couldn't help but compare Charles Whitman and Brenda Spencer. Both snipers.
Whitman was an expert shot and a trained sniper. Everyone called his sniping skills "incredibly".
He was able to kill 13 people, with another dying years later from the bullet. His method was to do exactly what he was trained to do - aim for the heart and a single shot. Whitman never shot a victim more then once. Brenda Spencer on the other hand, was a 16 year old girl with no military training and she aimed anywhere and shot her victims multiple times. Two, three times.
See the thing is, and people might find this odd, disturbing, or irrelevent - "I mean, why make this point?" Why make this an observation." I see it the same way as a fire that killed 100 people. I see it in the same way as like the Titanic.
The reason why Brenda Spencer was able to do this was a myriad of factors, NOT JUST the rifle and her aiming and I think to my self "Man, this could of so much worse." and that is something to be thankful for. I mean, even the garbage truck. I always assumed the police intentionally brought it. Turns out the truck was near by, coming down the road, a police officer saw the truck and decided it would be perfect to block the shooting position. So just imagine if that didn't happen. Would of taken longer to take victims to the hospital and so forth.
I like everyone else was apparently misinformed on how the shooting actually happened.
The book starts right off with that Monday and we get a detailed description of the attack and the heroics of the school staff, paramedics and police.
The "fact" that Brenda was sniping out her bedroom window, depicted and stated in multiple documentaries, according to this book is not true. Brenda like Stephen Paddock who shot and killed 58 people in Las Vegas in 2017. First he smashed the window of the casino hotel room he was renting before sniping concert goers across the street. Brenda smashed out the window of the front door of the house and began sniping children and then staff and then police. I assume she had drunk alcohol before sniping and continued to get drunk, taking sips through out the event.
Towards the end, after laying out all the facts, the author gives his opinion on his view of what happened and he seems to think Brenda probably was on drugs during the attack, and even implied she might of been high on PCP and implying she did driven to do it due to the drugs. Which is Brenda's version of events. I can't disagree more.
I've always been skeptical of the drug claim, and just reading the description of the shooting, in my mind totally refutes this "I was high on drugs. That's why I did it".
Multiple victims were deliberately targeted and shot multiple times. One victim, Brenda was clearly trying to blow their head off. If she was on drugs and hallucinating like she claims - explain that? And these were small children. Kind of hard to argue she was seeing scary monsters or what ever, but was so precise as to what she was doing/attempting to do.
Even more evidence that totally debunks this idea, is the fact that she told her friend to wait for "monday" "it's be on the news" Clearly implying intent and premeditation BEFORE she actually did it. Not a spontaneous act.
Then you get into the actual phone interview she gave during the massacre. She called them "Easy pickings." "like shooting ducks in a pond" and said she "made sure to take care of him"
referring to custodian Suchar, because he was always "Bossing people around". She knew him as the custodian when she attended the school 5 years before.
All of this implies that she KNEW what she was doing and clearly wasn't hallicinating or anything else.
Her shooting Suchar on purpose "I made sure to take care of him." complaining he was an authority figure telling the students what to do, and among many other things about Brenda, what people said about her, her attitude towards the police, etc certainly implies to me the possiblity that Brenda suffered from what is known as Oppositional defiant disorder.
"Children with ODD are uncooperative, defiant, and hostile toward peers, parents, teachers, and other authority figures. Developmental problems may cause ODD."
Apparently her mother said her ex husband [Brenda's father] was a "push over".
And Brenda probably was neglected as a child. Like many many other mass shooters/killers. Isolated. At least to some degree.
To quote a song
"There ain't nobody, asking me, where I've been"
"There ain't nobody, that's droppin' by, to say hi
There ain't nobody, that's caring whether I live or die
I have nobody, to tell about, my growing angers
I have nobody, to tell about me, following strangers
There ain't nobody making sure I'm taking all of my pills
There ain't nobody, slowing me down and keeping me still
I'm truly alone"
But there is an issue I have with this, because it does seem slightly contradicted by Wally's loner tendencies. His wife saying he would never go out "Rather just stay home" all day. So I got two questions. When did Wally get off work, and where was he after work?! Or was he there, but ignored her most of the time?
The author does point out that Brenda wasn't "truly alone" ie not really a loner at all. She had multiple friends, even a younger boy who idolized and looked up to her. But as Eminem would ask decades later in 2000, post Columbine -
"When a dude's gettin' bullied and shoots up his school
And they blame it on Marilyn (On Marilyn) and the heroin
Where were the parents at? (Parents at?) And look where it's at!
Middle America, now it's a tragedy."
Another reason for why I don't at all buy into the drug narrative is the fact that Brenda seemed perfectly calm and rational during the entire event. She was lucid basically.
Later the author talks about the famous song by The Boomtown Rats.
At one point the author tries to argue the leader singer was "mocking" San Diegonians. Translating a quote he made which was basically "I think the Spencer case is very Californian and very American." and that was what fascinated and interested him in writing the song. All of which is totally 100% understandable and factually true.
This was in 1979. The 70's was a crime wave in America. The 70's saw an explosion of serial killers, most of them active in California. As other true crime authors/experts/fans have said "It's no secret that at that time [70's] California was serial killer central." But this makes particular sense in terms of not just the decade but where the band was from. Europe; Ireland.
The leader singer was not mocking San Diego, California, or even America. He was pointing out that America was foreign in respect to it's crime wave and "senseless violence" "senseless crimes like shooting children because mondays are so boring." A sentiment that still persists to this very day.
I mean, is the satire article from the Onion
""'No Way to Prevent This,' Says Only Nation Where This Regularly Happens" mocking America, or mass shootings?! No, they are pointing out that from an American perspective and foreign perspective "Stuff like this is NORMAL and TYPICAL in America." Or as criminologist James Fox puts it "We've kind of cornered the market when it comes to mass killings. We don't have a monoply, but more then our fair share." and then adds "But that's true of our homicide rate generally. In fact our non gun homicide rate is higher then most european nations over all. In which we are more violent."
Even in a true crime documentary from 1985 the narrator and experts in the documentary say it.
Narrator: We are number 1...in violence.
Narrator: 20,000 times a year that crime is murder. Which happens here in America more often then ANYWHERE ELSE other then the killing fields of the third world.
One of my all time favorite true crime documentaries, which came out in 1983 starts with this.
Narrator: America is the only industrialized nation with the high murder rate of countries at civil war. Like Cambodia and Nicaragua. An attempted murder every 3 minutes. A murder victim every 20 minutes. Japan, England, and West Germany with a combined population equal to America have 6,000 murders a year. America has 27,000.
To quote a docu short about the 70's and in this episode about the 70's crime wave.
Commentator: The statistics were stupendous. I mean, violent crime of all kinds were soaring. The spectacles that people were seeing on their TV screen were unlike they had ever seen before.
Even the daughter of principal Wragg, who was shot and killed trying to save children said this.
"I do believe the song was more of a comment on what society can make you feel like."
There are obvious issues and problems with this book.
The book is littered with boring and irrelevent information like police dispatches. We also barely learn any real insight into why it happened.
The description of the book states "This book lays bare this seemingly average teenage girl’s brutal motives" That is total B.S in more then one way. We get some possible motives, but without any real substance, maybe a little bit - mainly that she was angry at the world, but the author completely contradicts saying "oh it was the drugs. She was on drugs" Despite no evidence of that and evidence implying other wise. He also claims in the book that the murders were entirely reckless and accidental. She didn't mean to kill anyone, she had used a 22. rifle and must of known the low impact it would have on her targets and thinks she might of sniped with her pellet gun first, but due to that having no effect at all, she decided to use the gun.
Now I get that she was sniping, but come on...she couldn't tell people were getting seriously hurt? Even might be dying? Probably dying? The police arrive at the school and try and help the injured and dying and have to try and avoid your sniping. AT WHAT POINT DO YOU STOP SHOOTING?!
Also, he tries to argue "she would of known" about the lack of impact the rifle would have....first off, she was 16 years old and she just got it. She only had the rifle for a month. She got it for Christmas in December and this happened in January. So I highly doubt this.
This also explains the low body count.
The author mentions how he was 10 years old at the time and how him and his friends "all knew" she stole the line "I don't like Mondays" from the recently released Garfield and friends cartoon.
Not something I knew, nice piece of trivial and is probably true.
The book is kind of boring at times. Not that well written to be honest. Not that well put together.
As another person put it "Bland".
Easily a comfortable 3/5. A lot of books I give a 3/5 to, are a strong 3/5. Almost a 4. This book is boring at times, Not that well written. Bogged down by too much detail and at the same time lack of detail.
October 12, 2022
I heard about this event 30 years ago when I first came to San Diego. I really enjoyed this book because it filled In a lot of information that was missing or distorted as years have gone by. This was a thorough and well documented account of what happened and continuous parole refusals over the years was the result of people not being able to forget Brenda Spencer and the first school shooting. Sadly the Boomtown Rats added to her notoriety causing a continuous reminder for the victims and the people of San Diego.
August 1, 2025
I was born and raised in San Diego and heard about this story several times over the years, especially as other school shootings occurred like Columbine (1999) and Santana (2001). I was fascinated that the 911 system we all rely on wasn’t around at the time of this shooting and that so much time was wasted trying to get ahold of someone that could provide help. I was also surprised, in a good way, and impressed with how the teachers and staffed acted and everything they did to protect the students, long before active shooter drills were a thing in schools. I was shocked to learn that SDPD was in charge of the ambulances at the time, and am amazed at how that has changed over the years. As a former EMT in San Diego I was real interested in the workings behind that and how police officers also provided medical care, obviously they still do today as well when they are the only ones on scene but you don’t hear too many stories of them driving the ambulance anymore. Growing up I always remembers hearing that Brenda just didn’t like Mondays and that’s why she decided to shoot up the school. I enjoyed (maybe not the best word usage) learning more details about what happened and why she did what she did. As I was reading it really made me wonder what happened in her life to make her think this was “fun” or what occurred to make her have no respect for the lives of others. I liked how the book is set up and takes you on a journey from right before the incident, to the actual event (although I wasn’t prepared for that to occur so soon in the story), to what happened after and beyond. I felt there was a lot of details, most unknown to me until now, and easy to follow along as the story continued. I also enjoyed the history side notes like the police officers driving the ambulances and the police helicopter and radio codes, etc. Overall the book had a lot of great detailed information that I didn’t know before. Growing up I always heard the basic “she shot up the school because she didn’t like Mondays”, but to hear about the possible abuse and use of drugs and alcohol and other mental issues makes me feel sorry for her, her victims as well, but if she got help how different everything could have turned out. It was interesting to hear about who supported/ supports her release from prison and who doesn’t and when that support or non support occurred. A great read for anyone wanting to know more about Brenda and the famous “I don’t like Mondays” shooting.
April 23, 2023
3.5 stars
Like most people, I knew the basics of Brenda Spencer's story in connection to The Boomtown Rats song I Don't Like Mondays. It was genuinely interesting to read in depth about this tragic event.
The book does an excellent job of exploring the events of the first real school shooting and it's such a fascinating story. For such a horrendous event, it's Brenda's flippant tone, including the iconic 'I don't like Mondays' line, that makes it so strange. Now these mass shooting events have become almost commonplace and we find ourselves time and again trying to figure out how such an awful thing could have possibly happened.
An odd part of the book is the author's disdain for the Boomtown Rats song about the event. Hunt takes several goes at Geldof and writes the song off as disrespectful. Which was an odd perspective to me, firstly art can and should push the boundaries of what is acceptable, secondly the song is an absolute belter. It would be one thing if the song was shit and clearly offensive, the fact that it's a classic that still holds up today.
The book does its best to explore why Spencer set out to shoot and kill a bunch of children, teachers and cops, but it's always difficult to understand the why. Brenda after many years in jail clearly tried to blame substance abuse, alleged abuse from her family, even claiming that the swat team possibly accidently shot some of the victims. But the only thing we really learn from her in later years is that she wants out of prison and will say almost anything to get out except why she did what she did or take real responsibility for it.
The Boomtown Rats song actually sums it up quite well with the lines "And daddy doesn't understand it. He always said she was good as gold. And he can see no reasons, cause there are no reasons, what reason do you need to be shown?"
The book is well worth a read, Brenda's story is dark and strange, a rebellious young girl who gets lost in her own fantasies and sits across from a school shooting anyone she can. There is such a cold callous nature to both the shooting and her comments to media throughout.
Like most people, I knew the basics of Brenda Spencer's story in connection to The Boomtown Rats song I Don't Like Mondays. It was genuinely interesting to read in depth about this tragic event.
The book does an excellent job of exploring the events of the first real school shooting and it's such a fascinating story. For such a horrendous event, it's Brenda's flippant tone, including the iconic 'I don't like Mondays' line, that makes it so strange. Now these mass shooting events have become almost commonplace and we find ourselves time and again trying to figure out how such an awful thing could have possibly happened.
An odd part of the book is the author's disdain for the Boomtown Rats song about the event. Hunt takes several goes at Geldof and writes the song off as disrespectful. Which was an odd perspective to me, firstly art can and should push the boundaries of what is acceptable, secondly the song is an absolute belter. It would be one thing if the song was shit and clearly offensive, the fact that it's a classic that still holds up today.
The book does its best to explore why Spencer set out to shoot and kill a bunch of children, teachers and cops, but it's always difficult to understand the why. Brenda after many years in jail clearly tried to blame substance abuse, alleged abuse from her family, even claiming that the swat team possibly accidently shot some of the victims. But the only thing we really learn from her in later years is that she wants out of prison and will say almost anything to get out except why she did what she did or take real responsibility for it.
The Boomtown Rats song actually sums it up quite well with the lines "And daddy doesn't understand it. He always said she was good as gold. And he can see no reasons, cause there are no reasons, what reason do you need to be shown?"
The book is well worth a read, Brenda's story is dark and strange, a rebellious young girl who gets lost in her own fantasies and sits across from a school shooting anyone she can. There is such a cold callous nature to both the shooting and her comments to media throughout.
November 19, 2022
A Horrific Crime By A True Psychopath
I personally have never heard the story of Brenda Spencer who was a teenage killer in America. Brendas father bought her a rifle for Christmas and a month later Brenda uses her .22 rifle to shoot at Clevland Elementary School in 1979, killing Two people and wounding a police officer and Nine Children. The children are lucky to be alive thanks to the headmasters quick thinking and bravery as he disregarded his own life and rushed outside to try and save the children as Brenda systematically opened fire indiscriminately, but sadly he was shot and lost his life.
Reading the story of Brenda's actions that January day left me wondering why an average teenage girl who is only 16 years old and living in a nice suburban neighbourhood can commit such a horrific act.
The author then goes into Brenda’s life after she surrenders. Personally, after reading this book, I think Brenda is a very troubled person who I think is sane and is an extreme danger to the community.
Brenda has never once taken responsibility for her actions since that day and still over 40 years later goes to her parole hearing and has excuses which change each hearing and blame her father, mum, drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse, and anything else that will take the blame from herself. From reading this book Brenda lies to suit the circumstances of her parole. Only Brenda knows why she did what she did that day and opened fire on the school across the road.
I think the prison system has it correct when the parole board have continuously refused to release Brenda over the years due to her refusal to not to own up to her actions that day and Cam Miller who was shot that fateful day attends as many parole hearings as possible. The result of which even now the people who went to the school or lived in the neighborhood are fearful of Brenda Spencer being paroled. Please keep this psychopath behind bars
Thanks to WildBlue Press I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
I personally have never heard the story of Brenda Spencer who was a teenage killer in America. Brendas father bought her a rifle for Christmas and a month later Brenda uses her .22 rifle to shoot at Clevland Elementary School in 1979, killing Two people and wounding a police officer and Nine Children. The children are lucky to be alive thanks to the headmasters quick thinking and bravery as he disregarded his own life and rushed outside to try and save the children as Brenda systematically opened fire indiscriminately, but sadly he was shot and lost his life.
Reading the story of Brenda's actions that January day left me wondering why an average teenage girl who is only 16 years old and living in a nice suburban neighbourhood can commit such a horrific act.
The author then goes into Brenda’s life after she surrenders. Personally, after reading this book, I think Brenda is a very troubled person who I think is sane and is an extreme danger to the community.
Brenda has never once taken responsibility for her actions since that day and still over 40 years later goes to her parole hearing and has excuses which change each hearing and blame her father, mum, drugs, alcohol, sexual abuse, and anything else that will take the blame from herself. From reading this book Brenda lies to suit the circumstances of her parole. Only Brenda knows why she did what she did that day and opened fire on the school across the road.
I think the prison system has it correct when the parole board have continuously refused to release Brenda over the years due to her refusal to not to own up to her actions that day and Cam Miller who was shot that fateful day attends as many parole hearings as possible. The result of which even now the people who went to the school or lived in the neighborhood are fearful of Brenda Spencer being paroled. Please keep this psychopath behind bars
Thanks to WildBlue Press I received an advance review copy for free, and I am leaving this review voluntarily.
January 21, 2025
Truly I'd give it a 2.5 but I rounded up as I'm sure it was still a lot of work.. I'm 75% of the way through, so don't know yet how the book concludes, but I truly don't know if I'll make it to the end.
Interesting case & subject to write about but not very well written, I've put this book down so many times as it's so hard to stay focused on, full of unnecessary details & errors; I agree with what other said about the typos & needless inclusion of radio chatter etc. The editor should have done a better job, if there was one.
So much of the book is like a transcript; instead of summarising the information & putting forth the author's own thoughts on it, or even suggesting what we could take from it, they just wrote down everything people said, with not a lot really added. It's difficult to form your own opinion of the information that is provided as it feels so disjointed, & I'm unsure if the communication with Brenda Spencer made the author biased, so I couldn't trust it as objective writing. (Yes, even without offering personal opinions so far, they still gave the impression they were biased!)
When talking about the mental health defence stuff, they added a paragraph about someone else who was charged with murder when the insanity plea didn't work, & had then killed themselves after being released, but with no indication as to what we were supposed to take from that information. That he was mentally ill? It was a very short paragraph & someone committing suicide doesn't mean they should have qualified for an insanity plea for murder years before. I don't know 🤷🏼♀️ but I wouldn't recommend this to be honest.
Interesting case & subject to write about but not very well written, I've put this book down so many times as it's so hard to stay focused on, full of unnecessary details & errors; I agree with what other said about the typos & needless inclusion of radio chatter etc. The editor should have done a better job, if there was one.
So much of the book is like a transcript; instead of summarising the information & putting forth the author's own thoughts on it, or even suggesting what we could take from it, they just wrote down everything people said, with not a lot really added. It's difficult to form your own opinion of the information that is provided as it feels so disjointed, & I'm unsure if the communication with Brenda Spencer made the author biased, so I couldn't trust it as objective writing. (Yes, even without offering personal opinions so far, they still gave the impression they were biased!)
When talking about the mental health defence stuff, they added a paragraph about someone else who was charged with murder when the insanity plea didn't work, & had then killed themselves after being released, but with no indication as to what we were supposed to take from that information. That he was mentally ill? It was a very short paragraph & someone committing suicide doesn't mean they should have qualified for an insanity plea for murder years before. I don't know 🤷🏼♀️ but I wouldn't recommend this to be honest.
November 14, 2024
While Hunt did a great job at bringing more information that has been lost to time, at times the book felt lacking. The inclusion of her family's background added a great deal to Brenda's lore and gave the readers a better understanding of what could have possible caused her to snap. The dispelling of former facts also helped those who had previously studied this case have a more clearer picture of the events. The decision to not include an in depth look at the psychological ramifications of the victims is a baffling one to say the least. In my own research of the case, hearing of their continual struggles with the aftermath of the shooting added more to painting Brenda as the monster she is. One of the victims, in an news interview, described that even as an adult they still have a fear of something happening to them. So much so that they don't like being exposed and prefer having a wall to their back, they had been shot in the back. Just something like that shows that even if the wounds heal their minds can't forget. Still for anyone wanting to know more about Brenda and the shooting, this is a great book to learn from.
February 10, 2023
I first learned about this case by watching the documentary on Prime Video so when I noticed this book in my recommendations I was looking forward to reading it since true crime books, movies, documentaries seem to be my preferred genre.
Overall, this was a very good book. I did find some of the information included a bit tedious and/or tangential to the core information. There are long stretches of transcriptions that, although interesting, are a bit tedious to read; for these I would prefer to listen. However, I do understand how including these transcriptions helps to frame the events of this school shooting. There was also some tangential information that I am not sure if it really adds to the information. For instance, there is some detailed information about Betty and Dan Broderick as well as a few other crimes in the area that involved teens. While interesting, I am not sure that it provided any real additional value to the story.
With all of this in mind, I would still recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of school shootings in the United States.
Overall, this was a very good book. I did find some of the information included a bit tedious and/or tangential to the core information. There are long stretches of transcriptions that, although interesting, are a bit tedious to read; for these I would prefer to listen. However, I do understand how including these transcriptions helps to frame the events of this school shooting. There was also some tangential information that I am not sure if it really adds to the information. For instance, there is some detailed information about Betty and Dan Broderick as well as a few other crimes in the area that involved teens. While interesting, I am not sure that it provided any real additional value to the story.
With all of this in mind, I would still recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the history of school shootings in the United States.
January 20, 2025
I gave it 3 stars because the author had no footnotes, he repeats himself, and the story could have been tighter. HOWEVER, the story was very interesting (and sad), and having lived in San Diego, I couldn't put it down. But I don't know what's really true and what is fictional. Dude. You had me at San Diego. Why couldn't you have better documented where you got your information?!?
The other thing that was interesting to see is that the chaos from a school shooting is the same in 1979 as it is today in 2025. It doesn't matter how many shootings America has. It will never get better or easier because of protocols, drills, etc. The teachers in 1979 still protected their kids, the doors still got barricaded, kids still went single file to another building, etc. The only difference in 1979 was that they thought the shots were fireworks at first. No one took the noise seriously.
The other thing that was interesting to see is that the chaos from a school shooting is the same in 1979 as it is today in 2025. It doesn't matter how many shootings America has. It will never get better or easier because of protocols, drills, etc. The teachers in 1979 still protected their kids, the doors still got barricaded, kids still went single file to another building, etc. The only difference in 1979 was that they thought the shots were fireworks at first. No one took the noise seriously.
July 15, 2024
You would think the most shocking part is a 16 year old girl shooting 8 children, ages 7-9, a cop, and killing 2 adults, then responding with "I was bored. I hate mondays" when asked why. To me, it's just as shocking or more so that her 51 year old dad becomes friends with her cellmate, who is 4 months younger than her n looks like her, continues visiting the cellmate after his daughter is transfered, and ends up impregnating and marrying the cellmate when she's 17. There's also a lot of questions in her parole hearings as she's denied over and over for 40+ years, more claims of abuse coming out. Is it repressed memories or is she creating false memories after spending more time in prison than out?
October 12, 2022
The author's pen pal
This is a terribly written book by a person who certainly appears to be on a mission to get a murderer paroled. It's packed with spurious references to the victims and their families (one father, a lawyer, is categorized as difficult and a trial to his daughter because he had the TEMERITY to want to file a civil lawsuit against the family of the girl who SHOT his daughter!). The author claims that school shooters are not considered abnormal by modern psychology. All I can say is thank God for the law and for wisdom in the parole boards who keep this psychopath behind bars.
This is a terribly written book by a person who certainly appears to be on a mission to get a murderer paroled. It's packed with spurious references to the victims and their families (one father, a lawyer, is categorized as difficult and a trial to his daughter because he had the TEMERITY to want to file a civil lawsuit against the family of the girl who SHOT his daughter!). The author claims that school shooters are not considered abnormal by modern psychology. All I can say is thank God for the law and for wisdom in the parole boards who keep this psychopath behind bars.
April 26, 2023
Until a couple years ago (I’m 56) I really thought this occurred in the UK because of the Boomtown Rats song. Imagine my surprise when I saw a documentary on this on Amazon prime and found out it happened in California! The docu was not great. But this book had all the deets. I mean AAAAALLLLLLL the deets! The first half or so is a tick tock of that morning. Followed by what happened to individual people, all of Brenda’s parole hearings, all of her “explanations” of her crime, and even Sir Bob’s musical input. It answered all the questions I might have had plus many I hadn’t thought of. But I found it to be a really interesting look at Brenda Spencer, her family and her crime.
October 13, 2024
I listened to the audiobook whilst doing some monotonous work tasks. I wouldn’t say it was gripping, but it helped pass the time.
I was already aware of Brenda Spencer and the Cleveland Elementary School shooting, but this book had some information and insights I hadn’t been aware of.
Some parts were interesting, particularly the transcriptions of police communications at the scene. Some parts seemed a little irrelevant and felt like padding. If I hadn’t been listening to the audio whilst doing other things, I’m not sure the book would have held my attention all that well.
Oh, and the author really has it in for the Boomtown Rats…
3.5 stars, rounded down.
I was already aware of Brenda Spencer and the Cleveland Elementary School shooting, but this book had some information and insights I hadn’t been aware of.
Some parts were interesting, particularly the transcriptions of police communications at the scene. Some parts seemed a little irrelevant and felt like padding. If I hadn’t been listening to the audio whilst doing other things, I’m not sure the book would have held my attention all that well.
Oh, and the author really has it in for the Boomtown Rats…
3.5 stars, rounded down.
August 28, 2023
Good for what it is, but I'm not sure it answers the core implicit question of why we should care about this particular case more than others, even if it is unique. It's a very detailed exploration of a few people's connected lives and the evolving stories told about one Monday morning that defined them. I wonder how many books like this will feel so sympathetic to the shooter? I suppose many don't have the luxury of having a personal relationship with the killers because they also kill themselves.
Read
April 21, 2024This book started off so strong! The first 50 pages was amazing and so interesting. Then, it started going in circles making me wonder if my ebook had an editing error or if my kindle went back a few pages. The author kept repeating the same information over and over again and just adding tidbits of irrelevant information. (Ex: The fact that her grandmother had over 60 cats was just dropped in the middle of the story) I would have wished for more flesh around the case, the audience, the court, etc.
Interesting case for a 1h podcast but not enough for a 300 pages book.
Interesting case for a 1h podcast but not enough for a 300 pages book.
October 1, 2024
DNF
I think this was a better book than the rating I am giving it. I just found it so bland, and while the information was gold, the delivery just had me slipping away and reading and re reading passages.
I was less interested in Brenda than I had anticipated, I also had been listening to a boatload of podcasts around the shooting and other school shootings in general that touched on a lot of what is included so maybe I was at saturation. I gave it earmarked on the shelf for another chance in the future.
I think this was a better book than the rating I am giving it. I just found it so bland, and while the information was gold, the delivery just had me slipping away and reading and re reading passages.
I was less interested in Brenda than I had anticipated, I also had been listening to a boatload of podcasts around the shooting and other school shootings in general that touched on a lot of what is included so maybe I was at saturation. I gave it earmarked on the shelf for another chance in the future.
October 8, 2022
Skip this one !
Poorly written true crime book. You teenager shooting at an elementary school because she waa bored. Parents are divorced and neither has any sort interest in what their daughter is going through. I could only read this for the first half of book. You are reading police dispatch report that is confusing and you can't understand what is happening. Skipped to end to see she was prosecuted.
Poorly written true crime book. You teenager shooting at an elementary school because she waa bored. Parents are divorced and neither has any sort interest in what their daughter is going through. I could only read this for the first half of book. You are reading police dispatch report that is confusing and you can't understand what is happening. Skipped to end to see she was prosecuted.
January 17, 2023
Confusing writing and off timeline
I was excited to see a book about Brenda Spencer because not a lot has been written about her. I don't think this book added anything to what has already been said. We keep being reintroduced to characters two or three chapters after get are first introduced, there are too long sections of the book that are transcripts, and a ton of speculation.
I was excited to see a book about Brenda Spencer because not a lot has been written about her. I don't think this book added anything to what has already been said. We keep being reintroduced to characters two or three chapters after get are first introduced, there are too long sections of the book that are transcripts, and a ton of speculation.
January 2, 2023
3.5 stars rounded up. Well written but a lot of extraneous information, like entire transcripts of police conversation most of which doesn't give us any information relevant to...anything. It reads at times like the author was paid by the word and so copy pasted anything they could get away with saying verbatim.
January 20, 2023
No excuse
Seems the author is really trying hard to excuse this vicious act carried out by Brenda Spencer. Even if she was high that doesn’t excuse the fact that she shot children and killed two people.
Seems the author is really trying hard to excuse this vicious act carried out by Brenda Spencer. Even if she was high that doesn’t excuse the fact that she shot children and killed two people.
January 23, 2023
I don’t like Mondays
Obviously a lot of research went into this book. I had previously not been aware of this school shooting and found myself a bit confused. Very compelling read, I will have to mull this over for a bit to know quite what to feel.
Obviously a lot of research went into this book. I had previously not been aware of this school shooting and found myself a bit confused. Very compelling read, I will have to mull this over for a bit to know quite what to feel.
July 26, 2024
I’ve never heard of this shooting spree. However, I have been on a true crime kick recently and found this book super interesting. Well written with the facts presented fairly, starting with the crime then digging into the history of the suspect.
August 6, 2024
I have never heard this story, especially in this much detail. The writing style, however, took away from it greatly. It’s like your forgetful grandpa is telling you a story and keeps repeating parts over and over again.
September 23, 2022
Such a difficult subject but was a really good read. There was awesome insight from the killer herself and all involved. What happens after the shooting is so crazy. The amount of details is insane.
September 30, 2022
This was a goodreads kindle giveaway. I found the story to be quite engaging up until the last 100 pages which were harder to get through.
December 23, 2022
The first American school shooting
This is a collection of background information on the first American school shooting. It's fairly interesting, but not really my cup of tea.
This is a collection of background information on the first American school shooting. It's fairly interesting, but not really my cup of tea.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 40 reviews