What do you think?
Rate this book
John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster
"Sam, could you do me a favor?" Thus begins a story that has now become part of America’s true crime hall of fame. It is a gory, grotesque tale befitting a Stephen King novel. It is also a David and Goliath saga—the story of a young lawyer fresh from the Public Defender’s Office whose first client in private practice turns out to be the worst serial killer in our nation’s history.
Sam Amirante had just opened his first law practice when he got a phone call from his friend John Wayne Gacy, a well-known and well-liked community figure. Gacy was upset about what he called “police harassment” and asked Amirante for help. With the police following his every move in connection with the disappearance of a local teenager, Gacy eventually gives a drunken, dramatic, early morning confession—to his new lawyer. Gacy is eventually charged with murder and Amirante suddenly becomes the defense attorney for one of American’s most disturbing serial killers. It is his first case. This is a gripping narrative that reenacts the gruesome killings and the famous trial that shocked a nation.
Sam Amirante had just opened his first law practice when he got a phone call from his friend John Wayne Gacy, a well-known and well-liked community figure. Gacy was upset about what he called “police harassment” and asked Amirante for help. With the police following his every move in connection with the disappearance of a local teenager, Gacy eventually gives a drunken, dramatic, early morning confession—to his new lawyer. Gacy is eventually charged with murder and Amirante suddenly becomes the defense attorney for one of American’s most disturbing serial killers. It is his first case. This is a gripping narrative that reenacts the gruesome killings and the famous trial that shocked a nation.
352 pages, Hardcover
First published August 1, 2011
388 people are currently reading
3660 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 360 reviews
October 23, 2017
I knew the basics about John Wayne Gacy before starting, but no details. The case made national headlines at the time, but I was too young to take notice. This is written by his defense attorney, Sam Amirante and co author Danny Broderick. What I really wanted to know is how someone can defend a serial killer. There is no doubt that Gacy committed the horrendous act of killing 33 boys and burying most of them under his house, in fact, he would tell anyone who asked that he did it(against his attorney's guidance, of course). Who can defend that and why?
Amirante answers my question with a passion reserved for those protecting our constitution. "Everyone has a right to a fair trial in accordance and in keeping with the dictates of our Constitution. Then it would be a jury of his peers to decide his fate." He hammers this throughout especially when I really start hating Gacy. Amirante steers the reader back to why he's defending this guy and not let emotions muddy the reasons why Gacy deserves fair representation.
Gacy was Amirate's first case after starting his new private practice. Even though he lost that first case and Gacy died by lethal injection in 1994, he started The Missing Child Recovery Act which eliminated the 72 hour waiting period to search for lost children in the state of Illinois. Eventually a national network was formed known as the Amber Alert. "Therefore, these boys...and eleven more, did not die in vain." A well written and reflective read on our justice system.
Amirante answers my question with a passion reserved for those protecting our constitution. "Everyone has a right to a fair trial in accordance and in keeping with the dictates of our Constitution. Then it would be a jury of his peers to decide his fate." He hammers this throughout especially when I really start hating Gacy. Amirante steers the reader back to why he's defending this guy and not let emotions muddy the reasons why Gacy deserves fair representation.
Gacy was Amirate's first case after starting his new private practice. Even though he lost that first case and Gacy died by lethal injection in 1994, he started The Missing Child Recovery Act which eliminated the 72 hour waiting period to search for lost children in the state of Illinois. Eventually a national network was formed known as the Amber Alert. "Therefore, these boys...and eleven more, did not die in vain." A well written and reflective read on our justice system.
June 12, 2017
This is one of the most difficult reviews I’ve written for GoodReads. In part, this is because the organization and writing style of the book is so inconsistent … and that can’t be attributed only to being written by more than one person. I even debated deleting the book from my listing unreviewed (as I take that name “GoodReads” literally). Ultimately, I’ve decided to recommend it … conditionally.
The retelling of the murders committed by John Wayne Gacy is both compelling and revolting at the same time. It is not idle or morbid curiosity that interests, but more of a need to understand HOW this could happen. How could so many people disappear without being reported? How could so many murders occur without obvious detection? How was he able to repeat the process over and over again? And how could someone do this and NOT be insane?
Written from the Defense side of the aisle, there are answers to some of these questions. Also, although it is not explained until the end, there are moments when John Gacy’s comments and feelings are expressed when no one was around to record them. We discover later that many, many hours of taped recordings were made by his attorneys and that Gacy expressed his comments and feelings in the recording. These references are used in a “you are there” style, such as Gacy carrying a body up to the attic and thinking how heavy the victim was and how hard on his back it was for Gacy to hide the remains.
The overwhelming style is as if the Reader is sharing drinks with the lead attorney at a bar and talking about the case. There are many asides. There are many stray opinions. There are “left field” comments about the importance of guaranteeing the Right of a fair and impartial trial along with derogatory comments about people who think that not everyone deserves this Right. And there are also digressions about the importance of people who fight and die for our country. As I indicated, it felt as if we were having the discussion over drinks at a bar.
There are also some very disturbing remarks made by the lead attorney to the Reader. For instance, one witness at the trial turns heads as she enters the room and testifies. The attorney states, though, that “Donita” is actually “Don,” a transgender person. Therefore, it was the attorney’s duty to challenge the veracity of Donita’s remarks since Donita was obviously living a lie. It naturally followed that much of her testimony was also a lie. That observation made me very, very uncomfortable.
Then, there was a remark made in the Acknowledgments in which the writer frets over the possibility of omitting the name of a contributor to the book … which he states would be a greater crime than the ones portrayed in the book’s pages. What?!!!
Despite all of this, the Gacy case retains its horrific fascination, and the writing from the Defense side gives the Reader insights that likely wouldn’t have been in other “true crime” books. I recommend it … with significant reservations … to those who want to learn more.
The retelling of the murders committed by John Wayne Gacy is both compelling and revolting at the same time. It is not idle or morbid curiosity that interests, but more of a need to understand HOW this could happen. How could so many people disappear without being reported? How could so many murders occur without obvious detection? How was he able to repeat the process over and over again? And how could someone do this and NOT be insane?
Written from the Defense side of the aisle, there are answers to some of these questions. Also, although it is not explained until the end, there are moments when John Gacy’s comments and feelings are expressed when no one was around to record them. We discover later that many, many hours of taped recordings were made by his attorneys and that Gacy expressed his comments and feelings in the recording. These references are used in a “you are there” style, such as Gacy carrying a body up to the attic and thinking how heavy the victim was and how hard on his back it was for Gacy to hide the remains.
The overwhelming style is as if the Reader is sharing drinks with the lead attorney at a bar and talking about the case. There are many asides. There are many stray opinions. There are “left field” comments about the importance of guaranteeing the Right of a fair and impartial trial along with derogatory comments about people who think that not everyone deserves this Right. And there are also digressions about the importance of people who fight and die for our country. As I indicated, it felt as if we were having the discussion over drinks at a bar.
There are also some very disturbing remarks made by the lead attorney to the Reader. For instance, one witness at the trial turns heads as she enters the room and testifies. The attorney states, though, that “Donita” is actually “Don,” a transgender person. Therefore, it was the attorney’s duty to challenge the veracity of Donita’s remarks since Donita was obviously living a lie. It naturally followed that much of her testimony was also a lie. That observation made me very, very uncomfortable.
Then, there was a remark made in the Acknowledgments in which the writer frets over the possibility of omitting the name of a contributor to the book … which he states would be a greater crime than the ones portrayed in the book’s pages. What?!!!
Despite all of this, the Gacy case retains its horrific fascination, and the writing from the Defense side gives the Reader insights that likely wouldn’t have been in other “true crime” books. I recommend it … with significant reservations … to those who want to learn more.
January 19, 2014
Very transphobic when he questioned Donita. Didn't like that part. For that he loses 2 stars. Very bigoted attitude and for that he loses another.
March 21, 2022
An interesting read from the viewpoint of one of the men tasked with defending John Wayne Gacy, one of the most infamous U.S. serial killers. Strangely, it's in the pre-trial stage of the Gacy saga that the book works best, as Amirante encounters Gacy in all his weirdness and the case against him builds toward prosecution and inevitable conviction. Amirante's account of the trial can get bogged down in superfluous detail and isn't helped by Amirante's insistence on the unlikely insanity defence he mounted on behalf of a man who planned his killings in advance and used similar tactics to lure in then kill his victims. And, being an American lawyer, he throws in the usual platitudes about the sanctity of the U.S. constitution that are liable to make your eyes glaze over.
Killer Clown: The John Wayne Gacy Murders
is still the superior account of the Gacy saga but Defending a Monster is a decent read if you want a different perspective.
May 25, 2018
As I grow older and find myself becoming more and more like my Mom, I seem to be gravitating towards the same books that captivated her, which seems to always be spinning me back to true crime. Lately, however, I have discovered that some of those true crime books are not exactly what they purport to be; they are, instead, memoirs of the author masking themselves as true crime.
That's precisely what Judge Sam L. Amirante has done with John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster. Sure he tells us the basics of the Gacy killings, sure he talks a bit about the Gacy he knew, but mostly Amirante is telling us what it was like to be him as he "defended the monster." Admittedly, many of the things he relates about himself are damn interesting, but too much of his book is spinning a myth about his own awesomeness (though he wouldn't be so crass as to say that explicitly) or lecturing us on the "greatness" of the US legal system: its nobility, its idealism, its importance, hell ... its preeminence. Too much bla bla bla for my taste.
Personally, I wanted a bit more of the crime(s) in my true crime book rather than the law and the trial, you know?
p.s. The author's afterword didn't do enough to mitigate my serious discomfort throughout as I listened to some all too familiar 70s and 80s homophobia. Just a warning if you are planning on giving this a listen.
That's precisely what Judge Sam L. Amirante has done with John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster. Sure he tells us the basics of the Gacy killings, sure he talks a bit about the Gacy he knew, but mostly Amirante is telling us what it was like to be him as he "defended the monster." Admittedly, many of the things he relates about himself are damn interesting, but too much of his book is spinning a myth about his own awesomeness (though he wouldn't be so crass as to say that explicitly) or lecturing us on the "greatness" of the US legal system: its nobility, its idealism, its importance, hell ... its preeminence. Too much bla bla bla for my taste.
Personally, I wanted a bit more of the crime(s) in my true crime book rather than the law and the trial, you know?
p.s. The author's afterword didn't do enough to mitigate my serious discomfort throughout as I listened to some all too familiar 70s and 80s homophobia. Just a warning if you are planning on giving this a listen.
September 21, 2019
Listened to in audio format.
This book was fascinating and I have found myself listening whenever I had a spare minute.
This book was written by Gacy's lawyers Sam Amirante and Danny Broderick. I was worried the book would claim Gacy's innocence or defend his actions but I was wrong.
The book discussed the murder of Gacy's last victim Robert Pieste which led to his arrest. Mr Amirante also explains his horror when a drunk Gacy confessed to killing 33 young men. When Gacy is finally arrested he shows his manipulative side by taking a heart attack.
Sam is under no illusion that Gacy is 'mad' and tries to get a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity. The defence claim Gacy is sane and was aware of his actions during the murder.
I really enjoyed the legal sides of the arguments and how it affected Amarante's family being Gacy's lawyer. Both lawyers had independent psychological profiles done claiming opposing viewpoints. It definitely makes you wonder if Gacy was truly evil or desperately unwell.
If I have one criticism I think the full text of the closing arguments for the prosecution and defence was a little boring. However this did not stop my enjoyment and I will definitely listen to this again.
This book was fascinating and I have found myself listening whenever I had a spare minute.
This book was written by Gacy's lawyers Sam Amirante and Danny Broderick. I was worried the book would claim Gacy's innocence or defend his actions but I was wrong.
The book discussed the murder of Gacy's last victim Robert Pieste which led to his arrest. Mr Amirante also explains his horror when a drunk Gacy confessed to killing 33 young men. When Gacy is finally arrested he shows his manipulative side by taking a heart attack.
Sam is under no illusion that Gacy is 'mad' and tries to get a not guilty verdict by reason of insanity. The defence claim Gacy is sane and was aware of his actions during the murder.
I really enjoyed the legal sides of the arguments and how it affected Amarante's family being Gacy's lawyer. Both lawyers had independent psychological profiles done claiming opposing viewpoints. It definitely makes you wonder if Gacy was truly evil or desperately unwell.
If I have one criticism I think the full text of the closing arguments for the prosecution and defence was a little boring. However this did not stop my enjoyment and I will definitely listen to this again.
September 26, 2012
Having read most of the books written about Gacy, I found this an interesting read from the defense attorney's point of view. Strangely enough, there was an article in the news about the case just a couple of days after I finished it, regarding one of the suspected young men in the ongoing effort to identify the remaining 7 bodies that haven't been ID'd yet by one means or another. This young man's remains were actually found out west, and he was ruled out as a victim of Gacy's after nearly 30 years.
March 23, 2023
Story 4/5
Narration 5/5
Very interesting, even if some arguments strongly displeased me.
Narration 5/5
Very interesting, even if some arguments strongly displeased me.
September 15, 2012
While this is a page turner, that has more to do with the grotesque nature of the true crime that makes Gacy fascinating than it does with the craft of writing. As a result, this reads a bit like an epistle justifying why Amirante chose to defend Gacy. Throughout the entire book, Amirante and Broderick talk of Gacy's 'homosexual tendencies' in a vernacular that is more appropriate for 1979 than today. For a self-actualized gay man in 2012, their commentary grows tiring, and often had me wondering if the authors themselves were homophobic on some level. It's as if the mere act of writing about gay sex is cause for them to defend their own sexuality. The resulting tone, unfortunately, is that of a tall tale told in the misty confines of a country club locker room. It's not hard to picture the authors standing around naked, wrapped in a towel, telling a story about the time they had to come to the defense of some sissy. Don't be confused though, they only stepped forward because they were raised right. Who really cares about what homosexuals do in private, right? It's not until the epilogue that they redeem themselves and, for the first time in the entire text, deal with Gacy's sexuality. It is here that they discuss how Gacy's own internalized homophobia was so strong, he often could never speak of it, or acknowledge that side of his persona. It's unfortunate that it takes the book to come to this point, rather than the authors bring it up at the beginning of the story and infuse the impacting weight of Gacy's homophobia throughout. Now, with 30 years perspective, it would have been nice if the authors had spent some time reflecting on the meaning of Gacy, and the depth of pain he suffered from being programmed by an abusive father who never could accept Gacy for who he really was. It is in that very reflection that can lead us, as readers, to realize that Gacy may have been raving mad from the get-go, but had he known true unconditional love, how might he have been different? How might all of our children be different if they each were taught to be confident in who they are? Might that be the way from stopping serial killers? Teen suicide? Rather than a regurgitation of facts in a locker room tall tale, that story would have been a true page-turner that we all could learn from.
May 11, 2023
this was actually a very entertaining unique perspective to one of the most notorious and famous serial killers of all time.
the story was well laid out and the commentary was rich. getting to see the behind the scenes of due process and the respect giving to our rights as US citizens was enlightening.
people have been a little sour about the scene with the Trans female witness. while I don't necessarily agree with the things said to her we have to remember two things - one this was 50 years ago, the progression on this topic wasn't even close to scratching the surface. two, and he explains this later, his comments weren't personal - they served a purpose for the trial and trial alone. no one said you have to like lawyers but there is strategy behind what they do.
the only thing that took away from the story was the first scene where the authors tried to speak from the perspective of Gacy's last victim. it's truly impossible to know what that poor 15 year old boy was thinking and feeling and while we can speculate, the way it was done in this story was distasteful.
the story was well laid out and the commentary was rich. getting to see the behind the scenes of due process and the respect giving to our rights as US citizens was enlightening.
people have been a little sour about the scene with the Trans female witness. while I don't necessarily agree with the things said to her we have to remember two things - one this was 50 years ago, the progression on this topic wasn't even close to scratching the surface. two, and he explains this later, his comments weren't personal - they served a purpose for the trial and trial alone. no one said you have to like lawyers but there is strategy behind what they do.
the only thing that took away from the story was the first scene where the authors tried to speak from the perspective of Gacy's last victim. it's truly impossible to know what that poor 15 year old boy was thinking and feeling and while we can speculate, the way it was done in this story was distasteful.
November 1, 2018
DNF at 65%.
The writing is weirdly clunky and formal as the author doesn't tend to use contractions very much, so it just doesn't feel like how people would actually have spoken. At the same time he occasionally writes very casually, so it's just inconsistent.
A bigger issue was that he CONSTANTLY brought up the constitution, patriotism, every person's right to a fair trial, and the vilification of those who even had a passing thought of anything otherwise. It just comes across as all the years of overjustification he's done of his defense of Gacy was splayed out on the pages, because everyone he justified himself to got tired of hearing about it and suggested he write a book.
Of course everyone has the right to a fair trial. But sometimes, people will get angry and not care about that when someone does something so inherently evil - I myself tend to get that way towards animal abuse crimes. I don't think we should blame people for feeling that way, and call them names as he does in this book. People who get emotional are referred to as stupid, unpatriotic, and a woman being considered as a member of the jury is referred to as a "blonde bimbo". And this little blip of sexism is a fantastic segue way into my reason for quitting:
He asks a female witness completely irrelevant, very personal questions about when she used to identify as a man in front of the entire courtroom (who he describes upon her entrance as unable to take their eyes off her), including what her previous name was, how long she had been a female, if she's had the sex change operation yet (following that up with asking if that meant she was still a man), EVEN CONSIDERING ASKING "if she still had a dick under that pretty little black dress".
He ONLY does this to "show how wrong an original perception could be" after making sure you know he "wasn't interested in embarrassing this poor little woman, or man, or whatever". This chapter closes with Donita Gannon leaving the courtroom and him writing "That woman had stood there at the outset of her testimony with her hand on a bible and sworn to god that she would tell the truth, when, in fact, she was living a lie".
I'm absolutely disgusted at the lack of humanity displayed here that he has spent this entire book claiming he has. Maybe he's changed since he wrote this book in 2011, I don't know. I would like to think so.
The writing is weirdly clunky and formal as the author doesn't tend to use contractions very much, so it just doesn't feel like how people would actually have spoken. At the same time he occasionally writes very casually, so it's just inconsistent.
A bigger issue was that he CONSTANTLY brought up the constitution, patriotism, every person's right to a fair trial, and the vilification of those who even had a passing thought of anything otherwise. It just comes across as all the years of overjustification he's done of his defense of Gacy was splayed out on the pages, because everyone he justified himself to got tired of hearing about it and suggested he write a book.
Of course everyone has the right to a fair trial. But sometimes, people will get angry and not care about that when someone does something so inherently evil - I myself tend to get that way towards animal abuse crimes. I don't think we should blame people for feeling that way, and call them names as he does in this book. People who get emotional are referred to as stupid, unpatriotic, and a woman being considered as a member of the jury is referred to as a "blonde bimbo". And this little blip of sexism is a fantastic segue way into my reason for quitting:
He asks a female witness completely irrelevant, very personal questions about when she used to identify as a man in front of the entire courtroom (who he describes upon her entrance as unable to take their eyes off her), including what her previous name was, how long she had been a female, if she's had the sex change operation yet (following that up with asking if that meant she was still a man), EVEN CONSIDERING ASKING "if she still had a dick under that pretty little black dress".
He ONLY does this to "show how wrong an original perception could be" after making sure you know he "wasn't interested in embarrassing this poor little woman, or man, or whatever". This chapter closes with Donita Gannon leaving the courtroom and him writing "That woman had stood there at the outset of her testimony with her hand on a bible and sworn to god that she would tell the truth, when, in fact, she was living a lie".
I'm absolutely disgusted at the lack of humanity displayed here that he has spent this entire book claiming he has. Maybe he's changed since he wrote this book in 2011, I don't know. I would like to think so.
February 26, 2021
Maybe the original story of the John Wayne Gary murders are “befitting of a Stephen King novel” as the description implies. But the way this book is written? Not even close.
The book initially attempts to grab readers by telling an imagined version of the murder of Gacy's final victim. I was interested in the case and tried to force myself through this book, but I had to give before I was even 60% through.
The book is barely about the John Gacy murders at all; it's the autobiography of his lawyer, Amirante - a self-proclaimed super patriot with delusions of grandeur, whose bae is apparently the Constitution herself. His overbearingly self-serving attitude becomes more and more burdensome the further you read. He interjects at least once per chapter to remind readers of how SUPER DUPER patriotic he is, and that everyone around him is just uneducated, immoral, conniving, and unfair. He repeatedly refers to others as stupid, nincompoops, cowardly alcoholics, etc. I’ve never read the phrase “[So-and-so] wasn’t exactly a brain surgeon” so many times in one book. He refers to himself as “brilliant” multiple times, and frequently claims that he always held the moral high ground during the case and was never, EVER motivated by selfish reasons (there are, in fact, several instances where he displays blatant selfishness, but he is always quick with the same excuse: “I had to feed my family! That's not selfish, is it? Keeping my family from starving?" However, no one else around him is allowed to have any excuses.)
Amirante also demonstrates an incredibly transphobic and sexist personality throughout the story. He constantly feels the need to use the term "female” in front of job titles in each instance where the person he’s talking about isn’t a man. Most sickeningly, during the testimony of a trans woman, he takes great pride in writing about how he badgered her with questions about her gender and her person sex life, knowing the questions had no relevance to the case. He even writes in chapter 28, "I wanted to ask if she still had a dick under that pretty little black dress". WHAT THE HELL?
Why would he ask such personal, demeaning questions about the state of a witness’s genitals, which had NO bearing whatsoever to the case? Why, for FUN, of course! He writes about how it childishly pleased him to be the one to make everyone in the courtroom realize (and I quote) "the beautiful woman that everyone in the room had been openly ogling… was a man! A he-she!".
Steer clear of this piece of garbage. There are plenty of books on the Gacy murders. Pick literally ANY other one than this one.
The book initially attempts to grab readers by telling an imagined version of the murder of Gacy's final victim. I was interested in the case and tried to force myself through this book, but I had to give before I was even 60% through.
The book is barely about the John Gacy murders at all; it's the autobiography of his lawyer, Amirante - a self-proclaimed super patriot with delusions of grandeur, whose bae is apparently the Constitution herself. His overbearingly self-serving attitude becomes more and more burdensome the further you read. He interjects at least once per chapter to remind readers of how SUPER DUPER patriotic he is, and that everyone around him is just uneducated, immoral, conniving, and unfair. He repeatedly refers to others as stupid, nincompoops, cowardly alcoholics, etc. I’ve never read the phrase “[So-and-so] wasn’t exactly a brain surgeon” so many times in one book. He refers to himself as “brilliant” multiple times, and frequently claims that he always held the moral high ground during the case and was never, EVER motivated by selfish reasons (there are, in fact, several instances where he displays blatant selfishness, but he is always quick with the same excuse: “I had to feed my family! That's not selfish, is it? Keeping my family from starving?" However, no one else around him is allowed to have any excuses.)
Amirante also demonstrates an incredibly transphobic and sexist personality throughout the story. He constantly feels the need to use the term "female” in front of job titles in each instance where the person he’s talking about isn’t a man. Most sickeningly, during the testimony of a trans woman, he takes great pride in writing about how he badgered her with questions about her gender and her person sex life, knowing the questions had no relevance to the case. He even writes in chapter 28, "I wanted to ask if she still had a dick under that pretty little black dress". WHAT THE HELL?
Why would he ask such personal, demeaning questions about the state of a witness’s genitals, which had NO bearing whatsoever to the case? Why, for FUN, of course! He writes about how it childishly pleased him to be the one to make everyone in the courtroom realize (and I quote) "the beautiful woman that everyone in the room had been openly ogling… was a man! A he-she!".
Steer clear of this piece of garbage. There are plenty of books on the Gacy murders. Pick literally ANY other one than this one.
May 23, 2021
Sam Amirante had been a practicing lawyer for several years, but he had just started his own private practice when a guy he knew from his political precinct called him asking for a favor. John Wayne Gacy, a Democratic Party precinct captain and small business owner, was being followed around and harassed by the police in their little Chicago suburb, and wanted Sam to look into it. Something about a missing teenager.
So began Sam Amirante's first "real" case. At first he was convinced Gacy was innocent. A 15-year-old boy named Robert Piest had disappeared after never coming home from his job at a pharmacy, and evidence pointed to Gacy being the last person to see him alive. As the police dug up Gacy's record, including a previous conviction for sodomy and sexual assault, they became convinced Gacy had done something to the kid.
Sam Amirante is an old school defense attorney, and he spends much of the book talking about his true blue belief in the American justice system, the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, even the most heinous criminal, to a fair trial. He comes off as very sincere, registering anger at the many people who didn't understand why a serial killer should even get a trial, and who sent him and his wife death threats and keyed his father's car, among other things.
He didn't have much to work with, because his client was an idiot. As the police were closing in with a warrant, Gacy demanded Amirante and his business lawyer both show up one late evening to tell them something. Gacy was apparently a very needy and demanding client, so Amirante was about fed up with him.
"I ain't no fruit-picker," said Gacy. "I ain't no fag. No one hates fags more than I do."
He would say things like this repeatedly, as he revealed to his thunderstruck lawyers that he had killed over thirty young men over the past few years, burying them under his house or dumping them in the river. Most of them had been young hustlers and prostitutes, according to Gacy (he would claim in almost every case that they'd lied to him, tried to extort or assault him, etc.) But Robert Piest? He was just a kid who wanted a job at Gacy's construction company. Gacy lured him home, tried to proposition him in the most awkward and cringy way imaginable, and when Piest refused, Gacy slipped a noose over his neck and strangled him to death. Gacy actually seemed to feel a little bad about this, to the degree that a serial killer can feel bad about anything.
The cops started digging up the bodies, and Amirante realized he was now defending one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history.
For much of the book, Amirante writes in a "you are there" narrative, even describing the thoughts and feelings of Gacy and his victims. Supposedly this is based on copious notes from interviews with Gacy, but some of it (like when Amirante writes parts of the opening chapter from the POV of Robert Piest) seemed a bit embellished.
Having read several books about serial killers, I was struck again by just how banal and pathetic most of them are. There are very few Hannibal Lectors or Norman Bates. Instead, most of these guys are not very bright losers with sad lives. Amirante repeatedly describes Gacy as a "sad little creampuff of a man." He would talk big to his employees and neighbors about having his photograph taken with the First Lady, with improbable stories of political influence and mob connections, and he fancied himself a big man in his tiny pond as a Democratic precinct captain. but he was just a small time contractor with a conviction and a divorce in his past and nothing to speak of in his future, a delusional sociopath who, as his lawyer repeatedly reminds us, never seemed to grasp that he was not the hero of his story and he was not in control of it. He was a deeply closeted homosexual still trying to please his late father, and when it all came out, he proceeded to talk to anyone who'd listen to him, including the cops. His lawyer, of course, tried to get him to shut up, but Gacy was not exactly a cooperative or sharp client.
Besides Amirante waxing on about Constitutional rights and his belief in the American legal system, he goes into a lot of detail about the trial itself, and some of this was dry stuff as he transcribes pages of testimony and attorney arguments. There was never any question of Gacy's guilt (they found over thirty bodies and the dumbass confessed!), so his lawyers went with an insanity defense. Amirante talks a lot about his arguments, the expert testimony, and even seems genuinely annoyed by the some of the prosecution's counter-arguments. He also frequently talks about how pissed off he was at some tactic or another used by the prosecution, and then admits that if he were the DA, he'd have done the same thing.
Some of his arguments haven't aged well. He takes a somewhat sympathetic attitude towards Gacy's homosexuality and the pressures that forced him to suppress and deny his urges, but you can tell that, at least at the time that Gacy was tried, in 1980, his attitude was a sort of benign contempt. (A final chapter in which he praises the advances that have been made in society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed a little bit of a post-insert.) Likewise, one of the witnesses at Gacy's trial was a transwoman, and Amirante's comments about that person were, well, typical of attitudes towards trans people in 1980.
This book was not a biography of John Wayne Gacy, and only briefly talked about his earlier life and his many murders. Mostly it's about his trial, and his lawyer's legal arguments. Sam Amirante makes himself the star of his book about the famous serial killer, but given what a pathetic and uninteresting little man Gacy actually was, it probably wouldn't have been improved by centering Gacy more.
So began Sam Amirante's first "real" case. At first he was convinced Gacy was innocent. A 15-year-old boy named Robert Piest had disappeared after never coming home from his job at a pharmacy, and evidence pointed to Gacy being the last person to see him alive. As the police dug up Gacy's record, including a previous conviction for sodomy and sexual assault, they became convinced Gacy had done something to the kid.
Sam Amirante is an old school defense attorney, and he spends much of the book talking about his true blue belief in the American justice system, the presumption of innocence, and the right of everyone, even the most heinous criminal, to a fair trial. He comes off as very sincere, registering anger at the many people who didn't understand why a serial killer should even get a trial, and who sent him and his wife death threats and keyed his father's car, among other things.
He didn't have much to work with, because his client was an idiot. As the police were closing in with a warrant, Gacy demanded Amirante and his business lawyer both show up one late evening to tell them something. Gacy was apparently a very needy and demanding client, so Amirante was about fed up with him.
"I ain't no fruit-picker," said Gacy. "I ain't no fag. No one hates fags more than I do."
He would say things like this repeatedly, as he revealed to his thunderstruck lawyers that he had killed over thirty young men over the past few years, burying them under his house or dumping them in the river. Most of them had been young hustlers and prostitutes, according to Gacy (he would claim in almost every case that they'd lied to him, tried to extort or assault him, etc.) But Robert Piest? He was just a kid who wanted a job at Gacy's construction company. Gacy lured him home, tried to proposition him in the most awkward and cringy way imaginable, and when Piest refused, Gacy slipped a noose over his neck and strangled him to death. Gacy actually seemed to feel a little bad about this, to the degree that a serial killer can feel bad about anything.
The cops started digging up the bodies, and Amirante realized he was now defending one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history.
For much of the book, Amirante writes in a "you are there" narrative, even describing the thoughts and feelings of Gacy and his victims. Supposedly this is based on copious notes from interviews with Gacy, but some of it (like when Amirante writes parts of the opening chapter from the POV of Robert Piest) seemed a bit embellished.
Having read several books about serial killers, I was struck again by just how banal and pathetic most of them are. There are very few Hannibal Lectors or Norman Bates. Instead, most of these guys are not very bright losers with sad lives. Amirante repeatedly describes Gacy as a "sad little creampuff of a man." He would talk big to his employees and neighbors about having his photograph taken with the First Lady, with improbable stories of political influence and mob connections, and he fancied himself a big man in his tiny pond as a Democratic precinct captain. but he was just a small time contractor with a conviction and a divorce in his past and nothing to speak of in his future, a delusional sociopath who, as his lawyer repeatedly reminds us, never seemed to grasp that he was not the hero of his story and he was not in control of it. He was a deeply closeted homosexual still trying to please his late father, and when it all came out, he proceeded to talk to anyone who'd listen to him, including the cops. His lawyer, of course, tried to get him to shut up, but Gacy was not exactly a cooperative or sharp client.
Besides Amirante waxing on about Constitutional rights and his belief in the American legal system, he goes into a lot of detail about the trial itself, and some of this was dry stuff as he transcribes pages of testimony and attorney arguments. There was never any question of Gacy's guilt (they found over thirty bodies and the dumbass confessed!), so his lawyers went with an insanity defense. Amirante talks a lot about his arguments, the expert testimony, and even seems genuinely annoyed by the some of the prosecution's counter-arguments. He also frequently talks about how pissed off he was at some tactic or another used by the prosecution, and then admits that if he were the DA, he'd have done the same thing.
Some of his arguments haven't aged well. He takes a somewhat sympathetic attitude towards Gacy's homosexuality and the pressures that forced him to suppress and deny his urges, but you can tell that, at least at the time that Gacy was tried, in 1980, his attitude was a sort of benign contempt. (A final chapter in which he praises the advances that have been made in society's acceptance of homosexuality seemed a little bit of a post-insert.) Likewise, one of the witnesses at Gacy's trial was a transwoman, and Amirante's comments about that person were, well, typical of attitudes towards trans people in 1980.
This book was not a biography of John Wayne Gacy, and only briefly talked about his earlier life and his many murders. Mostly it's about his trial, and his lawyer's legal arguments. Sam Amirante makes himself the star of his book about the famous serial killer, but given what a pathetic and uninteresting little man Gacy actually was, it probably wouldn't have been improved by centering Gacy more.
October 21, 2020
Equal parts fascinating and horrifying. This is one case where I truly feel the monster should’ve been found not guilty be reason of insanity & spent the remainder of his life in a hospital. Some of the circumstances made this a tough read for me in that homosexuality & transexuality were still perceived as perverse in the 70’s & 80’s. I looked past it but it did piss me off. I still highly recommend to true crime fans and the audiobook is fantastic. Available in Audible +
May 5, 2021
Outright transphobic and sexist. The detailed recount of outing, dead naming, and berating a trans witness on the stand and questioning her identity is appalling. The lawyer claims she is “living a lie” and then compares how she lives her life to how the confessed serial killer he defends lives his life. Utterly disgusting. Prior to this there was a moment of blatant sexism during the jury selection.
May 20, 2021
Not a fan of the way the author describes people's bodies (large bodies, ladies' bodies, trans bodies). He doesn't describe thin bodies at all, but feels the need to describe every lump or roll of a fat person's. A trans witness is on the stand and he calls her a he/she and aggressively deadnames her.
The part about Gacy is interesting.
The part about Gacy is interesting.
September 5, 2011
An inconsistent book mostly about what it was like to be John Wayne Gacy's lawyer. I was immediately swept into the book by the opening, which recounts a fateful visit by Gacy to a pharmacy for a small contracting job. We get the fictionalized perspective of a boy who works at the pharmacy, Gacy, and others and I hoped it would continue like this, but unfortunately most of the book simply recounts the experiences of the lawyer and not necessarily even about his extensive interaction with Gacy the year before the trial. No, no one can ever get into the head of Gacy and none of the psychiatrists and psychologists could agree what was wrong with him, though something certainly was off, but more of an attempt to flesh out his role as clown, brother, boss, community volunteer, husband and father would have illuminated his identity. I felt the reader doesn't spend enough time with Gacy in the book. The book tells us more than it shows about his "good" side and, in scenes meant to capture how unpredictable Gacy is, the book is so poorly written, the awkwardness obscures any insight the episodes might provide. And the exclamation points! Where was the editor?
I was left still puzzling over the enigma that Gacy is and annoyed by the tease the book was, but ultimately this isn't a book about John Wayne Gacy; it's about being Gacy's attorney. Know that before you decide whether this is the book you wish to read when trying to understand this man.
I did learn not to judge the attorneys who defend hated individuals. In making that point, that everyone deserves a fair trial with legal representation by those who will always work in their client's best interests, regardless of how atrocious the crimes he or she is alleged to have committed, the book does succeed. I thank the authors for that.
I was left still puzzling over the enigma that Gacy is and annoyed by the tease the book was, but ultimately this isn't a book about John Wayne Gacy; it's about being Gacy's attorney. Know that before you decide whether this is the book you wish to read when trying to understand this man.
I did learn not to judge the attorneys who defend hated individuals. In making that point, that everyone deserves a fair trial with legal representation by those who will always work in their client's best interests, regardless of how atrocious the crimes he or she is alleged to have committed, the book does succeed. I thank the authors for that.
February 15, 2015
I read 60% of this before I chose to skim the remainder, not because of the severity and gruesomeness of the crime, but because of the writing itself. First off, the small print underneath Gacy's name on the cover bears true: it has as much to do about Gacy's lawyer (also the author) himself as it does about Gacy. This does not normally bother me, but in this case, I did not like it. The writing was laxed and informal, with sentences like this- "Ok, David Cram...not a brain surgeon, and so on and so forth, ya know." I found Amirante to be sarcastic, failing in his attempts to be humorous (I assume that's what he was going for) and it seemed callous instead, considering we are talking about the brutal murder of numerous boys. At times he talked condescendingly about the police and made comments that felt like he was trying to garner sympathy for Gacy, the guy with the "broken mind." I wonder, where is all the sympathy for the boys he strangled and those families who will never be whole again because of his actions?
December 16, 2021
I really struggled through this book. I was interested in seeing what happens behind the scenes when a lawyer defends somebody who is obviously criminal, and that aspect didn't disappoint. But the writing was disjointed, the narrative was tough to follow, and I was turned off by the very beginning where the authors describe Robert Piest's last moments from Robert's point of view, which, of course, the authors wouldn't know. It's interesting to see the defense and how it came about, but this book could have been streamlined considerably for cleaner reading.
May 11, 2024
Initial writing was 4 stars, somewhat haphazard organization brought it to 3, and the author’s ableism, transphobia, casual misogyny, and general lack of self-awareness brought it to 2. His idealism towards due process is well-meaning but ultimately socioeconomically naive; unfortunately, there’s a difference between a constitutional right in theory and in practice.
October 18, 2022
This was an incredibly problematic read, and not even for the reasons you’d think. Such strong tones of sexism, homophobia, fatphobia and horrific transphobia from the author.
August 17, 2021
For all his disparaging talk about pompous blowhards that pervert justice, this author seems to do the same thing. This book absolutely infuriated me, so strap in for a rant because I hated this book.
This book begins with a story that is pure conjecture as the author of this book is NOT Rob Piest, the last victim of Gacy, but the killer’s defense attorney. Rob Piest is dead so no one knows exactly what happened that day. This was my first red flag because no where was it stated that some of the details of the retelling could be false, since Piest is dead. It only got worse from there.
Not once did I read genuine concern for the victims of Gacy. Instead it was more of a “woe is me” tale. The author seemed to simultaneously treat this case as a joke and also take the rules of the justice system so incredibly seriously that nearly ever chapter there is a long rant about innocent until proven guilty.
Here are some things that made me extremely frustrated with this author.
His family and him were sent death threats. This in and of itself of absolutely terrible, and should not have happened. However, the author has absolutely NO sympathy for what others may be feeling. I did not see any attempts to sympathize with the victims, and maybe only one or two attempts to sympathize with the family. It was all about him and his feelings. There were so many rants about how people who judge someone before a case are idiots and morons and unpatriotic. At this point Gacy has confessed, is arrested, and his house is being excavated of the bodies. Can he not see how clean cut it looks? Can he not understand how people could be completely outraged by this senseless killing? Not to mention Gacy DID do these things. Even if the author wants to claim insanity, these boys are still dead and their bodies were till found. People have a right to be mad. They shouldn’t send him and his family threats, but the author acts like they have no right to feel anything until the case is closed. Is he truly saying “hey! You’re a terrible person if you get mad at the guy who had over thirty young boys hidden in his crawl space.”?
Many times he does not seem to grasp how horrific the case is. This especially sticks out when Gacy calls him on Christmas to apologize that the author’s father’s car was vandalized because he was representing Gacy. The author jovially passes the phone to his father, saying Gacy can apologize right to him. His father is spectacularly uncomfortable as most of us would be talking to someone who had admitted to raping, torturing, and killing so many people. When his father hangs up the author laughs. This whole scene seemed so insensitive. Gacy isn’t the obnoxious guy from work who calls on Christmas, he isn’t the friend you kinda hate to hang out with because he’s a little off, he isn’t the weird kid at school, he is a rapist and murderer. I couldn’t help but picture the many many families grieving over their sons that Christmas while the author is happy with his family basically saying “Oh that Gacy, what a character huh?” Another time was when he and someone else played a practical joke on the judge by bringing in an order that said that Gacy was insane at the time but sane now and no longer a danger so he could leave. I get trying to lighten a mood but thay just seemed like he was treating this whole awful ordeal as a joke.
He acts very high and mighty, often giving himself compliments and putting others down. He clearly considers himself above many people. This makes it seem that all his rants and raves about patriotism and fair trial are really motivated by the fact that some people would dare stand in the way of him winning the case. Many people dislike people who defend monsters but I could give them a break for two reasons. 1. If they truly believe in the innocence of their client. 2. If their morals truly conflict with the death penalty. I read a book recently called “defending the devil” about the man who defended Ted Bundy. Although I did not agree with his views I could empathize with him because he truly hated the loss of ANY human life and was strongly against the death penalty. In his book he didn’t make unnecessary excuses for Bundy, he did not pretend he was innocent, and did not want him free he just wanted him not to be killed. The author of this book acts like Gacy is completely innocent even when the man confessed to him! He makes big statements like Gacy shouldn’t be tried a certain way because the cops went places they weren’t supposed to with the search warrant. Guess what Gacy shouldn’t have been keeping mementos of the boys he killed he shouldn’t have killed at all. I’m not a big fan of cops but it isn’t as if they pinned him for something he didn’t do or have. Gacy had those things in his possession. I was shocked to find the author admit he was NOT against the death penalty. It made him look like even more of an insufferable idiot to admit that. If you believe in the death penalty who better to receive it than Gacy? His partner Bob Mada was more tolerable because that man did NOT believe in the death penalty and was trying to save Gacy’s life because he truly believed he was insane. It does not seem the author thought this. It is noted how unremorseful and callous Gacy was about the victims. It is noted how he would tell anyone who would listen about his crimes. The author noticed these things so how can he think this boastful man is innocent? He doesn’t, he just wants a win for himself.
He gets in a bar brawl the day before the case. Surely with all his talk of innocent until proven guilty and his high and mighty attitude about people being judge mental he would be able to walk away from a situation like that. Nope, because he only believes in his justice and his self and not any other way. He criticized jurors who were dismissed because they themselves admitted they could not be impartial and fair. They admitted it and went home and yet he still spends so much time writing admonishments about them. Is he so self absorbed that he can’t see how difficult this case might be for some people, that not everyone has thick skin. One potential juror starts yelling they should hang Gacy and the author basically implies he wishes he were in a different country where a man could be put in jail for questioning the justice system. That opinion does not align with his patriotic ramblings thus far which led me to believe again that he only cares about himself in this situation, and glory it will give him to win this case.
He talks about how horrible the other side is and that people hate defense attorneys but that the other side is just as bad. As an example of this he says his team didn’t want to call any life or death witnesses (a life or death witness is the last person who saw the dead person alive ) because it didn’t pertain to whether Gacy was insane or not. However the other side desperately wanted to call life and death witnesses for the emotional impact it would have on the jury. I can understand this would be frustrating and feel unfair, however the authors response is that because the opposing side did this he doesn’t feel guilty pushing the life and death witnesses while cross examining. Huh? How does that make sense? The higher ups took advantage of grief and I feel bad for them BUT since the higher ups did this bad thing I don’t feel bad also hurting these witnesses who are innocent. Not only that but when he described how broken the witnesses were and how one even fainted from grief, he didn’t seem very empathetic, and he didn’t spare a thought for the dead victims.
There are also times in the book that the author states that not finding Gacy insane would be a bigger atrocity than the things Gacy did. This appalled me.
I wanted to wait until the end to see if maybe he turned around but then he decided to use Transphobia as a defense for his client. He humiliated and mocked a trans woman to prove that some things aren’t as they seem. He questioned her identity and infuriated her and blatantly rejoiced in her being humiliated. His whole point with this little show was to show people they don’t always know the truth by looking at something on face value. (This also operates under the outdated and stupid belief that a trans woman is just a man in women’s clothing. His whole point was look she’s playing pretend so Gacy could also play pretend that he’s sane. It was a disgusting comparison. Being trans is not the same in any regard to raping, torturing, and killing people.) Wow what a great way to say your client is insane, by humiliating a trans woman. This was the last straw for me. It was clear the book would only get worse, and this man would only take more and more joy in trying to help a man who was evil and make a name for himself off doing so. I did not and could not force myself to finish it.
This book begins with a story that is pure conjecture as the author of this book is NOT Rob Piest, the last victim of Gacy, but the killer’s defense attorney. Rob Piest is dead so no one knows exactly what happened that day. This was my first red flag because no where was it stated that some of the details of the retelling could be false, since Piest is dead. It only got worse from there.
Not once did I read genuine concern for the victims of Gacy. Instead it was more of a “woe is me” tale. The author seemed to simultaneously treat this case as a joke and also take the rules of the justice system so incredibly seriously that nearly ever chapter there is a long rant about innocent until proven guilty.
Here are some things that made me extremely frustrated with this author.
His family and him were sent death threats. This in and of itself of absolutely terrible, and should not have happened. However, the author has absolutely NO sympathy for what others may be feeling. I did not see any attempts to sympathize with the victims, and maybe only one or two attempts to sympathize with the family. It was all about him and his feelings. There were so many rants about how people who judge someone before a case are idiots and morons and unpatriotic. At this point Gacy has confessed, is arrested, and his house is being excavated of the bodies. Can he not see how clean cut it looks? Can he not understand how people could be completely outraged by this senseless killing? Not to mention Gacy DID do these things. Even if the author wants to claim insanity, these boys are still dead and their bodies were till found. People have a right to be mad. They shouldn’t send him and his family threats, but the author acts like they have no right to feel anything until the case is closed. Is he truly saying “hey! You’re a terrible person if you get mad at the guy who had over thirty young boys hidden in his crawl space.”?
Many times he does not seem to grasp how horrific the case is. This especially sticks out when Gacy calls him on Christmas to apologize that the author’s father’s car was vandalized because he was representing Gacy. The author jovially passes the phone to his father, saying Gacy can apologize right to him. His father is spectacularly uncomfortable as most of us would be talking to someone who had admitted to raping, torturing, and killing so many people. When his father hangs up the author laughs. This whole scene seemed so insensitive. Gacy isn’t the obnoxious guy from work who calls on Christmas, he isn’t the friend you kinda hate to hang out with because he’s a little off, he isn’t the weird kid at school, he is a rapist and murderer. I couldn’t help but picture the many many families grieving over their sons that Christmas while the author is happy with his family basically saying “Oh that Gacy, what a character huh?” Another time was when he and someone else played a practical joke on the judge by bringing in an order that said that Gacy was insane at the time but sane now and no longer a danger so he could leave. I get trying to lighten a mood but thay just seemed like he was treating this whole awful ordeal as a joke.
He acts very high and mighty, often giving himself compliments and putting others down. He clearly considers himself above many people. This makes it seem that all his rants and raves about patriotism and fair trial are really motivated by the fact that some people would dare stand in the way of him winning the case. Many people dislike people who defend monsters but I could give them a break for two reasons. 1. If they truly believe in the innocence of their client. 2. If their morals truly conflict with the death penalty. I read a book recently called “defending the devil” about the man who defended Ted Bundy. Although I did not agree with his views I could empathize with him because he truly hated the loss of ANY human life and was strongly against the death penalty. In his book he didn’t make unnecessary excuses for Bundy, he did not pretend he was innocent, and did not want him free he just wanted him not to be killed. The author of this book acts like Gacy is completely innocent even when the man confessed to him! He makes big statements like Gacy shouldn’t be tried a certain way because the cops went places they weren’t supposed to with the search warrant. Guess what Gacy shouldn’t have been keeping mementos of the boys he killed he shouldn’t have killed at all. I’m not a big fan of cops but it isn’t as if they pinned him for something he didn’t do or have. Gacy had those things in his possession. I was shocked to find the author admit he was NOT against the death penalty. It made him look like even more of an insufferable idiot to admit that. If you believe in the death penalty who better to receive it than Gacy? His partner Bob Mada was more tolerable because that man did NOT believe in the death penalty and was trying to save Gacy’s life because he truly believed he was insane. It does not seem the author thought this. It is noted how unremorseful and callous Gacy was about the victims. It is noted how he would tell anyone who would listen about his crimes. The author noticed these things so how can he think this boastful man is innocent? He doesn’t, he just wants a win for himself.
He gets in a bar brawl the day before the case. Surely with all his talk of innocent until proven guilty and his high and mighty attitude about people being judge mental he would be able to walk away from a situation like that. Nope, because he only believes in his justice and his self and not any other way. He criticized jurors who were dismissed because they themselves admitted they could not be impartial and fair. They admitted it and went home and yet he still spends so much time writing admonishments about them. Is he so self absorbed that he can’t see how difficult this case might be for some people, that not everyone has thick skin. One potential juror starts yelling they should hang Gacy and the author basically implies he wishes he were in a different country where a man could be put in jail for questioning the justice system. That opinion does not align with his patriotic ramblings thus far which led me to believe again that he only cares about himself in this situation, and glory it will give him to win this case.
He talks about how horrible the other side is and that people hate defense attorneys but that the other side is just as bad. As an example of this he says his team didn’t want to call any life or death witnesses (a life or death witness is the last person who saw the dead person alive ) because it didn’t pertain to whether Gacy was insane or not. However the other side desperately wanted to call life and death witnesses for the emotional impact it would have on the jury. I can understand this would be frustrating and feel unfair, however the authors response is that because the opposing side did this he doesn’t feel guilty pushing the life and death witnesses while cross examining. Huh? How does that make sense? The higher ups took advantage of grief and I feel bad for them BUT since the higher ups did this bad thing I don’t feel bad also hurting these witnesses who are innocent. Not only that but when he described how broken the witnesses were and how one even fainted from grief, he didn’t seem very empathetic, and he didn’t spare a thought for the dead victims.
There are also times in the book that the author states that not finding Gacy insane would be a bigger atrocity than the things Gacy did. This appalled me.
I wanted to wait until the end to see if maybe he turned around but then he decided to use Transphobia as a defense for his client. He humiliated and mocked a trans woman to prove that some things aren’t as they seem. He questioned her identity and infuriated her and blatantly rejoiced in her being humiliated. His whole point with this little show was to show people they don’t always know the truth by looking at something on face value. (This also operates under the outdated and stupid belief that a trans woman is just a man in women’s clothing. His whole point was look she’s playing pretend so Gacy could also play pretend that he’s sane. It was a disgusting comparison. Being trans is not the same in any regard to raping, torturing, and killing people.) Wow what a great way to say your client is insane, by humiliating a trans woman. This was the last straw for me. It was clear the book would only get worse, and this man would only take more and more joy in trying to help a man who was evil and make a name for himself off doing so. I did not and could not force myself to finish it.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 27, 2024
Very problematic in some parts but I’ll assume that’s because the events took place in the 70’s and he wanted the retelling to be accurate to the time.
February 16, 2025
Eh. It was alright I guess. Lawyer spent most of time justifying himself for being self righteous prick. Some interesting behind the scenes stuff but I expected more.
April 25, 2023
Listened on Audible. Was very interesting up until the transphobia, understand that it was a case from late 70’s but this book was written in 2012. There are themes of homophobia too but were coming from mainly POV Gacy with internalised homophobia. Apart from that, was interesting to hear the ins and outs of how lawyers handle cases and clients as big as Gacy.
April 24, 2024
The author of this book was Gacy’s defense attorney and argued for not guilty by reason of insanity. Gacy had already confessed and offered information leading to bodies being recovered. This was not only the ones under the house, but from the river such was the resting place of the final victim. Gacy also confessed to this lawyer and a witness the murders, having an employee dig trenches for bodies ahead of time and the methods of con and manipulation to get victims to don handcuffs and garrotes as well as transporting and luring victims. This rises to a level of preparation and concealment to me that defies an interpretation of insanity. This is not so to the author who expresses from his investigation and interaction with Gacy, he knows and saw a kind of blacking out he would go into. Apparently, this tracks back to punishment for misappropriating his mother’s undies for deeds he buried the evidence of under their house:
When the time for a trial comes, it is hard for me not to think from a juror’s point of view his “hardball” rough handling of sympathetic witnesses did not help his cause:
…and…
Going back to the punished masturbation, this reminds me of the famous Macdonald triad biographical traits of serial killers: bed-wetting, animal torture and arson. The bed-wetting never made sense to me while the other two seem intuitive as an increasing scale of violence. As a childhood bed-wetter myself, I know the shame and how the feeling of punishment on top of that can feel. Maybe the root of that triad is not bed-wetting itself or that instigation can be any such act seen by the child as an uncontrollable act which is sternly punished.
Interesting, the author is not philosophically against capital punishment. "Bob was publicly against the death penalty. He had a deep philosophical aversion to the whole concept. I didn’t. I was fine with the concept". I feel, and indeed I know he was closer to the case and its facts, that he had to blind himself to Gacy’s obvious guilt.
When all was said and done, there were almost as many opinions on that issue as there were psychologists and psychiatrists who were studying it.
One fact unearthed during all of the interviews and interrogations by the various renowned shrinks that hit home for me and which always anchored my belief that my client was insane on a level sufficient to have him found not guilty by reason of insanity was this: When John Wayne Gacy was five or six years old, he developed a fetish for his mother’s silk undergarments. He said he liked the feel of them. He would fondle his mother’s lacy panties and rub them on his little body. When he was done doing what he did with these items—and this made the hair on the back of my neck stand up straight when I heard it—he would bury them under the house. When John’s mother began looking for several pairs of underwear that she thought she had lost, she found a small bag filled with panties partially buried under the porch of the Gacy home.
John was punished by his parents, and his mother’s panties stopped disappearing. However, by the time John was a teenager and reaching puberty, he had graduated to stealing these coveted items from neighborhood clotheslines. He now was old enough to use these items during masturbation, which he regularly did; and when he was finished, he would revert to his original behavior and bury those items, often under the house.
This simple revelation, especially when taken in conjunction with everything else I knew about this sad, sad excuse for a human being, which appeared in report after report from doctor after doctor who had interviewed him, basically cinched it for me: John Gacy, my client, was on a psychological choo-choo train that went off the tracks many years before. The destination of that train had been predetermined. The normal synapse that happens in your brain and my brain and the brains of everyone else we know just did not happen in the brain of Mr. Gacy. He had, in fact, been miswired at the factory. He had a broken brain, and that brain had been broken long ago.
That was my opinion then, and it still is, and I sleep very well at night while holding it.
The theory that allows me to comfortably hold this opinion is surprisingly simple and has been stated in many ways throughout time. Here is one.
If a person who has reached the age of majority becomes angry with another person and says, “I’m going to kill you,” then that person methodically walks into another room with plenty of time to think about his actions, grabs a loaded shotgun from the closet, walks back into the first room where the other person is standing, and proceeds to blow this person’s brains all over the wall behind him, we call that murder.
However, if the same set of circumstances occurs and the perpetrator is a minor—let’s say he or she is seven years old—it becomes a terrible, tragic accident, like lightning striking or a collision in traffic. Why? Because we don’t blame small children for their actions no matter how sad and terrible, no matter how horrific the results may be. We know that seven-year-old children are not responsible for their actions. This is not a hard concept to grasp. Their little brains have not matured enough. They cannot understand the consequences of their actions. Hell, the Catholic Church takes the position that they cannot even commit a sin.
Everybody understands this.
Where the waters become muddy, where understanding becomes fleeting is when the “child” is six feet tall, weighs two hundred pounds, and has a five o’clock shadow or has long blonde hair and big perky breasts and chain-smokes. That is when the problems arise.
However, the brain of an adult can be so broken, so dysfunctional, that it is of no more use to that adult than the brain of a seven-year-old child. It just does not work properly—it’s broken, and it causes the adult to act in ways that are unacceptable without the willing consent of its owner.
When the time for a trial comes, it is hard for me not to think from a juror’s point of view his “hardball” rough handling of sympathetic witnesses did not help his cause:
As Donita Gannon walked back down the aisle and out through those huge swinging oak doors, she seemed to have lost a bit of the swing in her step. Once again, every eye in the courtroom was glued on her, but I am not so sure it felt as good as it did during her grand entrance. If she was embarrassed, I’m sorry. But like I said before, this was hardball. That woman had stood there at the outset of her testimony with her hand on a Bible and sworn to God that she would tell the truth, when, in fact, she was living a lie. Although it was not her fault—it was probably just a cruel trick of nature, like hurricanes, tornados, pestilence, or the like—her life was one confusing, tragic, incomprehensible lie, just like my client.
…and…
However, somewhere toward the end of this heartrending parade of life and death witnesses, the State wheeled in a wheelchair-bound accident victim straight from the hospital. Her name was Mary Jo Paulus. I always thought that they had gone a little too far with her. She was in agonizing pain, both physically and mentally. She cried on cue during her testimony; but on cross, Motta got her to admit that the State had purposely withheld pain medication with some excuse about how she should not be under the influence of drugs on the stand. Bob also pried information out of her that some other person named Weedle was the last to see the deceased victim, William Kindred. So what was she doing there in the first place? Why did she have to be there at all, considering her condition? Where was Mr. Weedle? Wasn’t Mr. Weedle pathetic enough as a witness? I don’t think that played well with the jury.
Like I said, this was hardball. Don’t ever let anyone tell you different.
Going back to the punished masturbation, this reminds me of the famous Macdonald triad biographical traits of serial killers: bed-wetting, animal torture and arson. The bed-wetting never made sense to me while the other two seem intuitive as an increasing scale of violence. As a childhood bed-wetter myself, I know the shame and how the feeling of punishment on top of that can feel. Maybe the root of that triad is not bed-wetting itself or that instigation can be any such act seen by the child as an uncontrollable act which is sternly punished.
Interesting, the author is not philosophically against capital punishment. "Bob was publicly against the death penalty. He had a deep philosophical aversion to the whole concept. I didn’t. I was fine with the concept". I feel, and indeed I know he was closer to the case and its facts, that he had to blind himself to Gacy’s obvious guilt.
February 26, 2018
I had a love/hate relationship with this book. I felt it was an informative and detailed elaboration on the Gacy case, of which I knew next to nothing. Also the Audible recording I listened to was spectacular. But it was at times overly salacious to say the least. I could get past the chilling details if it weren't for the authors self righteous showboating. I feel I have been beaten over the head with high minded monologues about the nature of justice and the law in America repeatedly throughout this story. The point could have been adequately made just once in the book, but Amirante repetitively returns to this point. The tone paints the average citizen as an emotional idiot who does not understand the nature of fairness and the law, while painting Amirante as the intelligent and impartial hero who loves justice, and has no guilt or regrets at all for defending Gacy. His point is overstated to say the least. Also does he think people reading this don't already know what a criminal defense lawyer does?
This book also contains some of the most transphobic language I have ever read in a non-fiction book. I had to go back and check when this was published (2011), as the language feels passe. The author re-tells a story more than once (with pride) in which he outs a trans woman in front of a court full of people. More dangerously, he describes her in great detail as a sexually attractive woman, who passes as female, before he outs her. In the real world, this kind of behavior gets trans women killed. He wastes a few passages trying to explain why the incident was important to the case, but I was not convinced. He makes sure to throw some dismissive language about pronouns in for good measure.
This is a worth while read if you, like me, know next to nothing about the timeline of the Gacy murders and the subsequent trial, as his closeness to the case lends him a unique grasp on the facts. But if you are looking for a likable narrator with a nuanced opinion, don't read this.
This book also contains some of the most transphobic language I have ever read in a non-fiction book. I had to go back and check when this was published (2011), as the language feels passe. The author re-tells a story more than once (with pride) in which he outs a trans woman in front of a court full of people. More dangerously, he describes her in great detail as a sexually attractive woman, who passes as female, before he outs her. In the real world, this kind of behavior gets trans women killed. He wastes a few passages trying to explain why the incident was important to the case, but I was not convinced. He makes sure to throw some dismissive language about pronouns in for good measure.
This is a worth while read if you, like me, know next to nothing about the timeline of the Gacy murders and the subsequent trial, as his closeness to the case lends him a unique grasp on the facts. But if you are looking for a likable narrator with a nuanced opinion, don't read this.
May 12, 2022
While it's not the worst book I've ever read, Amirante does a fantastic job of completely alienating the reader. If you disagree with him, you're not a true American. If you think he's wrong, you're not a patriot like he is and you're stupid. I understand the sentiment of wanting to defend someone horrible--even the most awful people deserve a defense, and I won't argue that. Amirante, however, simultaneously portrays Gacy as a sad, misunderstood man and a cold-blooded murderer. It's wildly inconsistent. Amirante never seems to acknowledge the victims, their families, and the pain that the community suffered at the hands of Gacy. Somehow, the book is about Amirante's own climb to fame. He also portrays his relationship with the prosecution and families of the victims as light-hearted and fun, which is absolutely ridiculous. It is incredibly rare that I dislike a book so much that I am compelled to comment, but this one did it for me. Get your Gacy facts from a source that's less biased. Also worth noting--there is an awfully transphobic part of the book. I understand this was "a different time," but he literally says "I wanted to ask if there was still a dick under that pretty little dress" in regards to a trans woman. I found this disgusting and it had absolutely nothing to do with the case. Amirante describes in detail how he forced this woman to admit she was trans and frames it as some kind of "gotcha" moment--though I'm not sure what it has to do with absolutely anything. This transphobic rhetoric is seemingly thrown in for the author's amusement. Also worth noting--there are quite a few typos and other errors in the book. I'm not sure who published this, but it needs to be edited (especially considering this is a revised edition).
January 19, 2022
I won’t lie, I really enjoyed the first half of this book. It was packed with facts about JWG and his victims and how he was able to murder so many young boys before being caught. I also enjoyed the snippet into JWG’s mind and how and why he became the person he was.
That being said, the second half of this book was a nightmare. The narration gets long-winded and obnoxious almost. There’s an entire chapter during the closing arguments where the author recounts a large portion of his closing argument. Via audiobook, this chapter lasted over an hour, almost an hour and a half.
The other portion of this book that deeply bothered me was the intense transphobia that transpires during a cross examination of one of the witnesses, Donita. He spends ample time describing how she is a stunning woman, gorgeous and holding the eye of every person in the courtroom. The author even says at one point “I had to expose the fact that she’s living a lie” when that’s obviously not the truth. I understand it’s a “sign of the times” or what have you, but it had zero place in this book and the book would have been fine without this chapter.
He also explicitly states that the prosecution objected to this invasion of privacy, which should have been sustained, but by the authors own admission, the judge seemed enthralled by whether or not Donita “still had a dick under her clothes”
All in all it was disgusting and should be edited out because it’s completely unnecessary to the story the author is trying to tell.
That being said, the second half of this book was a nightmare. The narration gets long-winded and obnoxious almost. There’s an entire chapter during the closing arguments where the author recounts a large portion of his closing argument. Via audiobook, this chapter lasted over an hour, almost an hour and a half.
The other portion of this book that deeply bothered me was the intense transphobia that transpires during a cross examination of one of the witnesses, Donita. He spends ample time describing how she is a stunning woman, gorgeous and holding the eye of every person in the courtroom. The author even says at one point “I had to expose the fact that she’s living a lie” when that’s obviously not the truth. I understand it’s a “sign of the times” or what have you, but it had zero place in this book and the book would have been fine without this chapter.
He also explicitly states that the prosecution objected to this invasion of privacy, which should have been sustained, but by the authors own admission, the judge seemed enthralled by whether or not Donita “still had a dick under her clothes”
All in all it was disgusting and should be edited out because it’s completely unnecessary to the story the author is trying to tell.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 360 reviews