Helen Morrison

I have a morbid fascination with serial killers, and a newfound appreciation for true crime, so of course I was going to give this book a try. And here is where I'm torn. The author's psychological explanation for why serial killers kill is that they are addicted to killing, they are impulsive and incapable of controlling their actions once they are pushed too far, and they have the emotional maturity of a young infant. Ie. their killing sprees are impulsive rather than premeditated. That's show more a pretty hard claim to justify, and a claim that had me raising my eyebrow in certain parts.

But on the other hand, the visceral details of these murders are truly shocking and gut-wrenching, and that was why I picked up the book in the first place. The big names (John Wayne Gacy, Gary Ridgeway, etc.) had the most pull for me, but even the unfamiliar criminals had me enthralled and disgusted. At any rate, it certainly has me clamoring to learn more about true crime and serial murders.

So I suppose that determining whether or not a reader will like this book comes down to their interests: if they're interested in the details of serial murderers, they'll probably find a wealth of fascinating information in here. If they're interested in a strong psychological analysis of the criminals' motives, they might be better off choosing a different title.

I'm giving this book four stars because of my personal reaction to it. But will it be the book for every fan of true crime? Not likely.

Readalikes:

If you're interested in learning more about some of the people mentioned in the book, you might try Green River, Running Red (Ann Rule), The Stranger Beside Me (Ann Rule), or John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster (Sam Amirante).

If you're interested in the idea of psychological profiling, you might try How to Make a Serial Killer (Christopher Berry-Dee), The Measure of Madness (Cheryl Paradis), or Whoever Fights Monsters (Robert K. Ressler). show less

While I enjoyed (so to speak) the first-hand accounts of Morrison's dealings with various serial killers, I thought that she perhaps worked too hard to push her thesis regarding the genetic origin of serial killing. Though her point is well-taken, that not all serial killers share some of the characteristics (such as the Macdonald triad) that some researchers, and the popular media, claim, I find it difficult to believe that the effect of environment and upbringing has no effect whatsoever show more on a serial killer's behavior. While not all serial killers have an identical history, it seems that all of those she profiles did have some sort of negative or abusive background. Though I'm definitely a layperson, I thought Dr. Morrison oversold her point. The first-hand accounts of her interviews with these disturbed individuals was far more compelling than her scientific analysis. show less

This is a brazen attempt to cash in on the misery of others. Helen Morrison is not much better than the internet ghouls that fawn over killers. Morrison offers a theory that murderers are born not made, but has no evidence to support her thesis. Most of the book recounts the events of various serial killers. How they killed, in graphic detail, how they were caught, where are they now. There is next to nothing new here. Read wikipedia about each killer and you get 90% of this book.
Of course show more she interjects herself into each story with the following format:
· Description of where she was when she found out she could meet killer.
· What the killer looked like when she met him
· The questions she asked ‘Why did you do it?”
· Huge unfounded theoretical leap to finish it off

Morrison demonstrates the worst side of psychology, the idea that theoretical concepts like the Id, Superego, etc, are solid proven facts and can be used to explain the actions of madmen. She also shamelessly inserts lurid details for pure sensationalism. John Wayne Gacy’s Mother revealed some strange, embarrassing parenting techniques. Even though “Dr”. Morrison is sure the details had nothing to do with Gacy becoming a killer, and that Mrs. Gacy seemed mortified, and denied the statements later, she includes a detailed account in her book.
It is impossible to respect this writer as a scientist. She claims to want to understand, to predict to save people, but those statements don’t stand up to examination. In reality she has achieved her, far less noble, goal of becoming famous. show less

Oh, where do I begin with this piece of work. I am fascinated by killers, specifically serial killers, and how their minds work. I thought this book would give me grand insight. To a degree it did, but with it came a very opinionated view disguised as a scientific conclusion.

It has been a while since I read this, but I will do my best to describe my biggest gripes with the book.

For starters, the author goes on about how she has to keep her personal life a secret so her patients (the serial show more killers) can't use it to manipulate her. However, in the book she will describe random moments with her children and husband in detail I would think her paranoid to say should one of her patients get ahold of the book. This is what I care about the least.

She has many moments where she makes a statement that just doesn't seem right compared to all the evidence. One statement, which is brought up many times against this book, is how she believes John Wayne Gacy would have still killed in front of a police officer. This was said in his defense as he could not help himself and wasn't in touch with reality enough to know consequences (again this is roughly speaking from my memory), when several times he did show that he did indeed know and avoided getting caught. She seems to ignore valuable details to support her theories.

Along with that, with the backlash of her defense of Gacy, she claimed it was because she was a female in her field and it was a boys club. She seems so out of touch with how her theories stack up against what we know and the evidence that she will say about anything to keep from admitting she may be wrong. From reading her book, I got a constant condescending tone and it was frustrating. And as long as we are on the topic of being a woman, she claims there are no female serial killers. She backs this up with an incorrect definition of a serial killer that pretty much allows her to selectively push out many people who qualify. Why? I suspect it's because they do not fit her theories. As a woman, I find this behavior peeving and likely maybe part of the reason some people do not take women in the field seriously.

Another issue I have is she claims serial killers are never addicted to substances and are never sexually motivated. Ted Bundy (I believe I have the right guy) alone is enough to disprove this. I could attempt to go into more detail about why she believes this to be true, but I no longer have the book with me. Should I get it again, I will update this review to cover it more thoroughly.

I could go on and on about my gripes with the author herself. Her claim that she has interviewed around 80 serial killers is questionable (and said to be impossible by some) and has been a hot topic for some time now. She overall, in the book, reeks of "praise me because I'm amazing!". I honestly got more about her than I recall of the serial killers. It was disappointing. From her disturbing controversial opinions to her general attitude, this book was a mess.

I truly did want to love it, but I just couldn't with the lack of professionalism amongst what I have listed above. show less