Take a photo of a barcode or cover
18 reviews for:
The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer
William J. Birnes, Ann Rule, Gary Leon Ridgway, Robert D. Keppel
3.53 AVERAGE
18 reviews for:
The Riverman: Ted Bundy and I Hunt for the Green River Killer
William J. Birnes, Ann Rule, Gary Leon Ridgway, Robert D. Keppel
3.53 AVERAGE
As somebody who’s trying to write a convincing story about a serial killer, this book was invaluable. As someone with an interest in true crime and a fascination with the psychology of organized, controlled killers like Ted Bundy, this book was still great. The only reason I give this 4 stars instead of 5 is because it can go off track and get repetitive at times, and bounces between multiple cases and moments in time without much warning.
There’re a few parts at the end that I found really interesting, and those were the parts involving Bundy and FBI agent Bill Hagmaier. I know they spoke for a few years right up until Bundy’s execution, and I know they had to be fairly close, because Bundy (repeatedly) called Bill his best friend. I was intrigued by this, and even more so when I read this line in this book- “As Ted entered the interview area, he recognized FBI Agent Bill Hagmaier standing behind me. Their right hands met each other at the same place on both sides of the glass windows, oddly like lovers greeting each other in visitation areas. I was struck by the friendly gesture between the nation’s most notorious serial killer and the FBI agent who represented his pursuers.”
Mr. Keppel. What is this even supposed to mean. Why describe it like that.
Bill is mentioned a few other times throughout the end of the book, and each time, it makes me even more intrigued as to what the hell was going on with the two of them. It raises all kinds of questions about the psychology of someone like Bundy- was he truly capable of forming friendships? How did that affect Hagmaier? I’m not even focusing on the right part of the book, but this fascinates me. And Bill hasn’t written a book, so I’m probably not going to get those answers any time soon. Oh well. A guy can dream.
There’re a few parts at the end that I found really interesting, and those were the parts involving Bundy and FBI agent Bill Hagmaier. I know they spoke for a few years right up until Bundy’s execution, and I know they had to be fairly close, because Bundy (repeatedly) called Bill his best friend. I was intrigued by this, and even more so when I read this line in this book- “As Ted entered the interview area, he recognized FBI Agent Bill Hagmaier standing behind me. Their right hands met each other at the same place on both sides of the glass windows, oddly like lovers greeting each other in visitation areas. I was struck by the friendly gesture between the nation’s most notorious serial killer and the FBI agent who represented his pursuers.”
Mr. Keppel. What is this even supposed to mean. Why describe it like that.
Bill is mentioned a few other times throughout the end of the book, and each time, it makes me even more intrigued as to what the hell was going on with the two of them. It raises all kinds of questions about the psychology of someone like Bundy- was he truly capable of forming friendships? How did that affect Hagmaier? I’m not even focusing on the right part of the book, but this fascinates me. And Bill hasn’t written a book, so I’m probably not going to get those answers any time soon. Oh well. A guy can dream.
challenging
dark
informative
sad
slow-paced
I don't like to 'gender' authors, unless explicitly necessary or warranted, but in this case I think it rather fitting that this was written by a man, and The Stranger Beside Me and Ann Rule's book about the Green River Killer were written by women. On one hand, Ann Rule was clearly as willing to believe in Ted's innocence as anyone - despite her time as a journalist, cop and true crime writer. Conversely, I have this feeling that Ann Rule, or any woman, might have been able to point out Ridgeway's 'off' vibes.
But, gender essentialist b.s. aside, this was a hard read.
Bundy, stuck in prison for nearly a decade by the time Ted comes to him, had very clearly lost any semblance of urbane sophistication but his need to control everything - every conversation, every bit of information - seems hardwired into his psyche. Even as he is up for the death penalty, he refuses to let go of the knowledge that might stay the state from execution. Bundy is a far more pathetic creature once you read of him and yet even you feel him trying, and sometimes succeeding, to control and manipulate those around him. I don't think the feeling of being 'used' would have been uncommon to those of Bundy's acquaintance, even if they couldn't quite pin down 'why'.
You pity Bundy, in the barest sense of the word, as must as you hate him.
Ridgeway - you just hate him. It's odd, even with the offhand admission that Ridgeway was (pretty clearly) molested by his mother - even with the evidence that they killed a similar number of women, that they manipulated those around them, that they engaged in 'sex' with the bodies after death...even so, whatever pity I might have had for Bundy, it is completely devoid for Ridgeway.
the list of victims was hard but, of course, I think it is meant to be that way. No, you can't turn away now just because you've been worn down from descriptions of death and rape and defilement - look at their names. I don't even know if the author thought of it that way - Ann Rule had far more care for the victim's descriptions, even if they were sex workers - but I chose to see it that way.
I don't really want to think about true crime for a while
But, gender essentialist b.s. aside, this was a hard read.
Bundy, stuck in prison for nearly a decade by the time Ted comes to him, had very clearly lost any semblance of urbane sophistication but his need to control everything - every conversation, every bit of information - seems hardwired into his psyche. Even as he is up for the death penalty, he refuses to let go of the knowledge that might stay the state from execution. Bundy is a far more pathetic creature once you read of him and yet even you feel him trying, and sometimes succeeding, to control and manipulate those around him. I don't think the feeling of being 'used' would have been uncommon to those of Bundy's acquaintance, even if they couldn't quite pin down 'why'.
You pity Bundy, in the barest sense of the word, as must as you hate him.
Ridgeway - you just hate him. It's odd, even with the offhand admission that Ridgeway was (pretty clearly) molested by his mother - even with the evidence that they killed a similar number of women, that they manipulated those around them, that they engaged in 'sex' with the bodies after death...even so, whatever pity I might have had for Bundy, it is completely devoid for Ridgeway.
the list of victims was hard but, of course, I think it is meant to be that way. No, you can't turn away now just because you've been worn down from descriptions of death and rape and defilement - look at their names. I don't even know if the author thought of it that way - Ann Rule had far more care for the victim's descriptions, even if they were sex workers - but I chose to see it that way.
I don't really want to think about true crime for a while
I have to say, it started out really good. But after a while it was a lot of the same.
The book was more about Bundy than the green river killer, and gave an interesting glimpse in to his sick mind. But I skipped a few parts because even I was sick of reading his bullshit after a while, I don't know how Keppel did it.
The book was more about Bundy than the green river killer, and gave an interesting glimpse in to his sick mind. But I skipped a few parts because even I was sick of reading his bullshit after a while, I don't know how Keppel did it.
challenging
dark
slow-paced
- somehow the author manages to say almost as many misogynistic things as Ted Bundy
- When ted “talked” it was exceedingly boring
The author was one of my professors in college, so what a shock that it was required reading. This isn't my favorite book on the topic of the Green River killer but in relating to Ted Bundy's part in the search it is the most accurate you will find, at times it wasn't always the easiest to read (in terms of style). If I could give it 3.5 stars I would.
An okay insight into the workings of two serial killers, but in the end it could’ve been shorter. It’s repetitive and boring at points.
Not low because of content, low because of story presentation. Jumbled and repetitive. Also I have an old first edition paper back which is only 475 pages and pre the catching of GRK as Ridgeway.
dark
reflective
sad
slow-paced
Wow. Repetitive. Long. Not great. Marginally interesting. Highly repetitive. Seems like a great concept until you realize Bundy essentially made the “appeal” to try this technique; but keep in mind he’s also a serial killer on death row. So he’s a liar with only his self-interest in mind. Did I say repetitive? Overall Bundy offers zero useful information on catching The Green River Killer, and he provides very little of insight into the mind of such a person. The author totters between admitting the information was useless and saying Bundy got a great deal right. Uh...it doesn’t work both ways. Bundy ultimately offers up a decent amount of information on one crime he committed that the police knew about anyway, and then throws out a useless plea at the end about “a girl at BYU in the 70s” before he’s executed. 90% of the book ends up being about Bundy.
Bundy’s breakdown of The Riverman (as he calls him) is focused on “watching body dump sites” and necrophilia. He speaks in broad generalizations (akin to a cold reading from a psychic) and repeats himself over and over again. He makes a statement then retracts it saying, “But I’m just guessing here”. The impression given is he’s just in an ego competition with Gary Ridgway. Basically “I’m a better serial killer than he is”. The book does dispel the myth of the highly intelligent serial killer because both Bundy and Ridgway during interviews come across as idiots. At the end Ridgway is “analyzed” although it’s really just a list of his suspected murders and subsequent confessions. He’s killed so many woman so long ago he can’t remember all the details. Shocker!
The author vacillates about the usefulness of the entire endeavor. Changes his mind and then flip flops again. He knocks the concept of profiling serial killers and then talks about how useful the FBI Behavioral Unit is in profiling serial killers and thereafter talks about how useless and potentially damaging to a case profiling serial killers can be. His chapters are repetitive; frequently he gives backstory then in a later chapter when the killer’s methodology is “revealed” nearly the whole previous chapter is reiterated word for word. And then when he “discusses the victims” you again get the story a third time. Did I mention it’s repetitive? Overall if you’re expecting enlightenment about the minds of Ridgway and Bundy you’ll be sorely disappointed. Not a great read by any means and far too long. And did I mention repetitive? And did I say repetitive? Or forget to mention it was repetitive? (Imagine you’re reading the book)
Bundy’s breakdown of The Riverman (as he calls him) is focused on “watching body dump sites” and necrophilia. He speaks in broad generalizations (akin to a cold reading from a psychic) and repeats himself over and over again. He makes a statement then retracts it saying, “But I’m just guessing here”. The impression given is he’s just in an ego competition with Gary Ridgway. Basically “I’m a better serial killer than he is”. The book does dispel the myth of the highly intelligent serial killer because both Bundy and Ridgway during interviews come across as idiots. At the end Ridgway is “analyzed” although it’s really just a list of his suspected murders and subsequent confessions. He’s killed so many woman so long ago he can’t remember all the details. Shocker!
The author vacillates about the usefulness of the entire endeavor. Changes his mind and then flip flops again. He knocks the concept of profiling serial killers and then talks about how useful the FBI Behavioral Unit is in profiling serial killers and thereafter talks about how useless and potentially damaging to a case profiling serial killers can be. His chapters are repetitive; frequently he gives backstory then in a later chapter when the killer’s methodology is “revealed” nearly the whole previous chapter is reiterated word for word. And then when he “discusses the victims” you again get the story a third time. Did I mention it’s repetitive? Overall if you’re expecting enlightenment about the minds of Ridgway and Bundy you’ll be sorely disappointed. Not a great read by any means and far too long. And did I mention repetitive? And did I say repetitive? Or forget to mention it was repetitive? (Imagine you’re reading the book)