Take a photo of a barcode or cover
3.84 AVERAGE
3.84 AVERAGE
Robert K. Ressler is very proud of his career.
And he should be! He's been a big part of identifying patterns of serial killers and locking away some of the worst of them- best part, he's made a study of serial killers to try to help catch them faster, and maybe even stop the patterns that create serial killers.
However, Robert is not a great storyteller. The format of the book retells the same stories over and over again, to emphasize different parts in different places. For example, Ed Kemper's story must have been reiterated at least three or four times throughout the book.
Finally, I will say that I rarely take so long to get through a book. This one kept me up at nights and gave me severe anxiety. I know lock all my house doors at all times, which frustrates my man beyond belief when he knows I'm home yet he's stuck fishing for his keys! If you're into the gory details and hearing about the psychoses of the country's most insane killers, this book is probably for you. It was not for me. I want to go read some Jane Austen now to make myself feel better...
And he should be! He's been a big part of identifying patterns of serial killers and locking away some of the worst of them- best part, he's made a study of serial killers to try to help catch them faster, and maybe even stop the patterns that create serial killers.
However, Robert is not a great storyteller. The format of the book retells the same stories over and over again, to emphasize different parts in different places. For example, Ed Kemper's story must have been reiterated at least three or four times throughout the book.
Finally, I will say that I rarely take so long to get through a book. This one kept me up at nights and gave me severe anxiety. I know lock all my house doors at all times, which frustrates my man beyond belief when he knows I'm home yet he's stuck fishing for his keys! If you're into the gory details and hearing about the psychoses of the country's most insane killers, this book is probably for you. It was not for me. I want to go read some Jane Austen now to make myself feel better...
‘Whoever Fights Monsters’ by Robert K. Ressler and Tom Shachtman, while a True Crime genre detailing the lives and crimes of a few famous serial murderers, is really a history of how Ressler came to believe profiling serial killers would be important to do and how he slowly convinced the FBI to create a profiling department.
Difficult as it may be to believe, almost all police and justice forces never examined perpetrators psychologically or thought it at all important to solving whodunnit until recently. A crime is committed, nearby people are interviewed, suspects are rounded up and questioned based on their likelihood of having a reason to kill - money, jealousy, sex, rage, especially past convictions involving violence - done. Police had no interest in profiling. Indeed, most police were suspicious of profiling, even today. Crime scene facts and physical evidence are what matters, along with witness statements, if any.
Who cares why killings happen if the perpetrators can be convicted by physical evidence and/or confessions?
Serial murderers are a different kind of killer than with whom the police usually deal. Even the FBI, the agency Ressler worked for as an agent, could not grasp how different serial killers are for a long time. Or that even though serial killers are individually quirky, there are psychological categories and subset categories that they each can be fit into. Or that by identifying a killer’s psychological style could help in identifying a serial killer. But most important, knowing how to talk to a serial killer can lead them to confess. Many serial killers have psychological twists that normal people are not able to believe a person could possibly have. Police have allowed serial killers to walk free out of sheer disbelief of their confessions or even the evidence of their own eyes, as in the Jeffrey Dahmer case.
There is the issue that many serial killers move their killing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state. Police hate sharing cases with other police agencies, and they are reluctant to discuss active investigations with others. If murder A was exactly like murder B in another town, in the past cops would never know it. It still happens today cops in town A are unaware cops in town B have the same kind of crime with the same physical evidence discovered at the scene of the crime.
A lot of new ideas about detecting and collecting evidence, and computers, and police-friendly for-profit genealogical research companies which process DNA kits, have met the challenge of identifying similar styles and physical evidence in murders, as well as tracking cases across state lines from different jurisdictions. But cooperation between police departments, from what I’ve read in newspaper exposés, is sometimes still a problem. Although computers can compile cases with similar attributes from a national or regional database, police departments have to pay to buy access, and not all can afford to buy access. Police also need to hire extra employees to fill out and send in the paperwork forms regional and national databases require to input cases. Police in many small jurisdictions still refuse to participate in sending local crime information to regional or the national FBI and other criminal justice databases.
But how did police agencies begin to accept profiling? That is what this book is about.
I copied the cover blurb below. It is an accurate description:
”Face-to-face with some of America's most terrifying killers, FBI veteran and ex-Army CID colonel Robert Ressler learned from them how to identify the unknown monsters who walk among us--and put them behind bars. Now the man who coined the phrase "serial killer" and advised Thomas Harris on The Silence of the Lambs shows how he is able to track down some of today's most brutal murderers.
Just as it happened in The Silence of the Lambs, Ressler used the evidence at a crime scene to put together a psychological profile of the killers. From the victims they choose, to the way they kill, to the often grotesque souvenirs they take with them--Ressler unlocks the identities of these vicious killers of the police to capture.
And with his discovery that serial killers share certain violent behaviors, Ressler's gone behind prison walls to hear the bizarre first-hand stories countless convicted murderers. Getting inside the mind of a killer to understand how and why he kills, is one of the FBI's most effective ways of helping police bring in killers who are still at large.
Join Ressler as he takes you on the hunt for today’s most dangerous psychopaths. It is a terrifying journey you will not forget.”
Well, ok, the blurb is a little bit more breathlessly dramatic than the book is, actually. The tone of ‘Whoever Fights Monsters’ is closer to a flattened ‘just the facts’ voice of an academic professional. Nonetheless, I thought it fascinating.
There is an Index.
Difficult as it may be to believe, almost all police and justice forces never examined perpetrators psychologically or thought it at all important to solving whodunnit until recently. A crime is committed, nearby people are interviewed, suspects are rounded up and questioned based on their likelihood of having a reason to kill - money, jealousy, sex, rage, especially past convictions involving violence - done. Police had no interest in profiling. Indeed, most police were suspicious of profiling, even today. Crime scene facts and physical evidence are what matters, along with witness statements, if any.
Who cares why killings happen if the perpetrators can be convicted by physical evidence and/or confessions?
Serial murderers are a different kind of killer than with whom the police usually deal. Even the FBI, the agency Ressler worked for as an agent, could not grasp how different serial killers are for a long time. Or that even though serial killers are individually quirky, there are psychological categories and subset categories that they each can be fit into. Or that by identifying a killer’s psychological style could help in identifying a serial killer. But most important, knowing how to talk to a serial killer can lead them to confess. Many serial killers have psychological twists that normal people are not able to believe a person could possibly have. Police have allowed serial killers to walk free out of sheer disbelief of their confessions or even the evidence of their own eyes, as in the Jeffrey Dahmer case.
There is the issue that many serial killers move their killing from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, state to state. Police hate sharing cases with other police agencies, and they are reluctant to discuss active investigations with others. If murder A was exactly like murder B in another town, in the past cops would never know it. It still happens today cops in town A are unaware cops in town B have the same kind of crime with the same physical evidence discovered at the scene of the crime.
A lot of new ideas about detecting and collecting evidence, and computers, and police-friendly for-profit genealogical research companies which process DNA kits, have met the challenge of identifying similar styles and physical evidence in murders, as well as tracking cases across state lines from different jurisdictions. But cooperation between police departments, from what I’ve read in newspaper exposés, is sometimes still a problem. Although computers can compile cases with similar attributes from a national or regional database, police departments have to pay to buy access, and not all can afford to buy access. Police also need to hire extra employees to fill out and send in the paperwork forms regional and national databases require to input cases. Police in many small jurisdictions still refuse to participate in sending local crime information to regional or the national FBI and other criminal justice databases.
But how did police agencies begin to accept profiling? That is what this book is about.
I copied the cover blurb below. It is an accurate description:
”Face-to-face with some of America's most terrifying killers, FBI veteran and ex-Army CID colonel Robert Ressler learned from them how to identify the unknown monsters who walk among us--and put them behind bars. Now the man who coined the phrase "serial killer" and advised Thomas Harris on The Silence of the Lambs shows how he is able to track down some of today's most brutal murderers.
Just as it happened in The Silence of the Lambs, Ressler used the evidence at a crime scene to put together a psychological profile of the killers. From the victims they choose, to the way they kill, to the often grotesque souvenirs they take with them--Ressler unlocks the identities of these vicious killers of the police to capture.
And with his discovery that serial killers share certain violent behaviors, Ressler's gone behind prison walls to hear the bizarre first-hand stories countless convicted murderers. Getting inside the mind of a killer to understand how and why he kills, is one of the FBI's most effective ways of helping police bring in killers who are still at large.
Join Ressler as he takes you on the hunt for today’s most dangerous psychopaths. It is a terrifying journey you will not forget.”
Well, ok, the blurb is a little bit more breathlessly dramatic than the book is, actually. The tone of ‘Whoever Fights Monsters’ is closer to a flattened ‘just the facts’ voice of an academic professional. Nonetheless, I thought it fascinating.
There is an Index.
Having now read both Mindhunter and this book, I do agree with reviewers of Mindhunter that John Douglas, either through his own writing or through the editing of Mark Olshaker, comes across as highly theatrical and, at times, egotistical. That is why I feel, between the two books, I would recommend this book before Mindhunter. I feel as though Ressler (and Tom Shactman) portray the truth of profiling in an academic and easily digestible manner. There are chilling and shocking details but they are carefully introduced into the text in a way I feel that Mindhunter was lacking. ‘Whoever fights monsters’ also manages to convey to the reader that not everyone with a mental illness will become a stark raving serial killer, and Ressler demonstrates an empathy to the truly delusional, to a degree of course, that I feel that Douglas and Co. did not have in Mindhunter. I really recommend this book
If Ted Bundy, Ed Kemper, John Wayne Gacy, or Jeffrey Dahmer are of any interest to you, this is the book to read. This first-hand account from the FBI agent who coined the term "serial killer" gives unique insight into the development of profiling by delving into the crimes and minds of America's most infamous killers.
My one criticism is that (as with most books with autobiographical components), Ressler comes off as slightly haughty at times. Then again, why shouldn't he? He developed the basis of everything we know about serial killers today. Great book. A must-read for anyone interested in true crime.
My one criticism is that (as with most books with autobiographical components), Ressler comes off as slightly haughty at times. Then again, why shouldn't he? He developed the basis of everything we know about serial killers today. Great book. A must-read for anyone interested in true crime.
dark
informative
fast-paced
informative
slow-paced
Mixed bag. Some very interesting background on profiling and some interesting cases. There were a number of chapters that were super boring. I can see why people would think he's arrogant, but it is a book written about himself, so that tone can be hard to avoid. That's the reason I always write my bio in the 3rd person ;)
Fascinating personal account by one of the founding memors of VICAP from the behavioral science unit of the FBI. A must read/listen if you're a fan of true crime!
I had heard of many of these murders, and murderers, but was still sickened by some of the explicit detail Ressler shares in this book. It's not for the faint of heart.
I appreciate Ressler's work and his part in changing how serial murderers are profiled and apprehended, but I also cringed at the way he wrote about some of the victims.
Since this book was written in 1991-ish, there's a lot of little things that would bother today's reader (in addition to the horrific descriptions of the crimes themselves), such as Ressler calling some of Ed Kemper's victims, not by their own names, but by blunt descriptors like "the heavy girl," and the "Asian dancer."
Would I read this again? Once is definitely enough. But I will say it's worth reading to get a picture of just how broken these killers are and how far our society has come in terms of seeing the victims of crime as people, not just depersonalized statistics for vultureous voyeuristic consumption.
I appreciate Ressler's work and his part in changing how serial murderers are profiled and apprehended, but I also cringed at the way he wrote about some of the victims.
Since this book was written in 1991-ish, there's a lot of little things that would bother today's reader (in addition to the horrific descriptions of the crimes themselves), such as Ressler calling some of Ed Kemper's victims, not by their own names, but by blunt descriptors like "the heavy girl," and the "Asian dancer."
Would I read this again? Once is definitely enough. But I will say it's worth reading to get a picture of just how broken these killers are and how far our society has come in terms of seeing the victims of crime as people, not just depersonalized statistics for vultureous voyeuristic consumption.
Si algo me quedó claro después de leer el libro, es que al Sr. Ressler no le falta autoestima.
No es para nada mi intención desmerecer sus logros y su labor, pero le recuerda al lector EN CADA CAPÍTULO todas sus buenas obras y haceres. Y cansa. Hay un capítulo en que habla más de sí mismo y de como se las ingenió él solo para hacer no sé cuántas cosas que de algún asesino serial. Mucho autobombo.
Por lo demás... bueno, algo de información interesante hay, si uno aprende a leerla en medio de todas las hazañas y autoalabanzas de Ressler.
No es para nada mi intención desmerecer sus logros y su labor, pero le recuerda al lector EN CADA CAPÍTULO todas sus buenas obras y haceres. Y cansa. Hay un capítulo en que habla más de sí mismo y de como se las ingenió él solo para hacer no sé cuántas cosas que de algún asesino serial. Mucho autobombo.
Por lo demás... bueno, algo de información interesante hay, si uno aprende a leerla en medio de todas las hazañas y autoalabanzas de Ressler.