Scan barcode
ridgewaygirl's review against another edition
2.0
Pat Brown was an ordinary home-schooling stay-at-home mom when a woman was murdered in her neighborhood and just four weeks earlier her family had rented a room to an odd man. Coincidence? She thought not and "investigated" her boarder, bringing the police a box of evidence along with her request that they question him about the murder. The police were strangely unimpressed and declined to follow up. She was surprised, but undaunted. How could it be, she thought, that I can find murderers so much better than the police? Her husband thought she should forget about their now ex-boarder, so she divorced him and carried bravely on. When she discovered that to become the sort of profiler recognized by law enforcement would take too long and involve boring years of work, she taught herself how to profile and set herself up as an Investigative Criminal Profiler. Despite not charging the families of the victims who ask for her help a single dime, not even expenses, she's managed to make a nice living. The key, of course, is television.
The first half also features a little too much information. I'm not sure how the fact that she breastfed each of her children for two years, for example, ties into criminal profiling at all.
The second half of the book is a collection of her accounts of her best work, and where the whole thing breaks down, credibility-wise. Does it not seem odd that when she has her long and illustrious career to look back on, that in all the profiles she put together not one led to an arrest? I may be nit-picking here, but how can she be sure that she's found the true culprit in all of these cases when her conclusions are never tested and the police don't agree with her? She believes that powerful people have vested interests that they're protecting. Maybe, but every time? Also, she admits that she receives very little cooperation from law enforcement and so bases her profiles on much less than an examination of all of the evidence. She does talk to family members and the witnesses willing to talk to her and she does visit crime scenes (thus accounting for the "investigative" in her job title), but often years after the crime. The reader is only privy to her thoughts and reasoning on any case, so it always sounds plausible, but plausible in the way that any viewpoint sounds good when it's the only one you've heard. In high school I had a wacky history teacher who showed us the Zapruder film several times while explaining that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. We all believed him. We were a group of Canadian high school students who had never given it any thought at all, so we swallowed his point of view. That's what this book felt like. With nothing to judge her conclusions against, they sound perfectly plausible. But if she's so good, shouldn't at least one of her suspects been arrested? Why couldn't she get a single member of law enforcement to believe her?
The first half also features a little too much information. I'm not sure how the fact that she breastfed each of her children for two years, for example, ties into criminal profiling at all.
The second half of the book is a collection of her accounts of her best work, and where the whole thing breaks down, credibility-wise. Does it not seem odd that when she has her long and illustrious career to look back on, that in all the profiles she put together not one led to an arrest? I may be nit-picking here, but how can she be sure that she's found the true culprit in all of these cases when her conclusions are never tested and the police don't agree with her? She believes that powerful people have vested interests that they're protecting. Maybe, but every time? Also, she admits that she receives very little cooperation from law enforcement and so bases her profiles on much less than an examination of all of the evidence. She does talk to family members and the witnesses willing to talk to her and she does visit crime scenes (thus accounting for the "investigative" in her job title), but often years after the crime. The reader is only privy to her thoughts and reasoning on any case, so it always sounds plausible, but plausible in the way that any viewpoint sounds good when it's the only one you've heard. In high school I had a wacky history teacher who showed us the Zapruder film several times while explaining that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't act alone. We all believed him. We were a group of Canadian high school students who had never given it any thought at all, so we swallowed his point of view. That's what this book felt like. With nothing to judge her conclusions against, they sound perfectly plausible. But if she's so good, shouldn't at least one of her suspects been arrested? Why couldn't she get a single member of law enforcement to believe her?
scearceka's review against another edition
5.0
I really like how this was presented: Each case was described, evidence was provided as to who Brown believed was the likely suspect, and the status of the case where it sits now was noted (basically, dormant). I just received my Master's in Forensic Psychology, so reading how Brown became a profiler and how she uses her knowledge to work on "cold" cases was both intriguing and helpful for me. I especially liked her idea of creating a suspect bank through ViCAP that could be accessed across the nation, in the event that a suspect in one crime crosses jurisdictions and is interviewed in relation to another crime. I would definitely recommend this book to anyone interested in the Forensic Psychology or Criminology fields, or for those who like such TV shows as the "Law and Order," "Criminal Minds," or "CSI" franchises.
iamabibliophile's review against another edition
3.0
Profiling can not be completely scientific. It is a flawed science. I did not go into this with expectations. I enjoyed it for what it is, related to the author and understood her view.
jenniferdenslow's review against another edition
2.0
Pat Brown's book is an interesting chronicle of how she went from a homeschooling mom to a profiler. The cases are interesting, and it is startling to realize how many crimes are never truly solved.
hollywfranklin's review against another edition
3.0
Read on the plane to Chicago in hopes it would deter weirdos from sitting next to me. It seemed to work.
mkristin96's review against another edition
1.0
Didn't finish it. I couldn't even get past the second chapter. It is misleading title. I'm glad I looked at reviews on here before I wasted any more of my time.
scarlet_frost's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting cases, good cause, but it wasn’t exactly what I was expecting. It was a decent read.
morgan_haybook's review against another edition
3.0
I really would have given this book more stars, but the simple fact that many of these criminals never got caught was really getting to me. The writing is great however, and I felt engaged in her narrative.