Home :: Books :: Professional & Technical  

Arts & Photography
Audio CDs
Audiocassettes
Biographies & Memoirs
Business & Investing
Children's Books
Christianity
Comics & Graphic Novels
Computers & Internet
Cooking, Food & Wine
Entertainment
Gay & Lesbian
Health, Mind & Body
History
Home & Garden
Horror
Literature & Fiction
Mystery & Thrillers
Nonfiction
Outdoors & Nature
Parenting & Families
Professional & Technical

Reference
Religion & Spirituality
Romance
Science
Science Fiction & Fantasy
Sports
Teens
Travel
Women's Fiction
The Cases That Haunt Us

The Cases That Haunt Us

List Price: $25.00
Your Price:
Product Info Reviews

<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 8 >>

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Very interesting book.
Review: If you like mysteries and books about police work, I think you'll like this book. The author, the founder of the FBI's serial killer profiling unit, describes several infamous serial killings from history, from the Boston Strangler to Jack the Ripper to Lizzie Borden. All of the cases he describes were, to some degree, unsolved.

What makes this book more interesting though, is that the author offers his professional opinions and uses his profiling techiques to predict who the purpetrator was (or in some cases, was not).

The last chapter describes the JonBenet Ramsey case from recent history. He gives a convincing argument for the innocence of John and Patricia Ramsey.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: Fascinating from beginning to end...
Review: Another triumph for Douglas and Olshaker. This book sheds new light on many old cases. INstead of reading 10,000 pages on Jack the Ripper, you can reconsider the case in a brisk 90. I was most fascinated by the JonBenet Ramsey portion of the book. Many of lambasted Douglas for his belief in the Ramseys' not guilty stance. I agree with him and his thought process is illuminating. The Boston Strangler and other chapters are strong. No wasted pages here--all fascinating.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: He profiles the classics . . .
Review: but doesn't necessarily shed new light on them. The first difficulty is Mr. Douglas's massive ego. The second problem is that, regardless of how unbiased he thinks he is, he cannot look at these cases with a fresh eye. I found myself disagreeing with almost all of his "most likely" suspects and felt that he disregarded relevant information because it didn't fit his theories. I do think that if Mr. Douglas had profiled these cases with no preconceived notions, the outcome would have been significantly different.

The book is an interesting look at several famous cases, but don't expect to know whodunit when you finish this book.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: INTRIGUING INSIGHTS
Review: Having read several of the books by Douglas and Olshaker, I jumped at the chance to get a new take on some of the classic cases from the past. I was especially interested in hearing Douglas' insights on the Zodiac (as I was awaiting Graysmith's follow-up, Zodiac Unmasked). I enjoyed all of the cases reviewed except the Ramsey one. I felt that Douglas was a little to close or involved to be truely objective on that one. A minor quibble to an otherwise solid addition to the Douglas/Olshaker nonfiction library. A note to Jodi Mailander Farrell (from the Editorial Reviews section above) : Douglas' method of solving a crime by entering the mind of the killer inspired Thomas Harris to write Red Dragon, not it's sequel The Silence Of The Lambs. If you'd read them, you'd know this.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: What kind of person could have done this...
Review: Great book for anyone interested in true crime and the criminal mind. John Douglas looks at some classic crime cases using his profiling method: look at the facts of the crime and draw conclusions about what kind of person could have done it. This is in contrast to the approach of: identify a likely suspect, then identify facts of the crime that fit the suspect. The author does not claim to solve all of the cases he studies in this book, but rather point us in the right direction. For example, he describes the likely personality characteristics and behavior of Jack the Ripper (interestingly this does not seem to match Patricia Cornwell's conclusion) and the Zodiac. His discussion of the Ramsey case is probably the most controversial since he was personally involved in the case. A well written and interesting book.

Rating: 5 stars
Summary: Excellent, well thought out insights
Review: This is one of the most logical, well thought out analyses I have ever read about those mysterious cases we are still obsessed with.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: As always, Douglas gives the reader a lot to think about.
Review: Let me start off by saying that I've read all of John Douglas's books and that excepting Mindhunter and The Anatomy of Motive, this is perhaps the most interesting since it combines two of my greatest passions: history and true crime. Moreover, I've a great deal of respect for the work which, Mr. Douglas does. True, at times he may come off as a being a bit cocky, but it is unquestionably clear that he truely cares about all the victims of violent crime as well as bringing their killers to justice. That is precisely why I find his books so appealing.

In The Cases that Haunt Us, Douglas looks at five fascinating and mostly unsolved cases: Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, Lindbergh, Zodiac and JonBonet Ramsey. First, he comprehensively lays out the known facts and then gives his professional opinion concerning who the culprit was likely to have been or, at least, what type of personality they would have had. In chapter five, Douglas also gives shorter, but interesting accounts of The Black Dahlia, Lawrencia Bemebenek, and the Boston Strangler cases.

The only reason I have not given the book five stars is that I believe that including the JonBenet Ramsey case might have been a mistake. Please don't get me wrong! I do not say this because I disagree with Douglas's conclusion that the killer was someone other than one of the parents. The truth is that while (like so many others) I once believed that either Patricia or John Ramsey must be guilty; after reading this book, I began to doubt that that was indeed the case. And, since it has recently been revealed that a convicted pedophile was staying right down the block at the same time as the murder occured, I have even more doubts than before. Still, perhaps the case is too fresh because so many people have strong (though mostly emotionally based) opinions on the subject. Unfortunatly, it seems that many have concluded that Douglas's professional judgement was clouded by his own emotions concerning the JonBenet case. I disagree entirely. After reading John Douglas for years, I have absolutely no doubts that if the evidence pointed to either Patricia or John Ramsey as the killer of their little girl, he would say so and more importantly do everything in his power to see to it that they eventually paid for their crime.

In closing, The Cases that Haunt Us is a very fascinating and informative read for anyone interested in either true crime or history, so long as they leave any preconceived notions at the door.

Rating: 4 stars
Summary: A great read!
Review: Wow! This book was very enjoyable. John Douglas, with his usual serious yet cocky flair, proceeds to recap some of the most famous crimes in history. He covers Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, the Zodiac, The JonBenet Ramsey murder, the Lindbergh Baby, Black Dahlia, the Boston Strangler, and a few more. He doesn't proceed to recap OJ Simpson or other cases which have received more than their fair share of attention, with the exception of the JonBenet Ramsey case, and this one I think he covers because he feels that the media misrepresented the parents. He gives background of what happened, the accused and their important behavioral traits, trials (if any) and a profile of what the killer would have been like. Fascinating stuff!

I like John Douglas. The writing style of his books, including occasional profanity inserted for emphasis, really keeps your attention. He is not overly graphic, yet doesn't sugar-coat a thing. And although he does seem to like himself an awful lot, he does not profess to be an expert on all subjects, only those he can back up with skills and experience. This book will intrigue you and keep your interest from cover to cover.

One thing I would have changed about this book- I would have added a few more unsolved cases. Perhaps lesser known, yet equally intriguing cases would have been a good addition to this book. It just seemed to be too short a book to me!

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: Unscientific and Self-Contradictory
Review: As has been noted, the Ramsey case has been written up in such a biased manner, it should have been placed first so the reader can wonder about what information has been left out in the other cases. The book comes across as self-justifying, as reviews have said. In the Borden case: "From my experience, there is no way a stranger would..." and "Even a maniac wouldn't hang around for ninety minutes, and he would have killed Lizzie and Bridget too." Yet in the Ramsey case, he makes the claim for just such behavior. Despite the classifications of "organized/disorganized/mixed" behavioural characteristics, there's mostly a lot of arm-waving and building assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions...though I admit many of his conclusions are likely right, the arguments to get there aren't airtight. And where's the followup discussion of Jeff Merrick, etc....?

Rating: 3 stars
Summary: I'm of two minds on this book...
Review: First off, this book is a fascinating read - John Douglas has taken some of the most fascinating cases in crime history, and offered compelling arguments and evidence for, or against, the accuseds in each case. I love true-crime books, and this one is very interesting, with its descriptions of what evidence the authorities had to work with.
But on the other hand; it's when he goes off on one of his tangents; that if the authorities had done "this, this, and this", and if he had been around to have his hand in the older cases, he would have had the cases locked up. It's easy to criticize from a distance of years; but I'll bet there were quite a few competent investigators on the case, who did the best they could with what they had at the time.

The author's shameless patting himself on the back in his books is incredibly annoying, to the point where I just fast-forward past it to the objective parts.


<< 1 2 3 4 5 .. 8 >>

© 2004, ReviewFocus or its affiliates