Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating interpretations of historic cases
Review: THE CASES THAT HAUNT US provides fascinating and convincing insights into some very high-visibility crimes. When Douglas says Jack the Ripper was So-and-So or someone like So-and-So (I don't want to give you a spoiler here), I believe him. Douglas makes solid arguments regarding Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh kidnapping and the Zodiac. Those chapters kept me turning the pages and then wanting to learn more. I ordered additional Jack the Ripper and Lizzie Borden books and videos...even before I finished reading CASES.Which brings me to the last chapter, on JonBenet Ramsey. That chapter read too much like a justification of Douglas's controversial defense of the Ramseys, and less like a profile. After all, he didn't have access to the evidence he would normally use to make a profile, so how could he really decide that the Ramseys are innocent? He measures other theorists with the yardsticks: "people don't act out of character. If they appear to, it is only because you don't understand the character well enough," and "'when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'" Douglas would do well to measure himself with those yardsticks, too. In retrospect, the "look and feel" of the beginning chapters of CASES doesn't seem to match the last chapter, and vice versa. Douglas and Olshaker seem to make careful studies of the historic cases, then quickly zoom over decades to Douglas's defense of his position regarding the Ramseys. Only a few references to the earlier murders tie the chapters together. Perhaps...the earlier chapters were included only as a build-up to JonBenet Ramsey. Alternatively, perhaps Douglas and Olshaker were writing a history, then decided to tack on JonBenet Ramsey. Or, maybe they knew that Jack the Ripper and JonBenet Ramsey would sell, and therefore added some cases in between. That said, the bottom line is that CASES is a slightly disjointed but intriguing book from beginning to end. There's something here for those interested in history, and those interested in current events.
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Read
Review: I don't typically read this kind of work, but picking it up at a real bargain price, it looked interesting, given all the media attention this renown profiler receives. His analysis of this collection of unsolved mystery murders showcases his analytical abilities, honed over years of work. He primarily spends a great deal of time on two key areas: context of area in which crime committed and victomology.
From Jack the Ripper to JonBenet Ramsey, he applies all that years of working the toughest cases has brought to him. One that fascinated me the most was the one I knew the least, the Lindbergh kidnapping. The missing chisel, the removed flooring, all this pointing to the convicted one. Also, that Gen. Schwartzkopf's relative was involved. These cases do hold our yearning to solve mystery, especially that where justice is sought and all can see if their hunches play out.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating exploration of legendary crimes
Review: This is a great premise: using current profiling techniques to examine crimes from Jack the Ripper to the JonBenet Ramsey murder. John Douglas, "America's foremost expert on criminal profiling", presents the facts of the cases, the crimes themselves and the crime scenes, and the suspects. Then, by applying profiling techniques to the information at hand, he explains what type of UNSUB he would expect would have committed the crime, and outlines whether the suspects fit or don't fit the profile and why. Although he doesn't "solve" any of these crimes, he presents a well reasoned explanation of why he thinks someone was wither guilty or not guilty in each case. I have read extensively on the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, and Black Dahlia cases, and found his profiles on those to be fascinating. I am, however, disturbed by his profiling in the JonBenet Ramsey case. Here, Douglas doesn't come across as being as impartial as he was in the other cases. Of course, he was brought in by the Ramseys' attorneys to give his opinion as to whether or not he thought either one of them could have killed JonBenet; he does not think that either is guilty. Because of this, and the criticisms that have come his way from his involvement in this case, this chapter comes across as much more strident, more "I'm right! I'm right! Any whoever says I'm not is WRONG!" This quickly becomes annoying. However, that said, I will say that he did give me points to consider about that murder that I had not considered before. But I think the book would have been stronger without this last chapter; it makes you wonder if the rest of the book wasn't just written to allow Douglas to ultimately discuss the JonBenet murder, and to predispose you to believe his presentation of this sad case.
Rating: 
Summary: WOW!
Review: Facinating. I have read quite a bit about Jack the Ripper, the Black Dalia, and Lizzie Borden and this book really gives great possible solutions with very good points. I appreciated the way they put all the evidence and theories on the table and went throught them one by one. As for the Ramseys, I don't think we will ever know the truth, one way or another, like so many cases in this book. I think that Douglas' take is as valid as any. Do I think the Ramseys made mistakes AFTER the murder, absolutely, but that doesn't mean they did or didn't do it. I like the fact that the authors noted the mysterious death of another little girl at about the same time. No publicity for that little girl. But, I don't want to get bogged down in the case that Douglas was involved in (Ramseys), the rest of the book is spectacular, thought provoking and terrifying in the way that some of these cases have gone unsolved (esp. the Zodiac.) All in all a great true crime read.
Rating:
Summary: Good stuff, as usual
Review: John Douglas and Mark Olshaker have done an excellent job with "The Cases That Haunt Us". I was familiar with most of the cases they covered, excepting the Bembenek travesty, and I found the summaries of the cases excellent and their analysis quite compelling. I was pleased that my totally amateur analysis of the Lindbergh case agreed with theirs. Everyone who is absolutely sure they know who killed JonBenet Ramsey should be forced to sit and read the chapter on that infamous and tragic case. If I have a quibble with any of John Douglas' books, it is the boosterism that tends to appear on the covers, calling him in this case: "the FBI's legendary Mindhunter". Gack! John, we know you rock --perhaps you could reign in the marketing types for a moment?
Rating:
Summary: Fascinating. A good read.
Review: This is a fascinating read. The idea behind this book is that John Douglas and Mark Olshanker look at some of the unsolved cases through out history that have continued to be of interest to the public. Through the evidence and accounts of each crime, they try to apply the FBI behavioral science that has been developed since these crimes as a way to 'solve' each crime. Beginning with Jack the Ripper and ending with the Jon Benet-Ramsey murder with a wide variety of unsolved, famous crimes in between this book is just plain fascinating. They begin with a description of the crime, the crime scene and the people involved. Then they begin to explain and catagorize what they can learn from the known facts on hand. They explore possible solutions that have been provided by other authors and try to decide if these solutions fit the crime through a behavioral science point of view. They then provide what they think might be the appropriate solution. One thing I appreciated about this book was that these authors constantly stress that they can not prove their solution is correct, only that it fits what they know to be facts and the behavior science views. They do not belittle other authors or police, in fact, they are constantly praising the good job the police have done in each case. The stress that this is an exact science at best due to it being a behavioral science and a people science. Another thing I appreciated about this book was that it was peppered with a variety of cases that the author had personally worked on and stories of criminal the author had personally interviewed. Rather than being distracting, these short stories only support his theories and go a long ways to explaining exactly what the authors are talking about. I rated this a four mainly for one reason: I find that many of the sentences are long and convoluted. I find that I have to go back to reread a sentence at times to be sure I understand what the sentence was saying. Maybe others won't find this to be an issue, but it occurs just often enough that it disturbs me. Overall, this is a very fascinating read.
Rating: 
Summary: Thoughtful recaps of past mysteries...
Review: The highlights of this book are the recaps of mysteries with which I was unfamiliar, including Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden, and especially the Lindburgh Baby Kidnapping. The kidnapping piece was particularly interesting and Douglas' points regarding the involvement of Bruno Hauptmann are believable. I don't think it is any coincidence that Douglas builds up his book with sensational mysteries from the past, and then leads into his piece about the JonBenet Ramsey investigation. In stark contrast with the earlier pieces, however, The feel of this read is far more biased. Douglas' writing during this last chapter has a defensive air vs. the exploratory air of the previous chapters. I'm surprised Olshaker let Douglas get away with that type of writing. As far as Douglas' points, I found his claim unconvincing that in no way could Jon-Benet Ramsey's parents have killed her because parents don't kill their kids that way. Douglas also talks about his "small fee" for taking on the Ramsey case, and I think that it would have been more ethical to fully disclose that fee in the book. One man's small fee is another man's fortune. Also, where were the personality profiles of the parents? How can Douglas not mention the possibility of narcissism with a parent who names his daughter after himself? Overall, I'm disappointed in the lack of full exploration of all of the key suspects in the Ramsey piece of the book -- where was mention of the brother? However, I think the book is worth purchasing in paperbook for the fascinating overviews of old cases.
Rating:
Summary: Douglas' Best Book
Review: I couldn't wait to read this book, and when I started it, I couldn't put it down. Douglas is a master profiler, and he covered the cases that have most interested me, JonBenet Ramsey, Lizzie Borden and the Black Dahlia. Those are the three cases that have "haunted" me. Although I never was much interested in the Ripper murders and thought I had heard and read all I really wanted about the Lindbergh kidnapping, I found Douglas' perspective to be incredibly interesting. What he does is what any professional person should do; he looks at the evidence, the victim and the details of the crime and puts aside emotional aspects that cause people to "jump to conclusions" without being objective.
Rating:
Summary: A View from the other side!
Review: I've read some, but not a lot on almost all the cases in this book. I found this fascinating reading, partially because Douglas gives us an edited view into a world most of us are interested in, but really don't want to be immersed in. He has admitted before that his job took a familial and health toll on him, and most of us recognize that we would even be less prepared for what this 'world' requires of those who work in it. The stories/cases are especially interesting because of the insight which Douglas can give. I thought the histories of the Ripper and Borden cases were especially good. I had no idea of the historical and social context of the area in London where the Ripper resided, and the lack of forensic evidence does not seem to interfere much with the common sense with which Douglas proposes specific possible suspects. As others have said, all I read on the Jon Benet murder was from the slanted information given through the media. Plus as a mother, I was horrified by the dressing up of this little girl to look like someone older than she was. Douglas provides a different point of view with validity, that I don't see being portrayed in the media. We definitely should not be trying people though the media...we cannot possibly know all the facts, especially when others involved (including the police, the FBI, friends of the family, etc.) all provide divergent views. I am not sure what I believe at this point, but I think I will reserve judgement in most cases from now on and also curtail my exposure to the news media's take on cases like this... As usual, Douglas and company write a good, and intelligent book for readers. I get a huge kick out of his snide remarks...he tends to write as he thinks and as he talks, which makes it more accessible.
Karen Sadler,
University of Pittsburgh
Rating:
Summary: Douglas Knows His Stuff, But I Don't Know If I Want To
Review: Reading "The Cases That Haunt Is" it is clear that John Douglas, a former FBI profiler, knows his stuff. His case-by-case breakdown of some of the world's most famous unsolved (or possibly incorrectly solved) murders, including Jack the Ripper, Lizzie Borden and Jon Benet Ramsey, is well-researched and, as far as a lay person like myself can tell, highly accurate. Douglas makes a good case for a likely suspect TYPE in each case, and offers opinions in some as to the identity of the killer and validity of accepted evidence, but remains thoroughly professional and refrains from the lurid speculation often associated with "true crime" books. (He is particularly circumspect in the more modern cases, fearing, I'd assume, legal retaliation.) In fact, therein lies the problem. Douglas is so professional that reading this book is like reading a police blotter, factual and insightful, but not very interesting. The prose is dry--more proof that Douglas did this (profiling) for a living, not even Mark Olshaker's writing skills can punch up Douglas' fact-by-fact analysis. I'm not usually a true crime fan and I don't obsessively follow serial killers or "big cases" on the news. Actually, I'm not even sure why I picked this book up, as it's a bit out of my typical fiction genre. I guess if I'd been more the audience this book was geared towards, I might have enjoyed it more. As it is, it just sort of creeped me out and made me realize (once again) the frightening number of truly sick individuals our modern world has spawned. Detailed reports on exactly how Jack the Ripper or Borden mutilated their victims (OK, their entire face was gone. Oh goody!) doesn't make for great bedtime reading as far as I'm concerned and as Douglas refers to case after case which has "similar" overtones to the more famous murders chronicled here you get the feeling that there's a serial killer around every corner. Mostly I just found myself wondering, again and again, how anyone can muck through horrors like this for a living. A book on how that affects someone's psyche might be REALLY interesting.
| 
