Customer Reviews

Deadly Angel: The Bizarre True Story of Alaska's Killer Stripper

5 star:		(0)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(10)

 

 

This is the absolute worst book I've ever read. It's ambling and crass. The book barely skims the surface of a very fascinating and complex case, and instead provides bizarre factoids and anecdotes about Sarah Palin, Louisiana gumbo, the Judiciary Act of 1789, Alaskan topography, the Klondike Goldrush, Wyatt Erp, the evolution of modern mining technology, etc, etc. etc.

More succinctly, this book is the VERY awkward love child of Wikipedia and CBS's 48 Hours.

Though the book fails to offer any new information or insight to its purported subject matter, it does provide a cautionary tale on the perils of passive voice:
"Since the nation was fortunate enough to have such a righteous man as George Washington, our first and some historians believe our greatest president, murder has been the only crime that has no statute of limitations." (p. 92)

The author's apparent psychosexual issues are also on bold display as he repeatedly conjures the image of Linehan "slithering" and "gyrating" on her "stripper pole" while "showing every orifice" of (her) body and gazing upon her patrons with "eyes that made their cocks jump almost as fast as their wallets." ( seriously??)

The book is also rife with embarrassing wordplay:
"In between showing her bush at the Bush Hughs had allegedly worked as a volunteer in various Alaska charities." (p. 89)

"By using a different name, she conjured a different personality, directly at odds with the stripper cum killer." (pg. 89)

This thing is a train wreck.

This book seemed interesting at first - especially with the marketing material from the publisher but do not waste your time. The book is about ten pages of data and the rest is composed of anecdotes, geographical lessons (all about the same area), crude remarks towards male and female characters and even gossip and judgment on Sara Palin - couldn't leave that out. I donated the book to the local library but I actually feel guilty for the person that tries to check it out - the content is a quick version of cut and paste sections by different "composers" and lots of details on nothing. Unfortunately, I do not like to disparage writers but this was a joke and should have been canceled - makes one wonder exactly what will a publisher accept and market - because this is a waste of time on all accounts.

... made me stop this book right now at page 71 and come to the computer to see if others were as bothered as I am. I find that only the author gave it 5 stars. Why do they allow authors to rate their own books? There must be a way for Amazon to allow authors to comment without rating the book.

I am so annoyed by the things that a previous reviewer detailed so well, I have to keep going back (and, again, I am only on page 71) and rereading to see why I remembered one thing and it said something else later. At least one of the inconsistencies was on back-to-back pages 63-64, which was the easiest one. Melissa Williams called the detective Wade in the middle of June. "That's when Williams explained that Hughes had sent her [the] laptop on May 6." Then we find, a few paragraphs later: "Melissa Williams had said during their phone conversation that Mechele had sent the computer to her 'the other day'(she couldn't remember which day) to fix because it as not working." Then Wade thinks she is lying because the laptop was mailed on May 5, and I don't know whether Melissa said it came on May 6 or "the other day" in mid-June, and it appears that Rosen doesn't either. Then, the author writes "Persisting, Wade went back and asked Melissa Hughes, more about the laptop." Commas, anyone? And isn't her name Melissa Williams? What a mess.

How about how everyone called Carlin III something different? His own son refers to him as "Carlin, Jr." The prosecutor (I know because I searched on it here) calls Carlin III "Carlin, Sr." and the son "Carlin, Jr."

I hated the caustic political snipes (and, no, I am not a Republican) that are not only unnecessary but are unprofessional, and I am only just at the part where it begins to talk about Palin. "The Wasilla town board voted to deny the opportunity to the strippers to practice their exotic talents in town. [sic - A terrible sentence!] However, they were more than happy to let Mechele Hughes, and the other exotic dancers at the Bush, purchase homes in the small town of forty-two hundred." (Can we say "learn to use - or omit - commas"?) Wow, what's wrong with selling them houses but not letting them strip in your town?

There are places that it is obvious that a phrase was altered but the author forgot to take out some of the words: "accompanied by the boy she thought of as a her stepson." It's the new age of the word processor, electronic files, and reliance on a spell check program to do the proofreading and editing. I am seeing it more and more, and wondering who the heck actually reads these things before they get printed?

OK, I have to stop here. I have better things to do than play with this guy, although I thought it important to add to the reviews already here. Sorry, Fred. I don't even know if I will pick it back up.

I had previously watched a program about this case, so I was very anxious to receive the book. I am an avid reader, but this is by far the worst book I have ever read. The story jumps around so much, that it was very difficult to follow. My advice to you is, save your money, because this book is not worth the cost.

I've never done this before because I "love" to read but this book was tossed in the trash. I didn't even finish it because it was so poorly written. The writer goes over the same points again later which can be quite confusing. Also, I understand that the writer must add some history but it was overdone. I've never been so bored with a book in my life.

I am so so glad to see that this book hasnt been given any overrated reviews- it doesnt deserve 2 stars, and thats putting it mildly. its a shame such a lackluster author had to write about this particular case, because its one of the most interesting true crime cases ive heard of in a while- it sucks that now that this guy has covered it (barely), noone else will touch it- at least for a long while. my main complaint? the writer has the vocabulary and writing skills of a kid in 9th grade, and im not exaggerating. i couldnt even get through a quarter of it, and this, as i said before, is a case i was incredibly excited to read about. the writer literally may have just watched a couple tv shows on this case to come up with what he put in his book. dont waste your money or your time on this snooze-fest. how someone could make such a fascinating case unbearable to read about is beyond me. in fact, i remember thinking "it doesnt matter who writes about this- its so interesting, its hard to screw up". well congrats to the author, because he certainly proved me wrong! to sum up:gag city.

The book tells more of a story than just interviewing a murderer.
It was interesting to read into other people's lives that are completely different than what I'm used to. It did lack details and does go off on tangents about Palin and other random stuff.
Looking back, I remember the gist of the book, but not a lot of the details...not very memorable

I bought this book because, at this point, it is the only book written about this case (maybe I should just write another one--it's couldn't be worse!). While I did read some new information in this book, since the author couldn't be bothered to offer citation and sources for the information, it's impossible to verify its accuracy. That is a basic rule from Writing 101...actually more like Third Grade writing: you don't offer information as fact unless you can provide the citation to back it up!

I also agree that this book was anything but succinct. The Sarah Palin filler was easy to skip over and/or skim through, but as far as I could tell, had absolutely no actual connection to this case.

There are better sources of information about this case, and they are free: Check out the 48 Hours and Dateline episodes online, and roam the net...the Anchorage Daily News website has some information, as does Websleuths and other forums.

Finally, one would think an author could contact Amazon to look into providing author's notes on the page for the book. Writing a five-star review for your own work not only reeks of desparation but simply highlights the author's lack of professional integrity and class.

I have read other Fred Rosen books and this one came as real shock to me compared to others he's authored. In a nut shell it was obvious poorly researched and therefore poorly written. It almost seemed like he was in a rush to get the book completed. Her conviction was overturned in May of 2010 by the way. In a side note please do not use this book as an example for other books he's written. His other books have been 99% better then this one. Fortunitely I purchased it used.

Mechele Hughes moved to the small town of Wasilla, Alaska searching for a new, and fortune-filled life as an exotic dancer.

While the earnings was great as a stripper, the rewards she gained by having three fiances were greater.

Until one fiance, Kent "T.T." Leppink, uncovered her dirty little secret and was ready to call it quits.

But Mechelle couldn't let a man simply walk away from her. Although she never really intended to marry Kent, she did want to enforce the marriage vow of "till death do we part."

Mechelle might have earned a living with her body, but she was a smart one; getting another fiance to do her dirty work.

It would take police ten years to link Mechelle and fiance number two, John Carlin III, to the crime despite Kent's ingenious premortem planning.

As they say: better late than never.

Fred Rosen's lasted release, Deadly Angel profiles Alaska's most notorious femme fatale.

Honestly, this is only a mediocre case; with the interesting points being that one woman was able to sucker three men into proposing - although not a very uncommon concept in this day and time.

And when you combine a clearly second-rate story with a random writing style, speckled with lame and completely unnecessary author comments, you make it one of the worst true crime books ever written.

There is an excessive amount of fluff in this book: from background on Sarah Palin - former vice presidential candidate - that is only minorly relevant to short lesson on endometriosis.

Who cares? I buy the book for the crime not extraneous trivia that contributes nothing to the book.

I hate it when I can't recommend a true crime book. After all, it's not like fans of this genre have the selection of fiction fans; but that's where I stand on this book.

I would recommend watching the Oxygen channel's show Snapped (Season 7, Episode 4) instead.