Customer Reviews

Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill

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

 

 

It was a terrific book,won't be able to put it down,I completed the book in two days,buy it and enjoy.

Murder Behind the Badge: True Stories of Cops Who Kill offers a true-crime narrative that reads like a thriller and comes from a former police officer and detective who tells eighteen stories about cops who kill. Any library strong in either law enforcement or social issues will find this a solid, intriguing coverage of what motivates cops to kill.

Sherlock Holmes maintained that when doctors go wrong, they are the first of criminals, having nerve and knowledge. After reading Stacy Dittrich's MURDER BEHIND THE BADGE, TRUE STORIES OF COPS WHO KILL, I think the Holmes statement needs to be revised. Dittrich's book details the life and crimes of 18 policemen/women who resorted to murder, dishonoring every principle of police work. It's a sad, disturbing tale for several reasons.

The 'boys in blue' murderers found in Dittrich's book include Charles Becker, Gerald Schaefer, Lawrencia Bembenek, Bobby Cutts, Len Davis, Roy Kipp and Charles Oswalt. As appalling as their crimes were, it's even more mind-boggling that those people were ever accepted for police work! MURDER BEHIND THE BADGE is not just about murder, it's about the system failing to protect society. Time after time, slipshod or non-existent hiring procedures in cities across America let walking time-bombs like David Camm and Keith Washington pass unchallenged. Just about all the individuals covered in Dittrich's book had serious psychological problems or criminal records(!) before they were hired and yet they were given a badge and gun. Then too, in many cases, the victims were harassed by their soon-to-be murderers but when they tried to get help from police, government agencies, etc., their pleas were ignored or downplayed. If there is a hopeful note in Dittrich's book, it is that almost all of the killers ended up with lifelong prison terms or were executed.

Dittrich does a workmanlike job of presenting each case clearly and dispassionately. Given the subject of the book, I was surprised by the lack of photographs of many of the killers but that's just me.

In short, I can't say I enjoyed reading MURDER BEHIND THE BADGE but I did find the book informative. It did shine a light on a disturbing subject. Recommended.

After finishing Dittrich's autobiography, Stumbling Along the Beat, I was curious to see what other titles she had in print. I picked up this book and got exactly what I expected: a great, somewhat dark, weekend read that held my interest through to the end. I'll admit that this type of book isn't my normal fare - I have little interest in attempting to "critically read" true crime authors who unnecessarily sensationalize stories that are already compelling. Perhaps that's why I enjoyed this book as much as I did. The author presents the facts of each case and lets the stories tell themselves...and she does so without feeling the need to cast herself in the role of psychoanalyst by attempting to explain what makes cold blooded killers tick. Above all else, her no-nonsense approach ensures that this book remains respectful to the victims of these horrible crimes and never risks becoming a sweeping condemnation of law enforcement officers everywhere.

Unfortunately, one reviewer seems to have taken exception to Dittrich's writing style. Yes, it's probably true that she won't be accepting the Pullitzer in the very near future. However, one has to wonder what type of reader picks up a book entitled "Murder Behind the Badge," written by a 20-year veteran police officer, and expects to find Mark Twain or Charles Hemingway. In response to Ms. True Crime Valentine's inexplicable red-lining remarks, I can only say that I've been an avid reader for more than 40 years, and it's rare that I find a book that doesn't contain an occassional mistake. For the reacord, Ms. Valentine, I almost made it through two whole sentences in your review before finding your first grammatical error. (Hint: Look up appositives in any 7th grade English textbook.) Being critical of a book's quality or value is one thing, but making personal comments about the author? Well, that just suggests you've perhaps confused "critical reading" for good, old fashioned critical thinking.

So, unless you're looking for tabloid sensationalism or half-baked pseudopsychoanalysis, and as long as grammar naziism isn't your particular cup of tea, I'd definitely recommend this one as a perfect book for a lazy day.

What a scarey, scarey book ! It's absolutely horrible enough when off duty cops destroy their families but cops on duty kidnapping and killing women ?? !! Killer cops being protected by the infamous Blue Wall of silence ? I never, ever once thought the protection went as far as it did in some of the events described in this book. Another thing that is troubling is these psychos are spotted in their psyche tests and superiors are warned but they are hired anyway ?

This book makes backwoods crooked country cops look upright and just ! A good but scarey read. Ladies read at your own risk.

If you read critically and expect an author to actually know how to write well and with creative ease, I would suggest you avoid this unfortunate manuscript. The foreword of the book is written by criminal profiler, Pat Brown. It is a shame that Brown did not also write the rest of the book. Stacy Dittrich, instead, authored the book. Dittrich is a cop, from a family of cops... what she is not is an author.

There are many, many stories in this book that could have been very interesting. However, they suffer from a rather dry, reportorial telling and the reader is often left feeling that there is so much more that needed exploration. There is almost no information about the character defects and issues of the psyche of which these killer cops were afflicted. It is obvious that they are bad people who present as arrogant, narcissistic, and sometimes sociopathic. However, there is no attempt to understand why.

What is most unfortunate about the book is the writing itself. There were numerous grammatical mistakes. Here are but two of many examples:

Pg. 78 - "After all, a woman who repeatedly begged for help from those who were supposed to protect her now lays dead." (The correct phrase would be 'lies dead.')

Pg. 99 - "It was in 1988 that he met a woman who he described as 'the love of my life.'" (The correct word is not 'who,' but whom. The pronoun 'he' is the subject. 'Whom' is the object.)

It is perhaps more unfortunate that the editor of the book did not also possess basic grammatical knowledge. It is clear that both the author and the editor need a refresher course in 7th grade English.

This book also suffers from profoundly bad writing and ugly, rather irrational metaphors. Here are two of the many examples I could cite:

Pg. 317 - "London decided to better her life. This was akin to moving on from an urban sewage treatment plant to a rotten manure field." (I could only shake my head in disbelief when I read this.)

Pg. 73 - "After a day of tiptoeing through the tulips of Holland, Michigan (six million of them to be exact), feel free to stop and get a chocolate milkshake. However, it's probably best to skip the milkshake if you took a pass on the tulips and instead hanged your wife in the basement - posing it to look like a suicide." (See what I mean?)

Suffice it to say there were many, many times the author chose to throw in these irrational, nonsensical sentences and paragraphs. I counted at least one in each of the 18 separate chapters of the book. And, like the appalling example from page 73, I could never determine if the author were attempting humor, sarcasm, a creative expression, or something else. Most likely, she simply does not write very well.

There are some high-profile killer cops represented in this book - including Drew Peterson, David Camm, Kent McGowan, Lawrencia "Bambi" Bembenek, Antoinette Frank, and Craig Peyer. Sadly, even the inherent interest of these stories is almost completely undermined by the poor writing. (In the chapter profiling Bembenek, I could never decide if the author thought she, Bembenek, were innocent or guilty. I thought it common knowledge that Bembenek was framed.)

In True Crime, the writing often makes or breaks the book. In this case, it breaks it. Save yourself frustration and wasted time. Avoid this book. It is truly one of the most badly written books I have read in a very long time.