12 of 13 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Good read, but not entirely fair or complete, August 27, 2001
This book is interesting because it allows us some further insight into the personality of Mark Fuhrman, one time LAPD detective, and fall guy for the prosecution in the O. J. Simpson debacle. It is interesting to see how Fuhrman's loyalties and perspective have changed from the siege mentality of a beleaguered cop to the free and easy skepticism of a freelance journalist. One thing is clear: he has extended his fifteen minutes of fame by becoming a writer of true crime tales destined for the best seller list. This is his third. I didn't read Murder in Brentwood (1997), having had my fill of the Simpson tragedy, but I did read Murder in Greenwich (1998) and it wasn't bad. This is an even better book, more skillfully written, about murders committed by Robert Lee Yates Jr., a sickie who might be dubbed the "Ordinary Joe" of serial killers, if one can ever say that a serial killer is ordinary.
This is also interesting from the point of view of an ex-detective from the big city, trying to have some significant impact on a sensational case. Fuhrman and his buddy, Spokane radio talk show host, Mike Fitzsimmons, provide us with some insight into what it's like playing detective in their spare time while second guessing the police on a weekly basis over the radio. Fuhrman insists that he's still a cop at heart, but don't tell that to the Spokane police (or to the cops in Greenwich, Connecticut either). Regardless, his critique of the way the Spokane police handled this string of murders is well worth reading. His main point is that faulty police work allowed Yates to remain free long after they should have had the goods on him. As Fuhrman puts it, "The task force was supposed to be chasing a killer. Instead they became file clerks" as they "relied on blood tests and databases to do their work for them" (p. 259). By the time they figured out who the murderer was, a man right under their nose, "They had already wasted two years, and watched ten women die," women that Fuhrman insists would not have been killed had the police done their job. "Whether it was laziness, incompetence, or just simple human error, the task force could have caught Yates back in September 1997" (p. 239). As it actually happened, Yates was not arrested until April 18, 2000.
Fuhrman believes that the police department's failure to give information to the public about the crimes was one of the reasons the killer stayed at large. Fuhrman argues strongly that the more information about the killings that the police put out on the street, the better the chances are that somebody will step forward with something that will help them catch the killer. This is the clear public service message of this book. All the material about police errors and misdirections and butt guarding are important for the public to know, but are nothing new. To rake the cops over the coals because they COULD have caught the killer sooner serves a public purpose, but it is a small one. Police work, as Fuhrman knows, is not an exact science, and mistakes, sometimes tragic, will be made.
Fuhrman implies (e.g., quoting Fitzsimmons on pages 69 and 70, but denies it himself when on the radio, page 125) that the reason the police did not put more energy into finding the killer was the fact that he was only killing prostitutes and drug addicts. Again, it's hard to doubt that there is an element of truth to this accusation. Imagine if the daughters of the landed gentry of Spokane were the victims. I think every resource of city, county, state and the FBI would have been summoned, and no crime scene would have been left unprocessed until tomorrow. (Crime scenes left unprocessed overnight was one of Fuhrman's pet peeves. Several times the Spokane police just cordoned off the crime scene and went home to dinner and a night's rest before finishing the job.)
For those readers looking for information about the serial killer himself and insights into his behavior and what might have made him the sexual psychopath that he is, this book will be a disappointment. Fuhrman isn't interested in Yates's motives. While his identify was unknown and Fuhrman and Fitzsimmons were speculating on the air what he might be like, Fuhrman's interest was understandably high. Fuhrman played the profiler game and put his head into the mind of the killer and came up with the idea that this guy was fairly sophisticated. "This guy is definitely an organized murderer...This is a streetwise guy. You've got to show this guy a little respect for the way he comes in, commits the crime, slips out, and nobody knows the wiser...I see this guy as being very organized, fairly intelligent...Clever, cunning." (pp. 93-94). When it turns out that, except for the killings, he is an average sort of joe, Fuhrman was clearly disappointed. "The fact that he was so ordinary only made me wonder why they hadn't caught him a long time ago" (p. 232).
There is plenty of the well known Fuhrman arrogance here. He's clearly the star of this book, even though he was on the periphery of the case. His knowledge of police procedures and in-station politics is a plus. He's able to see through the press releases and the public posturing to what is really going on in the police and sheriff's departments. The fact that he points out how the case could have been solved sooner is also a plus, and a huge embarrassment for Spokane law enforcement. But the bottom line is the police did get the killer and they convicted him.
That doesn't always happen, as Fuhrman knows only too well.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Not Fuhrman's best, July 21, 2002
This review is from: Murder In Spokane (Mass Market Paperback)
This book is not nearly as good as Murder in Greenwich, where Fuhrman focuses on the case at hand and actually puts the clues together to solve a murder.
In Murder in Spokane, you think the same situation is going to happen. Then you realize about halfway through the story that he isn't analyzing clues at all, but is focusing on his personal experiences with the police denying him information. Overall, this book is much more self-centered than Murder in Greenwich. Fuhrman simply doesn't have access to real clues in the Spokane situation, he is totally out of the loop and not involved in the investigation. Unlike Murder in Greenwich, where he was doing a real investigation from start to finish.
I do not recommend this book. It is about Mark Fuhrman's personal experiences when the murders were happening, not about the murders themselves. Fuhrman also has nothing to do with finding the killer, unlike his previous books. There is also almost no detail about the murders or crime scenes. One would expect details, but since Fuhrman can't gain access to the police files, there are no details. You would think at some point he could file a FOA request for info, but he doesn't. He also doesn't point out that the first murder victim was wrapped in an Army blanket, and that the murderer turned out to be in the Army. I thought this was an important correlation.
Oh well. Maybe the with next book Fuhrman will get closer to the case, instead of sitting on the sideline like in this one.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Not as compelling as his other two, June 22, 2001
I debated with myself whether to give this 3 or 4 stars. If I could, I'd give it 3 1/2. Let me start by saying that the first book I read by Mark Fuhrman was "Murder in Greenwich", which I loved by the way. I gave it five stars. It was a real page-turner. Next, I read "Murder in Brentwood", which was also very good (four stars). Needless to say, I was very much looking forward to his next book, so I got it even before it came out in paperback, which I never do! Now, for the review. I did enjoy reading this book. However, it wasn't nearly as compelling or exciting as the other two. While he did have a good story to tell, it just wasn't as interesting to me as his others and it wasn't something that kept my full attention. Why? I'm not exactly sure. Maybe because there weren't as many twists and turns in this story. Maybe it was because I didn't develop a real connection to the victims because there were so many. On the other hand, as much as I would hate to admit it, it could be because the cast involved did not include the likes of the rich and famous. If you liked his other books, you should find this one enjoyable, but I would suggest waiting for the paperback.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
