Customer Reviews

A Stranger in the Family: A True Story of Murder, Madness, and Unconditional Love

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

This is a well written book that is strikingly one-sided. Before discussing the book, here is some brief background on the topic. Richard Daniel Starrett -- Danny to his friends -- was arrested in early 1989 and accused of a series of kidnappings and sexual assaults. While in jail, he also admitted murdering one of his victims, a 15-year-old girl named Chrissy Blake. The evidence against Starrett was overwhelming: he was caught when a seventeen year-old victim escaped after being kidnapped and imprisoned in Starrett's home. Starrett fled the scene in his car and remained free for more than a week, but in his home police found (among other things) a video camera mounted on a tripod that had captured his most recent sexual assault on tape. He was eventually arrested in Texas and returned to Georgia. Starrett pled "guilty but mentally ill", which at the time was a relatively new kind of plea allowed in South Carolina, and he was sentenced to multiple life sentences in jail.

Authors Steven Naifeh and Gregory White Smith draw on Starrett's own diary, which he began in prison, and the words of his parents and siblings to construct a picture of a man who seemed an unlikely rapist and murderer. A successful man who worked as an engineer in a nuclear power plant, Starrett had no criminal record and appeared to have loving relationships with his wife, daughter, and family. His family couldn't have been more shocked at his arrest. So while it initially appears very revealing to see Starrett discuss his crimes and himself in his own words, the reader quickly begins to feel that his efforts are very self-serving. Also, if the authors made attempts to corroborate his stories, they present no evidence of it in the book.

This book attempts to put forth two points of view: one, that poor Danny Starrett was mentally ill and no one, not even he, realized it before it was too late; and two, that the other living victims of sexual crimes are the members of the accused's own family. Starting with the second point first, I feel that this book quickly sacrifices any sympathy we might have for Gerry Starrett, Danny's mother, by playing up that claim to the exclusion of all others. We're supposed to feel empathy for Gerry Starret as she learns that her jailed son no longer has unlimited access to reading material; that he isn't eating and looks shrunken, "like a cadaver"; that he's been threatened in jail; that prison is too loud, and so forth. Yes, it sounds horrible -- but I think I'm not alone in saying that I feel a lot more sympathy for the girls who were assaulted by Starrett.

Worse still, however, is the book's insinuation that life is unfair because people focus their attentions and sympathies on the victims of Starrett's crimes instead of Starrett himself. While she was held captive by Starrett, Chrissy Blake was reported missing by her worried parents. Naturally, the story appeared in the newspaper -- yet the authors refer to it as "a local story of doubtful newsworthiness" and refer to the headlines as being "breathless", as if to say that this is all so much hype. When Blake escaped and was returned home to the arms of her parents, the authors sarcastically call it "a heartwarming spectacle." The larger context is that Gerry Starrett had to read all of these headlines as her son was simultaneously being demonized by the press. But while it was surely painful for her, it is difficult to ignore the almost sneering tone that the authors used to refer to all the attention being given to the victims.

Regarding Danny Starrett's mental illness, here is yet another criminal who showed no evidence of a Multiple Personality Disorder until he'd been arrested for his crimes. In fact, in all of his prison diary writings of 1989 that appear in this book, Starrett says nothing about a second personality that caused him to commit these crimes. He refers only to his obsessive compulsions that caused him to follow women and sometimes attack them. He seems to put at least some of the blame on pornography. It isn't until approximately a year after his arrest, in February of 1990, that Starrett suddenly begins referring to HIM, a malevolent personality who took control of his life and forced him to buy detective magazines, forced him to stalk women, and forced him to sexually assault them.

Not being a mental-health professional, I should be the first one to admit that it's certainly possible that Starrett is mentally ill. After all, state psychiatrists did label him as such before he was allowed to enter a plea of "guilty but mentally ill." Nevertheless, it seems to me that Starrett's MPD is simply a massive denial mechanism. I think the authors erred in being so sympathetic to Starrett's claims. That said, I do feel that there is a place for this kind of book because, as some have noted, victims of violent crime now have many more resources than they used to; yet the families of criminals are often ostracized by society and left to fend for themselves. The different point of view proferred here is thus welcome.

Unfortunately, this book comes off as a platform for Richard Daniel Starrett to excuse away his crimes -- a way to say that he couldn't control himself. And that point of view is NOT welcome. This is a man who deliberately chose victims from far-reaching areas because he knew it would help him avoid detection. He used aliases. He hoarded thousands of books and magazines on rape, violence, and sexual bondage and torture. He converted a closet to a small prison cell, boarded up windows, and put deadbolts on interior doors. He obtained guns, a police badge, even handcuffs to help him intimidate and restrain his victims. It's hard to believe his excuse that he can't control himself when there is all this evidence of premeditation and planning. I think we'd all like to feel sympathy for his poor family, who were obviously blindsided by all of this. But we'd feel more sympathetic if their son didn't make excuses for his behavior.

The authors of this book must have had a very easy time writing because they have done nothing to verify the accounts of the Starret family in the book. This book presents the Starrets and Danny as the way they want to be presented. Except for the mental health professionals & the lawyers who knew Danny only after his arrest, the authors did not interview anyone outside the immediate family -- no neighbors, friends, extended family, customers of the mother's busines, childhood friends of Danny Starret -- to ask how they percieved the family. The family said they didn't realize what Danny had become, but perhaps old schoolteacher's etc. might not be as surprised. I am surprised that this book was recommended by the true crime editor. I did not think it let me into the mind of a killer at all and gave me no empathy towards his mother. It would have been much better if there were others who could substaniate the family's claim, or rebut it and allow the reader to see the how people see what they want to see.

I was very disappointed that the authors didn't write about the victims of Danny Starrett's crimes. It was 400 pages of Danny and his Mother, Gerry's feelings and thoughts. Which were very self-serving. At one point, when asked in a television interview what she would like to say to Danny's victims, his Mother said in essence, feel sorry for Danny. This book was a forum for an overbearing, selfish mother to tell us what a wonderful, sweet child her son was. He murdered, kidnapped, raped 12 year old children! What about them?

That's right the victim Jeannie was my cousin. We went to the beach together several times when we were kids. Now I am 32 and finally found out the previously unspeakable (in my family) details through this book. We are the same age born one month apart. I was 15 at the time the murder happened.

We were very close friends, so it was interesting reading about her. Even if it was from the killer's viewpoint. It brought back a lot of memories. For example, she liked peach wine coolers, pringles chips, her favorites, just as the killer said. You could tell she was trying to please the killer with the lies she told him, typical for victims with the Hearst-like syndrome she developed after the trauma of being abducted from her home.

The last reviewer was mistaken when he said Chrissy was murdered, and the book never says she was. Also the reviewer before that didn't read the book well either, Starrett clearly admitted he killed Jeannie. She did not kill herself. There were two bullets in her chest, so how could she have killed herself anyway?

Anyhow, I knew her very well and she was a spunky young woman. Wild and crazy and a lot of fun. Had a lot of potential. Didn't have fear of anything, and like many teenagers believed she was invincible. She was brave and mentally strong. Once she got to know him, she never dreamed he would actually kill her.

The book didn't say how much she hated the name Jean and only used it in the "runaway" note to give clues for someone to find her. She also spelled letters in her name backwards which she normally never would have done. I knew her writing, as she wrote a lot. After her disapearance, the FBI called and interviewed all her friends, including me, looking for her.

True she could have escaped if she hadn't been so ballsy and if she hadn't had that "no one can hurt me" attitude. But I remember at that age I had the same attitude so I can't blame her.

What I find disturbing is the mother's lack of compassion for the family members of the victims. She wouldn't even provide a picture of her son to help in the search. Even if he had been innocent she still should have provided the photo to help investigators. The mother was so wrapped up in protecting her grown son that she lost sight of the fact that several girls were abused and one was killed. And throughout the book she seems to want people to feel sorry for her. How would she have felt if one of her children had been killed? She didn't bother to consider this. All she cared about was whether her murderer son would go to the death chamber, or whether he had adequate prison conditions. She should have been more concerned helping authorities throughout the case. If she wanted to do the right thing. But she was too selfish to help.

It is sad how the killer keeps making excuses for himself. He may have had brain damage from his childhood injuries, but lots of people, including myself had an untreated concussion as a child from a car accident, and I didn't grow up to be a criminal! He is a sadistic calculated rapist and murderer. Something went wrong in his brain but that does not mean he should be declared too ill to be executed.

I see Jeannie's parents (it's acutally her stepdad who raised her)usually once every year. After she died, they gave me a favorite trinket of hers which I still have to this day. They didn't have any other children.

She did want to become a lawyer as the book says, and I have no doubt she was more than smart enough. Too bad she didn't get the chance. She was also one of my best friends and it sure would be nice to have her around. We would have finished growing up together. I never had a large family, and most of the family I do have I am not close with. Those are other reasons why Jeannie was important to me. After we found out she was dead I was severly depressed. My grades got a lot worse and I acted out as a teenager, getting myself into a lot of trouble. Some of it I would have gotton into anyway and some I would not have. I can only imagine if it affected me so much how it affected her parents. It would be interesting to have a book from the victim's perspective, to compare.

Due to politics and the legal system this man was not put to death like he should have been. However, from the book Starrett seemed to dislike living in prison so perhaps his 10 life sentences will be a fate worse than death. I hope so. Even if he is "suffering" then at least, lucky for him, he gets to live out a full life unlike Jeannie who didn't have the chance. I can tell you his suffering in prison, of which he and his mother complain, will never equal the amount of suffering Jeannie's family has endured outside of prison.

This book could have been so good, but it was such a disappointment! The point-of-view was very one-sided. I am interested in people showing sympathy for the forgotten innocent victims of crime--the criminal's family; however, all this author did was focus on how Gerry Starett wants the reader to feel sorry for her son, Danny. The reader is supposed to feel sorry that Danny, a cold-blooded murderer and rapist of children, is locked in a cold, dirty cell eating disgusting jail food? Give me a break! I wanted to feel empathy for Danny Starett's parents, siblings, wife, and child. Unfortunately, Gerry Starett's constant rantings and the author's failure to handle the subject matter better made it almost impossible for me to do so.

I am an avid reader of true crime, but this is the worst specimen of such that I have ever seen. This book focuses not so much on the crimes committed but how this serial kidnapper & rapist, once murderer, was treated so poorly behind bars. And the second story of this book focuses on how his mother worked dilligently to right those wrongs. The kidnapped, raped and murdered victims are but backdrops to this 400 page whine about the injustices suffered by the accused. This is the first work I have read by these authors and will most definitely be my last. Steven Naifeh & Gregory White Smith: Get out of the trime crime writing profession...leave it to the true professionals like Ann Rule, Corey Mitchell & Steve Jackson.

Last but not least, I must say this: many, many times we hear the accused blame negligent mothers, domineering mothers, or absentee fathers. Most times, I personally feel that this is one more attempt at ridding themselves of personal responsibility for their actions; more specifically, their choices. However, after reading this book I firmly believe that Danny Starret was the result of a over-worrisome, over-indulgent mother that, with her high-falutin' attitude, thought that her family was above evil doings. The statement that shook me the most was when discussing his case with defense attorney Bud Siemon, she made the statement "Danny is basically a good boy-" That one statement sums up the attitude of Gerry Starrett and her "perfect son."

Given a choice, I wouldn't have given this book one measly star, but I was forced to. I've just finished the book (how, I don't know) and I'm glad it's over because if I had to read one more chapter beginning with wonderful Gerry Starrett sitting in her immaculate living room, holding hands with her perfect family, reflecting on the perfect previous years and 'her Danny', I was going to puke. I found this book to be more about the trials of Gerry Starrett than her son. I never read anything about the victims and their families. And I read very little about Danny's family (except for his strange mother) and nothing about his wife after all this except the two or three paragraphs when she asked for a divorce. Personally, it sounded to me as if Gerry was just a tad obsessed with her son and even after he confessed, she didn't believe 'her Danny' did anything. The guy was a freak and if his mother and he were as close as she claims they were, you think she would have seen some abnormalities in him. Granted, I can understand her desire to help her son but she attacked everybody around him and I got just plain sick of hearing about all the injustices that he was made to endure. He did, after all, rape a bunch of teenagers and kill one of them Gerry. If the purpose of this book--and it seemed to be that Gerry was the only participant in the writing of this book--was to conjure up sympathy for 'her Danny', it failed miserably. The only sympathy I felt for him was the embarrassment of having such a weird mother. (Example: her screaming at the prosecutor for mentioning the murder victim's name when 'her Danny' fell on the floor crying) She was just over the edge. She seemed extremely shallow, more worried about appearances than anything else. I actually thought her husband handled things much better than she did and I kept wondering when he was going to unload his half-crazed wife. As it turned out, she filed for divorce. As I said, I did manage to finish this book, but if you haven't read it, I wouldn't bother with it. It's nothing but a bunch of babble. It's actually a story about an anguished mother of a murderer than anything else.

I picked up this book while wandering through a bricks & mortar bookstore on sojourn with a hospitalized relative. I read lots of "true crime" but never before have I encountered such a one-sided unabashed apologia for the evil-doer (Danny Starrett.) The authors (the cover says they have previously won a Pulitzer prize - surely THAT book was less biased?) insinuated themselves into Danny's family - but the trade-off in their "deal with the Devil's" family is obvious. More balanced writers such as Ann Rule can take input from friends and family and give insight into the criminal mind and development, but in this case the unfortunate result is 400 pages of "poor Danny and his Momma" with short shrift for the victims, their families or loved ones.

I have read almost every true crime book available but never have I felt the sadness I felt when i read this book.Every mother who has a son should read this book.Like Gerry Starrett if my son did what Danny did I would find it impossible to believe. I found the book very interesting in that it focused mainly on Danny, his family and their feelings. Of course one would find it almost impossible to imagine the depth of horror and grief felt by the victims and their families but the author has given the book a unique feel by focusing on the "bad guys" feelings. Perhaps the most meaningful and saddest part of the whole very sorry story of Danny Starrett was when his parents Richard and Gerry went to the movies and mistakenly went to a blow em up shoot em dead action film.Richards words filled me with a fear that as a mother will always be with me. He said to his wife that the bad guys always gets blown away in movies but nobody ever stops to think about the parents behind the bad guy,how they loved him and thought they did everything right.Richard said maybe the parents didnt understand why their son became a bad guy but think of the agony they will go through when they find out the good guy killed their son, the son they love, their pride and joy, their son who will always be the bad guy,when they always believed like almost every parent, hey, my son's the good guy. That must be an almost unbearable cross to bear. Their son,forever the bad guy.

15 photo's of the killer. Yes, 15. Why? I have no idea. Weasel-faced child killer, Richard Daniel Starrett (Danny to his kin) is a psycho yet a lovable psycho to his family. Mama will go to the ends of the earth to protect her baby even after she finds out what he's done. Seems the wife didn't have a clue that her hubby was up to no good, even with all his strange little habits. The book seems to sympathize with the Starretts (there is even a wedding photo of Danny's parents and one of Danny's mother -- at work!) I know they can't be blamed for their crazy son, but they seemed a bit put off by the murders. Damn those pesky victims, if only they would keep quiet our boy Danny wouldn't be in all this trouble! That's the feeling I got, anyway. If you really like to read True Crime, you should skip this one.