The book is now 20-plus years old and in the meantime the author Darcy O'Brien has passed on. So, why comment on a work this old. For one thing, it's probably the most complete account of the notorius string of LA murders available to the public. For another, the serial dynamic is unusual in that it breaks the usual "lone wolf" pattern of most repeat killers. Here we have two cousins locked into a spiral of torture-thrill killings of the most cold-blooded type. Their skills (such as they are) blend well to produce a pretty effective killing machine that had the sprawling city both mesmerized and terrified for months at a time. (And on a minor note, even 20 years later, the stranglings appear as background on episodes of Seinfeld.)
Author O'Brien did considerable research in developing the work, and takes us through the early lives of Buono and Bianchi, the murders of the ten women in grisly detail, and finally through Bianchi's insanity hoax and Buono's interminable trial. For the most part, it's a gripping read with few apparent punches-pulled.
Nonetheless, the narrative is weakened by two rather pervasive defects. First, O'Brien offers slim grounds for the conversations he provides between the two cousins that interlace the first part of the book. Now, Truman Capote pioneered this technique in his classic In Cold Blood, but also tried to provide appropriate grounds based on conversations with the culprits themselves. However, I could find only a weak justification for taking similar liberties here. That indirect justification occurs in the book's Preface (p.xxiii), but is pretty meagre to say the least. Perhaps, as O'Brien avers, the recreation of certain scenes does contribute to understanding the psychology of the two killers; nonetheless, these recreations are fictional accounts and the reader should be kept aware. The text would have been strengthened had the author discussed the question more forthrightly than he does.
Second, author O'Brien acknowledges a close relationship with detective Grogan who worked much of the case. Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with that since authors often develop a rapport with their sources. However, in this case, the rapport comes close to adopting someone else's point of view and allowing that pov to color the narrative. In short, the text at times sounds like detective Grogan speaking through the author. As a result, the book's objectivity is seriously undermined, no matter how sound the conclusions. Now it's hard not to view the two stranglers as human belly-crawlers-- their crimes are that horrific. Nonetheless, Grogan's pov is also allowed to frame the conduct of both Buono's defense attorneys and the initial DA team, along with O'Brien's boyhood chum, presiding judge Ronald George. Such non-objective framing would appear to undercut a fair-minded account of the trial prceedings, no matter how much we and the author may root for the prosecution.
To me, such defects cast seriously into question the reliability of much of the text. I have no doubt that the two were guilty, nor that their crimes deserve the strongest possible legal punishment. However, despite the book's many redeeming features, the account is told from a definite, and sometimes fictionalized, point of view. And whether or not the many forensic details plus the author's narrative skills are sufficient compensation is up to the reader to decide.