Customer Reviews

Whoever Fights Monsters: A Brillant FBI Detective's Career Long War Against Serial Killers

5 star:		(27)
4 star:		(25)
3 star:		(6)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

For those of you who are not big fans of serial killers and the people who catch them (or at least won't admit it publicly), Bob Ressler is the guy who invented the term "Serial Killer" and helped usher in a new understanding of repeat criminals and why they do what they do. The citizens of the U.S. owe a lot to Bob. So does Thomas Harris, who interviewed him extensively for Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs.

Alas, truth is stranger than fiction, and the tales Ressler tells are positively awful. There' just one problem: we've heard all of this before.

Where? That'd be "Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit," by John E. Douglas, a man I can only assume was Ressler's protégé. It's a bit murky as to their relationship (the two reference each other, but not often). The parallels are unmistakable-it's interesting to read the opinions of two different people interviewing the same serial killer.

For example, Douglas has a bit of a creepy admiration for Ed Kemper. Kemper had a diabolical mind that he put to good use, such that eventually he figured out why he was killing women: because he hated his mother. So Kemper did what every good serial killer would do in such a situation...he killed her too. His murders "finished," Kemper called the police and gave himself up.

That little story is from Douglas' point of view. It almost makes Kemper out to be a sympathetic figure. A six-foot tall, 300 pound sympathetic figure, but sympathetic nonetheless.

Ressler is not so kind. Ressler interviews Kemper alone at one point. Having finished the interview, Ressler rings for the guard...but nobody comes. Sensing his discomfort, Kemper explains how he could probably screw Ressler's head off with his bare hands and nobody would be able to do anything about it. Kemper goes on to explain how he has nothing to lose and how, by killing an FBI agent, he'd get quite a bit of "prison cred." Fortunately, Ressler keeps a cool head (and keeps his head) by playing the little mind game right back at the massive serial killer until the guards escort him out.

"You know I was only kidding, right?" says Kemper, putting a hand on Ressler's shoulder.

Whoever Fights Monsters is a lot like that. It simultaneously takes on tough subjects, summarizes them from a clinical perspective, and then reminds you-sometimes quite sternly-that these people are murderers. Where Douglas tends to talk about himself and the heavy toll that dealing with serial killers took on his own personal psyche, Ressler is much more detached and observant. Douglas advocates the death penalty, Ressler does not. Douglas embraces the glory and publicity of being a trailblazer in his field, Ressler worries about the depersonalization of the victims and the celebrity-status of the killers themselves. Who's right?

There are no right answers here. Of the two books, Douglas' is more entertaining because he chooses to be more dramatic. The two books track each other very closely, such that if you've read one, you probably don't need to read the other one. Unlike Douglas' book, Ressler admits when he makes mistakes. He also goes into more detail as to the method and process of profiling, which is why I originally bought both books. But it's simply not as exciting a read.

Nevertheless, Ressler's tale is an important one: serial killers are mistakes. They're the results of terrible human failings and something to be ashamed off, not celebrated. In that respect, Ressler's story is a more socially responsible (if not as thrilling) examination of the worst humanity has to offer.

Robert K. Ressler left the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit twelve years ago to venture into private practice as a criminologist. He retired with thirty years of investigative experience (ten with the U.S. Army's CID and twenty with the FBI, many of them as director of the FBI's Violent Criminal Apprehension Program (VICAP)). This book is one of his many attempts to speak from the belly of the monster that has devoured him...in fact the book that follows this one is actually called "I Have Lived in the Monster."

"Out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice." (Jonah 2:2)

So what does our modern-day prophet, Robert K. Ressler cry out of the belly of the beast?

Credit for coining the phrase "serial killer" is commonly (and mistakenly) given to Ressler, one of the founding members of the FBI's elite Behavioral Science Unit. Along with his colleague John Douglas, Ressler also served as a model for the character 'Jack Crawford' in Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lecter trilogy.

"Whoever Fights Monsters" is subtitled "My Twenty Years Tracking Serial Killers for the FBI" and if you read true crime books, you will recognize many of the monsters that Ressler describes and interviews. A miscellaneous look at the photo captions will give you an idea of whose minds he attempted to probe:

* "One of two blenders used by the Sacramento 'Vampire Killer'... to prepare human blood and organs for ingesting to 'stop his blood from turning to powder'"

* "Tattoos on the arm of Richard Speck, which led to his arrest in the murders of eight women in Chicago in 1966"

* "Photograph taken of the leg of a Brudos victim. This captures the essence of his bizarre fetish fantasies--women's feet in high-heeled shoes"

A well-known review service complains that "as deeply as Ressler gets into killers' heads...he refused to reveal much of his own here, offering no explanation ... for why he's devoted his life to a calling so dire and soul-wearing..."

Actually, I believe Ressler reveals quite a bit of himself in his books. I read him as a man who is easy to admire, but hard to like. I'm sure some of the other law enforcement officers who had to work with him found his techniques and pronouncements a bit grating. They might have also gotten the notion that he was hogging the limelight. Ressler does not keep quiet about crime scenes where he thinks the cops screwed up, and uses the 'fiasco' of Henry Lucas's murder confessions as an example of bad police work. Two reporters working for the "Dallas Times" finally did the spadework on Lucas's stories and determined that he couldn't possibly have killed the hundreds of the victims he claimed to have done in. Sometimes he wasn't even physically in the state, e.g. Florida, when the victim was murdered. By the time the dust had settled, and Ressler interviewed Lucas, the con admitted that he had killed "fewer than ten, perhaps five."

One of the services that I wouldn't trust anyone but Ressler (and maybe a few others) to perform is to interview serial killers and determine the 'how' and 'why' of what they did. Ressler describes a few cases where his testimony tipped the balance as to whether a former killer who has served his time, should be paroled. It seems as though the psychopathic personality is good at fooling parole boards and psychologists by the depth of his remorse, and by his long stretch of sterling behavior in prison (during his first incarceration, John Wayne Gacy started up a prison branch of the JayCees)---but the psychopath doesn't fool Ressler at all. He's gotten into the hearts and minds of too many of them.

One of the definitions of 'prophet' is "a person gifted with profound moral insight and exceptional powers of expression...a predictor; a soothsayer."

We may not want to listen to this prickly prophet Ressler, who speaks of demons in our midst, and who predicts their behavior if they are sent back out into society. But for the sake of our loved ones and friends, we really should listen.

This is the only book that a student of serial killers will ever need-the others are only case studies.Ressler gives the basic tools and terminology used to classify serial murderers and real life examples of the categories given.This book is a nice mix of an overview of the subject and an explanation of the science used to catch the killers.I found myself analyzing other killers using the same method Ressler teaches.Sadly,it is now hard for me to read books about serial murderers as I usually have them categorized within a chapter or two.This book avoids the sensationalism inherent to the subject,and is by far the best one of its kind that I have found.

Many people seem to be put-off by Ressler's "horn-tooting" in this book. Big deal! You're getting an insight into his psychology as well as those he hunts. Ego often accompanies greatness.

The read was fascinating. Ressler offers a dispassionate survey into the psychological make-up of serial killers and other disturbed individuals. Perhaps "dispassionate" is off the mark. He clearly has feelings and opinions, but offers them seperate from his analysis. Ressler doesn't like his subjects, nor approve of them, but he does understand them. His insights just make sense, as opposed to the odd ramblings of other authors on the subject.

Especially illuminating was his explanation of "Organized" and "Disorganized" killers. They have very different make-up and motivation. In addition, his side-by-side analysis of a couple dozen serial killers exposed patterns unavailable in a book solely about one killer, the majority of true crime books.

The resistance to the creation of a Behavioral Sciences Unit was unsurprising, given that the increased incidence of serial killers is a recent phenomena, growing since World War II.

I normally avoid True Crime books, but this one caught my eye, and kept my interest.

The information in the book was informative and backed up with statistics and examples. Ressler breaks down crime by explaining how it is divided into four phases and then goes on to distinguish different categories of offenders, providing examples of who falls into which.

Ressler demonstrates that not every crime is textbook. We need to be aware of society and how different regions function. In one area, white kids tended to hang out in single age groups (all 15 year olds, etc) while black kids had a variety of ages in a group. Ressler was able to use this knowledge to locate possible suspects in a gang rape.

Aside from the multitude of cases, Ressler is candid about "beating" Hoover's system back when he needed to get results done. The book has his fair share of war stories and also covers cases that can be found in other John Douglas' books, but a second point of view can be helpful in getting the full story despite the similarities.

The book is written from his point of view, as this is his life's work. A person who knows nothing about criminology will find it easy to follow and appreciate his candid comments about working in the FBI and the knowledge he picked up along the way.

In response to Michael J. Tresca's review, wherein he states:

"Alas, truth is stranger than fiction, and the tales Ressler tells are positively awful. There' just one problem: we've heard all of this before.

Where? That'd be "Mindhunter: Inside the FBI's Elite Serial Crime Unit," by John E. Douglas, a man I can only assume was Ressler's protégé. It's a bit murky as to their relationship (the two reference each other, but not often)."

...it should be noted that Mindhunter came out AFTER Ressler's book, not before.

Otherwise, much of his review is fine. I would note, though, that Ressler's book is far superior, and he is far more modest and measured than Douglas. Douglas makes himself the center of every story, often quite lovingly, and does an unsettling amount of grandstanding about his contributions. Ressler lets the stories speak for themselves and doesn't try to outshine his subjects in importance. I've also read that one of the killers Douglas claims to have interviewed angrily denied he ever spoke to him. Douglas's vanity makes him almost unbearable at times, and with the subject at hand, that can smack of being a bit mercenary and out of touch.

The stories Ressler tells about himself tend to be more interesting, too. For instance, he speaks of people mysteriously losing weight while working on cases, without seeming to change their diets or other habits. Frankly, the stories in this book are so distressing that I, too, experienced a sudden inexplicable weight loss after reading it. This is the kind of thing that is very hard to take.

Ressler dispenses this disturbing material very well. I've read more than a dozen books of this type, and Ressler's towers over the rest. I'd recommend anyone interested in the fascinating subjects of abnormal psychology and psychological profiling read this book first if they'd like a skeleton key to understanding aspects of human behavior so dark they can seem all but forever unfathomable.

Very informative, well written book. So much better than Douglas's Mindhunter. This book sticks to the subject matter unlike Douglas who is too busy patting himself on the back. Not only does Ressler give us a look into the minds of serial killers but he also takes us through the history of serial murder and the development of profiling and VICAP as well as taking us through the progression of the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit. This is a very educational and worthwhile read.

Robert Ressler's "Whoever Fights Monsters" is superior to John Douglas's "Mindhunter" because this book more deeply understands the nature of evil. It is a dark trip into the minds of the predators that prey on society. It understands the abyss and the savage darkness we face today in age everytime we leave the house or more frighteningly, go back into it. Ressler is a master profiler who deeply understands what it all means, this killers. This is a book all should read. "Whoever Fights Monsters" understands the mind of the monster and what lurks in it. I was chilled reading this, it's more effective than fiction.

I read this book after reading Douglas' Mindhunter therefore I had great expectations for this book. WFM is a good book but one problem I had with it is that Ressler seemed too rushed to cover as many cases as possible. This book isn't even 300 pages and for subject matter like this it should have been over 400.

I take it that Ressler and Douglas aren't exactly golf or fishing buddies. I was annoyed that Ressler had to keep pointing out that he was there first. Ressler made comments like "having to break Douglas in" and he (Douglas) accompanied Ressler to an assignment "as backup". Who cares. It seems to me that Ressler was a cornerstone of the FBI's criminal profiling unit but then Douglas came in and took things over. Maybe some envy on Ressler's part, who knows!?!

There is cases in WFM that are not in Mindhunter but I found for the most part that MindHunter stole WFM's thunder. In conclusion, WFM is a good book. I would recommend it to people who can't find a copy of Mindhunter and to people who want a quick read on a fascinating subject. Not bad but could have been much better. I'll try one of Ressler's other books now.

I have nothing to add to all the other reviews about Ressler's tone (yes, a bit self-congratulatory at times; but he's a bit entitled) or the other issues which have been raised. What I *can* add is a list of corrections and updates, in hopes some else gets some use out of them. Some are serious, some minor, and some reflect the passage of time since 1992 (executions, or better DNA analysis, etc.)

A. pp.21-22, neither a correction nor an update, but a bit of trivia. Ressler talks about being nine years old and playing dress-up (in trench coats) with his buddies to pretend that they were FBI agents. This story is grossly mischaracterized when retold at p. 298 of a really awful book titled "Programmed to Kill," whose writer asserts that Ressler actually formed a P.I. agency at that time. No, he didn't. He was NINE. I believe Ressler.

B. p. 46, Ressler misquotes killer William Heirens, "Stop me before I kill more." Odd, since he includes the photo which shows Heirens wrote "Catch me before I kill more."

C. p. 112, John Joubert, who killed a paperboy, was executed in Nebraska July 17, 1996.

D. p. 145, Ressler reviews the Central Park "Wilding" case approvingly and compares it to the Lori Roscetti murder in Chicago. However, the "wilding" never happened - it is now used as a textbook example of coerced confessions in high-profile cases. The Central Park case was solved when a single perpetrator, Matias Reyes, acting alone, confessed in 2002. (As it turns out, the Chicago "wilding" never happened, either; see Point E.)

E. p. 146, Ressler writes proudly of the profile he created in the Lori Roscetti case. Unfortunately, the profile inspired the police to extort "confessions" out of four innocent kids, who were finally pardoned in October, 2002, after serving over fifteen years for a crime they did not commit. Two other, unrelated men confessed to the crime, and matched the DNA on her body. See [..]

F. p. 151, Ressler grimly predicts that rapist-kidnapper-blood drinker John Crutchley "will be out in 1998." Wrong - he got out in 1996, even earlier than Ressler had feared. Crutchley's parole was violated almost immediately for using marijuana, and under the "three strikes" provisions of Florida law, he got a mandatory life sentence. He died in prison of auto-erotic asphyxiation in 2002.

G. p. 152 ff. This error is inexplicable. The dead girl is Amy Mihaljevic, yet throughout the chapter, Ressler calls her Mijalevic. He refers to her "outsized earrings and turquoise jumpsuit." The earrings were turquoise, not the suit. Actually, she was wearing a lavender shirt and the bottoms of a green sweatsuit when killed. Bad editing? bad notetaking? It makes me reluctant to cite Ressler for details on other crimes he describes.

H. p. 161, William Hance, who killed three women at two Army bases, was executed in 1994. Carlton Gary, sentenced to death when Ressler wrote in 1992, is still in prison in 2008.

I. pp. 169-170, the murderer Ressler calls "Jack Gall" is identified as "Jack Gaul" in local newspapers at the time (1980). Like Point G above, it makes me hesitate to cite Ressler on details. Names are important.

J. p. 205, mentions Donald Leroy Evans, who in 1991 claimed to have killed more than sixty people. Ressler suggests this might be true, or it could be an attention-getting lie, like Henry Lee Lucas's "confessions." Evans was murdered in prison in 1999 while awaiting execution in Missouri.

K. p. 210, Ressler states John Wayne Gacy spent "several" years in prison on an early sodomy charge. Not several - two. Also re Gacy, p. 212, it's Chicago's Loop, not loop. Also re Gacy, p. 217, his parents were *not* immigrants; his grandparents were, at least on his Polish side. I don't know when his mother's family came over (from Denmark, per Ressler), but his mother was American-born. If you are using immigrant status in your profiling, it would be nice to be accurate about it. Finally re Gacy, p. 230, Gacy was still in appeals when Ressler completed this book. He was executed by Illinois May 10, 1994.

L. p. 245, Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in prison in 1994 by an inmate named Christopher Scarver.

That's it, except for a few typos (e.g., in the Heirens photo caption, the prison in Illinois should be Stateville, not "Statesville," which is a town in North Carolina). Feminists reading the book will find affirmation on p. 86 (killers taught to objectify women) and and a point of interest on p. 216 (Gacy asserting dating women is too much bother). I take off a star for the inaccuracies above, but am grateful for the index, the photos, the lack of sexism or heterosexism, and the overall non-sensational tone.