|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
David Berkowitz and the angry lone nut theory, September 7, 1999
By A Customer
Did David act alone? After hearing a number of different things about the Son of Sam crimes, I decided to do my own research. I read many articles and accounts of "what really happened", including this book.Now, after all this research...I'm more confused than ever. The author of 'Son of Sam' is obviously bent on the fact that David was, as the theory says, another "angry lone nut". I have a hard time believing this theory in any case, so of course I had a hard time believing it here. Was David really part of a Satanic cult? (Namely the Process - Church of the Final Judgement, a name that, curiously, has come up in a few criminal investigations, including the Manson murders. Though generally described as "non-violent", a number of newspaper and internet articles have associated David Berkowitz and the Son of Sam murders with this cult.) If so, why doesn't Klausner mention this? Surely he seemed to focus on David's spirituality, but even in the exerpts from the diaries at the back of the book, I'm pretty sure I read something about a "church group". If it wasn't there, I'm sure I read comments David made in a number of other articles. In defense of the book, David's psychosis definately suggests that he was capable of committing these crimes alone. He did know the specific details, and nothing directly implies that anyone else was involved. Yes, David is given to exagerration, childish bragging and self-empowering lies. He reminds you of a confused child in a man's body. In other words, he's a paranoid schizophrenic. He has often blamed unseen forces, specifically demons and the devil, for his actions. He thought he was a victim of demonic possession, that he and the "Son of Sam" were different people. As anyone who has read the book will remember, David considered himself to be a "good" person. Could he have lied about the church group, consciously of unconsciously, to shift blame from himself? It's definately possible. But did he? Also, was there new evidence, after the book written, that Klausner didn't know about? I've heard a bit about this, though I don't know the specifics. After what I've read, I'm not sure what to believe, except that Berkowitz committed the actual crimes alone. However, all we get from that conclusion is that he deserves life imprisonment. (365 years, whatever.) It doesn't offer us any guidance as to the actual motive, which, in my opinion, is the most important part of any crime, so we can ensure that something this horrible wouldn't happen again. There are no reasons for crimes like this, just contributing factors. Like I said, I'm still confused. As for the book itself, it's quite good, though at times it reminded me of a novel based on a movie, adding melodramatic little touches and outstanding, supposedly "shocking" statements. Recently having read Helter Skelter, I probably would have appreciated Klausner to include more facts and make this less "entertaining". Entertainment is good, but to see a story that carefully introduces characters, charts their progress with small yet memorable details, and ends in emotional payoff...well, that's why I go to the movies. The reason I read true crime is to know the little things: the details of the crimes, the investigation, lie detector tests, complete interviews... I greatly appreciated the pages from David's diary at the back, though I wonder about the author's intent on including it. I realize that I'm the first person to give this book any less than five stars, but I'm not going to lie; that's simply how I feel about it. Anyone with any comments about David Berkowitz, his involvement in this crime, any theories (however outlandish they may be, I keep an open mind)...any comments about my review, or anything related to this book can e-mail me at guelph@canada.com Thank you to anyone who actually read all of this. Lisa.
|