Mo Rutherford

A Footnote to Wizard

Revisado: 01-27-23

Excellent research. Well written. But more of a footnote to his first book, Wizard. Read//Listen to that first before tackling this one.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

One man’s tome of hilarious rants on CIA conspiracy theories

Revisado: 12-19-21

The book gets annoying quickly because it’s a collection of interviews with one narrator, reading both sides of the dialogue, in the same voice. And given how most of it is based on information allegedly gleaned from interviews by the author - yeah, it begins to sounds quite schizophrenic rather quickly. By the end I imagined this guy sitting in a room filled floor to ceiling with redacted government documents, staring at a cork board plastered with photographs and newspaper articles, all held in place with thumbtacks and red yarn. And as he struggles to connect all of these dots, the author takes giant swigs from a two liter bottle of his own piss.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 1 persona

Excellent Biography

Revisado: 07-24-21

Well written and researched. A definitive and up to date biography long lacking in the literature. Unfortunately, they hired Grandpa Simpson as the narrator. Would have enjoyed the audio version more had they gone with somebody with a more hard boiled style of performance. Either way, great book!

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Does not translate over to audio very well

Revisado: 02-03-21

An excellent book. However this is one that should be red with a pencil paper in hand and therefore does not translate over to audio very well

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Great Introduction but...

Revisado: 03-31-20

...it is missing an accompanying PDF outline. With many conflicting concepts being introduced in such condensed lectures it would be more helpful to appreciate and internalize the material.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 2 personas

Too Abridged

Revisado: 02-02-20

Excellent book however this version is too abridged to bother getting invested in. Watch the film instead. Until the unabridged version is released this is probably not worth your time.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 7 personas

Captivating

Revisado: 01-28-20

Well written in a straightforward colloquial style. And told by the perfect narrator. Subjective? Highly. But that’s the point. A unique perspective on a very complicated man who’s influence on 20th century America is often understated or poorly chronicled.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Not for everyone...

Revisado: 06-12-17

Good read. Extensively researched. Well written. However, readers unfamiliar with the Bundy case may not appreciate this. Best advised start with books by Kevin Sullivan ("The Bundy Murders") or Ann Rule ("The Stranger Beside Me").

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 3 personas

Excellent

Revisado: 06-01-17

Ignore the negative reviews. Yes, it is understandably brief given the paucity of available information about Knowles. But despite this handicap the author still manages to spin a gripping and fast paced narrative, while consistently maintaining an objective tone that draws from well documented sources. Well done Dr Smith.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

Great Overview With Significant Inaccuracies

Revisado: 03-02-17

This is not a bad read for anyone interested in true crime. However, I would strongly recommend reading books by others. The author is clearly well read on the subject, has engaging writing style, and to his credit admits that he is not an expert in this field. I am a physician, soon to be board certified in both Adult and Forensic Psychiatry, and as a professional my problems with Vronsky's book are with the many misleading and/or inaccurate pieces of information provided regarding descriptors and classifications. For the sake of brevity I'll stick to one example. For instance, he writes that the American Psychiatric Association's DSM equivalent term for psychopathy is Antisocial Personality Disorder and proceeds to equate the two. This is absolutely incorrect and much has been published over the past 30 years. The constructs of psychopathy and Antisocial Personality Disorder, though have some overlap, are NOT equivalent. In fact psychopathy is not even a formal DSM diagnosis and furthermore necessitates further formal training by both psychologists and psychiatrists to appropriately assess. Even more basic is how Vronsky uses.

Has calificado esta reseña.

Reportaste esta reseña

esto le resultó útil a 67 personas