So this book really shouldn't be apart of the Conversations with a Killer series. I've now read 2/3 currently published, and this one is very different from the first. It seems both the first (Ted Bundy) and the second (Charles Manson) are written by people who actually interacted with them, rather than getting second and third hand accounts as this book does. It really throws off the tone of the series, and diminishes why these books are apart of the series in the first place.

I also found it had a weird stance. See, when reading true crime, a lot of books tend to be neutral in their feelings towards the killer. Like, we all agree what they did was horrible and awful, but you're reading this book so you know that already. Well, this one seems the need to interject all the time how horrible he is and how you should know this because you, dear reader, have never even heard of true crime before!

It also seems very victim forward. It totes on diving into the victims lives, but when you look at it, it really doesn't. Just the simple 2 page write about about who the victims were and what they did before they got murdered. 

Another thing is how dismissive it was about the original diagnosis Ed got. See, they kind of jab about how the original psychiatrist were throwing every diagnosis onto him, and how a diagnosis can't rationalize what he did (which I'm of the opinion that it can rationalize and explain why a killer does what they do, but isn't an excuse). Meanwhile, a little later into the book, they constantly bring up how Ed's bipolar, which I don't think was one of the diagnosis that he got (at least of what was mentioned in the book).

I'd recommend skipping this one and listening to an episode on Ed from your favourite true crime podcast.