The most vicious murder in a city's history....
A killer stalks the city of San Diego, brutally slaying women on the fringes of society. The body of a young woman torn apart in her bedroom makes even the hardened detectives of the San Diego PD's Homicide Unit tremble with disgust and rage.
A detective with a troubled past....
For SDPD homicide detective Jon Stanton, the young woman is more than just another case. His former partner, Eli Sherman, was the original detective assigned to the case - before he was discovered to be one of San Diego's most ruthless serial killers.
A final chance for redemption....
Stanton was unable to see Sherman for what he was and blames himself for the murders he committed while on the force. Near death, Stanton swears that he will never wear the badge again. But with a depraved killer eluding the best the San Diego PD has to offer, he must once again fight to uncover a killer that leaves no evidence behind, and that has turned his attention to new prey....
©2011 Victor Methos (P)2012 Victor Methos
Jon Stanton is a reluctant police officer with strong moral fiber and a PhD in Psychology; not a combination likely to make him popular. The department he works in is rife with corruption at the same time a serial killer(s) set up shop in his town. He uncovers the corruption, maintains his integrity despite repeated attempts at compromise, but puts those around him at great risk. It is a fascinating ending for an unusual police story.
yes, with the twists and turns the author wove into a very believable story about an individual who had strong moral conviction and very poor financial security.
The book made me not want to shut it off until the end.
I did not like the narrator at all. I feel like he made John Stanton sounds like a breath wimp. I would have enjoyed the book much more had I read it and not listen to it
Neurotic cop hunting serial killer in San Diego so let's portray him in a bored ironic inflected semi-British voice. The narrator reads "he took two bullets and tumbled off the balcony" exactly the same as "he looked in the refrigerator to see what he had to drink." Oddly, this affectation is only present with the main character. Others in the story are read quite well and sound realistic, including the women, but that's not enough to hold the book together, So I agreed with the narrator that this was all veddy veddy boring and quit listening midway.
I think Farrell could probably do this book very well, based on how he handled everyone but the main character. Too bad he choose such a ridiculous treatment for the protagonist. If the center doesn't hold, the story collapses.
I have no idea why I finished this book. The narrator was so s-l-o-w and passionless that the book just seemed to crawl along to (finally) nowhere. I rarely criticize a narrator because even a good, plain reading is ok with me.
As for the story, it was basic but so full of characters (mostly corrupt at varying levels) that it was a bit hard to follow. The transitions from one stage to another and from one character to another were abrupt and added to the overall lack of cohesiveness. Moreover, the essential corruption at the core of the policemen portrayed is ill-timed.
I'm sorry I finished the book since it left me with a generalized bad feeling, even sadness.
Question: is this a British book? The book takes place in the U.S. but the pronunciation of many words (e.g., "shh-eh-dule" vs. a hard "c" American "schedule") left doubt.
Report Inappropriate Content