John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster

By: Sam L. Amirante, Danny Broderick

Narrated by: Robin Bloodworth

Length: 14 hrs and 13 mins

Publisher's Summary

For the first time Gacy’s lawyer and confidant tells his chilling tale of how he defended an American serial killer.

“Sam, could you do me a favor?”

Thus begins a story that has now become part of America's true-crime hall of fame. It is a gory, grotesque tale befitting a Stephen King novel. It is also a David and Goliath saga - the story of a young lawyer fresh from the public defender's office whose first client in private practice turns out to be the worst serial killer in our nation's history. This is a gripping true crime narrative that reenacts the gruesome killings and the famous trial that shocked a nation.

©2012 Sam L. Amirante and Danny Broderick (P)2012 Audible, Inc.

Ultimately an excellent listen

This audiobook ultimately rated 4 stars, although I did have some issues with it. However for the most part I was enthralled by the narrative of Gacy's defense lawyer's quest to give his client a fair trial. Most of it was extremely well written, and both interesting and engaging, even for someone familiar with this case. I found myself more interested in the defense lawyer's experiences than I would have expected. It is a bit of a shame that only a couple of murders were dealt with in any detail, although one senses that the authors wanted to refrain from repeating what had been written many times before. The book could have done with some editing most notably the last 2 hours which almost exclusively dealt with the closing arguments of both defense and prosecution. This entire section could have been cut, and made me less enthusiastic about a full star review. Another point I found irritating was the constant repetition of the author's argument that Gacy deserved a fair trial. I thought that the authors made a rather convincing and elegant argument in the introduction, based on the American Constitution's insurance of a fair trial for everyone, no matter how repugnant (as Gacy was). But the authors return again and again to re-word this argument and it beleaguered the point. I couldn't help thinking: Sir, thou doth protest too much! However the absolute BEST thing about this audiobook was the standout performance given by Robin Bloodworth. His portrayal of Gacy's confession to his lawyers was outstanding and riveting. He must surely have studied Gacy's affectations as he nailed it perfectly. On the whole this was an excellent book, and well worth the listen. Recommended!

45 people found this helpful

After Having Read Many Books On Serial Killers...

I came to the one I had been avoiding. Given the nature of his crimes, I find Gacy to be the most disgusting of the disgusting, and even thinking about what he did is not easy. This book is not easy. But it is professional, reportorial, direct. There are, mercifully, no attempts at sensationalism or inflating the importance of the unspeakable evil that was Gacy.

34 people found this helpful

It's never what you think

I thought this would go into more detail about the legal process, but it kind of skimmed over the trial. The book mainly talked about JWG's quirks and personality problems, which was interesting enough. It didn't get too much into the gory details, which I appreciated.

One thing I didn't like, the attorney writing this often paused to wrap himself in the American Flag and rhapsodize about the right to a fair trial- A sentiment I wholeheartedly agree with, but he didn't need to beat it into the ground.

34 people found this helpful

Defense of a monster

What did you love best about John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster?

I really enjoyed the smooth tone of Robin Bloodworth, his voice was easy on the ears.

What was one of the most memorable moments of John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster?

The fact that we heard a pretty decent description of what it is like to defend someone so sick. I have always wondered how someone could take on a case like this and now I know. Did John Wayne Gacy deserve the best defense I don't know but in America this is what we pride ourselves on I guess.

Which scene was your favorite?

I cannot answer that question just relief there was no question on whether this guy was indeed guilty, that made it easier knowing he wouldn't walk away from the carnage he left behind.

Was there a moment in the book that particularly moved you?

A lot of sadness for the parents that lost there sons to this sadistic four letter word.

Any additional comments?

I would feel compelled to justify my defense of a criminal such as Gacy if I had been his defense attorney. Glad he wrote a book, he seemed to be a reasonable enough guy someone had to do the job. I also have to say I am relieved this book did not cover to many gory details making the book stomach-able, when I purchased the book I was prepared to shut it off if it got to personal on the horrible details it was moderate on that level.

10 people found this helpful

What a bizarre person.

Would you consider the audio edition of John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster to be better than the print version?

Robin Bloodworth's performance definitely sets the audio version apart from the print.

What other book might you compare John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster to and why?

Being my first listen of a serial killer I can't make that comparison.

What about Robin Bloodworth’s performance did you like?

Bloodworth's voices and accents allow the listener to distinguish between the characters. The voice of "Gacy" is chilling. This was Bloodworth's first performance in my library, it most certainly will not be the last. Incredible.

If you were to make a film of this book, what would the tag line be?

Wait for the DVD!

Any additional comments?

I was drawn in immediately upon starting the audio and I could not wait to turn it back on. After the trial began I found myself wanting to skip ahead. At times there are aspects of the trial that are redundant and mundane.

12 people found this helpful

Kind of drawn out

I gave this book an overall rate of 4 stars because the information in it was so good. However, when the authors start the trial part of the book, especially from the closing arguments & on, it felt extremely drawn out. It was almost like they needed the book to be a specific length & started stretching the end to meet that length. Overall still a very good book.

2 people found this helpful

Don't let the description fool you

This book does not re-enact any of the killings, in fact it lacks the gory details we tend to find in most books about the lives and deeds of serial killers. As someone who is fascinated by the psychology of these minds, I was truly looking forward to some insight from Gacy's 1st attorney. (One that Gacy himself would later refer to as inept).

This is typical attorney blah blah. There is very little insight into Gacy or the case, and a lot of self important blathering about a young attorney's first client. As the author himself writes in the postscript, there is nothing in this book that hasn't been said somewhere else so he is not violating privilege. There are in fact many more other published pieces that focus more on Gacy, the crimes, and his personality than this book. I kept waiting for it to get better, to hear something shocking, or revealing......and it never happened. I found myself running details of the crimes gathered from other sources over the narration of this book because it was so lacking in detail.

It comes off being a self important missive by a braggart about his first case, which oddly enough, is the same way he referred to Gacy. Funny don't you think?

The only redeeming quality to this book is the authors open mindedness regarding homosexuality. That it is not a choice, but a defect in the body / brain wiring. Ie Right person wrong body. Sadly, that is the only thing I found redeeming about this book.

If you want a more accurate insight into Gacy, read The Serial Killer Whisperer, though be warned, you can't unhear that book and it is truly frightening.

10 people found this helpful

Below average.

What disappointed you about John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster?

Sadly what could have been an engrossing true crime book turned out to be a below average attempt on the part of the author. I was immediately annoyed with the insertion of what Gacy's last victim was thinking minutes before he was murdered... really? How did the author come up with the thoughts of the poor victim? I thought this was a true crime book, not historical fiction. I was also put off by the amount of bleeding heart preaching done on the part of the author (Gacy's attorney). What more can be expected from a Chicago trial lawyer? Though there was some new light shed in this book, the overall performance left much to be desired.

Has John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster turned you off from other books in this genre?

No.

Would you be willing to try another one of Robin Bloodworth’s performances?

Perhaps. But, I have to admit that it seemed more appropriate to hear "This is a Librivox recording", rather than, "This is Audible". There were some distracting long pauses in the middle of sentences and then an ejaculatory finishing of the sentence, for example... "The detectives walked across........THE STREET". This sort of thing was a real bother at first but I got used to it after a few hours.

What character would you cut from John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster?

John Wayne Gacy. It would have been better if he'd never been born.

Any additional comments?

The book wasn't complete trash, but it was a big disappointment.

10 people found this helpful

Interesting read about this horrible human being

I got this audiobook from Audible during a Two-for-One deal (the other is on Charles Manson). Yes, I've been in the mood for stories about cult leaders and serial killers (I've been watching documentaries on TV about Waco, Jim Jones and Warren Jeffs too). I'm really glad I picked this book up. It was very interesting.

So, this book is written by Gacy's lawyer. He opens the book talking about the Constitution and the Sixth Amendment.

--In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.


He is a firm believer that everyone, even someone as horrible as John Wayne Gacy, deserve the right to an attorney. Now, he knew Gacy in passing prior to taking his case and didn't know exactly what was going on at the very beginning. Once he learned more, he stuck to his guns that even Gacy deserved counsel. Even when people issues death threats to him and his family, including his children (I do not understand how anyone can think issuing death threats to children would ever put you on the right side of history).

He tells the story of Gacy's past by starting with how the final kill that got the cops following him. This boy was Rob Piest, fourteen years old. He was working part-time at a drug store when he learns that Gacy pays really well to help with construction work. Rob wanted to get more money to buy a Jeep that he's had his eye own. So he approaches Gacy about a job, saying he would do anything for money. Gacy took that as not just construction work but also sexual favors. When Rob turns him down on the sexual part, Gacy looses it. Prior to Rob Piest, Gacy took boys from the fringes that didn't have people with the resources to look for them. He was taking prostitutes and the like.

The author goes into all the talks that he had with Gacy throughout the investigation and then the trial. It doesn't take long to figure out that Gacy isn't sane. At one point he comes to the office of his attorney and his co-counsel and goes into a drunken, rambling confession of everything that he had done. He would go into a tirade about how he wasn't gay (using a lot of gay slurs that I will not include here) and then quickly go into the first time he had sex with a man. A friend convinced him that a blowjob was the same no matter who was giving it. But he did have sex with men too.

I know these are really long snippets, but I think it really gives insight into Gacy.

After returning from Joliet and the bridge over the Des Plaines River, with Gacy incessantly begging to go to the cemetery, the next stop was Gacy's house. Gacy had admitted that there was at least one body buried on his property that was not in the crawl space, and the prosecution wanted to know exactly where it was. Further, when an accused person points out where the bodies are buried, whether figuratively or actually, it strengthens the State's case. In the event that the defendant later recants and denies his involvement in a crime, the prosecution has evidence that the defendant knew or was aware of information that only the perpetrator could possibly know.
I had advised against all of this, of course, but Gacy was on his "frolic." No one could convince him that he should stop doing the job that the police are paid to do. Frankly, as crazy as this sounds to you and me, Gacy loved the limelight; he loved the attention. It didn't seem to matter that the reason that he had the limelight trained on him was that the prosecution was building a case for murder. He was in his element. How weird was that?
Gacy's entire block had been cordoned off from all except public officials, cops, and those that were unlucky enough to have a house on it. There was a lull in the activity because jurisdictional concerns were being sorted out and new warrants were being obtained to allow a complete and extensive search of the house and excavation of the crawl space. We pulled up, and a brand-new flurry of activity was generated throughout the members of the press and others that were hanging around on the fringes of the crime scene.
Gacy was brought into his garage.
If you've ever wondered what your first concern would be when you are brought back home after being charged with the murder of a missing boy and you are the prime suspect in the murder of many, many others, well … apparently, if your name is John Wayne Gacy, your first concern would be the fact that the police that had been conducting a search of your home had left some things—some tools and some other items—out of place in your meticulously kept garage. Gacy immediately started bitching about this mundane issue as if he was going to be back in an hour or so and he was going to have to clean up the mess all by himself. He began picking up items and placing them gingerly into their predesignated spots on walls and in drawers. If not for the solemn gravity of the situation, which was completely lost on this strange little man, it would have been hilariously funny. What was wrong with this guy?
Finally, someone reminded my client that he was not there to clean the garage.
There were moments during this time, this experience, that stand out in my memory. It is all an incredible experience, of course, a tornado of activity. My first case as a private criminal defense attorney was becoming quite an interesting ride. But some moments stand out. What Gacy did next caused one of those moments.
He took a can of black spray paint and drew a box on the concrete floor of his garage. Then he drew an X in the middle of the box.
"Dig here," he said. It was like he was pointing out the spot where a buried water meter could be found. If the foreman of a crew charged with the responsibility of digging a trench for a water main was totally bored with his job, he couldn't have said it more nonchalantly, more offhandedly.
"Do you know who is buried here?" one of the guys asked.
"Yeah … Butkovitch."
John Butkovitch had eaten dinner at John Gacy's house. This kid was a particular friend to Gacy's ex-wife Carol. Little John, she called him. There was Big John and Little John. What a kooky pair, always together. John knew this kid's father. John had helped decorate Little John's new apartment. Little John was a regular visitor, a valued employee, a friend.
Now he was under concrete in Gacy's garage.
What was wrong with this guy?


As it turns out, Jack Hanley was a real person—sort of. Plus, he was really a cop. It seems that Gacy and Officer Hanley had met sometime while John was working at Bruno's, a restaurant where he worked for a while as a short-order cook after he was released from the prison in Anamosa. Of course, Officer Hanley's name wasn't actually Jack, but in John Gacy's wandering, lost mind, it was. Officer Hanley was not a homicide detective either. However, if you asked John, he would tell you that he was.
Without explanation, John Gacy would occasionally use this name when cruising Bughouse Square. He always believed that it was much cooler to say he, John Gacy, was a homicide cop named Detective Jack Hanley, a suave badass who solved the unsolvable crimes, rather than the truth—that he was a dumpy, boring smalltime contractor who lived with his mother in the suburbs. Now in his defense, John Gacy was not the first guy in the world who has told a little white lie in an attempt to get laid. I have seen a lot of multimillionaires with really bad shoes and worse haircuts in meat markets and watering holes. Most of these stories fade with the morning sunlight as the alcohol is metabolized and eliminated from the body.
For some unexplainable reason, though, John Gacy decided that it would be in his best interest to claim that Jack Hanley was his alter ego, his second personality. Unlike other men who have lied in pursuit of poontang, John seemed to adopt Jack as a second persona. So when John was flitting from cop to cop and prosecutor to prosecutor confessing his awful crimes like a bumblebee goes from flower to flower, he was telling many of them that John Gacy did not commit these grotesque acts—Jack Hanley did.
Now please keep in mind that Gacy did not mention the name Jack Hanley during the endless drunken ramblings that spewed forth during his soul-searching confession at my office with Leroy Stevens. However, he suddenly had a second personality buried deep inside when he told his story to the police. This was simply Gacy being Gacy. John always knew best, you know, or so he thought. These were self-serving statements—a silly, uninformed attempt to set into motion some sort of flimsy departure from reality.
What this accomplished, together with the fact that Mr. Gacy could not simply just keep his mouth shut, was to set in stone the only defense available to him. Motta and I would have no choice in the matter. We would be required to assert the insanity defense at trial. It was John himself that left us no other alternative. Oh yeah, there was one other reason why we were limited to asserting the insanity defense: John Wayne Gacy was certifiably, without a doubt, with all certainty batshit, bonkers, cuckoo, crazy, insane. This fact would become painfully obvious over time.


Narration
The narration of this book was really good. I know from talking to Lorelei King about her narration of Ted Bundy's book how hard it is to read about the horrible stuff these people have done in their life. I'm sure Robin Bloodworth would feel the same way. He did a great job.

1 person found this helpful

This guy is a piece of work...the lawyer not Gacy

This book was really kind of gross, and not for the reasons you might think. Yes, Gacy is a disturbed man who committed heinous acts of violence against children. But the lawyer seems like a piece of sh*t. Unnecessary hateful comments about a transwoman who testifies against Gacy (describing her trans identity as on par with Gacy's lies) and a macho, old school attorney attitude that tries to be self deprecating but just comes across as cocky. Very little insight into the actual crimes and even the court case doesn't linger in the memory. I quit listening.

The narrator doesn't make things much better - he tries his best but has a curious habit of sighing his words out like he's bored or exhausted. It was rather irritating but, ironically, matched the character of the attorney.

3 people found this helpful

Horrible writing

If this book wasn’t for you, who do you think might enjoy it more?

I thought this book was for me. I wanted to get some insight into what would cause a man to kill 33 teenagers. Instead I had to listen to the authors long winded essay for an English 101 course (make that English 98 course).

What was most disappointing about Sam L. Amirante and Danny Broderick ’s story?

They moved away from the story. There were more accounts about bar room brawls, the flowing black gown of the judge and his glistening glasses. I had to stop listening because I'm sure a sex scene by the author would emerge.

What character would you cut from John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster?

The author who interjects himself into horrible story and poorly tries to make himself the author of the century, rather than writing about one of Americas worst serial killer. I could care less that you were the one that drank only 1 beer on a night out, and that the reporter was asleep during the brawl. What in the heck does that have to do with John Wayne Gacy!

7 people found this helpful

Bizarre

Would you recommend this book to a friend? Why or why not?

Yes. No. Yes. It's absurd.

What was the most interesting aspect of this story? The least interesting?

That the author is more insane than John Wayne Gacy. So self congratulatory it's unreal, similar anecdotes over and over, never stopping to remind you of their (attorneys') popularity and fame, their preparedness for the case, how they were always getting one over on other people. It reads like Alan Partidge had written it. I genuinely began to feel sorry for John Wayne Gacy.

Very little about the victims themselves and who they were. It's mostly about John Wayne Gacy, then pretty much the attorneys.

Did the narration match the pace of the story?

A bit drawn out.

Do you think John Wayne Gacy: Defending a Monster needs a follow-up book? Why or why not?

The author's should never be allowed to write again.

Any additional comments?

I really don't recommend it as a piece of work but it's so odd that it's worth listening to.

1 person found this helpful

First part - great. Second part - dull

Definitely a book of two halves. The first describing Gacy's lifestyle, crimes and capture is fascinating though clearly somewhat embellished in places (ie, he tells us what some of the victims were thinking!). The second half of the book concerns Gacy's trial and rather than focus on the detail of the case, there is far too much spiel about the various lawyers' personalities and the legal technicalities of the trial. It really falls down when the author repeatedly harps on about how the American Justice System is the best in the world, and even claims at one point it was only because it was so good Gacy was convicted. This, despite earlier detailing how Gacy at one point confessed his crimes to almost anyone who happened to be passing his cell!

2 people found this helpful

A tough but exceptional read

It's a hostile assault on your conscience at times. But it is easily one of the best books I've read in a while and most certainly one of the best true crime accounts ever. It is brilliantly read by Robin Bloodworth.

Gacy was a sick man

Really good book gives you a better understanding of why these sick people get lawyers
This book is your worst nightmare.

Interesting but problematic

Really interesting but struggled to enjoy fully. Appreciate that the majority of the events happened 50ish years ago but felt there was some unnecessary transphobic language used by the author. Otherwise a fascinating read from an unusual pov.

Great book

Really enjoyed this book, very interesting and well read. Might actually listen to it again!

Definitely written by a lawyer

A short Italian lawyer gets an incredibly lucky break with one of the world's worst pyscho killers as his first client.
Most of it is gripping and excellent, although at times there is an undercurrent of the author puffing his chest out and talking about himself too much for someone like me. Very long winded in places but a great story.

Valuable take on tragic events

This book was written by defence lawyers excused by Gacy of their responsibilities of privilege. it gives an insight into the monster. I read reviews before I read this book about self congratulation which though present are a little overstated. This is definitely a fresh insight with new information so reccomendable I believe

Superb narration.

Couldn't fault the narration, familiar story retold from a different view point. Robin Bloodworth is a genius at conveying character. His voice paints a vivid picture. Well written, without jargon or BS. Pleasure to listen to.