Suddenly Gone: The Terrifying True Story of a Serial Killer's Grisly Kidnapping-Murders of Three Young Women

I have read the commments on this book and I disagree. I found it easy fast-paced reading, not confusing or boring.

This is a top true crime book. Five stars. The eight prior posted criticisms, made over nearly six years, are, in my view, inconsistent. The previous reviewers stated reasons for complaint do not go to the merits of this very good read. The first poster on 3 January 2000 explained that this is a compelling read, then rated the book at one star complaining that the author became too close to the crime victim's families. The key part of the review is that this book is a "compelling read," because that is what readers seek. That reviewer's complaint that the writer felt a great deal of empathy for the victims may say something about the status of the reviewer's emotional intelligence, but does not address how that makes this a bad book. Others may find the author's empathy for the victim's to be positive. The first poster also complained that the book lacked details, then the second poster praised the book's "detailed job" in telling this tragic story. This book is detail rich. The third poster explained that this book changed his or her life because the poster will be much more careful from now on, but then rated the book at only three stars. Rating a life changing book at three stars makes one wonder about how the poster rates less influential books. Three stars may be this person's top rating. The fourth poster complained that she or he was bored by reading about the detective work. The poster was specific about what was boring: what the police did in order to find evidence. Because detective work IS the seeking of evidence, to criticize the author for writing about that means that the reviewer should have been reading in a different genre. True crime readers traditionally want to read of detective work. The fifth poster complained that the killer was not "linked" to the first murder victim discussed in the book. The reviewer apparently did not apprehend that the killer was a suspect in that woman's murder. Because the killer was not charged in that woman's murder -- no one was charged in that woman's murder -- does not mean that the killer was not linked to the woman. The killer WAS a suspect in that woman's murder. This was the first time the killer was a suspect in any murder. Including that information in the book made much more sense than excluding it. The sixth poster explained that he or she read a lot of the work of a DIFFERENT true crime author and was disappointed that this author does not write like that other author. To my view, because strawberry does not taste like orange does not make strawberry bad. Go ahead and read the orange author if she is your favorite, but other readers may prefer the strawberry author. The seventh poster wrote that "this story should have been told" but also wished that it had been written by a different author. Again, that does not go to the merits of this good book. The final prior poster complained that this was not the best book she or he ever read. For each of us th

This book is one of the best true crimes I've read. I was familiar with this case, and Dan Mitrione did a good, detailed job of telling a tragic story.