At least 20 of the female murderers mentioned in the book weren’t serial killers at all as they had only killed once or twice – compared to the at least three murders including cool down periods in-between needed to be officially classified as a serial killer. And personally, that wouldn’t really be a problem, had Berry-Dee not repeatedly forced the correct definition down our throats. Why even pretend that the book is specifically about female serial killers then? Why not just write one about female murderers in general? There is a case in here that I would argue, after reading, that the man in question was railroaded. The author agrees, and does point this out, but being 'fitted up' is nothing new, though being fitted up as a serial killer is something I find hard to get my head around: surely someone along the line should be able to spot an innocent person? You'd think so, wouldn't you? Not always so! the random male killers he'd add in just because he felt like it even though he's writing a book on FEMALE killers was fun I think we are all very well-aware of the fact that many male writers seem to have trouble writing female characters. However, Berry-Dee takes this to a completly new level by apparently being unable to resist the urge to describe the physical appearance of EVERY SINGLE FEMALE HUMAN BEING mentioned in the book in a quite frankly disgusting manner. I do not understand how it is relevant to the story that a certain murderer used to have a “very shapely body” in the past but now is nothing more than “ugly and overweight”. Yeah, I know that most women in the book were or still are terrible people who did terrible things – but there is still no need to diminish their worth as a human being to how pleasing they are to the eye. Personally, I just don’t need to know the bust size of someone to determine whether their killing spree was morally questionable or not. All of this is in addition to repeatedly referring to all of womankind as “the fairer sex” as well as insisting that all women are naturally nurturing and motherly, discreetly suggesting that if you are not, there is something wrong with you.

Christopher Berry-Dee speaks directly to killers and their oblivious loved ones to get inside the minds of the men and women who fall for murderers.This is a rather harrowing read looking at case study of some of the most awful serial killers to have existed. The interviews raise some important questions about whether these people are sane, how they came to commit this crimes and in some cases, whether they actually committed these crimes or did someone else do it and get away with it. THE CONTENT: according to this book, a serial killer is one who kills three or more times with time between each "event". Some of the women talked about in this book don't even meet this definition. Some were just ONE OFF MURDERERS. I think the author included them because he thinks they would've gone on to become serial killers had they not been caught, but THAT ISN'T REALLY THE POINT OF THIS BOOK. IT ISN'T CALLED "TALKING TO ONE OFF FEMALE MURDERERS". b) He spends half the book pimping out his other work, or quoting people who have praised him. DUDE, WE GET IT. YOU LOVE YOURSELF.

I was fascinated to read it because the subject matter is right up my street, and having read the author's credentials, had really high hopes. However, unfortunately this book turned out to be absolutely dreadful, populist claptrap. The author was much more interested in judging and self-aggrandising than providing a good narrative. The book was terribly written with zero insights that you might expect from the 'expert' writer. I enjoy a good book about the mind, however skewed that mind is, or how mixed up or evil. It all makes an interesting read, these case studies the author has compiled, as the dots can either be connected or not, and the people behind the masks can be seen. A large portion of this book is just stating facts about female killers rather than any actual in depth discussion about them.He also frequently implies that women who like sex are immoral and therefore more likely to be murderers... Christopher likes to comment on the killers appearance too, something which isn't relevant and I'm sure he wouldn't do when talking about Male serial killers. Although interesting I struggled with the fact that he spoke about each killer differently, some of them you got parts of actual conversations with the killers and their feelings but others you didn’t. A lot of the time I wasn’t sure if he was talking about facts or his opinion/own summarised version of things. How to Make a Serial Killer: The Twisted Development of Innocent Children into the World's Most Sadistic Murderers I'm not sure what he is trying to compensate for, but the whole book seems to be an attempt to convince the reader how much he despises women who kill (and by the end, I suspect how much he just hates women, with his pleas to men to be careful and his constant question about whether the "female of the species is more deadly than the male" - don't remember that depth of analysis from my criminology modules of my degree...). However, he wants to be clear that he really hates the ugly ones...

This book contains conversations between a criminologist, and some of the worlds most evil and disturbed individuals. When I say evil, I definitely don't say it lightly. The information I have read in this book was unsettling to say the least, and terribly difficult to digest at times. It was very sad that they all seemed to have a terrible upbringing, there was definitely a pattern there. In the book is a paragraph written by Dr R Joseph a Psychotherapist, neuropsychologist and neuroscientist, his explanation about your childhood staying with you was very interesting. On finding out the truth, these innocents often experience a strange kind of guilt for not having recognised the killer in their home, as well as having to face the grim reality of betrayal and deceit. If you are looking for a detailed, rational, well-written, non-hyperbole filled book then just walk away.the constant need to talk about a woman's weight and looks when it has absolutely 0 relation to the case is a bit odd mr. berry-dee i am not here to find out whether you find these women attractive Secondly, 'Talking [about] Female (Serial) Killers' doesn't appear to have been thoroughly proofread or edited to any great degree. One more than slightly confusing instance came where the author writes that not enough evidence was found to take a case to trial in 1996; however, in the next paragraph it is written that, after a year or so of police work, the case eventually comes to trial in 1967. Instances such as this occur fairly frequently throughout the book. Christopher Berry-Dee, criminologist and bestselling author of books about the serial killers Aileen Wuornos and Joanne Dennehy, turns his uncompromising gaze upon women who not only kill, but kill repeatedly. However, for a book titled Talking With Serial Killers and subtitled A Chilling Study of the World's Most Evil People, I was disappointed that there was very little A) Talking with serial killers and B) Studying of their minds.

Berry-Dee uses much of it to pimp his other works, with the rest consisting of awkwardly prosaic lists of names and dates, and name/age/eye colour/hair colour descriptions of every individual. Fără rușine și pic de teamă, aceștia au comunicat cu noi prin corespondență, iar după obținerea unui interviu cu fiecare, am început vizitele unde destăinuirea a decurs în același fel. Horribly written, fantastical, overly dramatic, ADVERBS. SO MANY. Honestly, I'm not even sure this was edited. From the way the author is described, I actually thought he had some credentials in Criminology - that is not the case. It is incredibly patronizing to women - calling them 'the fairer sex' and desperately trying to give some sort of Victorian value to his awful wittering. He describes the female murderers in minute, creepy detail, particularly if they were attractive and takes immense pleasure in the alleged offers of sex or marriage.I’m also uncomfortable with the the approach he took in regards to sexual preferences and professions. For example: just because the woman was a lesbian that does not mean her lover was a mud wrestler or that being a “cheap hooker” doesn’t make you less of a person, being a murderer definitely does, though. TYPOS! This is a published book. Why the hell are there typos? And not just little minor things - it was major things like dates, which meant the chronological sequence of events got really confusing before you realised that they were just plain wrong. I had a lot of issues with this book, but not because of the reasons you would think (i.e.: reading about serial killers is disturbing and horrific, although yes, it kind of is that too). Serial Killers at the Movies: My Intimate Talks with Mass Murderers who Became Stars of the Big Screen Oh dear, this was a struggle. It feels as the the author strives to be a fiction writer with little success, the book is written with additional theatrics and additions which make it a difficult read.