What do you think?
Rate this book
Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson
The highly publicized Scott Peterson murder case captivated a public hungry for the answer to one Why would a man with no known history of violent crime or mental illness and with a pretty wife about to give birth brutally murder her and his unborn son? Forensic psychiatrist Keith Ablow's national media appearances, including a groundbreaking interview on Oprah, resulted in enormous public response, saying that his theories about the spawning of a killer inside Peterson were the first that made sense to them. Members of Scott's and Laci's families have also stated that his comments were the first that helped them understand what might have happened inside Scott's mind. Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson takes readers into the psyche of a killer,
How Scott Peterson's empathy for others was shattered by a three-generation "bloodline" of childhood loss and abandonmentWhy an addiction to sex took root in Peterson's psycheWhy Peterson's meeting Amber Frey while his wife was pregnant triggered the "perfect" psychological stormClues to Peterson's guilt in his interviews with Gloria Gomez and Diane SawyerWhat Peterson was probably thinking as he listened to testimony in court and received his death sentenceWhy Peterson could kill again, if released
Using contacts at the FBI, and hiring private investigators and researchers, Keith Ablow delves deeply into Scott Peterson's life story to answer the How did an all-American boy turn into a ruthless killer?
How Scott Peterson's empathy for others was shattered by a three-generation "bloodline" of childhood loss and abandonmentWhy an addiction to sex took root in Peterson's psycheWhy Peterson's meeting Amber Frey while his wife was pregnant triggered the "perfect" psychological stormClues to Peterson's guilt in his interviews with Gloria Gomez and Diane SawyerWhat Peterson was probably thinking as he listened to testimony in court and received his death sentenceWhy Peterson could kill again, if released
Using contacts at the FBI, and hiring private investigators and researchers, Keith Ablow delves deeply into Scott Peterson's life story to answer the How did an all-American boy turn into a ruthless killer?
352 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published August 1, 2005
58 people are currently reading
635 people want to read
About the author
Keith Ablow
27 books178 followersKeith Russell Ablow is an American psychiatrist, New York Times best-selling author, and television personality.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews
June 18, 2009
"Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson" is an interesting, if possibly flawed, look at the psychological makeup of Scott Peterson. Dr. Keith Ablow, while never having interviewed or worked with Peterson himself, does make some fascinating points and conclusions. Background on the Peterson family, which I previously did not know, sheds some light on the dynamics of this dyfunctional family. Could the murder of Peterson's grandfather have led to Peterson himself becoming a murderer? There are some similarities and parallels but truth is, we will never know.
What is known is that Peterson is a killer, and he is definitely a cold, unfeeling sociopath. This book would have been much more insightful had Dr. Ablow actually spoken with Peterson, but he did speak to Peterson's family members and ex-girlfriends. Part of Peterson's personality is revealed through Dr. Ablow's interviews, but (as with all sociopaths) not all. Probably, Peterson himself doesn't truly know his own personality.
The only part of the book I did not care for was Dr. Ablow's opinion of Laci's personality, as being someone who wanted to make things "pretty" and cared about outside appearances. Some of his writing, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that Laci's own ignorance over her husband and desire to keep things respectful and appearances up may have contributed to her own murder. Regardless of how little Laci may have known about her own husband, she was the victim in this story and definitely did not deserve what happened to her.
All in all, an interesting and sometimes mind boggling journey into the deep, dark and empty heart of a sociopath.
What is known is that Peterson is a killer, and he is definitely a cold, unfeeling sociopath. This book would have been much more insightful had Dr. Ablow actually spoken with Peterson, but he did speak to Peterson's family members and ex-girlfriends. Part of Peterson's personality is revealed through Dr. Ablow's interviews, but (as with all sociopaths) not all. Probably, Peterson himself doesn't truly know his own personality.
The only part of the book I did not care for was Dr. Ablow's opinion of Laci's personality, as being someone who wanted to make things "pretty" and cared about outside appearances. Some of his writing, intentional or not, seemed to suggest that Laci's own ignorance over her husband and desire to keep things respectful and appearances up may have contributed to her own murder. Regardless of how little Laci may have known about her own husband, she was the victim in this story and definitely did not deserve what happened to her.
All in all, an interesting and sometimes mind boggling journey into the deep, dark and empty heart of a sociopath.
July 1, 2019
Informative about the case, but almost insultingly speculative. Not only about Scott, but about Laci and his parents.
February 19, 2014
Horrible book. Keith Ablow begins by passively insinuating that Scott Peterson's paternal grandfather was murdered by his parents.
In the same chapters that he calls Scott a manipulative, calculating, empty shell of a person, Ablow makes the assumption that if Scott's first child had been born, perhaps Scott wouldn't have gone on to kill. Ablow also claims that Scott's relationship with Amber was genuine, the one thing in Scott's life he truly cared about, and he wouldn't have gone on to kill if that relationship had lasted either.
Overall, this reads like a cheap arm chair psychology novel. I'm half way through the book and I'm trying to save my eyes from rolling over to the back of my skull.
I've got Catherine Crier's book on Peterson to read next, why do I do this to myself.
Edited: Catherine Crier's book is a much better account of Scott Peterson and the trial. Ablow spends too much time sensationalizing his own opinions of Peterson by omitting certain facts. For example, Ablow significantly downplays how much Peterson lied to Amber Frey, all to propagate the idea that Scott's relationship with Amber was the one "real" thing in Scott's life.
Complete waste of time, thankfully this book was a quick read.
In the same chapters that he calls Scott a manipulative, calculating, empty shell of a person, Ablow makes the assumption that if Scott's first child had been born, perhaps Scott wouldn't have gone on to kill. Ablow also claims that Scott's relationship with Amber was genuine, the one thing in Scott's life he truly cared about, and he wouldn't have gone on to kill if that relationship had lasted either.
Overall, this reads like a cheap arm chair psychology novel. I'm half way through the book and I'm trying to save my eyes from rolling over to the back of my skull.
I've got Catherine Crier's book on Peterson to read next, why do I do this to myself.
Edited: Catherine Crier's book is a much better account of Scott Peterson and the trial. Ablow spends too much time sensationalizing his own opinions of Peterson by omitting certain facts. For example, Ablow significantly downplays how much Peterson lied to Amber Frey, all to propagate the idea that Scott's relationship with Amber was the one "real" thing in Scott's life.
Complete waste of time, thankfully this book was a quick read.
July 4, 2017
I didn't agree with a lot of the author's theories but it was very interesting so I give it 3.5.
June 11, 2025
Ablow, Keith. Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson (2005) ***
Not the best interpretation
Forensic psychiatrist Keith Ablow's thesis here is that "Laci and Conner lost their lives to a psychological 'perfect storm' that began gathering over the Peterson family over five decades ago and reached hurricane strength in the psyche of Scott Peterson." (p. 8)
In concrete prose (which is not Dr. Ablow's strength) the beginning of the storm was Scott Peterson's maternal grandfather being murdered by a disgruntled ex-employee. Following this his maternal grandmother gave her children to an orphanage run by catholic nuns. Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, was then two years old. She endured a childhood filled with abuse. When she had her first child the father left her. She then gave up that child for adoption. Another man, another child. He left her too, and she gave that child up for adoption. A third man, a third child. He too abandoned her, and she would have given up that third child, but was persuaded not to by her pediatrician. And then along came Lee Peterson who stayed, and they had Scott. Shortly after his birth he contracted pneumonia and had to be placed in an oxygen chamber.
At this point Dr. Ablow remarks that researchers believe "that the roots of a sociopath's twisted personality...can sometimes be traced to early, sudden separation between an infant and his or her mother." (p. 39) He adds on the next page that "with the cold reality of masked nurses and doctors peering at you, their eyes filled with worry that you will die, your body pierced unpredictably and uncontrollably by needles, it should come as no surprise that you may wish to 'disappear' psychologically from the earth, to crawl back inside a womb..." This is the infant Scott that he is talking about, but one wonders what a newborn infant's eyes can see. They focus on faces as they learn to see, but (as Ablow should know) that takes months. It's hard to imagine that a newborn can read the faces of "masked nurses and doctors."
Ablow's argument is that Scott Peterson is a sociopath more made than born. This is crucial. At another point Ablow speculates that Jackie Peterson might have wondered (referring to Scott Peterson's half brother Don who was put up for adoption) if her "baby would be better off dead rather than abandoned by its father." He asks, "Did Jackie Peterson ever think that before she sent her baby boy away forever?" And then he asks the clincher: "Did Scott Peterson think that before he sent his baby boy to the bottom of the sea?" (p. 33)
The lurid prose aside, here I think Ablow is beginning to make the right connection. On page 89 he quotes Scott's half-sister Anne Bird as saying, "Scott and Jackie seem very similar to me...She was able to dispose of her children without much thought or emotion, and he followed suit. He disposed of his child."
At another point, Ablow quotes a "family source" as telling him, "Jackie lies about anything and everything." (p. 47)
This is the key: a genetic predisposition toward sociopathology inherited from the mother. Scott Peterson's sociopathic personality had nothing to do with his grandfather being murdered or with his being in an oxygen chamber after birth. It had everything to do with inheriting his mother's sociopathic genes and being raised by a mother who is a sociopath herself. That's nature and nurture working together: like mother, like son.
How did the other children escape being sociopaths? They did not inherit the same combination of genes, and their childhoods were not under the direction of a sociopath. It takes both a genetic predisposition and an enabling environment for the sociopathic personality to be expressed.
This is the weakest of the books on the Peterson case that I have read, although there is some interesting material about Scott Peterson growing up. Both Catherine Crier's and Amber Frey's are better, particular Crier's. The problem here is (1) Ablow's failure to understand sociopathology in evolutionary biological terms; his reliance on outdated psychologies that put too much blame on the environment and not enough on biology; and his overly rhetorical and speculative prose. As a final example of the latter he writes on page 150 imagining Scott Peterson moments after he had killed his wife and unborn son: "Then he stepped into the bathroom, looked at his face in the mirror, and smiled a defiant, unrepentant smile...He felt utterly and intensely alive."
Perhaps, but he might also have felt terribly afraid for himself since he had now done something that could not be undone, something he could not talk his way out of; and therefore there was the very real chance that he would have to suffer the consequences. I imagine that after he had murdered Laci, Scott Peterson felt sorry for himself.
Ablow's idea that Scott Peterson was unmoved by his plight when arrested and then when sentenced to death is almost silly. Scott put on a stoic face, but Scott Peterson cares deeply about Scott Peterson. All sociopaths care only about themselves, first, foremost and exclusively.
Since they don't know how normal people feel (not having those feelings themselves) they are always acting in public, and Scott was acting when the sentence was announced. He was telling himself as he later told Anne Bird that he would get out on appeal and that she shouldn't worry.
Ablow's explanation for his unworried demeanor goes like this: "Scott Peterson had already been spiritually dead a very long time. He had walked among us as an emotional vampire feasting day-to-day on the life force of others, particularly women." (p. 17) Yes, Scott used women, but he did so with a great sense of entitlement and lust. And yes he can be said to be spiritually dead because he was never spiritually alive, but he doesn't care about that. He is a pure sociopath.
--Dennis Littrell, author of "Dennis Littrell's True Crime Companion"
Not the best interpretation
Forensic psychiatrist Keith Ablow's thesis here is that "Laci and Conner lost their lives to a psychological 'perfect storm' that began gathering over the Peterson family over five decades ago and reached hurricane strength in the psyche of Scott Peterson." (p. 8)
In concrete prose (which is not Dr. Ablow's strength) the beginning of the storm was Scott Peterson's maternal grandfather being murdered by a disgruntled ex-employee. Following this his maternal grandmother gave her children to an orphanage run by catholic nuns. Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, was then two years old. She endured a childhood filled with abuse. When she had her first child the father left her. She then gave up that child for adoption. Another man, another child. He left her too, and she gave that child up for adoption. A third man, a third child. He too abandoned her, and she would have given up that third child, but was persuaded not to by her pediatrician. And then along came Lee Peterson who stayed, and they had Scott. Shortly after his birth he contracted pneumonia and had to be placed in an oxygen chamber.
At this point Dr. Ablow remarks that researchers believe "that the roots of a sociopath's twisted personality...can sometimes be traced to early, sudden separation between an infant and his or her mother." (p. 39) He adds on the next page that "with the cold reality of masked nurses and doctors peering at you, their eyes filled with worry that you will die, your body pierced unpredictably and uncontrollably by needles, it should come as no surprise that you may wish to 'disappear' psychologically from the earth, to crawl back inside a womb..." This is the infant Scott that he is talking about, but one wonders what a newborn infant's eyes can see. They focus on faces as they learn to see, but (as Ablow should know) that takes months. It's hard to imagine that a newborn can read the faces of "masked nurses and doctors."
Ablow's argument is that Scott Peterson is a sociopath more made than born. This is crucial. At another point Ablow speculates that Jackie Peterson might have wondered (referring to Scott Peterson's half brother Don who was put up for adoption) if her "baby would be better off dead rather than abandoned by its father." He asks, "Did Jackie Peterson ever think that before she sent her baby boy away forever?" And then he asks the clincher: "Did Scott Peterson think that before he sent his baby boy to the bottom of the sea?" (p. 33)
The lurid prose aside, here I think Ablow is beginning to make the right connection. On page 89 he quotes Scott's half-sister Anne Bird as saying, "Scott and Jackie seem very similar to me...She was able to dispose of her children without much thought or emotion, and he followed suit. He disposed of his child."
At another point, Ablow quotes a "family source" as telling him, "Jackie lies about anything and everything." (p. 47)
This is the key: a genetic predisposition toward sociopathology inherited from the mother. Scott Peterson's sociopathic personality had nothing to do with his grandfather being murdered or with his being in an oxygen chamber after birth. It had everything to do with inheriting his mother's sociopathic genes and being raised by a mother who is a sociopath herself. That's nature and nurture working together: like mother, like son.
How did the other children escape being sociopaths? They did not inherit the same combination of genes, and their childhoods were not under the direction of a sociopath. It takes both a genetic predisposition and an enabling environment for the sociopathic personality to be expressed.
This is the weakest of the books on the Peterson case that I have read, although there is some interesting material about Scott Peterson growing up. Both Catherine Crier's and Amber Frey's are better, particular Crier's. The problem here is (1) Ablow's failure to understand sociopathology in evolutionary biological terms; his reliance on outdated psychologies that put too much blame on the environment and not enough on biology; and his overly rhetorical and speculative prose. As a final example of the latter he writes on page 150 imagining Scott Peterson moments after he had killed his wife and unborn son: "Then he stepped into the bathroom, looked at his face in the mirror, and smiled a defiant, unrepentant smile...He felt utterly and intensely alive."
Perhaps, but he might also have felt terribly afraid for himself since he had now done something that could not be undone, something he could not talk his way out of; and therefore there was the very real chance that he would have to suffer the consequences. I imagine that after he had murdered Laci, Scott Peterson felt sorry for himself.
Ablow's idea that Scott Peterson was unmoved by his plight when arrested and then when sentenced to death is almost silly. Scott put on a stoic face, but Scott Peterson cares deeply about Scott Peterson. All sociopaths care only about themselves, first, foremost and exclusively.
Since they don't know how normal people feel (not having those feelings themselves) they are always acting in public, and Scott was acting when the sentence was announced. He was telling himself as he later told Anne Bird that he would get out on appeal and that she shouldn't worry.
Ablow's explanation for his unworried demeanor goes like this: "Scott Peterson had already been spiritually dead a very long time. He had walked among us as an emotional vampire feasting day-to-day on the life force of others, particularly women." (p. 17) Yes, Scott used women, but he did so with a great sense of entitlement and lust. And yes he can be said to be spiritually dead because he was never spiritually alive, but he doesn't care about that. He is a pure sociopath.
--Dennis Littrell, author of "Dennis Littrell's True Crime Companion"
September 11, 2024
While I didn't find this to be particularly well-written, it didn't bother me. I was fascinated and couldn't put Inside the Mind of Scott Peterson down. Ablow provides insight into the families' and the intergenerational trauma at play. The book was a quick, accessible read.
April 14, 2025
I read this whole book once while waiting 60 minutes to use the internet at the library in 2006. I had seen television psychiatrist Dr. Keith Ablow on a number of daytime talk programs, giving his harsh clinical judgment of the day’s accused criminals like wife-killer Scott Peterson. Within five years of writing this book Keith Ablow resigned from the APA due to their support for trans affirming surgery and then WAS CREDIBLY ACCUSED OF FIN-DOMMING HIS FEMALE PATIENTS and his license was suspended. Private investigator Ed Opperman has alleged that Keith Ablow operated a sex cult with some of his former patients. Then there’s the time when the DEA found Hunter Biden’s laptop in Ablow’s office where Biden was receiving ketamine therapy. Would it now surprise you to hear that Keith is a Trump guy? The wider works of Doctor Keith Weirdow should be explored anew in these contexts.
October 28, 2007
This author really tried his best to get into Scott's head - what was he thinking? What were his motives?
Ultimately, I don't think he succeeded; I think he over-simplified Scott's motives and got a few of them flat-out wrong. (For example, the author contends that Scott was madly in love with Amber, but based on his actions during their "affair" I tend to think that she was just another one of his many marital affairs).
This book is worth its weight in gold, however, not for the author's assumptions into Scott's mind, but from all of the background research on Scott and his family. The author dug deep into the history of Scott's grandparents and mother, which was not widely reported in the media.
This book is well-written, and a good "true cime" book for anyone.
Ultimately, I don't think he succeeded; I think he over-simplified Scott's motives and got a few of them flat-out wrong. (For example, the author contends that Scott was madly in love with Amber, but based on his actions during their "affair" I tend to think that she was just another one of his many marital affairs).
This book is worth its weight in gold, however, not for the author's assumptions into Scott's mind, but from all of the background research on Scott and his family. The author dug deep into the history of Scott's grandparents and mother, which was not widely reported in the media.
This book is well-written, and a good "true cime" book for anyone.
January 12, 2010
I loved this book. It was a perfect account of the crime and everything leading up to it. It was interesting to get into Scott Peterson's head, to understand what kind of person he was and still is that led up to the murder of his wife and son.
I have read a few books on this case, written by his sister, his mother-in-law, and finally Amber Frey, but they were all personal standpoints and opinions. It was nice having an unbiased forensic psychologist take me through his life, step-by-step.
I truly feel like I really got to know him. So much so that I actually feel pity for Scott Peterson. He is a pathetic, sad person, yet fascinating.
I have read a few books on this case, written by his sister, his mother-in-law, and finally Amber Frey, but they were all personal standpoints and opinions. It was nice having an unbiased forensic psychologist take me through his life, step-by-step.
I truly feel like I really got to know him. So much so that I actually feel pity for Scott Peterson. He is a pathetic, sad person, yet fascinating.
December 3, 2008
I was sick of the media oversaturation of the Peterson case, but a co-worker gave me this book and I finished it in about two work shifts. Keith Ablow, a forensic psychologist, makes a pretty good case for why Scott Peterson killed his wife Laci, which is something the media never really touched upon - too busy playing up the "pretty dead pregnant wife" and "slightly trashy mistress" angles, I suppose. Keith Ablow is a bit of a media whore himself, though, and I'm not sure if that casts suspicion or doubt on his credentials or ideas, but I was fairly convinced by his arguments.
October 27, 2010
Some interesting insights were made but the writing was a little redundant at times. Dr. Ablow must have said that Scott Peterson was "a person impersonating a person" and that he was "already dead" at least a dozen times each, throughout the book. It was a quick read, though, and held my interest enough to finish it. I'd recommend it for things like airplane rides or over-night stays in hotels, etc.
December 29, 2008
My daughter was born within days of Laci's and Connor's deaths, so I've been captivated by the terrible story from the start. This book does present some background on Scott that is sad and disturbing, though the author does seem overly confident in his psychological background. I got very tired of reading his hypothesis of Scott being "a dead man" over and over.
February 1, 2017
Lurid prose, way too many conclusions assumptions without a solid basis. I find his analysis faulty. Thankfully it was a quick read. Almost laughable.
For example, his theory of how Laci died is not very plausible based on the evidence, based on what I've read about the case.
For example, his theory of how Laci died is not very plausible based on the evidence, based on what I've read about the case.
March 12, 2018
Okay, I've sorta gone down the rabbit hole re: Scott Peterson and this is the third book I've read about the case. Ablow, a forensic psychologist, believes that family tragedy and drama causes situations even generations after the fact, and in the Peterson family, Jackie's father was killed when she was 2 and her mother put Jackie in an orphanage, which later was revealed as a place of sexual abuse. Jackie had two children and gave them up for adoption, almost gave up her third son (without much remorse), and after marrying Lee Peterson, Scott was born - their perfect golden son. But, Lee never wanted to be a father, and with Jackie unable or unwilling to love her children ... between the two of them, they raised a sociopath.
Ablow's theory is an interesting one, but I felt it could have been related in a long article rather than the book, which seemed to reiterate the theory over and over, and over and over, again. 3.5 stars.
Ablow's theory is an interesting one, but I felt it could have been related in a long article rather than the book, which seemed to reiterate the theory over and over, and over and over, again. 3.5 stars.
April 25, 2024
I was really disappointed by this book.
Let me start off by saying I'm no psychologist or expert, but like many did, I followed this case when it was in the news, and read extensively about it. I am a retired social worker, so do have experience dealing with families and trauma.
I am, for what it's worth, more than 100% sure Scott Peterson is guilty. There are a ton of reasons why, and the ridiculous "Defense" plea he has going on now is nothing but showboating and must be unbelievably painful for the Rocha and Grantski families. My heart goes out to them. I think the Peterson family is in deep denial, including his parents, but I'll get into that later.
I also acknowledge that Dr. Ablow has extensive training in forensic psychiatry and I don't, so this is my take on the matter.
Ok, that said.
To be honest, If I hadn't known it was written by a forensic psychiatrist, I would have written most of it off. It's highly speculative, redundant, and almost too simplistic of an analysis. While I know accounts from family members vary, he also seemed to have gotten some facts wrong. The book I trust most is "For Laci" By Sharon Rocha, as she saw it all from a mother's perspective and brings the real tragedy of this case home in heartbreaking fashion, as we get to know who Laci really was. "Witness" by Amber Frey is also decent, and "Blood Brother" by Anne Bird. I do think the two latter cashed in a little too quick, but that's irrelevant.
To start, I think it's a gigantic stretch to somehow tie Scott's murder of Laci and Conner to the murder of his Grandfather many years before. Yes, it's striking that this happened in the family and definitely left the imprint of trauma, but I don't think Scott's motives or personality had a basis in that.
The analysis that Jackie Peterson is somehow totally emotionally detached because she gave children up for adoption is also completely unfair. She was very young, and it was a different time. Unwed girls in the 60's typically didn't keep their children. Especially as she'd been basically raised by nuns. That could account for some of her rebelliousness, and I have no doubt Jackie repressed a lot of what happened there, but I don't think it left her a robotic l shell that could give away her kids without having an emotional response. The author didn't talk to Jackie as far as I know, and it's awfully hard to get an analysis of someone you've never met. He also never obviously met Laci, Lee Peterson, Dennis Rocha, etc. etc,. etc. It's all based on second and third hand information and his own hunches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jackie didn't have problems. She obviously did and that was pointed out in several books. I just don't think the adoption of her children can be fairly analysed without knowing what went on at the time.
I also raised an eyebrow at how it was claimed that Lee was totally estranged from his children of his first marriage and left without a second thought. In everything else I've read, he wasn't an absentee father. There was strain due to the divorce and the usual rebellion etc of his kids, but they seemed to remain fairly close. Lee married fairly young, as was in keeping with the culture of the time, and like thousands of other couples, it didn't work out and they divorced. I'm sure this impacted his psyche, but I don't think he was a deadbeat Dad and Jackie was a soulless mother and that created the monster that was Scott. Too simple. It also doesn't account for the fact that many, many people grow up in homes with trauma, divorce, abuse etc. and don't end up murdering people in cold blood. Again, Lee definitely had his issues, but I don't think these were the smoking guns.
I think Scott was likely a sociopath and had other personality problems from the time he was born, and this was amplified by the fact that his parents thought he could do no wrong. He was on a pedestal as a "golden boy" from birth. While I have no doubt Scott likely did emotionally mirror what he saw in his parents, I think it was more likely that he had mental health problems at a very young age and his sociopathy, smug attitude, and swagger was from the fact that he was simply a spoiled child.
I don't think Scott felt "smothered" by his parents. I think it was also ridiculous that the author kept (repeatedly) referring to when he had pneumonia and was in some sort of oxygen hood shortly after birth. Yes, trauma can be stored at a young age. But I don't think pneumonia long before he could remember really contributed that much, if at all.
If anything, I think Scott "mirrored" the golden image onto his parents. He didn't seem to feel they could do any wrong for the most part. It's also incorrect that he never stood up to them. Sharon Rocha remembered a time when Scott silenced his mother very rudely when she was trying to speak and she put up with it. I'm sure there were more incidents like that. Jackie was also endlessly critical about Laci (the typical no one is good enough for my boy thing, the author got that one right) and there's no evidence that Scott stood up to her and sided with his wife. He was a spoiled kid and a mama's boy. In court, his parents said basically he was the perfect kid with no flaws. I think they were deluded enough to believe that.
The Petersons might have lived beyond their means when Scott was growing up, but I don't think it was as much of a facade as the author suggested: broke people don't have homes in Rancho Santa Fe, drive Ferraris and Rolls-Royces and spend thousands on country club memberships. They don't have money to plunk down to help their kid constantly or to pay a celebrity lawyer (Geragos). They might have been over extended on credit,. but they certainly didn't seem to be hurting by it: and to get that sort of credit you have to have big bucks to start with. I think both Jackie and Lee loved status because they'd grown up poor and wanted Scott to have everything they didn't, so they spoiled him.
The author is wrong about the fact that no one is born "bad". I wouldn't use the terms good/bad, but I think we are all a blend of nature and nurture and science has shown that. Scientists have seen sociopathic traits in very young children. What happens is typically there's a catalyst and a perfect storm to cause this to activate..and Scott's was that he had no consequences in life and was seen as perfect.
I was really offended by how the author talked about Laci. He talked about her "Broken home". While Sharon said there was some strain at first, her and Dennis became civil and even friendly, and that Laci loved spending time both at home with Sharon and visiting her father's ranch. There was no suggestion of any broken relationship with her father. They spilt when she was two and she had her stepdad also that she loved. It was a very stable home.
Laci was also not "fake" like Scott was in the sense that she wanted everything to be pretty and to be like Martha Stewart. That was because she simply loved horticulture, decorating, and cooking fancy dinners. She was obviously very grounded in reality from all other accounts from her friends and family. She was hoodwinked by a sociopath at a fairly young age who hid his sinister self so well that she thought he was wonderful: which is typical, and 100% Sc0tt, not Laci. Laci in no way contributed to Scott's philandering and emotional detachment. I highly doubt if they'd been able to "connect" like the author says that she could have broken through his shell. That makes it sound like Laci was somehow mutually responsible for Scott. She was 100% innocent and a victim. Sadly, too many women have a fate similar to Laci under similar circumstances. It was also dirty and unfair to talk about Dennis being drunk at her wedding. From Sharon's account, Dennis showed up late and his tuxedo was ill-fitting, he didn't rip his pants falling down intoxicated and walked Laci down the aisle. I highly doubt she would have let an intoxicated man walk her to the altar.
I thought he got the analysis of Amber and Scott's relationship totally wrong. He didn't love her. She was the same as all the other women, he used her. He pretended to be someone else and easily lied to all the women he cheated with, she was no different. He tried to morph into Amber's tastes by pretending to be interested in religion. He bought her fancy gifts and wined and dined her. Amber didn't break his shell, it was just another performance. How could he magically be "thawed" by Amber after years of being a sociopath? Simple. He couldn't.
The description of how Laci and especially Conner were found disgusted me. The court asked that the autopsy results and photos be sealed for a reason. Ablow gives a gruesome description of Conner. Totally disrespectful. His belief that to Scott, all birth= death and this was the culmination of that was ridiculous. Even if Scott was smothered by his parents from birth, he wouldn't be consciously aware of that unless he had done persona therapy which he clearly hadn't. The idea that a child that grew up with overbearing parents would be tempted to murder their own child sounds like something pre-Freud. Total gigantic stretch with again, no proof.
Why didn't Geragos hire a psychiatrist and go for the insanity plea? Easy. Geragos, oily and high-profile ambulance chaser type that he was, knew damn well Scott would be seen as sane enough to stand trial. Clearly no one sane did what he did. Sane to stand trial simply means they understand what they did and the charges, and that they weren't completely psychotic to the point of not being aware of what they did (very rare) when they committed the crime. Scott was clearly aware and planned it in a cold, calculating manner. He honestly thought right til the end he'd get away with it. He still does.
A couple little things bugged me..the author claimed Laci called Scott first to say she was pregnant and he said he as rushing home. Sharon's book said she called her first thing in the morning and Scott was with her. Author claimed that Laci was working as a substitute teacher to "pay the mortgage" like they were destitute.Laci reportedly loved her job and was someone that was always on the go, I have no doubt she wanted to work. Without a doubt, they lived beyond their means. But again, a Land Rover and fairly new truck in the driveway, a Louis Vuitton wallet (found in the house), various credit cards with not-too-high balances(in the court reports) and their general lifestyle didn't jive with people that were so maxed out they risked losing their house. It was also not a "fixer upper": it was simply a modest house, like many newlyweds buy. Laci's best friend (Stacey Boyers)'s mother (Terri Western) was a mortgage broker and helped them get the house. It's possible the Petersons gave them the down payment, but I don't remember reading that. I have doubts Jackie would when she didn't want Scott moving to Modesto.
Author describes Modesto as a "dead end" and "dusty" small town. They have over 200K of a population: not exactly "small town". It's also got a lively cultural centre and is close to San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, and Yosemite. Laci grew up there and it wasn't "working class" in her neighborhood, they were middle class with the parents being more or less professionals among her and her friends. She and Brent had no trouble going to college. Sharon co-signed on the small place she rented in San Luis Obispo. People in "dead end" jobs usually can't do that. He tried to make Modesto sound like a backwater, and most say it's a pretty good place to live. It's no Rancho Santa Fe, but it's a normal, mid-sized city that isn't out in the sticks.
Scott also didn't resign his country club membership: he was kicked out when it was obvious he was a suspect.
Jackie and Lee were incredibly callous and petty with Laci's family after her disappearance and death. Jackie refused Sharon entry to the Peterson house to get Laci's things. They had to "break in". Jackie early on referred to Laci as "the body". They made jokes at a dinner Scott insisted on having while Laci was still thought missing.. It was surreal. I think they had zero attachment to Laci and were all about protecting Scott, their spoiled man child. They did seem to be pretty emotionally detached people where Laci and Conner were concerned, the author was on to something in that case. There's more in Sharon's book.
I know the book was about Scott, but I felt the author could have painted more of a picture of Laci as a person and be accurate about who she was. He seemed to cast her in a negative light which was patently and grossly unfair.
The whole discussion of Scott's sexuality was strange. I'm sure he was detached from his partners and just fulfilling lust. But saying that's the only way he felt "Alive" is totally speculative and pretty odd. I don't think Scott was even that emotionally deep, I think he was just a horn dog who couldn't be faithful with no other reason.
Lastly, when Scott was trying to escape, they mentioned the map to Amber's and how he likely wanted to say goodbye as part of him truly loved her (Nope.), and that maybe he would have gotten mad and killed her and himself if she rebuffed. I have no doubt he might have killed her, but he wouldn't have killed himself. He had zero remorse and thought too highly of himself and his importance to do that. Amber also feared that he had been coming to harm her due to the weapons in his car. Who knows, but it's highly likely.
I had an a-ha moment when I read about Dr. Ablow's history (I honestly didn't know) and found out he is horribly transphobic, LGBTTQ+ hater, a far right wing pundit, and had his license formally suspended due to inappropriate sexual behaviour, threats and harassments to clients, saying he posed a significant danger to "public health, safety, and welfare"...and it was suspended indefinitely. That isn't easily done when you're a psychiatrist. His office was also raided by the DEA under suspicion he was illicitly asking patients to share the meds he prescribed with him.
So., he's shifty and not the most reliable source, to put it politely. His rap sheet is not impressive. He also diagnosed Obama with "abandonment issues" (he never met him) and said Michelle Obama and some of the female panelists he was with needed to drop weight. He is homophobic and thinks same sex marriage "destroyed marriage" and that same sex parents are sexual predators and abusers. He said Obama wanted to dissolve the united states. I think the man has a ton of issues of his own. Physicians have called his political mish mash with psychiatry an embarassment to the profession. He's kind of like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Phil, and Newt Gingrich (he promoted and supported him) rolled into one.
I guess my sixth sense was right as I honestly hadn't read about him before. It explained the speculative, sloppy analysis, tabloid-style writing that had overtones of misogyny and holier than thou judgement (he judges Scott for not believing in God, linking that to sociopathy. I think there are far more ethical atheists and agnostics than right wing Christians out there. Let's not bring religion into it, as Laci and Scott weren't religious by all appearances.
Don't waste your time with this one. It's like reading a tabloid that keeps repeating itself and gets more outrageous and ridiculous the more you read it. I would have given it no stars if I could.
Let me start off by saying I'm no psychologist or expert, but like many did, I followed this case when it was in the news, and read extensively about it. I am a retired social worker, so do have experience dealing with families and trauma.
I am, for what it's worth, more than 100% sure Scott Peterson is guilty. There are a ton of reasons why, and the ridiculous "Defense" plea he has going on now is nothing but showboating and must be unbelievably painful for the Rocha and Grantski families. My heart goes out to them. I think the Peterson family is in deep denial, including his parents, but I'll get into that later.
I also acknowledge that Dr. Ablow has extensive training in forensic psychiatry and I don't, so this is my take on the matter.
Ok, that said.
To be honest, If I hadn't known it was written by a forensic psychiatrist, I would have written most of it off. It's highly speculative, redundant, and almost too simplistic of an analysis. While I know accounts from family members vary, he also seemed to have gotten some facts wrong. The book I trust most is "For Laci" By Sharon Rocha, as she saw it all from a mother's perspective and brings the real tragedy of this case home in heartbreaking fashion, as we get to know who Laci really was. "Witness" by Amber Frey is also decent, and "Blood Brother" by Anne Bird. I do think the two latter cashed in a little too quick, but that's irrelevant.
To start, I think it's a gigantic stretch to somehow tie Scott's murder of Laci and Conner to the murder of his Grandfather many years before. Yes, it's striking that this happened in the family and definitely left the imprint of trauma, but I don't think Scott's motives or personality had a basis in that.
The analysis that Jackie Peterson is somehow totally emotionally detached because she gave children up for adoption is also completely unfair. She was very young, and it was a different time. Unwed girls in the 60's typically didn't keep their children. Especially as she'd been basically raised by nuns. That could account for some of her rebelliousness, and I have no doubt Jackie repressed a lot of what happened there, but I don't think it left her a robotic l shell that could give away her kids without having an emotional response. The author didn't talk to Jackie as far as I know, and it's awfully hard to get an analysis of someone you've never met. He also never obviously met Laci, Lee Peterson, Dennis Rocha, etc. etc,. etc. It's all based on second and third hand information and his own hunches. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Jackie didn't have problems. She obviously did and that was pointed out in several books. I just don't think the adoption of her children can be fairly analysed without knowing what went on at the time.
I also raised an eyebrow at how it was claimed that Lee was totally estranged from his children of his first marriage and left without a second thought. In everything else I've read, he wasn't an absentee father. There was strain due to the divorce and the usual rebellion etc of his kids, but they seemed to remain fairly close. Lee married fairly young, as was in keeping with the culture of the time, and like thousands of other couples, it didn't work out and they divorced. I'm sure this impacted his psyche, but I don't think he was a deadbeat Dad and Jackie was a soulless mother and that created the monster that was Scott. Too simple. It also doesn't account for the fact that many, many people grow up in homes with trauma, divorce, abuse etc. and don't end up murdering people in cold blood. Again, Lee definitely had his issues, but I don't think these were the smoking guns.
I think Scott was likely a sociopath and had other personality problems from the time he was born, and this was amplified by the fact that his parents thought he could do no wrong. He was on a pedestal as a "golden boy" from birth. While I have no doubt Scott likely did emotionally mirror what he saw in his parents, I think it was more likely that he had mental health problems at a very young age and his sociopathy, smug attitude, and swagger was from the fact that he was simply a spoiled child.
I don't think Scott felt "smothered" by his parents. I think it was also ridiculous that the author kept (repeatedly) referring to when he had pneumonia and was in some sort of oxygen hood shortly after birth. Yes, trauma can be stored at a young age. But I don't think pneumonia long before he could remember really contributed that much, if at all.
If anything, I think Scott "mirrored" the golden image onto his parents. He didn't seem to feel they could do any wrong for the most part. It's also incorrect that he never stood up to them. Sharon Rocha remembered a time when Scott silenced his mother very rudely when she was trying to speak and she put up with it. I'm sure there were more incidents like that. Jackie was also endlessly critical about Laci (the typical no one is good enough for my boy thing, the author got that one right) and there's no evidence that Scott stood up to her and sided with his wife. He was a spoiled kid and a mama's boy. In court, his parents said basically he was the perfect kid with no flaws. I think they were deluded enough to believe that.
The Petersons might have lived beyond their means when Scott was growing up, but I don't think it was as much of a facade as the author suggested: broke people don't have homes in Rancho Santa Fe, drive Ferraris and Rolls-Royces and spend thousands on country club memberships. They don't have money to plunk down to help their kid constantly or to pay a celebrity lawyer (Geragos). They might have been over extended on credit,. but they certainly didn't seem to be hurting by it: and to get that sort of credit you have to have big bucks to start with. I think both Jackie and Lee loved status because they'd grown up poor and wanted Scott to have everything they didn't, so they spoiled him.
The author is wrong about the fact that no one is born "bad". I wouldn't use the terms good/bad, but I think we are all a blend of nature and nurture and science has shown that. Scientists have seen sociopathic traits in very young children. What happens is typically there's a catalyst and a perfect storm to cause this to activate..and Scott's was that he had no consequences in life and was seen as perfect.
I was really offended by how the author talked about Laci. He talked about her "Broken home". While Sharon said there was some strain at first, her and Dennis became civil and even friendly, and that Laci loved spending time both at home with Sharon and visiting her father's ranch. There was no suggestion of any broken relationship with her father. They spilt when she was two and she had her stepdad also that she loved. It was a very stable home.
Laci was also not "fake" like Scott was in the sense that she wanted everything to be pretty and to be like Martha Stewart. That was because she simply loved horticulture, decorating, and cooking fancy dinners. She was obviously very grounded in reality from all other accounts from her friends and family. She was hoodwinked by a sociopath at a fairly young age who hid his sinister self so well that she thought he was wonderful: which is typical, and 100% Sc0tt, not Laci. Laci in no way contributed to Scott's philandering and emotional detachment. I highly doubt if they'd been able to "connect" like the author says that she could have broken through his shell. That makes it sound like Laci was somehow mutually responsible for Scott. She was 100% innocent and a victim. Sadly, too many women have a fate similar to Laci under similar circumstances. It was also dirty and unfair to talk about Dennis being drunk at her wedding. From Sharon's account, Dennis showed up late and his tuxedo was ill-fitting, he didn't rip his pants falling down intoxicated and walked Laci down the aisle. I highly doubt she would have let an intoxicated man walk her to the altar.
I thought he got the analysis of Amber and Scott's relationship totally wrong. He didn't love her. She was the same as all the other women, he used her. He pretended to be someone else and easily lied to all the women he cheated with, she was no different. He tried to morph into Amber's tastes by pretending to be interested in religion. He bought her fancy gifts and wined and dined her. Amber didn't break his shell, it was just another performance. How could he magically be "thawed" by Amber after years of being a sociopath? Simple. He couldn't.
The description of how Laci and especially Conner were found disgusted me. The court asked that the autopsy results and photos be sealed for a reason. Ablow gives a gruesome description of Conner. Totally disrespectful. His belief that to Scott, all birth= death and this was the culmination of that was ridiculous. Even if Scott was smothered by his parents from birth, he wouldn't be consciously aware of that unless he had done persona therapy which he clearly hadn't. The idea that a child that grew up with overbearing parents would be tempted to murder their own child sounds like something pre-Freud. Total gigantic stretch with again, no proof.
Why didn't Geragos hire a psychiatrist and go for the insanity plea? Easy. Geragos, oily and high-profile ambulance chaser type that he was, knew damn well Scott would be seen as sane enough to stand trial. Clearly no one sane did what he did. Sane to stand trial simply means they understand what they did and the charges, and that they weren't completely psychotic to the point of not being aware of what they did (very rare) when they committed the crime. Scott was clearly aware and planned it in a cold, calculating manner. He honestly thought right til the end he'd get away with it. He still does.
A couple little things bugged me..the author claimed Laci called Scott first to say she was pregnant and he said he as rushing home. Sharon's book said she called her first thing in the morning and Scott was with her. Author claimed that Laci was working as a substitute teacher to "pay the mortgage" like they were destitute.Laci reportedly loved her job and was someone that was always on the go, I have no doubt she wanted to work. Without a doubt, they lived beyond their means. But again, a Land Rover and fairly new truck in the driveway, a Louis Vuitton wallet (found in the house), various credit cards with not-too-high balances(in the court reports) and their general lifestyle didn't jive with people that were so maxed out they risked losing their house. It was also not a "fixer upper": it was simply a modest house, like many newlyweds buy. Laci's best friend (Stacey Boyers)'s mother (Terri Western) was a mortgage broker and helped them get the house. It's possible the Petersons gave them the down payment, but I don't remember reading that. I have doubts Jackie would when she didn't want Scott moving to Modesto.
Author describes Modesto as a "dead end" and "dusty" small town. They have over 200K of a population: not exactly "small town". It's also got a lively cultural centre and is close to San Francisco, Lake Tahoe, and Yosemite. Laci grew up there and it wasn't "working class" in her neighborhood, they were middle class with the parents being more or less professionals among her and her friends. She and Brent had no trouble going to college. Sharon co-signed on the small place she rented in San Luis Obispo. People in "dead end" jobs usually can't do that. He tried to make Modesto sound like a backwater, and most say it's a pretty good place to live. It's no Rancho Santa Fe, but it's a normal, mid-sized city that isn't out in the sticks.
Scott also didn't resign his country club membership: he was kicked out when it was obvious he was a suspect.
Jackie and Lee were incredibly callous and petty with Laci's family after her disappearance and death. Jackie refused Sharon entry to the Peterson house to get Laci's things. They had to "break in". Jackie early on referred to Laci as "the body". They made jokes at a dinner Scott insisted on having while Laci was still thought missing.. It was surreal. I think they had zero attachment to Laci and were all about protecting Scott, their spoiled man child. They did seem to be pretty emotionally detached people where Laci and Conner were concerned, the author was on to something in that case. There's more in Sharon's book.
I know the book was about Scott, but I felt the author could have painted more of a picture of Laci as a person and be accurate about who she was. He seemed to cast her in a negative light which was patently and grossly unfair.
The whole discussion of Scott's sexuality was strange. I'm sure he was detached from his partners and just fulfilling lust. But saying that's the only way he felt "Alive" is totally speculative and pretty odd. I don't think Scott was even that emotionally deep, I think he was just a horn dog who couldn't be faithful with no other reason.
Lastly, when Scott was trying to escape, they mentioned the map to Amber's and how he likely wanted to say goodbye as part of him truly loved her (Nope.), and that maybe he would have gotten mad and killed her and himself if she rebuffed. I have no doubt he might have killed her, but he wouldn't have killed himself. He had zero remorse and thought too highly of himself and his importance to do that. Amber also feared that he had been coming to harm her due to the weapons in his car. Who knows, but it's highly likely.
I had an a-ha moment when I read about Dr. Ablow's history (I honestly didn't know) and found out he is horribly transphobic, LGBTTQ+ hater, a far right wing pundit, and had his license formally suspended due to inappropriate sexual behaviour, threats and harassments to clients, saying he posed a significant danger to "public health, safety, and welfare"...and it was suspended indefinitely. That isn't easily done when you're a psychiatrist. His office was also raided by the DEA under suspicion he was illicitly asking patients to share the meds he prescribed with him.
So., he's shifty and not the most reliable source, to put it politely. His rap sheet is not impressive. He also diagnosed Obama with "abandonment issues" (he never met him) and said Michelle Obama and some of the female panelists he was with needed to drop weight. He is homophobic and thinks same sex marriage "destroyed marriage" and that same sex parents are sexual predators and abusers. He said Obama wanted to dissolve the united states. I think the man has a ton of issues of his own. Physicians have called his political mish mash with psychiatry an embarassment to the profession. He's kind of like Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Dr. Phil, and Newt Gingrich (he promoted and supported him) rolled into one.
I guess my sixth sense was right as I honestly hadn't read about him before. It explained the speculative, sloppy analysis, tabloid-style writing that had overtones of misogyny and holier than thou judgement (he judges Scott for not believing in God, linking that to sociopathy. I think there are far more ethical atheists and agnostics than right wing Christians out there. Let's not bring religion into it, as Laci and Scott weren't religious by all appearances.
Don't waste your time with this one. It's like reading a tabloid that keeps repeating itself and gets more outrageous and ridiculous the more you read it. I would have given it no stars if I could.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
January 26, 2019
This was a fascinating book to read. I have never read a true crime book that has gone as in depth as this book. The author covered multiple Generations in the Peterson Family to show the psychological makeup that he believed lead Scott Peterson to murdering his wife and unborn child.
Whenever you hear about a crime the one question I always ask is why do they do it? The author goes into great detail about what he believes is Scott Peterson's sociopathic mind and just why he did the things he did. I found this to be an interesting and enlightening read.
Whenever you hear about a crime the one question I always ask is why do they do it? The author goes into great detail about what he believes is Scott Peterson's sociopathic mind and just why he did the things he did. I found this to be an interesting and enlightening read.
June 29, 2010
I have been following this case since I first heard about it. I've read countless books about the case also from many perspectives and without a doubt my firm belief is that Scott Peterson indeed did kill his wife and unborn child. I enjoyed every detail about this book and the analysis that experts give on Scott Peterson's motives of doing what he did.
January 22, 2015
I read this book when I was preparing to write my first novel. The knowledge that Keith Ablow shares on a psychopath's method on handling day to day situations was just what I was looking for.
This study was certainly a great help to me.
This study was certainly a great help to me.
Read
June 3, 2007This was a good book. I learned a lot that I didn't already know. If you don't already know about sociopaths, you'll learn a lot by reading this book.
September 1, 2008
Three generations of the Peterson family and how within this family system, Scott became who he is. Dr. Ablow treats the subject with truth and universal compassion.
August 16, 2014
Very readable, not full of terms you can't understand even though it is written by a psychiatrist.
August 2, 2012
This book is not about the murder of Scott's wife, Lacey, but a look into his mind which I found very interesting.
October 10, 2016
Very compelling
I read it in one day because I found the author's perspective so fascinating. I liked how he delved into the past to try to understand the chemistry of this tragedy.
I read it in one day because I found the author's perspective so fascinating. I liked how he delved into the past to try to understand the chemistry of this tragedy.
May 18, 2017
Scott Peterson without a doubt killed Laci and Connor. I wondered why a man from a solid upbringing commit such a heinous act, and Mr. Ablow answered that question plus many others.
April 5, 2018
Interesting stuff!
October 11, 2022
According to this author, if you needed ventilation as a newborn, you are now a cold, unempathic, evil person.
The author does a deep dive into Scott Peterson’s past to explain the murder and the best he can come up with is that^
Oh, also, if you lose gracefully at games that you like, then you must be an unfeeling, inhuman monster.
Another reviewer called this book “insultingly speculative,” and it’s worse than that. It uses uncorroborated theories about human psychological development to build an uncorroborated account of the psychological development of a number of people, many of whom (like Laci, Jackie, and Lee Peterson) are, as far as I can tell, entirely faultless in all of this.
This is a shameless cash-grab by a sad, attention-hungry author who definitely should not have an MD in psychiatry. It genuinely worries me that people like this have professional degrees and are allowed to work with people that are psychologically fragile.
If Keith Ablow represents psychiatry today, then we should all be worried.
The author does a deep dive into Scott Peterson’s past to explain the murder and the best he can come up with is that^
Oh, also, if you lose gracefully at games that you like, then you must be an unfeeling, inhuman monster.
Another reviewer called this book “insultingly speculative,” and it’s worse than that. It uses uncorroborated theories about human psychological development to build an uncorroborated account of the psychological development of a number of people, many of whom (like Laci, Jackie, and Lee Peterson) are, as far as I can tell, entirely faultless in all of this.
This is a shameless cash-grab by a sad, attention-hungry author who definitely should not have an MD in psychiatry. It genuinely worries me that people like this have professional degrees and are allowed to work with people that are psychologically fragile.
If Keith Ablow represents psychiatry today, then we should all be worried.
May 28, 2020
This book is highly speculative. It's very interesting to me, especially as someone with a BA in psychology. It's very one-sided, and Dr. Ablow may be right about his theory. It's fascinating to analyze Scott's family history. I'm still learning towards the opinion of Peterson being guilty, although there are many holes in the case. A&E's recent documentary was unabashedly pro-Scott, so this does a 180. Entertaining, but not terribly researched. For example, he doesn't cite where he gets a lot of information.
January 12, 2021
A haunting explanation of one psychiatrist’s perspective of the events of Scott Peterson’s life that led to him taking the actions of which he has been convicted. A sad reflection on the way we, as parents, sometimes pass the inappropriate or ineffective coping skills we possess on to the next generation. It also struck me the way that certain events seemed to repeat themselves in the lives of the individuals involved (Amber falling in love with two different married men with babies on the way, for example).
Worth a second read if only for the refreshing thoughts offered in the afterward.
Worth a second read if only for the refreshing thoughts offered in the afterward.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
March 12, 2021
This murder case is pretty old now, and I thought a forensic psychiatrist would have some insights into the brain of Scott Peterson, but the narrative is forced into a frame of Peterson being a psychopath, and just about everything he did from the time he said he discovered his pregnant wife missing becomes an example of just what a psychopath would do. He was dead inside. His entire persona was a fraud. Of course he would say this: That's what psychopaths do. It becomes very formulaic rather quickly.
August 23, 2021
Picked it up at a thrift store. The interesting thing about this book is it actually did some psychoanalyzing of Peterson. Now I didn't necessarily agree with all of his diagnosis, I found it refreshing to have someone actually point out reasons why these men are such wastes of space without just writing them off as evil. Psychopathy is applied with such little analysis and thought these days that it has made the label mean almost nothing. It is time to start to understand how psychopathy actually works, and manifests itself, in order to find ways to stop it early on.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 84 reviews