Language of Evil

by Robert Beattie

Brilliant linguist, charming professor, and renowned writer Tom Murray had a way with words.

He used them to seduce.

And he used them to get away with murder.

Erudite Kansas City professor Tom Murray seduced, then married his starry-eyed student Carmin Ross. But when Carmin attempted to leave their violent marriage, Tom stabbed her in the throat thirteen times, but left behind no evidence.

Convinced he?d committed a perfect crime, Tom didn?t even solicit a lawyer. But he hadn?t counted on relentless small town deputy sheriff Doug Wood, who refused to be underestimated. What happened next would result in one of the most unforgettable, shocking, and unexpected trials in Kansas state history.

Genres: True Crime, Nonfiction

352 pages, Mass Market Paperback

First published December 24, 2008

About the author

Robert Beattie, a Wichita lawyer, is the author of the nonfiction book Nightmare in Wichita. It is about BTK, a serial killer in Wichita, Kansas who created the name BTK after his modus operandi, "Bind Them, Torture Them, Kill Them". Dennis Rader started sending out letters to media again after hearing about the book. Right before he was going to publish it, Dennis Rader was arrested then convicted as the BTK Killer, a.k.a. the BTK Strangler, and Beattie quickly wrote an epilogue. Rader murdered 10 people in the Wichita area between 1974 and 1991 but evaded law enforcement until 2005. Beattie is also known for interviewing serial killer Charles Manson for a class project as a professor at Friends University in Wichita, which stirred up a lot of controversy and brought international media attention to him. Beattie ran unsuccessfully for the office of Kansas Attorney General in 2006.

Reviews

[Koren · Rating 2 out of 5]

This True Crime book is laid out so that every other chapter is a transcript from the interrogation. The chapters that were in the author's own words were fairly interesting. If the author would have kept to this style I think it would have been a pretty good book. During the 'transcript' chapters the author gets too detailed. For instance, here is an excerpt from page 56:

His chair is facing east with the chair back flush against the west wall. His knees are facing northeast. The chair where Doug Woods will sit is facing south, directly toward Murray.

Holy cow! Do we really need that much detail? Pretty boring stuff to me.

The accused is a professor of linguistics. Supposedly this makes him good with words, which is suppose to set this crime apart from others. Personally, I didn't see this in the transcripts, but perhaps I was too bored to really notice, as I skimmed most of them.

[Jenny Leonard]

I have not finished this yet, and am not really looking forward to it. The murderer in this non-fiction work was one of my professors in college. The details of the murder are far more gruesome than I had expected. I looked up to this person and never would have thought he would have been capable of this.

[Lupita · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was a little hard to get thru the author spent too much time explaining unimportant details. In the end not bad

[Lorna · Rating 2 out of 5]

A brutal murder leads investigators to the doorstep of the victim's ex-husband, Tom Murray, an internationally renowned author and linguist. But was he guilty? To this day he maintains his innocence, but the mountain of (circumstantial) evidence against him ensure his conviction.

I highly enjoy reading true crime. I enjoy trying to puzzle out the whys and the hows. It is no fault of the author that it is difficult to wrap one's head around why Murray would savagely kill Carmin Ross. Murray has never given an answer.

That being said, the author makes no effort to clarify the convoluted interviews and often the text feels too circular, and at times irrelevant.

[Neon · Rating 1 out of 5]

One star. I have been waiting to read this book. You know police procedure, murder, jealous and psycho husband, true crime!! How can anyone go wrong with it. Right?? WRONG!! It was so boring.. it was like bored talentless boring teenagers diary. Trust me,. You don't have to read this...

All of us who "saw" the book cover knows who the killer is. The writer dint even bother to make it little interesting. He said that, he said this, and in between his own thoughts.. Need I say more??

[Fishface · Rating 2 out of 5]

This was just OK; somehow it didn't hold my attention very well. I learned not very much about the family and their issues, but I came away with a heaping helping of the suspect's self-assured wordy blather. I shudder to think what it would be like to take an English course from this smug bastidge. No wonder his wife left him.

[Drew · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well, I read this because I had Tom Murray as a professor at K-State and it's not every day your professor goes to jail for murder. At times sloppily written, it only occasionally detracts from a compelling real-life murder case.

[Paula Cox]

It was ok. I think it could have been better.

[Donna Humble · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's an interesting book. I liked the book, but it dragged a bit in several areas. Overall, I would recommend it for True Crime readers as long as they can get through some of the long sections.

[Sue Scheve Zerjal · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author of this book was lazy. He did almost no investigative reporting. In fact, he tells the readers almost nothing about Tom Murray's past. He did not travel to his hometown to find out his background. He simply mentioned a few quick bio facts. At least two-thirds of the book are simply transcripts of Murray's interrogation. An idiot could have typed all of that and called it a book. In the end, this is a boring novel that offered little to the reader to even ponder. Where were interviews with the victim's family? Where were interviews with Murray's colleagues? Why were the detectives not interviewed after the trial to better understand their thoughts regarding Murray's guilt? I finished the book because I went to high school with Tom Murray and because I enjoy the genre of true crime. This book ranks quite low on my list of true-crime books.

[andrew · Rating 2 out of 5]

I read this book at the recommendation of a professor, and it was not what I expected. It was practically a transcript of interrogations conducted. It was very interesting, for what it was. I was a criminal justice student at the time, and as such, it was very intriguing. I would likely not see it that way if I were to read it now!

[Koko · Rating 2 out of 5]

It was kind of boringly written. I struggled to get through some parts.

[Marta · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disappointing...not much suspence too it. Just interviews.