A Review of 'Erased'

Does the true crime genre really need a fifteenth book about the Scott and Laci Peterson case? One could reasonably conclude that the question answers itself. Then I read Erased.

Unlike the fourteen titles that preceded it -- including books by the jurors, the journalists, Laci's mother, Scott's sister and lover -- the latest title to delve into the most widely publicized U.S. case since OJ's acquittal stands alone. Erased: Missing Women, Murdered Wives [Amazon; B&N] by Marilee Strong (with Mark Powelson) is very well informed by history and psychology. The lead author has delved to the nth degree into the criminal history of the United States, and the result is a unique study of a certain type of uxorcide. I couldn't skim or skip a page of this book, which marries, if you will, two of my favorite subgenres: spousal murder stories and criminal psychology.

In developing a profile of what she terms "eraser" killers, the author recounts many cases that have remarkable parallels to the Peterson case, highlighting dozens already familiar to some of us: Chester Gillette, Carlyle Harris, Reverend Richeson, Robert Blake, Mark Hacking, Bartin Corbin, Michael Peterson, and numerous other more obscure murders. In developing her profile, she comes to some strong conclusions while offering a depth of research to support them. For example, she points to the fact that Scott Peterson reported his wife missing on Christmas Eve. I had assumed that he was a psychopath who gave himself a Christmas present. Author Strong points out a more mundane possibility: that a disappearance on a holiday would not result in a vigorous investigation by experienced detectives. Just as Theodore Dreiser "profiled" Chester Gillette and his brothers in crime in fictional terms, this author does so in the language of clinical psychology.

I approached this book skeptically, frowning at the flap copy, groaning at the press release ("missing women cases ... have come to dominate the national print and broadcast media since the highly publicized disappearance of Laci Peterson," it says, when it should say such cases have always dominated the media). I've also grown more skeptical of the work of profilers and agree with the general prohibition against admitting their testimony in court, while at the same time I think they are useful to the general public. And crime encyclopedias usually disappoint this reader with numerous errors. Not this time. Erased is cogent and compelling.

An "eraser" killer, the author posits, is a man with no history of violence who leads a double life characterized by grandiose, compulsive lying, whose heinous act against wife or girlfriend is often preceded by a pregnancy. Such killers often dispose of the corpse -- erasing the woman entirely -- or stage her death as a suicide or drowning. And the motivation isn't another specific woman, she posits, even though in the "shock and awe" media frenzy that followed the disappearance of a California housewife, the pundits tried to ascribe that motive to her husband. "Fundamentally," the author remarks, "eraser killers do not kill for the reasons normally ascribed to murderers, such as greed, sex, or jealousy. They eliminate the women, and sometimes children, in their lives because their victims no longer serve any 'purpose' in the emotionally desolate world of the eraser killer, or are seen as impediments to the kind of life they covet and fantasize for themselves. In the mind of this type of murderer, it is better, easier, and more satisfying for him to kill than simply get a divorce."

Despite the coverage suggesting the Peterson case was unique, this author has proven that the case "was no milestone in the history of conviction... no shocking aberration in the stand of proof required for finding someone guilty of murder...." Rather, as she ably proves, there was nothing original in what he did -- and in demonstrating that, this author elevates the discussion and contributes a new and valuable analysis to the genre.

***

For more: The Richmond-Times Dispatch review

Visit the author's blog

Comments

[A Voice of Sanity]

This alleged book is truly a piece of claptrap. The author has no theory, and her examples don't support whatever it is she is trying to prove. The whole book reeks of the worst sort of misandry, and, despite her claims that it is not all about Scott Peterson, she spends most of 7 of the 13 chapters on him -- and he is a patently innocent man, thereby destroying whatever her 'theory' is. What a shabby and exploitative piece of work this is. I'd rather read O J's book.

[carole gill]

Very interesting book review, Laura.
I'm going to have to read it.
The Chester Gillette case is also fascinating--and has parallels to the Laci Petersen case. I would also be interested in reading what the author has to say about those other cases you mentioned.
I agree that unfortunately there is probably nothing unique about the Laci P. case. Women are disposed of all the time as impediments to the life their spouse or boyfriend wants to lead.
Very grim to think of.
As for me, I wouldn't want to read anything written by an individual who got away with murder. Do I mean O.J.? hmm!
Yes, I will read this "claptrap" because I know it probably isn't "claptrap" at all!

[Fiz]

VOS, you played the same tune on CrimeRant, and your opinion is not fact (ask any lawyer). Carole, it is well worth reading - it made me feel like a piece of ice had slithered down my back. A lot of the killers Ann rule writes about are the same. They are everywhere.

[Fiz]

In Cold Blog, not Crimerant. And I still disagree with the opinion you gave here and remember how rude you were to Marilee Strong, who authored the piece and the book on the other site.

[A Voice of Sanity]

Well, Fiz, I would say the same thing if Strong wrote a book on navigation assuming that the earth was flat, or any other book based on a fatally flawed hypothesis. I merely point to the fact that to this date no one can show the slightest valid proof of Peterson's guilt, so her book is based on a faulty premise.

I also point out that no one can explain what her 'theory' is - what characterizes her so called 'eraser'. She certainly cannot do this and when challenged to do it, failed. All she has is a series of cases where men killed women. It is rather trivial to point out that women also kill men - and many times do it coldly and efficiently.

[carole gill]

Fiz, yes I certainly will read the book.
As a woman who survived being married to an abusive alcholic, who threatened to murder me on more than one occassion, I certainly know what it feels like to gaze into the eyes of someone you once loved and see those eyes glimmering with mad, unprovoked hatred. And let me say my ex-husband was a professional man, well-respected in the community who had Police friends and local politicians, and who also had a carefully, constructed secret life (that only I was party to)!
I use my re-married name now, if I didn't, people might know who I was--if they happened to read this.
It wasn't pleasant! It was frightening and horrible. And it took years to get over!
and you, Voice--I mean really!
you are rude, there are ways to disagree and to put your own points up without resorting to mud slinging.
and as for women being killers of men, yes that's true unfortunately. however, there is also the question of the overall physical strength men have over women. and when that strength is used along with homicidal intent--well, for God sakes, it's pretty frightening.
He could easily have murdered me. But then his awful secrets would have been exposed and I think for that reason alone I was permitted to leave. Although, I snuck out and fled!
You needn't reply though. if you're going to use insult and resort to your usual over bearing style of diatribe.

[Jim McCord]

Good response Fiz.You always post intelligentlly and responsibly.Carole,my heart goes out to you for what you've had to endure in the abusive relationship that you were in.I have no respect for men who abuse the fairer sex in any way,shape or form.As for the voice of(in)sanity:your vapid remarks speak volumes about yourself.Keep playing devil's advocate if you must but that logic doesn't fly for many of us.

[A Voice of Sanity]

carole gill said: "and you, Voice--I mean really!
you are rude, there are ways to disagree and to put your own points up without resorting to mud slinging.
and as for women being killers of men, yes that's true unfortunately. however, there is also the question of the overall physical strength men have over women. and when that strength is used along with homicidal intent--well, for God sakes, it's pretty frightening.
He could easily have murdered me. But then his awful secrets would have been exposed and I think for that reason alone I was permitted to leave. Although, I snuck out and fled!
You needn't reply though. if you're going to use insult and resort to your usual over bearing style of diatribe".
----------------
Which sounds like more misandry to me. You think it is somehow 'nicer' to be poisoned by your wife while she is still smiling at you and flattering you? Your argument is very confused.

As for my comments on Strong's book, can you point out a single insult? Or any 'mud slinging'? I merely pointed out that her arguments are specious and her 'theory' is undefined. As these statements are true they can hardly be insults.

Perhaps only fawning approbation would suffice for you. You appear to be confusing your own feelings about your experiences with honest evaluation. I am judging the book on its own merits. It fails.

[A Voice of Sanity]

Jim McCord said: "As for the voice of(in)sanity:your vapid remarks speak volumes about yourself.Keep playing devil's advocate if you must but that logic doesn't fly for many of us".
-----------------
I appreciate that logic and you are strangers, however logic works for me. Your childish insult hardly improves my opinion of you. And you need to learn what words like 'vapid' mean before you use them.

[carole gill]

watch it voice of "sanity", you are sounding like my ex-husband and he wasn't clinically well.
sorry, but true.

[carole gill]

This is to everyone (not Voice). I have a feeling he's listening to too many of those as it is, and unfortunately from within his own head.
How common, I wonder, are personality disorders within the general population, especially among people who reply obsessively to discussion forums and who seem to only be motivated in order to infuriate, horrify and generally twist the reality that most of us see to fit into their own strange, alien world that only they inhabit.
Might be an interesting debate.

[carole gill]

one more thing! sorry--
Of course whenever I find the hairs on the back of my neck standing up from something weird that I have read on here, I should remember that a certain percentage of the population are psychopathic and there is internet access in hospitals and prisons sometimes. perhaps theraputic for the inmates, but unfortunately, not for the rest of us!

[carole gill]

Jim, thank you for your kind words.
No, it was certainly not pleasant.
Some marriages and relationships are horrific.
One of my ex-husband's favorite methods of domination was to keep me in the room while he spoke at length (could have been on any subject). Once it lasted fourteen hours!
He had a sick need to feel important, to dominate.
To disagree with him was impossible.
To disagree with people who are mal-adjusted bullies like he was, is futile.
We should all be warned.
Once warned, we may choose with whom to communicate. That's the advantage I didn't have while under his roof.
Now, I do and I will choose not to be subjugated in anyway with respect to another sort of insanity.

[Jim McCord]

voice-I stand by my statement to you as well as my use of the word.Look it up in a dictionary.There is more than one definition for vapid,but you should know that.I choose my words carefully before I use them in a forum.Your"logic" is laughable.You counter with a childish insult after accusing me of doing the same to you.I certainly don't care what your opinion is of me either,really.You don't even have the stones to post under anything other than an anonymous name so how can you be taken seriously?It looks as though this topic has turned into a cyber pissing contest between us.(my apologies Laura)Now Carole,I am glad that you have your personal freedom and are able to live your life in peace now.No one deserves to be treated the way that you were.I admire you for what you have lived through and realize that you speak from experience unfortunately.It appears that you have moved on with your life and that is a good thing.I wish you only the very best.Jim

[carole gill]

Jim, thanks so much.
Yes, as a matter of fact I'm very hard at work on a crime novel. I've remarried and never even think about the past--I did this week, but I won't fall into any nut traps again.

[Fiz]

I'm so glad you are happy now, Carole and have managed to put the past in the past. Good job! Love to you, Laura and Jim.xxx

[A Voice of Sanity]

Once again, instead of arguing points, two posters have resorted to childish insults. My criticisms of Strong's book are perfectly valid, and the first proof of this is that no one can define the meaning of 'erased' in this sense, and no one can list the characteristics which define it. Strong herself has also failed to do this, so my point is made - an entire 'book' which claims to be about one thing but is, in fact, merely another book seeking to exploit the tragedy that was the murder of Laci and Conner Peterson, a crime that Scott Peterson was in no way involved in.
Until and unless you can argue the validity of my criticism with facts and logic and not by resorting to such childish behavior my analysis stands unchallenged. This book is driven by misandry and by the desire to profit from Scott's tragedy.

[Jim McCord]

Carole, keep us posted on your book,ok?Backatcha Fiz,and voice,you're just too easy. J *_*

[carole gill]

Jim,
CERTAINLY! I generally come onto this site after writing a chapter and/or editing.
I surely will keep you posted!
Thanks!

[A Voice of Sanity]

Jim McCord said "voice,you're just too easy".

Odd then that you cannot argue a single point. I'm still waiting for a definition of 'Erasing' other than "What bad men do to women and not what women are forced to do to men."

[carole gill]

Fiz, thanks I have really, although I didn't sound as though I did earlier this week!
thanks for your very good wishes.
love your moniker. Fiz--makes me think of bubbly champagne. suits you!

[Jim McCord]

Last call voice so listen well.I owe you nothing,but will say that Scott Peterson is guilty and has been convicted accordingly.The evidence presented against him at trial sealed his fate once and for all.Personally you creep me out in a big way.You ranted for months on end in The Death Penalty Debate forum supporting him and lashing out in your signature overbearing way to many posters in there.My guess is that you share a nearby cell and have access to a p.c. in prison.For that matter the way that you defend this pos you may be one of his relatives.Laci and Connor were cramping his lifestyle so he disposed of them,or erased,in a manner of words.You seem to have a issue with word comprehension but there it is.He killed them,did away with them,wished them into the cornfield,and was caught and prosecuted for his crimes.Defend him all the way to the death chamber but at the end of the day he is still guilty and you're misguided in your opinion of his innocence.

[Sprocket]

The review of this book peaked my interest enough to consider picking it up. I'm interested to see the referenced research on criminal psychology the author uses to correlate the patterned behavior of the convicted murderers she writes about.

[A Voice of Sanity]

Jim McCord once more attacked me personally instead of discussing facts, theories or ideas: "Last call voice so listen well.I owe you nothing,but will say that Scott Peterson is guilty and has been convicted accordingly.The evidence presented against him at trial sealed his fate once and for all."

And yet, as I have pointed out to you, neither you nor any other person on earth can point to even one piece of this alleged evidence. The state spent 20,000 hours trying to find some, and in the finish they were forced to run a grinder - which was a de facto admission that there was no evidence. When you can point me to actual evidence of guilt your opinion may be worth something - so far all you can do is point to your 'feelings' - as unreliable a yard stick for judgment as tea leaves or tarot cards.

Compare that total absence to the 18 items I have listed for fetal abduction. There really is no comparison.

If the state had evidence, why did they need to blow through $11 million of taxpayers' money for a case which all observers, including the most hostile, agree is headed for a certain retrial?

[grancanaria]

I have only recently become interested in the Scott Peterson case and considering there are now fifteen books I was wondering if anyone could recommend a title that gave a good unbiased overview of the case. I have read numerous reviews for the books available but more often than not people's reviews are overwhelming influenced by whether they consider him to be guilty or not rather than the content or quality of the book they are reviewing. Even if someone could recommend what they considered to be the best books for and against Scott Peterson I would be very grateful, so I could make up my own mind as to his guilt. I realise that this may not be the best place to ask this question but I am relatively new to blogs and forums etc and I really would appreciate any help given.

[A Voice of Sanity]

'grancanaria', although it is ridiculously biased, Catherine Crier's book is possible the best in terms of information. Strong's book is impossible to read. It is just a toxic stew of misandry.

However I have a 3 minute summary of the case, both for and against, on this site:
http://another9912.googlepages.com/ (or click on my name).

Just read the first two pages listed there - as I say, 3 minutes total. There are some other pages that are optional.

For a MUCH longer read, you can start here
http://thevoiceofsanity.blogspot.com/2007/06/5-ws-of-journalism.html
and read on as I dissect the prosecution's closing and point out the many, many places where it is wrong, misleading, or evidence is invented.

Most of the websites discussing the case are now private, invitation only. Scott and his family do have their own site:
http://scottpetersonappeal.org/cblog/index.php

[A Voice of Sanity]

Forgot this one: This has every document from the trial, every picture, except those that remain sealed. You can download the complete trial records as well.

http://www.pwc-sii.com/
also see
http://pwc-consulting.blogspot.com/