I really struggled reading this book. Not only is the content difficult to stomach at times, but the way the authors decided to tell this narrative was shocking - in a bad way. 

My understanding from the title and the synopsis was that I would be reading a non-fic book about a young woman being raped, the police disbelieving her, and the subsequent unravelling of the truth with the help of patterns discovered across jurisdiction/state lines in other rape cases. 

Instead what I read was 250-pages of excuses as to why/how the police got it wrong in the first place - poor or no training specifically to work on cases of sexual assault; misreading or misjudging body language (in a "everyone behaves the same way" kind deal); dismissing pieces of evidence or leads before exploring them; taking for granted the speculations of people not present at the time of the attack/witness; sharing false statements with the victim to illicit her recantation; etc. I could literally continue for paragraphs all of the mistakes and misjudgements made by the initial investigative team. 

Additionally, the heroization of the female detectives felt really icky. After laying out for all to see the incredibly incomplete and faulty exploration of Marie's case and all of the biases, misogyny, and other pre-determined "bars" rape victims have to meet or exceed in order to be even taken seriously...it just felt so wrong to see someone being praised for literally just doing their job - not to mention that they were only in that particular situation because of how fucked up the entire policing system is (in this case, specifically in regards to victims of sexual assault). 

I was also taken aback at how much page-time the assailant got - if memory serves me correct, he alone had two full chapters just about him, his time growing up, and the increasing detail into how he committed all of his crimes. That's not to say some of this information isn't integral to the progression of the narrative and understanding why/how he behaved the way he did, I just don't think this particular book - given the title and the synopsis - was the most appropriate space to be sharing all of those details. It also felt like the authors were doing their best to humanize the assailant in a way that felt icky. You just detailed the violent assault he carried out, and now you want me to empathize with him because he watched Star Wars perhaps too young? Yuck. 

Lastly, I would like to say that the writing itself is well done and is incredibly researched (sometimes too much depth on unnecessary tangents such as the history of rape kits and ViCAP). It really does feel like two authors wrote this; like Miller and Armstrong had two totally different visions for how this book would look and didn't compromise well in the end. I think the separation of the three dominant topics would be beneficial: 1) sexual assault/rape in America and the shadowy stigma that prevents women from reporting, as well as the statistical infrequency of false reports; 2) the current policing system that handles sexual assault/rape cases - how the current procedures were shaped, where these procedures need to be retired/improved, and how to go about correcting the harmful and misogynistic doctrine that has plagued society; and lastly, if necessary, 3) the life-story and crimes of Marc O'Leary. 

All-in-all, I came away from reading this feeling sick knowing that nothing I read was truly shocking, and I think that in itself is the most telling.