Reddit's open forum for discussion of all aspects of actual crimes and their legal processes. Unlike some subs, our community allows videos or links to kick off discussion. Be kind to others and enjoy the true crime conversations.
Text
What do people think about Michelle McNamara’s pursuit of The Golden State Killer, if you believe, like I do, that she was instrumental in him getting caught?
On the one hand, she was integral to bringing justice to so many survivors. She wasn’t paid or trained to do that. On the other, she was a civilian, with a loving family, who clearly didn’t know how to cope with the stress of it all other than through addiction and/or being reckless. She wasn’t part of the team that she could rely on, not like an officer of the law would be.
I get substance abuse and the pursuit of justice, but I can’t help thinking that her husband and her daughter should’ve been more important.
Locked post. New comments cannot be posted.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
While i think she brought more widespread attention on the case, Paul Holes and the LE team was already hard at work on solving it which they eventually did.
Right. This was already the most popular unsolved mystery. She wrote a popular book on it, that happened to be published just before police did the work to solve the crime.
hotforholes
I think her book and her personal story of her dedication to the pursuit of the killer is notable. However, literally the only thing she accomplished is that she came up with the name "The Golden State Killer."
I think she had an obsessive personality and was highly susceptible to addictions. I think her drug use was going to be an issue for her no matter what. I also think if she didn't do a deep dive on the GSK, she would have been just as obsessed with something else.
Exactly. She was just like the rest of us who love true crime. It doesn’t “depress” us or “lead” us to addictions. She was a true crime fanatic who just happened to be an addict as well, sadly. Daily, long term Amphetamine dependance cycled with opiates and/or alchohol to shut the speed brain down at night is sadly a very common combo. You can’t keep that going on into middle age for very long.
I think you are so right that it's kind of shocking to read it actually written out.
I don't want to speak ill of the dead but she arguably wrote a somewhat subpar book (and that's even without the random notes that the editor and publishers stuck in there to pad it out and try to introduce some cohesion.)
I feel like both of the most read books about EARONS, Sudden Terror and I'll Be Gone In The Dark, are both pretty poorly written and poorly handled books which is a shame because the subject matter is obviously so unusual and endlessly fascinating. Michelle's writing is oftentimes way too meandering and sadly, there are large swaths of text that simply radiate "I was high as hell while I wrote this section". If it weren't for her husband I'm afraid to say that she likely would have never been able to get a publisher to take her on for a whole novel.
I will say that I'm very impressed by her dedication and impressed by some of the articles she wrote for newspapers but, as you said, it's hard to shake the feeling that she would have become obsessed with any other rabbit hole had she not happened upon all of the years of hard work and dedication that the EARONS forum board members simply handed to her on a silver platter. I was genuinely disappointed in the book and there were far too many times where you could tell that she was clearly relying entirely on the actual investigative groundwork that was laid by others years before her. Occasionally it felt like she simply wanted to rewrite Sudden Terror but with a less crass and more conversational veneer.
But I understand how it's hard for people to criticize the work of someone who passed away, even though she had the kinds of the resources and connections that other addicts would just about kill for, to get herself into any of the most posh rehab centers available throughout Southern California and beyond.
I had to survive my own battle with the same type of addiction and I would never disparage someone for suffering from the condition but by God, if I had had a child and a husband to love and rely on me and be fully dedicated to me I do believe I would have sought out rehab and earned my sobriety long before I was revived from death in an ambulance outside of my apartment.
Excuse the rant, it's just really refreshing to hear someone give an accurate statement about the quality of her book without all of the angelic whitewashing that people tend to do for her.
Excellent post. It is certainly a shame that there is not a quality book on this material.
Comment removed by moderator
Low effort includes commenting one word or a short phrase that doesn't add to discussion (OMG, Wow, So evil, That's horrible, Heartbreaking, RIP, etc.).
I think her death was totally preventable and it is a shame.
She did not pass of undiagnosed heart problems? I had thought she did
No, she had taken a bunch of different pills
The coroner ruled it was an accidental overdose. Heart condition or no, she took too many pills.
Instrumental in Joe Deangelo finally getting apprehended? No. But instrumental in keeping the case in the public eye, sure. Did that put any pressure on the relevant authorities? I don’t think so, as other have said, Paul Holes had already been looking into this case for a long time.
But that’s not up diminish the work she did, and hopefully more like her continue to pursue cold cases with the same passion. She may inspire some future sleuth to actually solve a similar cold case. But she can’t be given credit for this one being solved.
I think her addiction was separate from the case. She had ADHD, and as a fellow woman in her age range with the same mental health and addiction issues, I can relate. GSK was just what she hyperfixated on. But it could've been anything.
She sadly overdosed. I am lucky to say i'm two years clean. Our paths could've switched.
From someone of the same age range who is now about 1.5 years clean: congratulations, internet stranger!
Same to you!
Yeah, I overdosed too about five years ago. But I will never get over the grief in my mom’s eyes or my husband’s ongoing trauma and I will never forgive myself.
Addiction brings out the worst in us. We need to forgive ourselves to be able to be better. I'm with you, though. I can't think about all the people I hurt bc it's just too many.
DNA databases solved this one.
I was sad for her the day they caught him. She put a lot of hard work into those cases and when I found out he wasn’t even in her notes , I was disappointed for her. I’m sure it was nice for the families of the victims to know someone cared that much.
Exactly this. I don’t know why OP thinks she was instrumental in catching the killer. She wrote a well researched book on the most popular unsolved mystery shortly before police solved it.
Which would have happened if her book had no been published too.
She was nowhere near getting him caught-she never even got remotely close.z
Literally this. She's aggrandized because of her unfortunate death and because of the publicity she brought to the case that resonates with internet sleuths.
Also because she was the wife of a celebrity
Comment removed by moderator
Comment removed by moderator
Yes, she told a very, very good story that sticks with a lit of people about what it feels like to try to tease the truth out of these cold cases, how intricate and baffling and confusing and full of stealthy red hearings they can be. Her work, telling that story, was valuable! It didn't help catch the guy, and that's fine.
Yeah there’s nothing in her book that pointed towards his capture.
As a “fan” of this case, the book was a decent read, although it feels like she talks about herself a bit too much.
I kept waiting for that book to get good. That never happened.
I agree. I read it after I listened to the Man in the Window podcast so I knew how it ended so I did find the book really anticlimactic.
Same here!! I thought she played a bigger role in solving this case, but that is not true.
I never understood why it was so popular.
I think the actual quality of her writing is often overlooked. She crafted some fine sentences that should be the envy of anyone. She was talented and also had a great eye for detail.
She wasn’t instrumental in getting him caught, but that wasn’t her job. She was excellent at her own.
I had to read this book for a class recently. I think the strongest parts are the ones she wrote herself and that the book would be way better had she not died while writing it. I think she’s a great writer. I especially like how she lets you meet the victims as people and more than what was done to them. I feel like a lot of true crime writers tend to write in a way that’s a little exploitative of victims. I also feel like true crime fans often forget that the genre itself can be exploitative to victims, as we get so entertained by the cases and we need to know the ending that we forget these are people’s lives, the lives of people who have families and loved ones. It is kind of saddening to see so many people hate the book, but oh well people have different opinions.
The story of how she neglected her family/children for months (years?) at a time while holed up in a plush hotel room, slamming adderal all day and opiates all night, under the guise of “needing space to concentrate on the book” made more of impression on me than the book itself.
3xactly my feelings too. Her texts to Patton to manipulate him into basically endorsing all her poor choices were too much. He constantly is trying to make bids for connection with him and Alice and MM was genuinely just not interested
She didn't manipulate her husband. He turned a blind eye.
Yes, she was an addict which means through her addiction she was completely self-centred and selfish which resulted in her neglecting her family most notably her child. This is the reality for all families/loved ones of (active) addicts and a reason why addiction is so destructive to not just the addict. If she wasn't a writer with a notable husband and relative wealth people wouldn't let her off as easy esp being a mother with addictions. Addiction is not the fault of the addict but not getting clean is- she chose herself and her addiction over her family and that's the truth of it.
Comment deleted by user
It's an addicts memoir on her personal hyperfixation. That's what it is.
I think when she died by overdose it became really important to PO to create a positive legacy for her, and he used his media connections to make that happen.
The press framed her as nobly pursuing the case and nearly solving it…but she was never close; she was just fixated. The book was good, but not great. Had she lived I think there’s zero chance we’d still be talking about it.
Full disclosure, I have not actually read I’ll Be Gone in the Dark, so this is wholly based on my secondhand impressions of her and her work.
Honestly, idk that my feelings are all that positive. Apart from coining the name “Golden State Killer,” I’m not really sure what she contributed. She didn’t find new information that led them to DeAngelo. She didn’t make a connection to previously unknown victims or crimes. I guess working to keep the case in the public awareness is a good thing, but given that she’s now deceased, I have to wonder if it was worth it when, as you said, she had a husband and daughter who loved her.
I know some of the victims and their families were very upset that a civilian was given access to their case files, especially since the case wasn’t closed.
Idk, I’m a bit muddled today but I wouldn’t consider her instrumental in his eventual capture.
She kept the case in front of the public. A good thing. I think if you think of her less as a sleuth and as more of just a writer, you’ll see she succumbed to many of the stresses and problems all writers face. Deadlines are a nightmare.
So while what happened to her is a tragedy, her chosen job was to be a writer. It’s only thinking of her as a lonely detective do we feel she abandoned her family. If we think of her as just doing her job as a writer, it takes some of the romance out of it, but makes her seem less selfish as well.
She brought attention to the case but had nothing to do with his eventual capture.
The police said she had nothing to do with solving the case.
She did not. She was not even aware of the real killer. He was found using DNA databases.
The book is well written and she was obviously dedicated to bringing attention to the case, which is great. However, I think her addiction would have been a serious issue with or without the fixation on the case. It became a part of her legacy that she was, like, tortured and/or obsessed with the case to the point that it drove her over the edge, but I think she was in trouble long before then. It's just a part of the narrative after the fact.
That doesn't take away from the fact that a) her death was a tragedy that should have been prevented b) she was very much loved by her family and c) she did good work in bringing this case to the forefront of pop culture.
I’m happy that he was caught. For the victims and their families.
I was under the impression that CeCe Moore helped this case.
I was a young girl in Sacramento scared because of the East Area Rapist. He started out raping and later killed his victims. I don’t bother remembering his name just that he’s a horrible person that is right where he deserves on the brink of death in a miserable CA prison.
It's a local story for me as well, and I've pretty obsessively followed it even after I've stopped consuming a lot of true crime. I don't think I knew about the east area rapist until he was caught by DNA. I learned about Dorthea Puentes early but I think since she was a female killer and everyone still knows the house it was almost sensationalized more.
His frail old man act really irritated me during the news coverage, and frightened me a bit too have to come to terms with the fact elderly people can have sordid histories. I lived a couple blocks away from the home he lived in during his arrest, I had taken my daughter trick or treating on that street.
That’s something that you lived close to him. I remember wanting to take my children to areas with sidewalks rather than our rural area in Elverta.
That Dorthea was cruel killing and burying them in the back yard.
I actually didn’t know he was both the GSK and the EAR until just before they caught him.
Back in the day the coverage was on the news and in the Sacramento Bee.
For years we thought he raped our neighbor. We lived by the American River collage in some apartments. We talked to detectives but we didn’t see or hear anything. We moved soon after that. So did the young lady. I looked at all the streets where he committed crimes after his arrest to confirm.
I too follow true crimes because of that and a few others.
I think people like to romanticize her drug addiction as being the result of dedication or something like that, and that she sacrificed herself to catch the killer.
In reality, she was a drug addict who’s probably missed by her family. And the golden state killer was caught by genetic genealogy, not because she wrote a book about the murders.
she didn’t help with the case itself other than making it mainstream of a true crime case.
She hurt the case more than she helped it. She removed boxes of evidence from police custody and took them home with her. Imagine if any of what she took was needed for a trial, it becomes largely useless due to the chain of custody issues she caused. I think after her death and with the publication of her book coinciding with the arrest, she became a hero to amateur detectives who think they are doing good by interjecting themselves into a case and bumbling around. I'm sure she had good intentions and all but I can't think of many positive things that came from her obsession with the case.
You mean the boxes of evidence that the cops were doing fuck all with for decades?
Without making any judgements on her character, or pretending I have any idea what her marriage, motherhood, or personal circumstances were, I say:
IMO, She was a very talented writer. She tapped into a genre that was up and coming at the time with her blog, she built a network and community that supported and enriched her ability to research and write her book.
While reading the book, I saw stark contrast between her work and the work of her spouse and editors. She had, IMO, a distinct voice and I wish she had been able to complete the full book.
I think anyone who interviews and researches and theorizes and shares information about crime cases is a part of the reason a case is solved if their work is well known to the law enforcement over the case, and they have had influence over/audience with those who had been tasked with investigating through the years.
This is the best answer.
Im confused by your last paragraph. Do you think her substance abuse had anything to do with her pursuit of justice? If so I would disagree.
I’m surprised at the vitriol in these comments. She was a passionate writer who sought to solve decades-old brutal murders and succumbed to her addiction before a guilty verdict. How is her humanity so easily discarded?
What vitriol specifically? I thought this post was asking for people's thoughts on her and her work, and the replies seem to be in line with the question. Some people don't like her writing, or are pointing out what she may or may not have actually contributed. I don't think it's vitriolic to critique a book, or counter that her influence may have been less than assumed.
I know almost nothing about her so my opinion is fairly neutral. I think it's sad she died. Addiction sucks.
I was a fan of hers. She was like any of us interested in true crime, but she had the talent to bring attention to cases with her writing. And she was respected by investigators. It’s sad that her research on this case most likely led to her death. Your comment is incredibly judgmental. Do you think she wouldn’t choose to be here if she could do it over?
Her research on the case had nothing to do with her death. The abuse of her body via amphetamines and opiates did, saddly.
Why do you think her research would have led to her death?
Her research did not lead to her death. Her drug addiction led to her death.
Yes, she was researching and writing when she left her family for extended periods of time. But she was also indulging in her addition.
She piggy backed off info already out there. She was married to a celeb which got her the publicity. Over rated.
People are gonna do what they are gonna do, driven by whatever compulsions or ambitions they might harbor.
She wrote a great book, but gets way too much credit like she single handedly solved the case which couldn’t be further from the truth. Always hated that. Even her husband Patton announced “Michelle, you did it!” Once he was caught and I wanted to slap him.
She was Patton Oswalt’s wife at the time of her death. If I recall correctly.
She was his last victim
What?? Hardly!
Nope. She was an addict.
Oufff that’s a sad reality.
Wasn’t she married to an actor? I have her book but haven’t read it yet.
Yes, she was married to Patton Oswalt.
She totally had a part in solving it. I think she helped keep it higher on the priority list for people like Holes.
Absolutely not true
I think it’s pretty common knowledge that she was instrumental in his capture
She was not instrumental in his capture.
Exactly.
All I remember is that she was one less vote for Hillary. Patton was too busy shaming working class people into voting for Hillary so her could get tax cuts than caring about his wife overdosing because he wasn't a real partner to her.
Opposing real democracy, economic democracy was more important to that loser than preventing his wife drug suicide.