Negative Positive
Title: In the end, though interesting, the book doesn't add anything to the literature about the case
Review: A strange book. Starting with an engaging premise - the author worked with the Chair of the Psychology Dept. at Sonoma State University to create a profile based on Zodiac's letters to various newspapers - Michael Kelleher proceeds to swamp his book with potboiler-level prose. The psychologist, David Van Nuys' analyses maintain a degree of detachment that I appreciate with this sort of book, but his conclusions don't aid in understanding of the case or its perpetrator. Most of Van Nuys' conclusions seem facile, on the order of "He must have had a terrible childhood. Perhaps he was abused. He had great rage toward women and fear of male authority figures". In the end, though interesting, the book doesn't add anything to the literature about the case.
Is the review positive or negative? 