A Perfect Husband

Yikes, Ms Jones is a terrible writer. I'm astounded, because she's so successful. This lady must have made some serious connections; I've seen local rag writers who are head and shoulders above her in skill.

The story of Michael Peterson, the two women connected to him who died mysteriously in similar ways, and the secrets revealed in the investigation is an interesting one, but Ms Jones manages to squeeze the life out of it.

A) She head-hops from point-of-view to point-of-view, getting us into 'assumed' thoughts presented as fact (ie, how devastated Michael is about his wife's death), which are then often reversed as 'we' learn more about the person's true thoughts. This is an annoying and confusing way to present the story - whose point of view is it, if the thought/feeling isn't true? If it is an onlooker's inference, why not say so? - but it isn't helped by

B) Ms Jones's dislike of pronouns, even when logic and writing technique would seem to demand it. She repeats names or resorts to the very clunky method of using other ways to describe the same character in the same paragraph ('Wolgamott tried looking over at Michael but... the young man couldn't catch Peterson's eye')

C) Her insistence on overwriting the point she wants to make, saying the same thing in about ten different ways, as if she's scared the reader won't get it the first time.

She also makes some mistakes such as contradicting herself: 'In the back of her mind, Kathleen always knew that Margaret and Martha had never really accepted her' ., p 54, versus on page 86: 'Through her nurturing and fairness, she had won them over. Margaret and Martha loved her. They considered themselves hers.' Eh?

Worse, though, are the more fundamental crimes against language, eg the floating participle howler: 'Having been the only one out of all of them who had lived in that house with Michael and Kathleen, they were hopeful that Caitlin would have some answers'. This confuses subject and object and implies that 'they' (the ones who were hopeful) were the 'only one...who had lived in that house'. She should have started the sentence , 'Since she had been the only one.., for the grammar to be correct. I find it very odd that a trained, successful journalist should make such a rookie mistake.

But the most infuriating is the misuse of actual words. Jones writes that the jury is 'mystified' by Dr Henry Lee's 'grace...easy smile', when she clearly means 'mesmerized'. And then there's 'looking somewhat glib'. One cannot LOOK glib, and it's obvious from how the paragraph continues that she means 'smug'. And what kind of a journalist writes 'weeped' instead of 'wept'? I'm really hoping some of these are typos, but even so, someone needs to answer for such carelessness.

The nail in the coffin is that I find books that canonize the victim especially weak, manipulative and lacking in confidence. Faultless people do not exist, and sorry as I am for Kathleen and her family, she broke up a marriage, even though she herself knew the pain of being cheated on, and was a heavy drinker. Do authors like this really feel that unless a victim is some kind of plaster saint, they are not worth being written about?

A very poor effort.

I watched the Michael Peterson trial almost daily on Court TV. Aphrodite Jones fills in all the blanks that weren't covered in the trial. Her extensive research uncovers so many facts and details about this diabolical sociopath who killed TWO women exactly the same way. Jones was able to interview Kathleen Peterson's daughter, a fascinating inside look at what went on in Kathleen Peterson's life and how Michael Peterson almost got away with murdering his wife. I could not put this book down. Aphrodite Jones is a master storyteller. If you like true crime stories this is a must read!! Michael Peterson deserves to rot in jail.

This was an excellent read, I don't get these negative reviews on this, unless it's that murderer's friends and family trying to make him look good. It was an accurate account of a horrific scum bag.

Well written and very interesting Although I saw it on TV first, I liked the book better.

i saw this book advertised on TV, and thought it would be a better story than it was. But, it is a true story, and interesting.

I'm not sure how aphrodite jones got famous. She is not a very good writer, nor does she research thoroughly. This case has already been covered in a couple of books, by far better writers. Why Jones felt she had to cover a case that has already had a ton of coverage is beyond me, but if she had uncovered more evidence or facts of any sort, it may be warranted. She didn't. I'm not a big fan of any of Jones' books and this one is no better.

I would like to know if Michael Peterson and Tom Peterson, father of Hans Peterson, are related.

the book came on time like it said it was going to be-i read the book and passed it on-i recommend reading it

I've watched and read everything about this crime (yes, CRIME). This book is well-researched and written, including many facts left out of the Documentary.

I bought this because I watched The Staircase on Netflix and wanted a deeper view into the Michael Peterson case. I felt that while it was easy to read, the author left out some major details of the proceedings and was a bit one sided. Also, with some of the revelations that have come to light in the recent years, some of her info and biases don’t really work today.