Who Killed My Daughter?: The True Story of a Mother's Search for Her Daughter's Murderer

I read this book after listening to Lois Duncan speak earlier this month about her continuing search (15 years on) for the persons who murdered her daughter. This a compelling account of mother facing the unthinkable. I am somewhat astonished by the reviewer who critizes the book for not revealing the true killers. Readers hope for a clean ending will be disappointed; those requiring it will miss the point. Lois had always written of law enforcement as heroes, competent and tireless pursuers of justice. In reality, she got resistance, not assistance from the police. Lois loses not only a daughter, but also her trust for our justice system.

There are two reasons the book stands out and is worth reading. First, Lois writes well. Hers is not the only family to become victims of unsolved crimes, but she tells the story we don't often hear -- precisely because it does not have a neat or hopeful ending and reminds us that, in the end, we are all at the mercy of our fellow human beings. The second reason this book is different is because of the use of psychics. I am quite skeptical, generally, and wondered at first whether Lois and the psychics used each other: Lois to feel better; the psychics to self-promote. But the useful information that inexplicably emerges through the psychics is uncanny and too plentiful to be the product of sheer chance or coincidence. It really requires one to consider one's views on the nature of life and death.

If you want a thought provoking looking inside and mother's nightmare, then read this book. If you want a happy ending, then do not.

Who Killed My Daughter is a wake-up call on young murders, better yet on all murders. This was an excellent book that both made me cry but also stand back in total admiration for Lois Duncan. From beginning to end, this book held my full attention, and I was always anxiously awaiting the upcoming events. One reason I was awaiting upcoming events was that Lois Duncan showed how a person could survive the most tragic events in a life. After reading the tale of her struggle to find her daughter's murderer, I thought about the ways people deal with obstacles in life. The police insisted that her daughter, Kate's death was a random shooting, but Lois wouldn't take "random" for an answer. Not once did she ever throw her hands up in the air and give up. She persevered until she felt confidant with the efforts made to find a killer. When she couldn't get any response out of the police, she went to the FBI. When she couldn't get a response out of the FBI, she hired a private investigator. Whenever a lead came up and nobody else cared, when her private investigator failed, Lois took care of the lead herself by doing her own investigation. I give her a lot of credit for this determination because not only was she still grieving over her daughter's death, but she also was discovering bad secrets about her daughter while keeping after the case. Lois found out that her daughter was involved in insurance scams along with her boyfriend. Despite this bad news, Lois kept on working on the case. I don't know if I would be able to be this strong. I would want to take pity on myself and drown in my own misery. The only people she put her total trust in were herself and her family. She is a strong person, and someday if anything bad happens in my life, I hope I can be as strong as Lois was. Though I admire her strength, the authority figures made me angry. To see that everytime they received details about Kate's death, they never looked into them just made me sick. The police put this case on the back burner because they didn't want to fund all the investigations that would have to take place to solve the murder. Instead of the police looking into these situations, they wanted to declare this event a random shooting. This is an easy way out, but what about justice? I know if I were to be murdered, I would want my parents to know who killed me. In order for them to have peace back in their lives, they would have to have justice. This is what parents' need at a time when their lives are already in complete turmoil. I would want the police to work in total cooperation with them. I understand that investigations cost a lot of money, but more dead bodies from the murderers would mean a greater loss then the money used to catch the killers. Though this book made me angry at times, the reading widened my opinions on psychics. I was a skeptic of psychics before, but the way these people in the book knew information was amazing. Lois went to many physics throughout this story, and each one knew many details of the murder. They gave Lois a lot of information to fill in the gaps of Kate's murder. One told Lois where the accident took place, the motive, and the cars that were involved. This was astonishing because the police records matched their stories perfectly. After reading this novel, I believe that police should use psychics for information on these cases, especially since they knew the details before the police did. If the police in this book had given credit to them, then maybe they could have gathered more information on the case. Overall, this book was a fantastic tale of a family's struggle to find a murderer, an actual look into the justice system, and a breakthrough on psychic abilities. I've never read any of Lois' other books, but after reading this one, I might read another. I'm just very surprised that she can still write murder mysteries after this tragic event happened to her.

First of all, let me start off by saying that I forced myself to finish this book. Lois Duncan is an excellent young adult novelist, but this try at non-fiction was in my opinion horrible. I'll give you a summary of the book first:
The book opens up with the last night that Lois Duncan saw and spoke to her daughter, Kaitlyn Arquette. Kait was planning on going over to her friend Monica's house to hang out and eat dinner, and possibly stay over. Lois had a feeling that something was going to go wrong, and her instincts proved right. While she was driving home, at approximately one o' clock in the morning, a car pulled up to her and the driver shot her in the head two times. Kait was immedietly rushed to the hospital, where her parents were immediately notified. Kait didn't die right away- she was seriously injured, and the doctors said it would take a miracle for her to survive. Sadly, Kait passed away in July 1989. Determined to find out who killed her daughter, (hence the title) Lois Duncan sets out on a search to find Kait's killer. But the search wasn't simple at all- in fact, Lois and her family were even recieving death threats if they continued their search. Her search led her into Kait's shocking secret life and into suspecting people not possible. Lois Duncan's determination to find her daughter made this the high point of this book.
Now let me say why I didn't like the book. First of all, Lois Duncan left the story like that without saying who Kait's killer REALLY was. I think it's kind of pointless to write a book describing your search for your child's killer, and then you leave the story wihtout even saying who did it. Maybe Duncan should have waited to find the killer BEFORE she wrote the story. At press time for the book, she still hadn't found Kait's killer. The second reason that I didn't like this book was because of all of those horrible phsychic readings- there are about twelve really boring long ones in this book. I don't know about you, but I found them to be boring and extremely hard to understand. They were irrevelent to the story and just made it more confusing. They were basically what ruined my enjoyment of this book. Last, I didn't like the story because it rarely had any excitement in it- it just dragged on and on, over 350 pages of nonsense. If you're bored and looking for a book to read to make you even more bored, maybe this book would be a good choice.

This book started off really good. In fact, I couldn't put it down. But then all the psychic readings stuff....snoresville. All of that could've been left out. Also I was very frustrated that this book ended with no answers. I felt like there was no closure. All in all, it was an ok read, but I skipped a LOT of stuff towards the end.

I am in shock that 20 years later this case is still unsolved. It seems the police ignored or mishandled mountains of evidence for callous reasons. It is scary to think about what is going on behind the scenes in this world we live in. My heart goes out to the author-what a horrible thing to have to live with. I wonder what the unsavory characters in this book are up to now and what crimes they are responsible for. If you think to much about it you wouldn't even want to leave your house.

I enjoyed and was spooked by the sections on the psychics. It was eerie how accurate some of the information was, and it really cannot be explained.

I hope that the killer is revealed so this mother can have have some much deserved closure in her lifetime. God bless her.

I feel bad for the mother and the story itself is very interesting, but its dependence on ham-handed psychic readings was a pretty big turn off. I admire the mother's chutzpah but her investigative techniques are far cry from those displayed in Graysmith's far superior Zodiac.

This book is about what hell is. To have a person you love murdered and than a police bureau that wants nothing but close it up, cheap and easy. Some of the lesser reviews have troubles w/ this story because A) Lois uses psychics and quotes the bible so thus it should not be read. Or B) because THERE IS NO ANSWER. My answer to them is really? She found a way for the 'paranormal' and her christain believes intact (whats wrong w/ assimilation of 2 ideas?) and yes, to this day Dec 2010 there is NO conviction. But thats the real world. Thats what Lois's hell is.

This is a last ditch effort to bring a witness or someone who has information to come forward, a cry. I would highly reccomend this book.

It was a very compelling and well-written story, but I was disturbed by her dipiction of the Albuquerque PD and of the detective assigned to the case (incompetent, uncaring, secretive). Note he is the only character referred to by last name only, and a clear indication to me that she has a lot of emnity towards him. I thought it was unfair, at least as it was outlined in the book, and hardly objective, considering her involvement. I will submit:

1. It is apparent to me that this detective made a deliberate choice to simplify the motive in order to covict the triggerman. No detective will bring a felony case unless he is confident of a conviction because no prosecutor will let him. Prosecutors are reelected based on their conviction record, and their assistant prosecutors who try the actual cases know they had better win if they want to keep their jobs. Hence the popularity of plea bargaining. Two misdemeanor convictions, say a battery and a theft, are much better for them than bringing a difficult robbery case they may lose. They charge offenders with the cases they can win. Based on the information provided in her book, these prosecutors would be lucky if they got an indictment for conspiracy much less a conviction.

2. The prosecutors and the detectives in big cities are swamped. Not just busy, swamped. They do not have the luxury of thinking about one case non-stop twenty-four hours a day. And the cases never stop coming. The other detectives in the department can't keep up with their own workload, so how are they going to have intimate knowledge of his case? I think it is unlikely that they would. And again, one more reason for the popularity of plea bargaining.

3. The detective is going to make the case he has. He had the right bad guys, good witnesses, and physical evidence. That's his case, and the one he can win. Trying to prove a conspiracy is very complicated, difficult to sell, and requires that a lot of things go right (especially if the shooters are more afraid of the other conspirators than they are of jail). Without solid evidence, it is a waste of time and jepordizes the case he does have. I think he wanted to keep it simple, convict some of the bad guys, keep the case open, and hope for a break. The detective's supervisor is not going to let him fly to another state without some very compelling evidence -- fingerprint? eyewitness? cancelled check? especially if it doesn't help his case. He's not pursuing a conspiracy.

4. Why does the author think the detective is going to share everything he does with her? Why would he explain his professional decisions to amateurs anyway? It's not a collaboration, and she's not the victim. I am guessing he evaluated the things she sent him, decided if it would help him, and then tried to be polite to her. It doesn't make him incompetent because he doesn't follow her advice, or uncaring because he doesn't think he can get the evidence to prove her theories. There are quite a few murderers in New Mexico prisons, she has no expertise, and so she ought to let them do their jobs.

5. What happens if your witness to a robbery is considered to be unreliable by the average citizen, say a prostitute? Juries do not like prostitutes, so the prosecutor, 99 x of 100, will not approve a felony charge, so the beat cops or the detective (if it gets that far) charge the guy with a theft and a battery (misdemeanors) because the robber will gladly take it. If juries don't like hobos and prostitutes, what do you think they think of psychics? They have less than zero credibility. This detective cannot use any of it. In fact, it would have made him look stupid and incompetent if he had tried. For him, it is a useless waste of time.

6. Why would the FBI respond to the author's investigation? It's not their case, APD didn't ask for their help, and they are not going to get involved uninvited. There is some resentment between the feds and local law enforcement, that's true, but it has nothing to do with statistics, at least not in this case. APD got their "statistic" when they made their arrests; conviction statistics are the prosecutors concern, not the police. And what are they going to do anyway? They don't know anything about homicide; theyr'e lawyers and accountants. An NYPD homicide detective handles more violent crime on a busy summer weekend than any of one of them have in their entire careers. In addition, the FBI does not need APD's permission to get involved if they think they have jurisdiction. They probably thought the conspiracy case was a loser. And finally, the prosecutor can amend the charges. She probably thought it was a loser too.

7. Every cop everywhere lets guilty people off because they can't prove they did the crime . It is a fact of life. Because you realize you can't prove it, and decide to focus your investigation on the things that you can, doesn't necessarily make you lazy and indifferent. If you cannot convict the shooter, how are you going to convict co-conspirators?

8. For a work of non-fiction, her research is one-sided and she has an obvious ax to grind. There is not one opinion from a law enforcement profesional. She gets her facts from her reporter-lawyer-psychic friends, and has used that information for the past two decades disparaging the detective's investigation and professional reputation. How about an opinion from a credible source, say a detective or a prosecutor? All she has to do is hire a private investigator that was once a detective, ask them to look at the case file, and offer an opinion. Moreover, she only tells her side of the story. It's been a long time. Why don't the law enforcement people involved have a chance to tell their side of it, or at least some indication that she offered them the oportunity to do so?

I could keep going, but I think I have made my point. I admire her devotion, it's an interesting story, and I think her theory is solid, but she is obviously not a homicide investigator. I would have given her work more credence if she had found one that agreed with her. As it stands, I found it to be a one-sided, distorted version of the historical record.

It was a very compelling and well-written story, but I was disturbed by her dipiction of the Albuquerque PD and of the detective assigned to the case (incompetent, uncaring, secretive). Note he is the only character referred to by last name only, and a clear indication to me that she has a lot of emnity towards him. I thought it was unfair, at least as it was outlined in the book, and hardly objective, considering her involvement. I will submit:

1. It is apparent to me that this detective made a deliberate choice to simplify the motive in order to covict the triggerman. No detective will bring a felony case unless he is confident of a conviction because no prosecutor will let him. Prosecutors are reelected based on their conviction record, and their assistant prosecutors who try the actual cases know they had better win if they want to keep their jobs. Hence the popularity of plea bargaining. Two misdemeanor convictions, say a battery and a theft, are much better for them than bringing a difficult robbery case they may lose. They charge offenders with the cases they can win. Based on the information provided in her book, these prosecutors would be lucky if they got an indictment for conspiracy much less a conviction.

2. The prosecutors and the detectives in big cities are swamped. Not just busy, swamped. They do not have the luxury of thinking about one case non-stop twenty-four hours a day. And the cases never stop coming. The other detectives in the department can't keep up with their own workload, so how are they going to have intimate knowledge of his case? I think it is unlikely that they would. And again, one more reason for the popularity of plea bargaining.

3. The detective is going to make the case he has. He had the right bad guys, good witnesses, and physical evidence. That's his case, and the one he can win. Trying to prove a conspiracy is very complicated, difficult to sell, and requires that a lot of things go right (especially if the shooters are more afraid of the other conspirators than they are of jail). Without solid evidence, it is a waste of time and jepordizes the case he does have. I think he wanted to keep it simple, convict some of the bad guys, keep the case open, and hope for a break. The detective's supervisor is not going to let him fly to another state without some very compelling evidence -- fingerprint? eyewitness? cancelled check? especially if it doesn't help his case. He's not pursuing a conspiracy.

4. Why does the author think the detective is going to share everything he does with her? Why would he explain his professional decisions to amateurs anyway? It's not a collaboration, and she's not the victim. I am guessing he evaluated the things she sent him, decided if it would help him, and then tried to be polite to her. It doesn't make him incompetent because he doesn't follow her advice, or uncaring because he doesn't think he can get the evidence to prove her theories. There are quite a few murderers in New Mexico prisons, she has no expertise, and so she ought to let them do their jobs.

5. What happens if your witness to a robbery is considered to be unreliable by the average citizen, say a prostitute? Juries do not like prostitutes, so the prosecutor, 99 x of 100, will not approve a felony charge, so the beat cops or the detective (if it gets that far) charge the guy with a theft and a battery (misdemeanors) because the robber will gladly take it. If juries don't like hobos and prostitutes, what do you think they think of psychics? They have less than zero credibility. This detective cannot use any of it. In fact, it would have made him look stupid and incompetent if he had tried. For him, it is a useless waste of time.

6. Why would the FBI respond to the author's investigation? It's not their case, APD didn't ask for their help, and they are not going to get involved uninvited. There is some resentment between the feds and local law enforcement, that's true, but it has nothing to do with statistics, at least not in this case. APD got their "statistic" when they made their arrests; conviction statistics are the prosecutors concern, not the police. And what are they going to do anyway? They don't know anything about homicide; theyr'e lawyers and accountants. An NYPD homicide detective handles more violent crime on a busy summer weekend than any of one of them have in their entire careers. In addition, the FBI does not need APD's permission to get involved if they think they have jurisdiction. They probably thought the conspiracy case was a loser. And finally, the prosecutor can amend the charges. She probably thought it was a loser too.

7. Every cop everywhere lets guilty people off because they can't prove they did the crime . It is a fact of life. Because you realize you can't prove it, and decide to focus your investigation on the things that you can, doesn't necessarily make you lazy and indifferent. If you cannot convict the shooter, how are you going to convict co-conspirators?

8. For a work of non-fiction, her research is one-sided and she has an obvious ax to grind. There is not one opinion from a law enforcement profesional. She gets her facts from her reporter-lawyer-psychic friends, and has used that information for the past two decades disparaging the detective's investigation and professional reputation. How about an opinion from a credible source, say a detective or a prosecutor? All she has to do is hire a private investigator that was once a detective, ask them to look at the case file, and offer an opinion. Moreover, she only tells her side of the story. It's been a long time. Why don't the law enforcement people involved have a chance to tell their side of it, or at least some indication that she offered them the oportunity to do so?

I could keep going, but I think I have made my point. I admire her devotion, it's an interesting story, and I think her theory is solid, but she is obviously not a homicide investigator. I would have given her work more credence if she had found one that agreed with her. As it stands, I found it to be a one-sided, distorted version of the historical record.

Lois's story is harrowing to read. Her determination to find who killed her daughter and why, is her reason for writing this book. After her daughter is killed, Lois questions why? She then digs deeper and finds that her daughter was perhaps onto something very dangerous that made somebody think that Kait might go to the authorities. Lois wants you to see if you can answer "Who Killed my Daughter" and help bring justce to her. This is definetly a book you do not want to put down.