This Book Will Bury Me and The Idaho Murders

Summary

Books With Your Besties: Episode Summary

Episode Title: This Book Will Bury Me and The Idaho Murders
Release Date: May 9, 2025
Hosts: Emily and Ashley

---

Introduction

In this episode of Books With Your Besties, hosts Emily and Ashley delve into a detailed discussion of Ashley Winstead's book, "Will Bury Me", drawing parallels to the real-life Idaho murders. The conversation navigates through personal experiences, the intricacies of web sleuthing, and the controversies surrounding the book’s portrayal of true crime elements.

---

Initial Impressions of "Will Bury Me"

Ashley Winstead's Perspective:
Ashley begins by introducing the book, emphasizing that it contains spoilers and encourages listeners to read it beforehand. The book intertwines themes of grief and true crime, reflecting Ashley Winstead's personal journey following her father's death.

Emily's Rating:
Emily shares her lukewarm rating of the book, stating, “I enjoyed it. I would give it maybe a four or a three and a half” (00:44). She appreciated the narrative but found certain aspects, particularly the heavy focus on grief, challenging.

Ashley’s Reflection:
Ashley concurs, noting, “I think the further away I get from reading it, the more I think about the parts of it that I really did enjoy” (00:56). She connects deeply with the book’s portrayal of losing a parent under similar circumstances to her own.

---

Personal Connections and Processing Grief

Shared Grief Experiences:
Both hosts relate to the book’s depiction of grief, acknowledging the dual emotions of connection and devastation (01:16). Ashley explains how her grief led her to become obsessed with true crime, seeking solace and distraction.

Emily’s Critique on Grief Portrayal:
Emily criticizes the book’s intense focus on grief, describing it as “grief porn” (02:38), suggesting that the book leaned heavily into eliciting strong emotional responses without overarching intent or purpose.

---

The Web Sleuthing Community

Definition and Influence:
Ashley introduces the concept of web sleuthing, highlighting the community's role in solving crimes through online collaboration (16:44). They discuss the demographic makeup of web sleuths, noting that “60% of active members on platforms like websleuth and Reddit are women” (16:44).

Positive Impacts:
The hosts acknowledge successful cases influenced by web sleuths, such as the findings in "Don't F with Cats" and the Gabby Petito case, where online communities contributed valuable information (16:44; 17:55).

Negative Impacts:
Conversely, Emily expresses frustration with the web sleuth community’s tendency to jump to conclusions and blame victims, particularly in recent cases like the Idaho murders. She criticizes the perpetuation of harmful rumors and the lack of empathy towards victims (07:31; 08:46).

---

Controversies and Criticisms of the Book

Use of Real-Life Cases:
A significant portion of the discussion centers on the book’s controversial use of real true crime cases as inspiration, specifically the Idaho murders. Emily points out deviations from actual events, such as altering the number of victims and introducing fictional elements (06:05; 07:02).

Ethical Concerns:
Emily voices concerns over the sensitivity of using ongoing or recently resolved cases, arguing that it can retraumatize those affected and exploit real tragedies for fictional narratives (07:31; 08:46).

Author’s Intent:
Ashley highlights that the author, Ashley Winstead, intended the book as a form of autofuiction to process her grief and obsession with true crime, suggesting that understanding this context might alter readers' perceptions (27:05; 27:44).

---

Portrayal of Characters and Themes of Misogyny

Character Development:
The hosts critique the book’s characterization, particularly the portrayal of female characters. Emily finds the depiction of a 19-year-old girl as incapable of committing murder offensive and indicative of underlying misogynistic tones (14:15; 26:33).

Gender Bias:
Ashley adds that the book exhibits subtle misogyny by dismissing the potential of female perpetrators, reinforcing harmful stereotypes about women’s capabilities (14:15; 14:34).

Author’s Commentary:
Emily challenges the author's assertion that women might be underrepresented as serial killers, providing biological and sociocultural counterarguments about aggression and nurturing behaviors (24:17; 25:54).

---

Real-Life Cases and Web Sleuths’ Impact

Success Stories:
Emily and Ashley recount cases where web sleuths made significant contributions, such as identifying the “Tent Girl” decades after her murder and assisting in locating Gabby Petito’s van (17:06; 17:55).

Limitations and Risks:
Despite acknowledging successes, they caution against the pitfalls of web sleuthing, including the spread of misinformation and the potential for unsourced claims to damage reputations and hinder investigations (19:07; 21:20).

Psychological Insights:
Emily explains the concept of “Theory of Mind” to critique how web sleuths often fail to understand the complexities of victims’ and perpetrators’ behaviors, leading to misguided judgments (09:31; 10:05).

---

Conclusion and Final Thoughts

Mixed Emotions:
While Emily and Ashley express appreciation for certain aspects of "Will Bury Me," such as character depth and community portrayal, they remain critical of its handling of true crime sensitivities and gender biases (26:00; 27:05).

Final Ratings:
The hosts conclude that "Will Bury Me" is a “middle-of-the-road” read for them—enjoyable yet flawed. They recommend readers understand the book’s premise beforehand to mitigate potential emotional impacts (29:38; 29:48).

Listener Engagement:
Emily humorously advises listeners to share their opinions carefully, emphasizing respectful discourse, while Ashley promotes upcoming content related to the Delphi murders, encouraging engagement through Patreon (31:04; 31:13).

Closing Remarks:
The episode wraps up with a reminder for listeners to support the podcast on Patreon and a cheerful sign-off, despite the complex and critical nature of their discussion (31:29; 31:33).

---

Notable Quotes

• Ashley: “I became obsessed with the Idaho murders, Gabby Petito and one other case, but there was a lot of contra controversy around using those.” (07:02)

• Emily: “It almost felt like grief porn.” (02:38)

• Emily: “This is the same fricking thing to me. Develop your theory of mind all the way.” (09:31)

• Ashley: “I completely agree. And that's the. So when I first got to that part of the book, I.” (08:46)

• Emily: “You have no idea until you are there and God forbid you are there.” (10:05)

---

Timestamp Reference

• 00:44 - Emily rates the book
• 00:56 - Ashley's connection to the book
• 01:16 - Discussion on grief
• 02:38 - Emily's critique on grief portrayal
• 06:05 - Use of real-life cases
• 07:02 - Controversy around true crime inspiration
• 07:31 - Ethical concerns of using recent cases
• 08:46 - Critique on web sleuth community
• 09:31 - Theory of Mind explanation
• 10:05 - Personal anecdotes from hosts
• 14:15 - Misogyny in character portrayal
• 16:44 - Demographics of web sleuths
• 17:06 - Success stories of web sleuthing
• 17:55 - Gabby Petito case involvement
• 19:07 - Discussion on misinformation
• 21:20 - Limitations of web sleuth efforts
• 24:17 - Debating female serial killers
• 25:54 - Biological arguments against female serial killers
• 26:00 - Final thoughts on the book
• 27:05 - Author’s intent and perspective
• 29:38 - Recommendation for readers
• 29:48 - Listener advice
• 31:04 - Patreon promotion
• 31:13 - Final sign-off

---

Note: This summary captures the essence of the episode, highlighting key discussions, insights, and critical viewpoints expressed by Emily and Ashley. For a deeper understanding, listening to the full episode is recommended.

Transcript

[Ashley]

Foreign.

[Emily]

Hi, I'm Emily.

[Ashley]

I'm Ashley.

[Emily]

And this is Books with your besties.

[Ashley]

Hey, besties. Before you jump in, remember, we have a few new membership options, and one includes getting the hardback book of the month. So make sure you're getting the most out of your membership. Thank you so much for your support. We cannot wait to hear your thoughts on this book, Will Bury Me by Ashley Winstead. Um, hi, besties. We are back this week, and we are here to talk about this book, Will Bury Me by Ashley Winstead. And it will be full of spoilers. So if you haven't read it, pause. Now go read it with your ears or your eyes and then come back. So, em, kick us off. What did you think of the book?

[Emily]

I enjoyed it. I would give it maybe a four or a three and a half. Like, I liked it. I didn't love it. It's not the top of my list, but I really did enjoy the ride. What about you?

[Ashley]

I agree with you. I think the further away I get from reading it, the more I think about the parts of it that I really did enjoy. As we talked about, it opens and she loses her dad. And it was in kind of a similar way that I lost my dad. So right out of the gates, I was like, oh, I'm either gonna feel very connected to this book or it's gonna be very upsetting.

[Emily]

Which was it?

[Ashley]

It was a little. It was a little of both because our dads had similar circumstances where it wasn't a complete shock or surprise, but it was devastating nonetheless. Right. And it was really interesting to listen to Ashley be interviewed about her grief and how it was her grief that had her turn to true crime. She's like, the two were married. Like, losing my dad. I then became obsessed with true crime because I think you're looking for something to fill that void.

[Emily]

Interesting. Yeah. As someone who's not going through grief, I definitely appreciate the parallel with, with your dad, but I also found it to be such a hefty part of the book that, that it made it a difficult read a little bit. I think that's actually one of the parts I didn't love as much, so I think it's amazing for her she was able to process it in this way. It almost, at one point, I know I, I, I told you this, but I've heard something described this way before, and I think it's just a good description. It almost felt like, as a reader, like, it was like grief porn. Like, leaning into here is a bunch of grief for you to just feel. Really try to make you feel really what I'm feeling, or feel really sad, but not for intent or purpose necessarily. I do think, though, she wrapped it up really well at the end.

[Ashley]

I agree with that. And I was actually pretty worried about that as the book was unfolding, because it almost felt like you were going through this really kind of raw journey with her of figuring out who her dad was before he passed because she was learning these things about him she didn't know, and she was feeling, I don't know, partially complicit in, like, he didn't take care of himself. Why didn't we force him to take better care of himself? And then the whole true. The whole true crime part of the story. And I thought, how are these ever going to weave together? Or is this truly going to be a story about her both having this intense grief and becoming a true crime sleuth?

[Emily]

Yeah, I mean, it. It just was probably a realistic book in that way.

[Ashley]

It's.

[Emily]

It just added such a layer that's unique for a thriller, I think that maybe I wasn't expecting, but it. It was overall, I mean, I think in the end, the way that she was able to just find a little bit of acceptance because the thing that threw me throughout was her thinking there was something more, a secret or something about her dad that she didn't know. And I. That's what I think I too, was. This becomes that it's somehow part of.

[Ashley]

A true crime case.

[Emily]

I'm gonna lose it. But I'm so. So I'm glad it didn't go that route.

[Ashley]

I had that same thought. I'm like, if this becomes that her dad was a serial killer, I'm like, I can't get down with those. I couldn't. I could not get down with that kind of a book. But I did like the. So Jane, the main character, was very, like, just kind of blunt in who she was. And I appreciated that. That she was just like, hey, you guys. That, like, this is went to shit. Pardon my language. And she could just identify, like, my dad died. I completely unraveled. And here's the story behind that. And there were some. Some comic reliefs. Like, she did kind of have a sense of humor throughout the book. And she would, you know, just like, put her dad's ashes by her and talk to them. Like, I don't know what I'm supposed to do with those. And that felt very real. But I did like that her character was very. Just blunt about who. Who she was.

[Emily]

Yeah, I Do think it was good for explaining how deep she got into that community so quickly. I mean, dropping out of school, which is totally understandable in that scenario, and needing that time to have a distraction where you can be someone else. So I thought that was good and.

[Ashley]

I did think that it was an authentic portrayal as well. Just I'll keep coming back to this, but from personal experience of how she and her mom both came together but also pulled apart during this time that she was kind of like, oh, my mom is so hyper focused on these things. I just cannot with her and her mom being so hyper focused on Jane taking care of herself. And that also was very well written. But two things we have to talk about that were huge in this book were one, just the web sleuthing community at large. We can have a whole conversation about that. And then two, this book is a little bit controversial. It's a little bit controversial because she uses real true crime cases as her inspiration. And she talked about that in her interview on Authors on the Air. She said, I became obsessed with the Idaho murders, Gabby Petito and one other case, but there was a lot of contra controversy around using those. What did you think when you were reading the book and all of a sudden you realized, oh, this is about the Idaho murders?

[Emily]

I didn't, I didn't mind. You know, she changed a few facts of the case a little bit in the book. Like it was three girls were killed. There were, you know, then she also made it that there was another murder at another house of other girls. So I mean she definitely deviated from the case of it. Here's the thing is a lot of books use thriller books use very similar to real life cases or are inspired by those. And we've talked about them on this podcast over and over because every time we talk about a book we're like, this brings up the case of Daniel Marsh or J.C. lee Dugard. And so it feels a little bit like I'm. I think it was maybe controversial to people in that they're still really feeling impacted by those cases too, but they need to step back from that and recognize this is what happens in books. I. I don't know. I don't know if just as a reader I would see that as like a major overstep any more than a lot of other thrillers.

[Ashley]

I completely agree. And that's the. So when I first got to that part of the book, I. I had to remind myself, this book isn't about the Idaho murders. This book is about the web sleuths. So there's no harm in using being inspired by a case that happened. But I, I think exactly what you just said hit the nail on the head. It is that it was so recent. So this isn't based on a true crime case that happened decades ago. It wasn't. It was inspired by a true crime case that hasn't even gone to trial.

[Emily]

I think it could have actually provided a service. I don't know that the book did this, but I actually have beef about the Idaho murders that myself separate from this book and it came up in this book and that is the quote unquote websleuth community aka Instagram, TikTok. Anyone on social media anywhere who is Reddit, whatever, who are talking about the behavior of the roommates and what they would have done in this situation. We've talked about this before. I think that's the dumbest thing you can think is that you would know what you would do as a 20 year old college student or 19 year old college student who's drunk at night living in a party house in Idaho when you're everybody in your house is slaughtered that you think you know, oh, I know how I would behave in that situation is absolutely ridiculous and it's so insensitive and it's so offensive to try to pin blame on people as laypeople and, and say anything other than those poor surviving roommates. And I think that there's a hu service that's been done to crime cases about things like that. And I do think Ashley Winstead had an opportunity in this book to speak to that, to what was problematic about that. But I felt like the book reiterated those ideas.

[Ashley]

Agree? Absolutely. When we talked about this at length. Absolutely agree with that. I think it missed the mark there. And just like you're saying, I think the audacity of anybody to think what they would do in that situation is you have no idea. You have no idea until you are there and God forbid you are there.

[Emily]

And I'm sorry, but I don't, when I was in college, I don't think I would think that my roommates were being killed. I would think that my roommates were having a party or they invited over some sketchy people or what if one of them got sexually assaulted, you know, or something. Like I would be maybe scared like they were, but also like what am I going to do? I'm a 19 year old and I'm a girl and I'm drunk and I'm going to go to sleep and I'm going to in the Morning. Hopefully we'll work this out.

[Ashley]

I felt like looking back on our time. I mean, the listeners know we went to college together. When we got older, people had houses, right. So you would go to these house parties. And it wasn't like a three bedroom, three people live here house. It was like a three bedroom. There are 12 people that live here. Because that's just what you do when you're in college. I can tell. Here I am saying I can tell you, but from experience, if I'm at a party like that and someone comes walking by like that and I don't know who it is, my mind is not going straight towards this is a murderer. I'm like, that's weird. Don't know who that is. I'm gonna. I'm gonna go back to bed now.

[Emily]

Yeah, I mean, I think both of us were kind of party partyers in college. Don't tell anyone. But we also did really well.

[Ashley]

Okay. But we.

[Emily]

So we had our party days too. So I think the other thing is that just the pranks and the activities that you are around and that happen, all these events that happen. And especially with things like fraternities and sororities, there's all kinds of dress up nights and crazy things like that. And I remember actually one summer living with two girls and Gretchen and Lizzie in that house that's haunted, by the way.

[Ashley]

And you should. Okay, keep going.

[Emily]

Tell that story one day.

[Ashley]

Yes.

[Emily]

Okay. Daniel. And somebody else, I forget who, came into our house with fully black with masks on and pranked us to scare us. So we thought that someone had broken into the house. And it was a spot terrifying moment. And then they were like. Right. But I mean, I just think it's very bizarre that your mind would go immediately to that. They have all the information we have. It's also there's something called. I'm just gonna just like pin this on anyone who's been involved in that right now. Anyone who's been involved on social media and saying Dylan and Bethany and the Idaho murders were they didn't do the right thing. How could they not do that? I would have done this. Right. Irresponsible of the of you to say that. Number one, there's something called theory of mind. And you get this around four or five years old, hopefully. And if you don't have it yet, you might consider this theory of mind is when you can finally recognize that other people have different minds than you. The way it's identified through research is basically that someone will take like a bag of M&Ms, for example. And they'll. They'll put pencils. This is like a true study, right? They'll put pencils inside the bag of M&M's. So that. And they show it to a little kid and they say, look, there's no. There's no. There's pencils in there and no M&Ms. And then they close it up and make it look like a bag of M&Ms. And they say, mommy's gonna come in. What do you think mommy's gonna think is in this bag? And little kids under this at like three or four will say pencils. Cause they don't. They don't understand yet that mommy doesn't have the same information or mind that they do. So we gain this skill later that mommy's going to think it's eminence because she doesn't know it's pencils. Okay? So like four or five. This is the same fricking thing to me. Develop your theory of mind all the way. They don't know their roommates have been slaughtered. You know that their roommates have been slaughtered. You are gauging your assessment of their behavior that night on your information that they've been slaughtered. But in their minds, no one's been killed. Yeah. So that really bothers me the way we have, like, somehow lost maybe some of our frontal lobe development to be able to identify that we don't know what they were thinking in that moment. The other thing is, is we as the web sleuth community in this case, I think made so many assumptions and stories, and I get it, it's upsetting. And you want to do this whole protection of this could never happen to me. So if I blame other people for their behavior and them doing it wrong, then it wouldn't happen to me. Right. Then I could never be in that same position because I would do it right. So there's like this, you know, you want to have this just world concept or whatever. We didn't even have all the information. So now more information has come out in the last month where we're seeing more of Bethany and Dylan's texts, and everyone's like, oh, how awful. And everybody blamed them. Yes, you. You blamed them. You were on here blaming them, and now you feel sorry for doing that, but it's not. Think about how their families felt or they felt while that was happening. So anyway, that's. That's my rant on why this case has bothered me with the web sleuthing community. So it was an interesting read. I was frustrated that she perpetuated that, that idea that the roommates didn't do it. Right. And in fact in the book the web sleuths said something like, well, she was dumb about the roommate that survived. Oh well, she's like a 19 year old girl. How smart do you think she could be? She couldn't have done it. Like she's too stupid because she's a 19 year old college woman. I thought that was really offensive.

[Ashley]

I think there we can come back to that. I think there was more than one instance in the book where it felt a little misogyny to me. I know that's not a word, but just writing off that it could even be a woman, end of story. Like no, of course it wouldn't be a woman. Which we could get into. Women being serial killers. All of the things we do have.

[Emily]

To get into that.

[Ashley]

We do have to get into that. But one thing I want to say is I feel like oftentimes too some of the same people who say don't blame the victim are the people who then come after like the Dylan's and it's like, no, these girls are also victims. Like once they realized what was happening around them and their response to it or whatever happened, these, these are victims. There's nothing we should be saying to or about them other than that must have been an absolutely terrifying experience. And I felt like you were saying that was a missed opportunity in the book that she could have really highlighted. A, leave these people alone. B if you're going to say anything, just say I'm so sorry that you.

[Emily]

Had to go through that.

[Ashley]

End of story. Speaking of websleuth, though, I did look up because I was just interested because in. In this book will bury me. There are a few women and a few men who are part of this web sleuth community. The web sleuths are Lord Goku Brian Sleuth Mistress George Lightly and Citizen Knight Peter. So both men and women. And I thought, but I wonder who most web sleuths are like, who gets into this? So I just did a little digging and there was an article on the Belmont Agency which was a case study and it said that 60% of active members on platforms like websleuth and Reddit are women. 40% are men and they are usually women who are 25 to 65 years old. Many have a college education. And it was saying the drivers of this are that women just have more empathy and a desire for justice to help victims and their families. And I found this fascinating. But the cognitive Engagement piece. So that for some women, it is less victim driven or, or empathetic, but it's more about putting the pieces of the puzzle together. I'm sure you know all of this already. And then of course, the community piece. Right. Like you become a part of this community and that could, could fill a void that you have in that middle age of life that it can be hard to find friends. Which I did think she did a good job in the book showing that when you become a part of this web sleuthing group, you know, you could tell Jane instantly felt needed, she felt seen, and she felt really excited to be a part of this.

[Emily]

So just thinking about these cases, I think there's two things, two cases that really came to mind for us when thinking about where websleuth did help solve crimes. And one of them was Don't F with Cats on Netflix. And we basically can't tell you anything about it. You have to just go watch it. Don't F with Cats. It's really good.

[Ashley]

You told me to watch it and I, I couldn't stop. Like, I. There was nothing I could do in my life until I finished it.

[Emily]

Trigger warning, animal abuse. But it is really a story about websleuths working a case. So that was neat. And then I do know that in the Gabby Petito case, not a significant amount of the case was. Was solved or resolved by websleuth. But when information was put out there about the case, some people who had a camera up, put up like a TikTok and reel of driving where they see saw bra, Brian Laundrie's van. And Gabby Petito was missing at the time. And they actually did track down and find the van, right?

[Ashley]

Yeah. In the documentary, the woman's like, I realized through seeing that I had seen his van and even given him. There's someone who even gave him a ride. And until she saw that video, didn't realize, oh my God, he was in my car. Yeah, there. There was a case in that was solved in 1998. A woman was murdered in 1968. She was called Tent Girl. But Barbara Hackman Taylor, her body was wrapped in canvas, found in Kentucky, nicknamed Tent Girl. For decades, nobody could find her. But in the 90s, so really before, you know, Reddit or some of these forums, Todd Matthews, who is a factory worker and amateur sleuth, used the Internet and he searched for missing persons and searched for a missing woman, found her, connected the details online and tracked down her family. So that's like an original case of someone who just Took interest and told the police, like hey, I'm pretty sure I've connected these dots and, and this is who tent girl is. Sometimes people. Maybe not, but I'm sure you've seen it. Em, like people can be really harsh online talking about people who want to quote unquote, solve crimes. But I think we have to give credit where credit's due.

[Emily]

I just think, I think that it's a double edged sword. Right. So people may actually have helpful information but that can also perpetuate some really harmful rumors. Absolutely. So it could be a little of both. I know when we were doing research for the Kyron Harman case, we both got into a whole lot of like Reddit threads. There's literally a web sleuth website that I looked at of things people were saying. The problem is so much of the information that comes through on those you can't actually verify or vet or find. So you, you can't tell if this is someone who actually has info or someone who just got online and wants to be like, I'm going to say this, that I know this. So it's a little bit hard in those communities to see what's what. I think with the advancement of video and social media and all of that kind of thing, of course, of course we should all be trying and vigilant and helping and I don't think there's harm in wanting to be helpful. I think there's harm in jumping to conclusions and pointing fingers where they shouldn't be. Often I think assuming that we have all of the facts or information in a case, when of course we know that a massive, very important tactic by homicide detectives or detective detectives for any case, like missing persons cases or anything, is to withhold a lot of like detail information so that the perpetrator can verify the truth of whether or not the case happened. For example, in the JonBenet Ramsey case, they have stuff that's never been released to the public. We do not know some of the evidence and we will never know that evidence unless they catch the perpetrator. Because when that mark, whatever the weirdo is who came forward and said he killed JonBenet because he wanted attention, they questioned him a long time for like two days and they were like, he's not the guy because he couldn't come up with the details that would be significant in the case. We talked about this in the Patreon case that we covered of Abby Williams and Libby German who were killed in Deli, Indiana, that police did not release the manner of their Death. Un. Truly, it was not out there until they had a perpetrator at trial.

[Ashley]

Yeah. I think because if you release those details, then anybody can come forward and be like, well, I would love notoriety for this because people are wackadoos like this. This is how it happened. I mean, even in the Kyron Horman case. Right. M. Desiree went to True Crime Northwest and told some things that if we hadn't watched her full speech, they were things I had never heard, but they also can't be proven because that's probably information they're holding close to the chest until they figure out what. What happened to him because he's still missing.

[Emily]

Well, and she and Cain both won't speak on the emails and the content of the emails that Terry has. They are not allowed to speak on that.

[Ashley]

So they're.

[Emily]

I'm sure that if they won't say exact content or release that exact content and they just say it's suspicious material, then I imagine there are things that are even more tightly held. Even just going back to Dylan and Bethany, how much. I'm sure this has ruined their lives extra by blaming those roommates in the Idaho murders.

[Ashley]

But yeah.

[Emily]

And then, you know, I'm sure there. This happens. We don't know the whole story. People love to think they know the whole story. We don't know the whole story. Can we talk about something in the book that I also just have questions about that didn't. Didn't really sit right with me. And listen, I'm not in the FBI and I'm not in the police force.

[Ashley]

You're just not allowed to say it.

[Emily]

But it felt very off to me that in the book, these five web sleuths were deputized to work the case. My sorry, we'll cut that out. I don't think so.

[Ashley]

We'll leave it in.

[Emily]

Well, bleep. It, um. It just seemed so a little bit ridiculous to me.

[Ashley]

Well, yeah, because we know enough about how, like, you're not. That's not happening. That's not happening. You are not giving five random jack holes that much access to like, all. All of the things. Oh, just say you're with us.

[Emily]

Just say you're with the FBI. Right.

[Ashley]

I actually, when that part happened in the book, thought, no, this is something like they just came up with and they're going to get caught. And I'm like, oh, no, no, they're. We're pretending this actually happened.

[Emily]

Well, that's what I was like, this is this guy going to be the killer? Because I Mean, did they not, did they not think to ask questions like, really, we can just be FBI agents?

[Ashley]

And then what did you think of Citizen ending up being the killer? I felt like even though I couldn't have said it was him, it was still just too obvious to be like, oh, of course it's one of them, right?

[Emily]

I mean, yeah, I felt weird about it, but it's fine. It was fine. I'm glad it was a man because to the perpetuated narrative and I wonder where she got this information. In it, she's like, researchers are saying that women are more often serial killers than we think and they just don't come forward or brag about it. And I'm here to say that's really not.

[Ashley]

No, I just, I just looked it up here on the Google and it says 8% could be female.

[Emily]

Could be. Let's even say they are. I know you and I talked about this too. This is like how people manipulate data. So, like, we know there are, we know about 10 serial killers in history, all of history that were women like Lizzie Borden, right? We're like, oh, there were 10. And you know what? There are probably more. There might be a hundred percent more. That would mean there's 20. I mean, it's just like it's such a small number and small percentage like anything when you change it a little bit, like there's 50% more women serial killers than you would think there are. Well, I thought there were 8%. Now I guess there's 12%. Listen, there is just, there's physiological reason why people are aggressive and violent. We have like something called the warrior gene. M A O A. It's, it's like a specific genetic defect that can be identified that is linked to violent aggression way more frequently in men than women. Testosterone is linked to aggression. Men have more testosterone than women. Like, we see that men are just more likely to be aggressive physiologically. We also know culturally that we women are taught to be humble, empathetic, nurturing. And, and there's just so much nature that our brains are fundamentally different. Men and women's brains are fundamentally different. So men have very light, light nurturing areas that has to be fostered in them. Women, that's a natural brain area that is activated. So I don't know. I didn't, I just didn't love the whole like, oh, this is going to make me walk away and think that men and women equally serial killers. I just thought that was a bit of an overstatement.

[Ashley]

And then it still ended up being A man.

[Emily]

But the woman killed the other ones.

[Ashley]

True, true.

[Emily]

I just was. I think the book was an enjoyable read. I did find myself offended like two or three times about. Yeah, sort of chauvinistic commentary by the sleuths that kind of went unchecked. Maybe, maybe later there was commentary like, which is it, she's a mastermind or she's not smart enough to do this? But I just felt like, why not have the main character in that moment be like, why would you say that a 19 year old girl was incapable of doing this? Like, I'm doing better solving of these crimes than you are and I'm a girl.

[Ashley]

There were a couple. Now I'm just getting nitpicky. I'm not gonna do that. Nevermind. But there were a couple things too, where like, obviously Jane had a crush on Citizen and like he took his shirt off and I was like, oh, don't do that. Don't be that. Like, don't. I don't. I don't like this.

[Emily]

I hope that nobody listens to this podcast episode because I don't like talking about books other than how much I loved them. And I actually feel really guilty and really bad about it. But this does not say anything to me about this author's competency to write because I've liked some of her books so much. No.

[Ashley]

And honestly, I think if. Here's the thing, I will link her interview that she did on authors on the air. And I think if people listen to it and hear her, I wish I would have listened to it first and heard her say, my dad died. I got obsessed with true crime. I wrote this book as almost an. She called it auto fiction. So, like, I worked through my grief and my obsession with true crime by writing this book. I think I would have read it differently because it would have been like, oh, this is her processing her grief and her obsession with true crime instead of being surprised and being like, what the hell? This book's about the Idaho murders.

[Emily]

Huh?

[Ashley]

So I think if I went into it with that lens, it would have been different. And I did look. So the differences between this book will Bury me and the Moscow, Idaho murders were that there are two different sets of homicides, plus the preceding crime. All of the victims were women and one was black. Two perpetrators and the suspect is identified from a direct DNA match. So those are all pretty stark differences. And one.

[Emily]

One surviving roommate.

[Ashley]

Yes. And one surviving roommate.

[Emily]

There were some differences. I noticed that right away that there were some differences. I didn't think that the case was so heavily focused on that it made it really about that case and more about. Yeah. What they were trying to figure out about the case. I, maybe I'm just in a weird place with books because I have this huge dichotomy with my books going on. This is the problem. And I think this is. Was the middle of the road for me and it's the only one I am reading. These books that I think are absolutely spectacular. Like the Quiet Librarian by Alan Eskins that I can't say enough good things about that I think are just phenomenal. Or like Strange Sally diamond by Liz Nugent. Right. I've just had this Night Watching by Tracy Sierra. I've just had this string of books that I'm like, wow, that's really something. And then I've had this other side of books that I'm like, didn't like it.

[Ashley]

I agree with you because I also, I also feel like Quiet Librarian, Strange Sally Diamond. Like the more I read, the more I realize I'm really drawn to character driven stories. And although we got to know Jane, it was also just a lot of other people and it was way more about the community and processing and all the things and less about a singular character where you really feel like, oh, I know this person. I, I think it's worth reading. I think if people want to read a book that, I mean now we've spoiled it for them. So nevermind, they already read it hopefully.

[Emily]

And, and some people are probably enraged. Like, I love this. This was my favorite book of the year. I liked it. I don't know why I'm being so negative. I think maybe I need a snack.

[Ashley]

I don't think, I don't think the takeaway from this is that we are being negative. I think the takeaway is that we liked the book. You need to know the premise of it before going in or you're kind of gonna feel a gut punch when you realize it's based on true events.

[Emily]

Yeah.

[Ashley]

And just I don't think it's wrong to bring up the missed opportunity to not place blame on people who weren't at fault for their reactions. That's just a good conversation to have in general.

[Emily]

I know because we've already had this a few times. Like the Idaho, the Idaho Town Hall. We had that conversation. Like we just get so wrapped up in how did people react the way we expected them to react or wanted them to react in so many situations. And it's just problematic. We just don't know how we're going.

[Ashley]

To react I mean, in the same breath. And then we'll let our listeners go be mad at us, but in the same breath. Maybe the way she wrote it was the perfect way and it wasn't a missed opportunity because she wrote it the way it really is, which sucks.

[Emily]

Totally. I did think that. I thought, well, that's true to life that women are discounted for a lot of things as too dumb or anything else that was in there. You know, I thought that's. That's probably accurate.

[Ashley]

All right, well, leave us your thoughts.

[Emily]

Or don't. Just don't leave us your thoughts. Unless you agreed with us. Then leave us your thoughts. No, you're allowed to disagree. You're allowed. Just not publicly.

[Ashley]

And then make sure you are over on Patreon because we have our Delphi murders. Part one and part two will be coming soon and there are a lot of updates and details in that episode. All right, bye, besties. Bye. Thanks for listening.

[Emily]

For more content, find us on Patreon at the Creepy Book Club.

[Ashley]

Happy reading.