Had a look at Vronsky's book and found so much unprofessional opining that I don't think it's credible work. Never before have I read a true-crime book which, in discussing previous theories, employed the ORLY Owl to make editorial comments or dismissed feminists as "femifascists". It doesn't matter whether one agrees with those opinions or not -- once the author's voiced them in the middle of a summary of previous theories, all credibility is completely shot.
For the same thing done infinitely more correctly, see J. Reid Meloy's The Psychopathic Mind. The text might be a tad weathered and slightly out of date, but it is credible, which means it's more relevant.
I would have had no problem with Vronsky dissecting positions and conclusions he found questionable based on evidence and/or additional sources. Making his exposition an excuse for a diatribe against "femifascists" puts him in camp with people like Limbaugh and Beck, not Meloy, and announces that a useful summary of different theories and classifications of female serial killers is to be found elsewhere.
That book might possibly be the worst on the subject of SKs I've ever seen.
In an earlier book, Vronsky states he is no expert on serial killers or even a credible investigative journalist. Rather, he is an amateur moved to write about the subject because of his experience with two different serial killers he encountered in real life. He alludes to this in the book under discussion as well and it is a pitiful excuse for writing a book of this kind.
A memoir would have been much less problematic, and would have misled far fewer readers to wave opinions and ad hominem in others' faces as if these were as important as facts.
Vronsky might not approve of 70s feminist sociologists' methodologies and trained journalists' conclusions, but at least they had methodologies and some modicum of professional discipline. There are too many books in the world already without marketing amateur blogs as books.
If you want to see one forensics expert shred another's methods credibly, here's an excellent example of two experts using every critical tool at their disposal to gut Dr. Robert Hare for his questionable diagnoses of female psychopaths:
http://www.abiscf.us/articles/index....t01returnid=15
Also: Notice the quote from Jane Toppan three headings down, which is taken from the Vronsky book we're discussing, and note there are three other references to the book. If you do happen to like Vronsky, you can deduce possible validity from that (though I personally would not).
I found Perri and Lichtenwald's summary of Vronsky's most interesting idea much more helpful in that context (see below):
"When women commit violence, the only explanations offered have been that it is either involuntary, self-defense, the result of mental illness, or hormonal imbalances inherent with female physiology (Vronsky, 2007)."