When Detective Erika Foster receives a tip off that key evidence for a major narcotics case was stashed in a disused quarry on the outskirts of London, she orders for it to be searched. From the thick sludge the drugs are recovered, but so is the skeleton of a young child.
The remains are quickly identified as seven-year-old Jessica Collins. The missing girl who made headline news when she vanished twenty-six years ago.
As Erika tries to piece together new evidence with the old, she discovers a family harbouring secrets, a detective plagued by her failure to find Jessica, and the mysterious death of a man living by the quarry.
About the book
The plot follows Inspector Erika Foster who investigates the death of a little girl who went missing 26 years ago. In the course of the investigation, family secrets and conspiracies emerge, and Erika’s life is put in danger.
A young woman is found dead in the canal outside her Bruges apartment building. But what seems like a clear-cut suicide evolves into something much more complex when Commissioner Pieter Van In uncovers the girl’s involvement in a satanic sect. Who is the mysterious Venex, and why does he inspire such devotion from his disciples?
Complicating the investigation further, Van In’s boss allows beautiful journalist Saartje Maes to profile the case, sparking tension with the commissioner’s expectant wife, District Attorney Hannelore Martens. As a horrific tragedy shocks the city, Van In seems to be surrounded by secrets. And though exposing them will lead him to the truth, it will also pit him against the very police force to which he’s devoted his life.
A Belgian national bestseller, has been reprinted in Dutch seventeen times. It is the 4th book in the Pieter Van In Mysteries, but you may enjoy reading the series in any order.
What I think
Cases on satanic cults interest me a lot but sadly that wasn’t really the focus of the book. I would have preferred less drama and more sect. I still don’t like the main character. Also when in chapter 11 you already understand how it ends and you really don’t like it. I don’t want to give too much spoiler but there are some “clichés” that I just can’t digest and unfortunately one is mentioned here. This made my rating drop by a lot. I don’t think I will continue with a series and the main reason is that I don’t like Van In.
The world's greatest detective is back in an all-new adventure! When thieves pull off a daring heist that threatens a quaint town in Montana, Virginia Holmes and her partner decide to work "pro bono," taking no pay unless they can solve the case in time to prevent economic ruin. What they find is an elaborately planned theft that baffles them at every turn. And at the center of the mystery is one crucial question ... how does thief steal MILLIONS OF HONEYBEES?!
What I think
Nice story, certainly not full of twists. The style still doesn’t convince me, too many repetitions and a superficial language. Although I learned a lot about bees, I don’t understand what these poor bees did to get stolen. Or rather, I understand the reason given but, bees? really…oh well. I don’t think I will continue with the series. However I have to say that I like Holmes, I feel like I’m reading Hetty from NCIS: Los Angeles when I read her parts.
Inspector Pieter Van In is begrudgingly finishing up a healthy lunch when he hears the news: While restoring their farmhouse, the Vermasts have found a skeleton in the backyard. Van In, who happens to be married to the deputy public prosecutor, is determined to solve the case in double-quick time and squeeze in one last vacation before the birth of his first child.
But this murder is trickier than it looks, and Van In soon finds himself in murky waters. The Vermasts’ land belonged to the most prominent businessman in West Flanders before it was suddenly handed over to a right-wing charity. The heavily endowed foundation appears to have no expenditures or investments. So who’s financing it—and why?
Before he knows it, Van In finds himself in the middle of a complex web—one that involves high-level officials, local law enforcement, and common thugs. The harder he tries to unravel the thread, the more difficult it becomes to uncover the secrets that the charity’s benefactors are trying to hide. This time Van In will have to risk lives to find out the truth.
About the book
A body is found in the garden of a house outside the city. The body looks like a man and has been underground since 1985, or so it seems. Van In finds himself investigating against politicians and men of power who would like to see the case covered up. Obviously he goes on and what he discovers is a truth that has been buried for more than 20 years.
A dead girl lies on a blood-soaked mattress, her limbs spread in a parody of ecstasy. The scene matches a series of murders which ended when irrefutable forensic evidence secured the conviction of one Derek Tyler. But Tyler's been locked up in a mental institution for two years, barely speaking a word except to say that 'the Voice' told him to do it.
Top criminal psychologist Dr Tony Hill is prepared to think the unthinkable - this is not a copycat murder but something much stranger. While DCI Carol Jordan and her team mount a desperate and dangerous undercover police operation to trap the murderer, Hill heads towards a terrifying face-off with one of the most perverse killers he has ever encountered..
About the book
After the third volume of this series, Carol Jordan took a break, but Tony Hill knows she must get back to work to overcome the trauma of the previous case. Meanwhile, a new serial killer roams the streets of Bradfield and is killing prostitutes. What’s special? That this case was solved two years ago without a doubt and the killer is locked up in the psychiatric hospital where Tony has been working part-time for some time. Meanwhile, a missing child has not yet been found.
All my book reviews are and will be 100% honest. I don’t get paid to write them and I don’t get “gifts” to write a good review so what I write is what I think. If I love a book, I’m going to say that, if I don’t like a book, I will write why I don’t. My critics aren’t an attack to the author, they are just how I feel about a subject or a style. See more in my Review Policy.