1. How did the hippie culture of the late ’60s disguise disappearances? Why didn’t police prioritize disappearances like Sydney Monzon’s?

2. What drew Tony Costa’s “disciples” to him? Did anyone take their defense of him seriously?

3. Costa was not particularly neat about his crimes, so why did it take so long for him to be apprehended? Why did he volunteer to speak to the police after successfully disappearing?

4. Mailer questioned whether he would be capable of a crime like Costa’s. What comparisons can you make between Vonnegut’s, Mailer’s and Costa’s erratic behavior? Do you think there is a significant difference between the three men?

5. The police were determined to pin Costa with Mary Ann and Pat’s murders, even when they’d only found a third, unrelated corpse. How did that change the way they investigated? What do you think of that approach more generally?

6. Why does Costa view Cory Devereaux as his rival? What does Devereaux think of Costa?

7. What was District Attorney Ed Dinis’ motivation for taking on Tony Costa’s prosecution? Why did he exaggerate the already extensive mutilation of the girls’ bodies? Did he ultimately succeed in his goal?

8. Why were writers like Evelyn Lawson convinced that witchcraft was involved in the Truro murders? What appeal did that explanation have for people like Norman Mailer?

9. Dinis chose not to prosecute all four murders, sticking with Pat Walsh and Mary Ann Wysocki’s deaths, which he called “slam dunks.” Why did he make that decision? Do you think justice is better served by a trial for all crimes that ends without a conviction or a trial for some crimes that results in a sentence?

10. During the trial, Costa’s lawyers assert that his drug use is to blame for his transgressions. How does that reflect the general attitude towards drugs at the time? Do you think his defense would use that tactic if he were on trial today?