1. From the Golden State Killer to Laci Peterson’s murder, Paul Holes worked on several high-profile cases throughout his career. Were you already familiar with any of them, and if so, what new details about these cases surprised you? Which case did you find most interesting?

2. Holes writes about how it’s okay to be interested in serial killers, but that it can be damaging, especially for victims and their families, when people celebrate these criminals. Did Holes’ points challenge your perspective? Why do you think there is such a public fascination with serial killers?

3. Using DNA evidence from private genealogical companies to track down criminals has been a controversial issue for years. After reading about how this technology helped identify perpetrators like the GSK and Carla Walker’s killer, what is your opinion about this method, and do you have concerns?

4. Throughout his career, Holes often had to hide his work from higher-ups who devalued cold cases. He also found that politics and a lack of cooperation between jurisdictions slowed the capture of the Golden State Killer. Were you surprised by these obstacles within the system?

5. Holes speaks about how his desire to give the victims’ families closure often led to him neglecting his own home life. If you were in his position, do you think you would have made similar sacrifices?

6. Holes is very open about his experiences with anxiety throughout UNMASKED. How did this openness and vulnerability impact your perception of him and of detective work?

7. “In a way, [Michelle McNamara] was the Golden State Killer’s last victim.” What did you make of McNamara’s role in the search for the GSK? If you’ve read McNamara’s book, I'LL BE GONE IN THE DARK, did UNMASKED change how you viewed her role in the case?

8. Holes talks about how his search for the Golden State Killer went from being a passion to an obsession. Where do you believe the line is between these two?

9. After reading UNMASKED, do you think you have what it takes to work in this field?