Customer Reviews

Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzetti to O.J. Simpson

5 star:		(18)
4 star:		(4)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(13)

 

 

If you have read about any of these trials there is no reason to read this book. And if any of the trials are unfamiliar to you the same information this book offers can be found in a variety of places for free. As to the most recent events this book covers, if you have watched, read, or heard any sort of news, you already are familiar with this book's contents.

The strangest part of this book is Dr. Henry Lee's decision to will himself back and forth in time to witness the trials, and even adds a traveling companion in the form of a, now you see him now you don't apparition. This would have remained just a terrible literary device if left in the dreamy time travels of Dr. Lee, however when he asks people in the real world if they have missed him while he was gone on his time travels the reader must wince!

The photographs that are included are the same that have been seen countless times before, and due to the number of trials covered in this short book, there are fewer photos than appear in books that cover their subjects in detail. The Time/interest Dr. Lee had in this book is measurable by his actual comments that appear in bold face type. They cannot account for even half the book, and when you remove his fictional time traveling friend, the percentage is even more insignificant. His Co-Author basically filled in the blanks with testimony from trials and other pieces of documents, again none of which were new or even marginally interesting.

Seven major trials are covered in 251 pages, one trial consumes 85 pages, so two thirds of the book is left for 6 trials including what many would suggest is the most infamous. Most disturbing was Dr. Lee's attitude about, "scientific truth"; combined with absolute professional distance from the trials he is involved in. How can he be an advocate, a paid consultant for one side in a trial and be completely objective about the truth regardless of the effect it has on his client? And while he repeatedly states he is not making a Judgement as to guilt or innocence in a given case, his apparition friend conveniently and frequently supplies his opinion.

Dr. Lee clearly is a greatly respected man in his field, however this book does not justify why we should feel he is the best no matter how many times he is referred to as the finest, greatest, and so on. This is a very lightweight book from a man who one would expect to deliver some very interesting reading.

I felt "ripped off" by the book. I purchased it thinking there would be new insights into these famous cases, not just a rehashing of events. Dr. Lee seems somewhat disinterested in the whole process, tossing in an off-handed thought (in bold type) every now and then. Dr. Labriola does not have the talent to sustain the book. So desperate is the author that he inserts a fictional character into the middle of these cases. This conceit is as ludicrous as it is annoying. The book reads like a Junior High School book report done at the last minute.

The other disquieting aspect of Famous Crimes Revisited is the approximation of Coroner, a far superior book. Whereas Coroner was a taut and riveting book, driven by Dr. Noguchi and Joe DiMona's sense of narrative, Famous Crimes Revisited meanders, the author has no idea of pacing,timing or storytelling. It is a pale imitation of Coroner and Jerry Labriola tries mightily to be Joe DiMona, a gifted author.

The book is a travesty and I'm sorry I bought it.

I was very excited to get this book, because I thought it would be a real insider's look at the crimes and crime scenes. I have read extensively about the JonBenet Ramsey murder and was interested to hear what Lee had to say.

I completely agree with the other review here ("disappointment") but would go even further in discouraging people from buying the book. Lee and Labriola use an incredibly puerile, lame concept in sending Lee back in time to the trials and crime scenes themselves, and they make it worse by adding a fictional character that converses with Lee and represents current public opinion. The end result, rather than being enlightening and entertaining, is so annoying that I threw the book down several times during my reading. (I did pick it up and finish it, if only to be thorough in my review.)

Lee's "insider information" is severely edited (at the request of authorities? I don't know but suspect); I expected details and observations that I hadn't seen before, but--at least in the Ramsey case--there was less content AND less opinion than I've read in any other book except the Ramseys' own (and who would expect THEM to tell the truth?). I was more than disappointed in his cursory description of a case which, for Lawrence Schiller, yielded a fascinating unraveling of motive, opportunity, and method.

Save your money! Really. This book was a total waste for me. If you are interested in the Ramsey case, buy "Perfect Murder, Perfect Town," or Cyril Wecht's book. If you're interested in the other cases, I'm sure there are better books on them, too. This is a puff piece to inflate Dr. Lee's ego. I'm sure he's earned all the accolades, but it doesn't make for remotely compelling reading. Another suggestion: the Robert Ressler and John Douglas books on profiling. They've got massive egos, too, but the books are great, anyway. This one ISN'T.

What I thought would be a very interesting look back at some of the most famous crimes in history turns out to be a rather boring book, with a badly executed premise.

Dr. Labriola writes most of the book, and Dr. Lee's contributions are in boldface, inserted into appropriate places in the chapters.

Dr. Lee uses a semi-fictional plot device where he goes back in time and meets a character named Sam Constant, who is evidently supposed to be the voice of popular opinion. Dr. Lee spends more time on this fictional character then he does on the actual investigation of the cases. Much of what Dr. Lee brings up about the older cases (Sacco--Vanzetti, the Lindbergh kidnapping, the John F. Kennedy assassination and others) has already been examined and/or suggested by other authors.

And, of course, Dr. Lee spends quite a lot of time on the O.J. Simpson case, for which he was a defense consultant. Much of what Dr. Lee says about the Simpson case has also been repeated in various other publications.

In all, a disappointing book, ruined by a rather hokey premise.

A good, quick read if you are interested in forensics. Be aware there is a very different approach to this book then any other forensic book I have ever read, and I have read alot of them. Dr. Lee gives you the dynamics of each case in point. The cases are Sacco-Vanzetti (from the 1920's), the Lindbergh baby, Sam Sheppard (the story that spawned the movie "the Fugitive" and the TV series by the same name), President Kennedy, Vincent Foster, Jon Bennet Ramsey, and OJ Simpson. Here is the twist. He travels back in time to sit through these trials, not to decide if the verdict is correct, but to see how immature our justice system was (or is... Simpson trial). He shows how prejudices, crime scenes and evidence flawed the cases. He talks about conspiracies, planting incriminating evidence, bumbling crimes scenes, and more. It gets better. Not only does he travel back in time, even back just 8 years (1994 OJ Simpson), but even to trials he was present at(Again, OJ Simpson where he was hired by the defence). Which is not to say is a bad thing.. BUT, he has a buddy that he runs into when he goes back in time. This is where I was ambivilent. I could not decide if it was clever or unnecessary. This 'buddy' was Sam Constant. And although Dr. Lee was always unseen, Sam Constant could be seen to people at will. Sam represented public opinion of the times. He showed prejudices and followed medias. Whatever was the publics main thought, such was his.
The largest sections of this book was of Sacco-Vanzetti and OJ Simpson. Very small sections on the others, which was the main reson for me to get this book in the first place. It certainly was not a poor read, and Dr. Lee, who just sticks to his science and does not judge, is a very intelligent man. His insights are very interesting, which thankfully were present and made the book worth the read for me. I suppose you will have to decide for yourself.

"Famous Crimes Revisited" was exactly what I had hoped for. It was a fascinating journey through historic cases, from the perspective of a world-famous forensic scientist, but written in simple language. The way the authors provide all the facts and allow me to be the jury was cleverly done.

I bought this book with the hope of some great insight on the cases but all I got was a review of the information of things I already knew. The writing itself is confusing, especially with the introduction of the fictional time travellor, Sam. I felt too much of the book was on the Sacco-Vanzetti case and only touched on the more prominent cases. For die-hard crime fans, this is not the book for you.

The book was interesting. But I confess I knew little about most of the cases so anything he said would be new and interesting.

I DO know about the JonBenét Ramsey case and expected a lot more from this respected expert. He was a man I respected, I looked forward to the book, but he truly let me down. He wrote 10 pages on the Ramsey case - 4 of those pages were on Lee giving lectures and the Vince Foster (unrelated) case.

Silly little errors, like stating that JonBenét's older sister was married at the time of the murder when in fact she married much, MUCH later, riddled the chapter.

Lee included misinformation that appeared in a Vanity Fair article and was later corrected (the myth that John Ramsey left the house to "get the mail" on the morning of the 26th). As someone who actually worked for the authorities on this case, he should have known better. He sure didn't have the DA proof read the chapter - he should have.

Overall, I was disappointed by his slanted reporting - his bibliography was more like that of a high school student running off a fast report so they could get out with the gang. His appreciation went to the special prosecutor and police department who bungled the case and - - well, it just seemed totally biased and unfair reporting.

Had he not included the chapter on Ramsey, I would probably have given the book 5 stars - - but after seeing how he mishandled the Ramsey chapter, I honestly can't recommend this book except for "entertainment" purposes. Serious scholars need beware.

This book reviews some famous crimes of the twentieth century. It suggests: the same forensic errors from the past are still being made today; public opinion can influence the outcome of criminal cases; human error or misconduct can degrade criminal investigations; modern technology might have solved past cases.

Section 1 deals with the Sacco-Vanzetti case. He points out discrepancies in the Plymouth trial of Vanzetti. He tells of the $50,000 bribery attempt. He says some witness swore Sacco drove, others Vanzetti; but neither owned a car or knew how to drive (p.62). The gate tender said Vanzetti spoke in clear English; but Vanzetti's English was accented!

The author points to a problem in tracing the chain of custody for the fatal bullets and shells (p.78-81). The fatal bullet had a different twist from the other three, although all were supposed to have come from the same gun! Pages 82-85 tell how testimony was elicited to obscure this fact. Pages 90-91 tell that Vanzetti's revolver (#G-825810 was not taken from the slain guard (#394717). This infers gross misconduct from the presiding judge and others. He suggest the fingerprints taken from the car used in the crime did not match Sacco or Vanzetti.

Section 2 deals with five other cases: Lindbergh, Dr. Sam Sheppard, JFK, Vincent Foster, and Jon Benet Ramsay. On the Lindbergh kidnapping, document examiners concluded that Hauptmann did NOT write the ransom notes (p.118). There was the curious incident of the dog in the night - it did nothing! Initially, time sheets showed Hauptmann worked in NY city until 5PM (p.127).

Section 3 deals with the trial of O.J.Simpson. Page 204 says white towels were used to soak up the blood after the murders - the blood had not dried. Page 205 tells of finding unmelted ice cream, which can measure the passage of time. Page 219 quotes deputy coroner Dr. Irwin Golden: "75 percent of the forensic criteria would set the time after 11PM". To believe OJ guilty you must believe that he was able to dispose of the bloody clothes, shoes, and knives so they would never be found, yet take the socks and glove back to his house!

The flesh and blood under Nicole's fingernails, and the bruised fists of Ron could have helped identify the murderer. Someone who had scratches and bruises on his face, or disappeared the next day for weeks (until the wounds healed). He may have then returned with a beard to cover any scars.

The new book "Famous Crimes Revisited" offer excellent insight into several major crimes of the 1900s. More could have been added to the JonBenet Ramsey case, but I think the intent of the authors was not to give all the details, but only offer new facts and food for thought. True-crime readers will love the way the authors provide new evidence without taking sides. It is up to us to evaluate the facts and decide guilt or innocence. If you want thought-provoking, new information, then this book is for you. I thought it was fantastic.