Customer Reviews

Hearst to Hughes: Memoir of a Forensic Psychiatrist

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I can't believe this book isn't more popular. If you're interested in crime or forensic psychology (as I am), you'll love this book. Lunde's writing style is engaging--there's no technical mumbo-jumbo, and the pacing never gets bogged down. There's relatively little about Lunde himself in the book, although he does give readers entertaining glimpses into his opinions on a wide variety of issues, from gun control to the death penalty. In this sense, it is not a traditional memoir. Whether or not you agree with Lunde's opinions, you'll respect his ethics and appreciate his honesty. I was sorry to see this book end!

Excellent insight into the Hearst, Hughes and other trials including much information not previously published. Dr. Lunde's insights were on target, and it is wonderful to find a man of such note who had high ethical standards and didn't deviate from them, nor compromise. A great read and a keeper.

Dr. Lunde's compelling account of his involvement in many of the most widely publicized criminal cases of the last half of the twentieth century kept my attention riveted to the pages. As Herman Wouk points out in the Preface, the tales do tend to meander--plus a little redundancy--but the book is well worth sticking with to the end. I'm glad Dr. Lunde set the record straight with his first-hand knowledge of cases I followed closely during those years.

Greta Manville, author of mystery/suspense novels

The book has multiple merits, one of which is its readibility. As a resident in psychiatry hoping to specialize in forensic psychiatry, I found his take on important cases of the past few decades illuminating. One can't but agree with him when he gives multiple examples of how maintaining one's professional integrity can be difficult in the face of overwhelming temptations but why it is worthwhile, and how those who do give in to them ultimately pay a price for it.
Now the caveats: No science is perfect, and forensic psychiatry barely seems to be the exception. Although he takes pains to point out how forensic psychiatry has earned some respect from the judicial system, it's far from an established science. Some of the writing seems to be self serving, mocking of other experts in the field. Also, while he criticizes the commercialization of the judicial process, and the tendency to sell out to fame, he doesn't seem to be immune to it either, taking some vicarious pride in being part of famous cases.
Overall, I think it's an excellent book for the experts and the curious alike.