8 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Or better yet, questions of interpretation, June 10, 2003
This review is from: A Question of Evidence: The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O.J. (Hardcover)
I had intended to read only two or three of these cases, those that I was most familiar with, the O. J. Simpson case and the Jeffrey MacDonald case, for example, but found myself reading more and more into the book until I had read all fifteen of them.
What Evans does so very well is concisely and clearly present the facts of the cases so that the reader feels clearly involved; and then he brings into sharp focus the controversies about the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. In starring roles are the forensic experts themselves, botanists and microbiologists, pathologists and coroners, many of them with international reputations and big egos to match. Then Evans argues his position along with the experts. He is not shy about letting us know which side he prefers, concluding, for example, in the Dr. Sam Sheppard murder case from the fifties, that "there wasn't a scintilla of hard evidence in 1954 to prove that Sam Sheppard killed his wife. There still isn't."
I think Evans's decision to be candid about where he stands in each of the cases strengthens his credibility and helps to make this an enjoyable read. It gives the reader an opportunity to agree or disagree. I won't mention where he stands on some of the other famous cases, some of which are still controversial today, e.g., whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy, or the credibility of the Turin Shroud relic, or whether Napoleon was poisoned or not. That would spoil a little of the fun. I will say I found myself in agreement with him in almost every instance, but that may be partly because he guided me so well!
But did he change my mind in any of the cases? Partially. I still think Dr. Sam did it, but now believe that there was too much doubt for a conviction to be justified. And in the infamous Lindy Chamberlain case, which Evans dubs "Australia's Forensic Nightmare," where I had doubts, I now have assurance. You will recall that Chamberlain was the woman who claimed that a dingo grabbed her baby out of the family's camping tent and carried it off and ate it to the horror of much of the world. However the police didn't believe her story and arrested her for murder. A film A Cry in the Dark (1988) starring Meryl Streep was made from a book about the case, Evil Angels by John Bryson.
Another thing that Evans does well is evaluate and critique the forensic experts themselves. He shows in the case of one Donald Merrett how the mistaken conclusion and testimony of Sir Bernard Spilsbury "the first and greatest forensic superhero" (p. 42) on whether a shooting was a suicide or not allowed a killer go free to kill again, and he did. In the Rachel Nickell murder in Britain in 1992 he delineates how psychological profiling can mistakenly narrow the field of suspects to exclude the actual murderer. In the O.J. Simpson case it is not the forensic experts who come under fire, but a system that allows such a mismatch of legal talent that the forensic evidence can become blurred in the eyes of the jury.
My favorite chapter was the one on the Kennedy assassination. Having argued the controversy endlessly with fellow students while an undergraduate at UCLA, and having read several books on the subject, I can tell you that what Evans presents in a mere sixteen pages is as clear and forthright summation of what happened as I've read anywhere.
Bottom line: an engaging collection of retrospectives on famous crimes that turned on forensic evidence.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
10 of 12 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Colossal Disappointment, July 26, 2003
By A Customer
This review is from: A Question of Evidence: The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O.J. (Hardcover)
As a professional in this field I expected a fine book. Unfortunately, this is written by a writer, not by someone truly experienced in the field, and the writer appeared to do minimal research. It appears to be intended to appeal to weak-minded television soap opera viewers seeking a "true crime" thrill. It's claimed facts on some cases are misleading or incorrect. Some sections repeat other writer's errors that would be easily corrected or refuted by minimal research or thought, which obviously was not done. Colossal disappointment. Not recommended. Embarrassing.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Clever, tawdry, and opinionated, October 25, 2004
This review is from: A Question of Evidence: The Casebook of Great Forensic Controversies, from Napoleon to O.J. (Hardcover)
This is the sort of book that may provide amusement for an idle hour and then make you wish you had spent your time reading something with greater depth. Evans is a clever writer, and his opinionated handling of fifteen stories doesn't bother me because I usually agree with him. But his narrative treatment is (like many of his subjects) tawdry. Furthermore, the reader should be wary of factual errors. Some years ago I enjoyed reading Evan's short version of the Sacco-Vanzetti case in his Casebook of Forensic Detection (1996). In my view he was absolutely correct about Sacco's guilt-but he also called Sacco's Colt automatic pistol a revolver. The warning lights came up. When you're hunting big game, your aim has to be dead on.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
