<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Dry in places
Review: A wonderfully written book which kept me reading for quite a while. I could read through most of each chapter, but would inevitably get to a point where I was bored out of my mind (there would be a point where the book started reading more like a dry Text Book in every chapter). However, I would push through the boring part (only about 2 pages) and be able to finish the chapter.I liked the way Lee translated forensic science into layman's terms. The book also reminded me much more of the Discovery Channel's CSI shows, not so much NBC's CSI. All in all, a very good book.
Rating:
Summary: Reading time well spent
Review: Despite the fact that this book 1) was boring at times due to the plethora of technical facts, 2) the poor editing, and 3) the lack of writing skill of the author, I enjoyed this book immensely and felt that I learned a great deal from reading it. I came away from it feeling glad that I took the time to read it. Contrary to how I feel after reading some books written in a highly polished manner, this book came across to me as very real (this ain't Agatha Christie), and the author came across as a diligent, intelligent, scientifically minded, fair, and appropriately humble man. What I learned: I got a glimmering of the huge amount of painstaking examination of detail involved in forensic pathology, I got an idea of how court procedure can hinder the bringing out of the truth, I got a glimpse of how easy it is to bungle the preservation of the evidence, and I got a picture of the number of dedicated people who work together trying to solve whodunits. I also got a view into the personalities of a few wife-murderers. The page 9 gaffe about chopsticks not falling to the floor in a vacuum was written by Judge Gill (was his memory of the story correct?) and the page 54 mention of those gigantic red blood cells should have been edited out. Two things that stood out in my mind were: the fact that the drops of blood on Nicole Simpson's back were washed away! (evidence which could have incontrovertibly established the innocence or guilt of O.J.) and the fact that the young girl's testimony that Edward Sherman had had a phony telephone conversation with his wife (attempting to make others think she was still alive) was thrown out at the trial. This book held my interest. I'm glad that we have people like Henry Lee, Michael Baden, and Cyril Wecht working so hard for all of us. And I find it fascinating to get a peek at them and how they do their work, in a down-to-earth, unglorified, objective way. That is what this book did for me.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting reading but....
Review: Dr. Lee is well-known and respected and in this book seems to single-handedly solve crimes that the rest of those in the business just cannot seem to figure out. I think this book is more interesting as a fun read to those outside the profession than inside.
Rating:
Summary: Good Reading
Review: Good book with lots of details on each case. It can get a little bogged down at times with backgrounds of people involved but overall it was a good book to read between classes.
Rating: 
Summary: Gravity and Vacuum
Review: I couldn't make it through the entire book. Sorry. Too much detail to keep my interest. Henry Lee made me realize that forensic investigation means spending hour after hour cataloging every speck in a crime scene when 99.99999% of the specks are probably irrelevant. Hey, I didn't want to be a crime scene investigator. But anyone who thinks they do should read this first. By the way, I'd rather see the profession portrayed this was rather than in the CSI television series, which is totally absurd.
Rating: 
Summary: Old wine in old skins
Review: It's interesting that there are two alternate theories concerning how Dr. Lee might think that gravity does not exist in a vacuum put forward in the reviews below. The first is that it's the editor's fault and that Dr. Lee really said something else, and the second is that it is the judge's fault who reported the quote. His ability to keep straight what was said by Dr. Lee is suspect, and presumably he does not understand basic physics also. We need a good forensic scientist to get to the bottom of this mystery. The book is OK, but is a little dry, and in places does seem confused. Maybe this is attentional, as Dr. Lee has a lot going on with all of his media committments as well as solving crimes, and presumably teaching, so that he cannot focus all of his concentration on the task at hand and produce a coherent work. Also, a lot of the stuff has appeared in other places and hence the title of my review. For the reviewers out there who know all about Dr. Lee (they seem to be writing reviews here), what exactly are Dr. Lee's qualifications. Is he a medical doctor or a PhD, and if a PhD, in what? I know that it says on the book flap that he is faculty somewhere. Just curious.
Rating: 
Summary: Gravity and Vacuum again.
Review: The case of the literary editor versus the emminent (Gggguuffaw!!) scientist. Of course the case in question was Havermeyer versus Dunbar, where Dunbar cracked Havermeyer over the head with the candlestick in "the vacuum of space." This was why the emminent scientist was expounding on "no gravity (in the vacuum of space)." The case of Havermeyer versus Dunbar was thrown out after the judge notified the eminent scientist that the gravitational constant, G, was first measured by Henry Cavendish in 1798, and found to be -6.67*10^(-11) Newton.meter^2.kg^(-2), to which the eminent scientist responded (inexplicably), "I didn't expect the bloody Spanish inquisition." Sometimes the shortcuts in editing are preferable to what the eminent scientist meant (but have less intrinsic comedic value). I hope this clears things up. Could a literary editor make this mistake, or just an eminent scientist?
Rating:
Summary: Interesting, but a little dry
Review: There were some interesting facts that were well explained by Henry Lee: what blood spatters can tell you, the difficulty of determining the time-of-death, and the importance of collecting evidence in a careful manner. Of the 5 cases examined, I was most interested in his treatment of the O.J. Simpson case. I used to have the opinion that O.J. got away with something, but after reading his account, I can understand why the jury would have reasonable doubt. The book got a little dry in parts, but was worth reading.
Rating:
Summary: Excellent description of forensics; tough cases.
Review: This book, which I think deserves a higher rating than those I've seen for it, give an excellent description of the forensics process. It gives fairly good explanations of GSR (gun shot residue), use of dna and blood samples, ballistics, and the like.
Where Dr. Lee falters a bit is his "gushing" admiration for Johnnie Cochrane of the O.J. Simpson trial. No doubt Mr. Cochrane is a brilliant lawyer, but that should be for another book (i.e., his admiration for this man). Working through five grisly cases (with sometimes graphic descriptions and photos) he does a fine job in laying out the facts, the scientific evidence, and related details. If one is a fan of shows like CSI and CSI Miami; which I am, it gives one the real life "science" behind these programs. Otherwise, not bad.
Rating:
Summary: CRACKING CASES!!! CLEARLY GUILTY...
Review: WOW! This book makes me want to take up forensic science.Dr Henry Lee explains how the smallest or largest detail can lead to cracking cases.Once you start to read this book it makes you want to read more and more just to find out if who you thought might be innocent and the evidence that that clearly shows you how a crime is solved and proves guilt.Three of the five cases in this book the crime was committed by police officers with one working part time, one as a detective, the other fulltime officer.O.J Simpson has had plenty of media attention with both innocent and guilty sides put out there and this explains all of the police conflicting evidence and gets you thinking about all the things you never thought police would do or not do to preserve a crime scene.
<< 1 >>
| 
