Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzetti to Oj Simpson

Rating:
Summary: Fascinating Behind-the-Chalk-Outline Look!
Review: "What if the world's foremost forensic scientist could be transported back and forth in time at will, observing crime scene searches, examining physical evidence, bearing witness to famous trials in American history and offering commentary on the proceedings as they occurred?"

The answer to that 'what if' is a fascinating look at not only the details of seven of the country's most infamous criminal cases, but also at the history of forensics, police procedures and the moods of the American public over the past century.

Dr. Lee, who was either directly involved in the original investigations or consulted in official re-examinations of all of the cases covered, allows the readers to witness the dramas up close and personally through the use of dual literary devices-a time machine that whisks him back to each of the trials and the introduction into the proceedings of the character Sam Constant who represents the public opinion of the time.

If you're a true crime junkie looking for gossip, dirt or gruesome tidbits, "Famous Cases Revisited" is not going to be your cup of cocoa. The book Drs. Lee and Labriola have written has a very specific purpose, to show readers that forensic mistakes such as failing to secure crime scenes, being careless in collecting and preserving evidence and possibly suppressing or planting evidence are as prevalent today as they were back in the 1920's and that the most important thing that any of us, police or civilian, can do is to take a page from that history and learn from past mistakes.

As a writer and mystery/suspense fan, I found this book to be a gold mine of information, entertainingly presented, that not only gives the reader an inside look at the forensic particulars of some of the most captivating cases of the past century, but also a unique behind-the-chalk-outline education into how the mind of a top notch criminalist works.

Rating:
Summary: Good forensics, with a twist...
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Famous Crimes Revisited - Well Worth The Read
Review: Famous Crimes Revisited is absolutely intriguing. I LOVED it! It was exciting to get a behind-the-scenes look at several legendary crimes through the eyes of an expert like Dr. Lee. The book is so well crafted by writer and doctor Jerry Labriola that it felt as if I were at each crime scene looking over Dr. Lee's shoulder. I more than highly recommend this book. As a newspaper journalist, book and play reviewer, I give it 5 stars plus! Don't miss this one!

Rating:
Summary: The worst forensic book I've ever read
Review: I really enjoy reading different experts' views on famous cases, past and present. Although that is the premise of this book, I did not enjoy reading it. The first sign of trouble is the editor's note explaining the "Sam Constant." If the literary device must be explained to the reader, then it shouldn't be used. The forensic case files in the book are very thin and Dr. Lee either breezes past each one (his excuse being that he didn't need his "time machine" - he had been there for the trial in real time) or just lists questions that have already been raised for years. He offers no solutions and sometimes, he doesn't even offer theories or suspicions. The chapter about OJ takes bizarre disbelief to a new level, and when Sam Constant is mixed into this situation, chaos reigns. The Sam Constant character is really the worst part of this book. The sections featuring him are incredibly absurd, and it is truly vexing that, while Dr. Lee barely scratches the surface of the crimes, he lists in painful detail everywhere he goes, everyone he meets, what is in his room, even what he ate at meals. If Dr. Lee wanted to write a novel, that's fine, he should write a novel. This book was supposed to be about true cases, but the hapless reader(victim) is duped. Few books are written so badly that they actually make you angry, but this is one of them.

Rating:
Summary: Cases that were steeped in a controversy
Review: In Famous Crimes Revisited From Sacco-Vanzetti To O. J. Simpson, Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Jerry Labriola effectively collaborate to present the non-specialist general reader with an authoritative, extraordinary presentation of forensic science as applied to a series of crimes that deeply alarmed or aroused the American public of their day. Ranging from the Lindbergh Kidnaping, Sam Sheppard, and John F. Kennedy assassination, Vincent Foster, and JonBenet Ramsey, these are cases that were steeped in a controversy that have lingered long in the public consciousness. Famous Crimes Revisited is compelling, informative, and a "must" for students of forensic science, as well as the non-specialist general reader with an interest in these individual crimes and their implications and legacies for American jurisprudence and investigations today.

Rating:
Summary: The old shell game
Review: Ironically, the book itself is a crime scene. The crime is grift or hustle or bunco or scam. The criminal is the authors themselves whose only idea in writing this "book" seemed to be, "I guess we ought to try and make some money again."
What's wrong with it? Apart from the things that other reviewers have noted? The crime scene analysis of Dr Lee is extremely shallow. For example, in treating the Jon-Benet Ramsey murder, Lee sees fit to limit his contribution to an outline of incicators, this after a lengthy and baffling encounter with "Sam Constant." In the outline, under the heading of indicators that the offender was a family member he lists the evidence that the lengthy and elaborate ransom note was written on note paper found in the house and that a rough draft of the note was found in a trash can in the house.
It seems to me this is enough to call into question Dr Lee's competence to make any judgements of forensic psychology. WHat he is implying is that some family member is going to go to the trouble of crafting a long and very elaborate phony kidnapping/ransom note, involving detailed phony instructions, and even the fabricated nerdy/macho persona of the writer, and then top all this effort off by selecting their own stationery to write the note and furthermore tossing off a rough draft that they throw into their own trash can. What's wrong with this premise? Some family member meticulous enough to write this phony note is also going to be meticulous enough to write it on something other than what is obviously their own paper. Of course one can then argue, "Well, maybe they deliberately wrote the phony note on their own paper because that is precisely what some family member writing a phony ransom note would not do." Well, this is extremely subtle thinking; and moreover, this is not what Lee suggests. He merely lists the fact that the note paper was from stock found in the house and adduces this as possible evidence that the note was written by a family member. None of this intricate double negative theory goes into Lee's evaluation. And again, imagine that you are going to stage the murder of a family member to look like a kidnapping. Do you then - knowing the consequences if you are caught - toss off the note on your own paper, hoping the cops fall for your devlish ploy? Do you also then leave the body in the house, after all this ransom business that you go into in loving detail? It would take an extremely sophisticated criminal to come up with this subtle scheme and a criminal of this intelligence and sophistication would not like his chances of the cops and the jury being subtle enough to see things the right way.

Rating:
Summary: Famous Crimes Revisited- From Sacco-Vanzetti to Oj Simpson
Review: Rarely has a book promised so much and delivered so little. Everything contained in it has been rehashed over and over in the popular media. The authors ask questions obvious to the most amateur sleuth and provide scanty or no answers. The fictional device of using the character representing "popular opinion" is annoying and would embarrass a sophomore trying to pad a term paper. The text wanders all over the place. I don't know how either of the authors would have the nerve to present such a mishmash to a publisher or why a reputable publisher would consider printing it. I resent the fact that I wasted time with this flop that should never have seen the light of day.

Rating:
Summary: ditto on the 'big disappointment'
Review: The biggest mystery here is how a man with Dr. Lee's credentials could create such a terrible book. Don't expect any bombshells or revelations about the cases. If you're interested in the individual cases, you would be better served reading reputable books which focus on those cases. For some arcane reason, Lee chose to include a fictional time-traveler named Sam Constant. Edward G. Robinson had his "little man" when he played an insurance investigator in the motion picture, "Double Indemnity". That was appropriate in a fictional story, not in this book.