A QUESTION OF EVIDENCE

by Colin Evans

Book Overview

Scientific sleuthing and slip-ups in the investigations of fifteen famous cases Ranging from the Turin Shroud and the suspicious death of Napoleon Bonaparte to the murder cases of Dr. Sam "The... This description may be from another edition of this product.

• Format: Hardcover
• Language: English
• ISBN: 0760773246
• ISBN13: 9780760773246
• Release Date: January 2003
• Publisher: Wiley
• Weight: 1.20 lbs.

Customer Reviews

The dingo really did eat your baby!

Intriguing review of forensic controversies, wherein one learns that forensic "science" consists in equal parts of science, art, persuasion, fraud, and bribery, with people's lives at stake. Highlights: a review of "The dingo ate your baby!" (referenced in a hilarious Sienfeld episode), in which it turns out the dingo really did, and of course a thumbnail of the OJ case. Evans points out that cases of the OJ type are rare because it takes massive amounts of money to buy private forensic investigators like OJ did, but most trials of rich people dod not involve cases of violent crime.

Very well done

Interesting take on many of the controversies of the past. Good use of science, as opposed to heated opinion, to come up with some answers to "did they or didn't they"? I liked the author's historical approach, using cases to trace the development of forensics over time. Overall, a very good read.

Or better yet, questions of interpretation

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