Famous Crimes Revisited: From Sacco-Vanzetti to O. J. Simpson [Hardcover]

 

 

Create your own 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.

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.

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.

Share your thoughts with other customers: Create your own review

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

 

1.0 out of 5 stars Famous Crimes Revisited- From Sacco-Vanzetti to Oj Simpson
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. Read more

Published on Feb 2 2002 by James M. Storrs

1.0 out of 5 stars ditto on the 'big disappointment'
I agree that the fictional character in the book (Sam Constant) distracts from any revelation or insight into criminology.

Published on Jan 20 2002

2.0 out of 5 stars A big disappointment!
As a fan of both true crime and forensic writing, I was very familiar with Henry Lee (although he lost quite a bit of luster for his actions during the OJ trial). Read more

Published on Dec 30 2001

5.0 out of 5 stars An excellent vehicle for the general reader, and more
I bought this book as a gift for someone I care about. She is a college student, and is taking classes related to Forensics, which is her chosen field. Read more

Published on Sep 8 2001

1.0 out of 5 stars More Like "Famous Crimes Rehashed"
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. Read more

Published on Aug 26 2001 by jednick

5.0 out of 5 stars Famous Crimes Revisited - Well Worth The Read
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... Read more

Published on Aug 24 2001 by John H. Sheedy

5.0 out of 5 stars Author Got Readers Involved in Decision Making
I have just finished reading "Famous Crimes Revisited," by Dr. Henry Lee and Dr. Jerry Labriola. I was fascinated with the expert detective work, which put a different spin on... Read more

Published on Aug 23 2001

5.0 out of 5 stars in defense of a great book
Reading this novel was an unforgettable experience. It's not always you get to hear from one of the world's foremost forensic scientists. Dr. Lee and Dr. Read more

Published on Aug 22 2001

4.0 out of 5 stars The True Crime Addict Will Learn from "Famous Crimes!:"
I have read this book almost without stopping. I am a true addict of crimebooks and this one -- from the the world's foremost forensic scientist, not just a talking head -- really... Read more

Published on Aug 20 2001 by Patrick Flanagan

5.0 out of 5 stars Great Book on Crimes
Great Crimes Revisited is a wonderfully written book. The book provides new and interesting insites on some famous cases. Read more

Published on Aug 20 2001

Search Customer Reviews
Only search this product's reviews

› See all 39 customer reviews on Amazon.ca

Search Listmania!