The fact that the author’s background lies in history is apparent, and it does add an extra element to the book. If you are going to tackle true crimeThe fact that the author’s background lies in history is apparent, and it does add an extra element to the book. If you are going to tackle true crime though, I think you need to have a firm grasp on legal concepts, including types of evidence. For example, this line threw me:
“Even as late as 1879, circumstantial evidence was still regarded as having perfect legitimacy; that such evidence provided a kind of moral signpost in a case.”
Well, yes, because even as late as 2024 that is still the case. Circumstantial evidence is perfectly legitimate evidence. In fact, most cases are tried on solely circumstantial evidence, it’s fairly rare for there to be direct evidence of a crime. Even forensic evidence like fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence.
I have read another of this author’s true crime books, and had the exact same issues with this one. It’s incredibly well researched and the background history really sets the atmosphere. There was some speculation and assertions that I could have done without, but the biggest issue for me was the same as with the Mile End Murder: Yet again, at the end, the author goes on a wild leap of fantasy about what actually happened. Dude, if you can’t keep this stuff to yourself when you are supposed to be writing a factual story, then write historical fiction inspired by or based on the crime instead. Your completely imagined scene with no basis in evidence does not belong in an historical true crime book. I actually think you would make an excellent historical fiction writer....more
My biggest issue is that there wasn’t enough here. Was it supposed to be a memoir of the woman who happened to be the “bone lady”? There’s not enough My biggest issue is that there wasn’t enough here. Was it supposed to be a memoir of the woman who happened to be the “bone lady”? There’s not enough about her personal story for that. Was it supposed to be about her work? Not enough for that. Almost all the “stories” included were the bare minimum of information. Basically: body found, looked at the bones, case closed. No real details about the cases.
Two nit picks:
She described the scent of death early in as “seductive” which is just gross.
She included a chapter about trying to speak to a conference of Native people, who want anthropologists and archaeologists to stop digging up and examining their ancient burials. She starts it off claiming she is “mixed” herself and also Native, her proof is that her 95-year-old great aunt claimed it, “so it must be true” (her words), unlike all those other people who try to claim they are Native, likely because they want to be “aloof” like the Cherokee (yep, that’s what she said). So this very white looking blond woman got up there and was surprised that even when she told them that she was one of them, they didn’t respond well to her presentation.
Hate to break it to her, but she’s probably like 99% of Americans who have a family legend of a Native ancestor, and that it is not true. She seems to be aware of this phenomenon, but believes in her case it’s legit, with no proof whatsoever other than she was told so. Thing is, that even if it is true and her great grandmother was Native, she’s so far removed from the culture that for her to show up there and try to act like “I’m one of you!” is ridiculous and was probably offensive....more
Loading...
