Written in Blood by Diane Fanning
|
List Price: Our Price: $3.98 You Save: $3.01 (43%) Availability: Usually ships in 1-2 business days Buy Used: from $0.01 (click here) Category: Book See more book details and other editions |
|---|
Book Reviews of Written in Blood
Book Review: Mixed verdict
Summary: 3 Stars
I became interested in this case after watching the documentary on the Sundance channel this April. I came away from that believing that I would have acquitted Peterson on the basis of reasonable doubt even though I thought it POSSIBLE he was responsible for his wife's death. I decided to read Fanning's book to deepen my knowledge of the case and understand why the jury acted as they did.
Fanning's book certainly provides information that the documentary ignored...no need to itemize here and ruin a good read. The net effect was to move me towards believing that Peterson was PROBABLY responsible for the death. At the same time i don't believe he
initially intended to kill her, but that his probable actions(assault) or inactions
(letting her bleed to death) emerged after recognition that his
probably assault (he seemed to have a hair-trigger temper) went too far and that his marriage would not survive it and he would be
unable to live in manner he had become accustomed to if she left him as a result of it.
Fanning, however, even with occasional demurrals, writes as if he
planned to kill his wife that night and wholly accepts the prosecution belief that his bisexual adventures negated his love for his wife, ignoring social science evidence that very few male adulterers commit adultery (heterosexual or homosexual)because they no longer love their spouses. She also accepts the likelihood that he premeditated killing for financial GAIN, when his wife was, in fact, likely to be worth far more alive than dead because of her great earning potential...even if her current job was in jeopardy because of the fate of her employer in the current market. His income GAIN would be shortlived , given the couple's debts, and his earning power as a writer, while considerable, was sporadic.
Beyond this disagreement about the interpretation of the case Fanning exhibits some annoying habits that prevents this from being a far better book:
1) she imputes states of mind to persons that she couldn't possibly know...wife is dead and Mike Peterson
didn't discuss his thoughts with Fanning
2) exhibits a double-standard in describing and characterizing
prosecution and defense work...both are simply doing their respective jobs under exisiting rules...if defense experts are paid, prosecution ones are typically state employees who don't have to be compensated above their salaries...
3) making silly psychological observations....Peterson didn't suffer from writer's blocker after death of wife as a sign of his guilt becasue stressed out, grieving widower would...people handle stress in all sorts of DIFFERENT ways. Some become workaholics.
4) relying on dumb psychiatric diagnoses.."narcissistic personality disorder" which sound meaningful but have the same value as "loving dark chocolate personality disorder"...simply describing behavior not an underlying medical condition that
produces behavior symptoms. Besides, Peterson had exhibited lots of different behaviors in his life and not all were narcissistic.
She is very selective in viewing data.
5) an awareness and yet denial that our court system is based on an adversarial relationship and not a search for truth. jurors could have easily created a hung jury and were deeply divided initially. outcome of jury deliberations often hinges on personalities, grouop dynamics, leadership roles, demographics.
had the jury hung would she have written the book the same way?
these problems, which readers should keep in mind while reading the book, are worth mentioning because those same readers may be jurors some day and apart from that may be reacting to other trials which receive much attention...the Michael Jackson one, for example, where his admittedly peculiar nature may trump weak evidence and work against him.
Book Review: Good Read, But Not Exceptional
Summary: 3 Stars
I have been fascinated by this case ever since seeing it on one of those night time news-type shows. I have watched the CBC documentary, interviews and have read two books on the case. I feel that the other book (by Aphrodite Jones) is far superior to this one in details and the actual process of the trial (the actual trial is barely covered in this book it seems).
Ms. Fanning is a good writer in that she is very "easy" to read so if you are just looking for light true crime reading this could very well appease you. For more thorough details, check out the other book. One thing that bothered me about this book were two typos ("hes" for has, and "pursue" for purse) which makes me wonder - who was the editor for this book?
Book Review: Not exactly "In Cold Blood"
Summary: 2 Stars
As an avid true crime reader and someone with advanced degrees in both law and criminal justice, I have found that nonfiction books on murder cases generally fall into one of two categories: investigative journalism or trash novel. It is my humble but educated opinion that this book falls into the latter category. The book is a tabloid-style expose of the minutia of the Peterson's lives, rather than a chronicle of the hard facts of the case. As with many other true crime books today, the author's agenda seems to be to prove that the accused individual is in fact guilty, as opposed to delving into the complexities of the case that make it interesting in the first place. In my experience, murder cases are rarely black-and-white and there is always room for debate. However, given the popularity of networks like "Court TV" and the number of favorable reviews that this book and other like it have gotten from Amazon's readers, apparently the public would rather be told what to think than think for themselves.Book Review: Interesting story, but the book needed improvement
Summary: 2 Stars
The saving grace for this book is that the story is interesting. Parts of the book were fairly well written, but much of it wasn't. There were so many typos that I wondered if it had actually been edited. But, the misusage of words was what bothered me the most. For example, the author continuously used the word "podium" in place of "lectern." A podium is defined as something a presenter stands upon. I found myself laughing hysterically when I read about one of the attorneys pounding his finger on the podium. I thought the image of this grown man bent over and pounding his finger next to his feet in a courtroom was quite comical. I also thought it was incredible that a published author would use words without knowing their meanings.
Book Review: So-so
Summary: 2 Stars
Even though I think Peterson killed the two women, the author let her bias show throughout the book. She also introduced information and then didn't follow up on it, like the used condom in the bedroom, the rape kit performed on Kathleen Peterson, etc. What were the results of those tests? I got the feeling that she just watched the trial on TV, read some articles, and then wrote the book. I lot of typos, too.