I am going to try to stick to the book itself and not discuss the crime, which of course, was horrific. I found this to be a memoir - he discusses how he and the other prosecutors went about proving their case to the jury. He emphasizes Casey's lying and her lawyer's behavior. He discusses the investigation and how it proceeded. He discusses the forensics in detail - he was the prosecutor who presented the forensic issues and cross-examined the defense's witnesses. If you find forensics interesting, you will find this fascinating, especially how this information can be presented to a jury legally. He emphasizes the differences in Florida law and how this influenced all aspects of the trial Personally, I think he was a very hard on the young man who found the body (what a horrible experience for him; he should be a hero for finding the child's body despite being told more than once that he was wrong) and on the jury who he seemed to feel was not very intelligent, sympathetic or hard working despite giving up weeks of their lives, showing up every day, not dropping out of the trial.
He does not discuss the controversy that arose out of the computer searches for "Chloform" which has been in the news lately - the prosecution put forth that their were many searches for this term - now the expert who was involved in the searches has a different opionin of the evidence. That fact that the information given the jury may not have been correct doesn't change the fact that she is quilty; I was just wondering his thoughts on the discrepancies especially since it is said that it might have lead to a mistrial if she had been convicted.
I would have liked to have understood more about the general concept of cases in the public media and prosecuting big trials. I would have liked more information on jury thinking while sequestered and their treatment during this time - how can we help sequestered juries process the information they are presented? What can we learn from the OJ Simpson trial and this trial about juries who are sequestered?
He also very much disliked the defense legal team without really answering the question - why did they win? How can we change our laws to require defense attornies prove their version of the situation? With this success, will this become more of a technique to defend clients using elaborate scenarios without any proof? How can the judge help the jury understand the law and separate proven information from fiction?
He states that he has prosecuted other murder trials and I would be interested if he was to write more books about those trials or other ones that are similar.
One of the questions that Audible asks is what books are similar. Books I have found similar are: "True Story" by Michael Finkel really sticks in my mind (a father who killed his family and fled to Mexico), "Zodiac" by Robert Graysmith, "Green River, Running Red" by Ann Rule, Joe McGinnis's "Never Enough" (Nancy Kissel who killed her husband in Hong Kong) and the classic "Fatal Vision"I (Dr. Jeffrey McDonald), and "Columbine" by Dave Cullen. I would recommend all these books to listeners who like true crime - all are on Audible.
Report Inappropriate Content