I have mixed thoughts on this book. While I thought it was very well written and included lots of facts and background, I also found it very repetitive. There was not a lot of new information or different views of the case. It was pretty much straight forward with letting us know the characters and what could have happened and how it was investigated. As the book went onto the trial it was in my opinion just repeating what the author had already set up in the beginning.

In spite of that it did read very well. I only wish there were more angles discussed. I did not care for the ending. For me it left me hanging because I don't know what happened to Michael at his new trial. Unless he hasn't had it yet in which case the author should have told us that.

Do I think he is guilty? I honestly can't say for sure. Everything points to him but there was no rock solid evidence to convict him without a doubt. If I were on the jury I would have had to go not guilty based on the evidence. One of the lawyers said..."It's better to let a guilty man free than to convict an innocent one" and I would have to agree with that in this case based on what was in the book.

If you like true crime it is worth a read. I'd be interested to hear what others thought.

Read more of my reviews on my blog: Reading,Reading&Life

That was a terrible book. My husband and I have a long tradition of reading true crime books aloud to each other. Our son turned 13 and we were happy to make it a family activity. What he learned most was that some journalists can't write well in long form, at least not the author of this book. Repetitive text, awkward phrasing and an abrupt ending with no closure. Horrid.

The book read like a Dateline episode. In fact, the case was a Dateline episode. At times it was very repetitive and slow going. Overall, it was ok and I would give it a 2 1/2 stars.