*Demolition workers accidentally stumbled on a woman's skeleton. Learn how her identity was discovered and her killer brought to justice.
*Find out how experts can study the clues of a crime and figure out what kind of person committed it--and where he or she is likely to be found.
*The bodies of three people who had died of natural causes were found in their Midwestern home. How did forensic scientists know there hadn't been any foul play? They got their clues from studying the activity of bugs!
More fascinating stories show how forensic science--science used for solving crimes--provided the clues that closed the cases.
My main criticism is the jarring error in the Elizabeth Barlow case, on page 51, in which the author seems confuse an insulin injection in causing hypoglycaemia, by throwing in a bit of insulin-induced hyperglycaemia (which is not a thing). The only conclusion I can draw is that it should have said "too little sugar" where is currently says "too much sugar". That would at least be technically correct, though still a strange way to phrase it.
It was published in 1993, and suffers from being 30 years out of date in the chapter called "The Future".
Those criticisms aside, it is a perfectly acceptable book on the subject matter, suitable for older juvenile readers.
It’s definitely seeing how forensics developed and how some cases were solved. There were several instances I thought it needed to go deeper and tell more about a case. Very short/quick read.
I find true crime fascinating. It’s not nearly so pat and tied up as detective fiction, and this makes it seem more immediate – and even incorrect. This “incorrectness” exhibits itself most in accounts of unsolved crimes (Unsolved I and Unsolved II by George Sullivan are accounts of eighteen unsolved mysteries from modern history), but it also bobs up in the solved ones.
True Crimes focuses on how several otherwise baffling cases were solved by breakthroughs in forensic science. Those developments include the sciences of
Fingerprinting – identifying individuals by the patterns of ridges and whorls on their fingertips.
Genetic Fingerprinting – examining the DNA found in blood stains, etc., to prove whether it belonged to the victim.
Pathology – using postmortem examinations of the corpse to determine cause of death as well as to help identify unknown corpses through the discovery of past injuries and surgeries.
Ballistics – identifying the grooves left along the sides of bullets as they left the chamber to determine what model gun fired them.
Toxicology – studying the symptons of and traces left by poisons.
Chemistry – testing the chemicals present on an individual’s clothes and belongings to corroborate or refute their testimony.
Entomology – examining the evidence left by bugs on the scene of the crime to determine time of death.
Psychological Profiling – identifying types of killers to aid in unraveling the protections they erect for themselves.
Ms. Larsen claims that “before the seventeenth century, great numbers of people believed it was wrong to even try solving crimes by using thought and reasoning.” [pgs. 1-2] While it is certain that forensic science was woefully deficient in many areas during the Middle Ages, Ms. Larsen gives no references to support her claim, leaving me rather suspicious of its truth.
Conclusion. Great for those looking to spring from detective fiction into the real world of crime-solving.