I have mixed feelings about "Murder on Rouse Hill," the story of a crime that occurred a century ago just a few miles from where I live. The research is extraordinary. The writing is dramatic, at one point keeping me awake at night. But — and I'm trying to be polite here — the editing was timid. Having authored my own historical true-crime book, also published by a university press, I was surprised that the author was allowed to wander off-course so much, interrupting the flow of the story. Some material — the text of a funeral service, for example — could have been moved to an appendix. And I'm bothered whenever I read made-up quotes in a true-crime story. The author states in his opening "Notes and Acknowledgements" that the book is "a literary docudrama with novelistic elements." He continues: "I would have preferred a book with no fictional elements at all . . . In order to create something greater than just a journalistic rehash of a 91-year-old murder, more was needed. . . ." I disagree. Such a treatment leaves the reader wondering what part of the story is true and what isn't. Judging from the extensive chapter notes, the author had enough material to write a "true" true-crime book without "novelistic elements." Still, I give the book five stars. The author is not a writer by profession, yet his research went above and beyond what most writers would do, even financing his own attempt to solve the crime. The Epilogue and Postlude are fascinating. And, living in the area, I was surprised to recognize the names of so many characters and sources. I even served in an organization with one of the primary sources, recently deceased. "Murder on Rouse Hill" is a good book, at times an extraordinary book. But it could have been even better with tighter editing.