This text gives life to over 5 centuries of bizarre, macabre and sometimes hilarious criminal cases, including the only dead parrot ever to give evidence in a court of law and the murderess who collected money from her mummified victim for 21 years.
Peter J. Seddon was born in Derby in 1956 and was educated at Derby School and Leicester University, where he gained an Honours Degree in history.
He first watched Derby County at the age of eight and has followed their ups and downs ever since as a season ticket holder.
A member of the Association of Sports Historians and Football Statisticians, his interest in football extends to its very early days and his award-winning Football Compendium, published in 1995.
found this dry at times, but maybe that's to be expected of a book about courtroom proceedings, however singular. there were also a lot of references to British pop culture that i just didn't get, which lessened the enjoyability of the read. 3 stars.
A miscellany of interesting, surprising or quirky incidents from legal history (mostly British). Sadly the book didn't realise its potential, as some of these cases are not especially strange and some are just procedural oddities from courtrooms. But worth a skim, not least to discover that pigs were often dressed in human clothing for their court appearances.
I really enjoyed this book, which talks about the strange and unusual cases of crime from around the world historically. There is a focus on the UK and there is a good mix of very old crime stories and modern ones. There are courtroom gaffes, execution blunders, odd crimes, ridiculous cases and shocking ones. Throughout, Seddon uses a dose of humour, though he sometimes lays the puns on too thick! He is clearly knowledgeable. The book could do with slight updates -local case of Thoburn vs City of Sunderland has been to the higher courts and sadly, Mr Thoburn died but this book (despite recent reprints) leaves the case pending. A great read for those who enjoy true crime, and perfect for dipping in and out of.
Stories were short. Most did not share enough information about the incidences - at least for me. I wanted more of the before. It made for a fast read.