What do you think?
Rate this book
A Question of Evidence
The science of forensices has evolved into a well established, indispensable crime solving tool--and yet there have been times when forensic techniques have failed to completely resolve certain trial. Whether shoddy lab work or faulty evidence collection is to blame, these perplexing and fascinating cases have long been the subjects of heated discussion and no small amount of disagreement. From the still contested death of Napoleon Bonaparte to the never ending speculation that surrounds John F. Kennedy's assassination. A Question of Evidence takes a probing look at fifteen of the most contentious cases in history
250 pages, Hardcover
First published December 13, 2002
10 people are currently reading
189 people want to read
About the author
Colin Evans
76 books37 followersColin Evans is the author of 17 books dealing with forensics and true crime. His fascination with the murkier side of human nature began while he was still in school. Hours spent in library archives researching contemporary newspaper accounts about "Jack the Ripper" (no, he doesn't have any clues to the killer's identity, and he seriously doubts that anyone else does, either) got him started and it's really never stopped since then.
He was living in America when his first book was published in 1993, and since that time he's gone on to become one of the foremost writers dealing with the history and development of forensic science.
He was living in America when his first book was published in 1993, and since that time he's gone on to become one of the foremost writers dealing with the history and development of forensic science.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews
September 29, 2019
3.5 Stars
For anyone who loves true crime and forensics, this book is definitely worth a read. It contains 15 chapters; each chapter is roughly 20 pages and details a different case throughout history in which forensic have been the downfall.
The beauty of this book really lies in its simplicity. Evans provides just enough background detail about the forensic techniques used to make it understandable in laymen's terms without overloading you with information. The same can be said for background history to each crime. Again, he provides enough detail to set the scene, but not enough to bore you. Each chapter reads very quickly and even if some of the cases weren't the most interesting to me, they were still a fun read.
I do feel there was a little bias in the writing, but only towards the end of the chapter. For the most part, the evidence and information was presented in a very matter-of-fact way and it wasn't until the final paragraph of each chapter that you got a sense of what Evans believed to be the "truth" in each case.
If you're looking for a very in depth look at each case, you may find yourself disappointed. For me, these chapters were more of an overview and jumping off point. I ended up looking into other sources for more detailed information about several of the cases. I really liked that the book was more just a quick summary and jumping off point for each case rather than an extremely detailed account.
If you're a fan of true crime, crime tv shows, or forensics I think this could be a fun, easy read for you. If this author has any more books available at my local library, I would definitely check them out.
For anyone who loves true crime and forensics, this book is definitely worth a read. It contains 15 chapters; each chapter is roughly 20 pages and details a different case throughout history in which forensic have been the downfall.
The beauty of this book really lies in its simplicity. Evans provides just enough background detail about the forensic techniques used to make it understandable in laymen's terms without overloading you with information. The same can be said for background history to each crime. Again, he provides enough detail to set the scene, but not enough to bore you. Each chapter reads very quickly and even if some of the cases weren't the most interesting to me, they were still a fun read.
I do feel there was a little bias in the writing, but only towards the end of the chapter. For the most part, the evidence and information was presented in a very matter-of-fact way and it wasn't until the final paragraph of each chapter that you got a sense of what Evans believed to be the "truth" in each case.
If you're looking for a very in depth look at each case, you may find yourself disappointed. For me, these chapters were more of an overview and jumping off point. I ended up looking into other sources for more detailed information about several of the cases. I really liked that the book was more just a quick summary and jumping off point for each case rather than an extremely detailed account.
If you're a fan of true crime, crime tv shows, or forensics I think this could be a fun, easy read for you. If this author has any more books available at my local library, I would definitely check them out.
July 25, 2019
Or better yet, questions of interpretation
I had intended to read only two or three of these cases, those that I was most familiar with, the O. J. Simpson case and the Jeffrey MacDonald case, for example, but found myself reading more and more into the book until I had read all fifteen of them.
What Evans does so very well is concisely and clearly present the facts of the cases so that the reader feels clearly involved; and then he brings into sharp focus the controversies about the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. In starring roles are the forensic experts themselves, botanists and microbiologists, pathologists and coroners, many of them with international reputations and big egos to match. Then Evans argues his position along with the experts. He is not shy about letting us know which side he prefers, concluding, for example, in the Dr. Sam Sheppard murder case from the fifties, that "there wasn't a scintilla of hard evidence in 1954 to prove that Sam Sheppard killed his wife. There still isn't."
I think Evans's decision to be candid about where he stands in each of the cases strengthens his credibility and helps to make this an enjoyable read. It gives the reader an opportunity to agree or disagree. I won't mention where he stands on some of the other famous cases, some of which are still controversial today, e.g., whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy, or the credibility of the Turin Shroud relic, or whether Napoleon was poisoned or not. That would spoil a little of the fun. I will say I found myself in agreement with him in almost every instance, but that may be partly because he guided me so well!
But did he change my mind in any of the cases? Partially. I still think Dr. Sam did it, but now believe that there was too much doubt for a conviction to be justified. And in the infamous Lindy Chamberlain case, which Evans dubs "Australia's Forensic Nightmare," where I had doubts, I now have assurance. You will recall that Chamberlain was the woman who claimed that a dingo grabbed her baby out of the family's camping tent and carried it off and ate it to the horror of much of the world. However the police didn't believe her story and arrested her for murder. A film A Cry in the Dark (1988) starring Meryl Streep was made from a book about the case, Evil Angels by John Bryson.
Another thing that Evans does well is evaluate and critique the forensic experts themselves. He shows in the case of one Donald Merrett how the mistaken conclusion and testimony of Sir Bernard Spilsbury "the first and greatest forensic superhero" (p. 42) on whether a shooting was a suicide or not allowed a killer go free to kill again, and he did. In the Rachel Nickell murder in Britain in 1992 he delineates how psychological profiling can mistakenly narrow the field of suspects to exclude the actual murderer. In the O.J. Simpson case it is not the forensic experts who come under fire, but a system that allows such a mismatch of legal talent that the forensic evidence can become blurred in the eyes of the jury.
My favorite chapter was the one on the Kennedy assassination. Having argued the controversy endlessly with fellow students while an undergraduate at UCLA, and having read several books on the subject, I can tell you that what Evans presents in a mere sixteen pages is as clear and forthright summation of what happened as I've read anywhere. His conclusions are the same as mine (which may account for my enthusiasm).
Bottom line: an engaging collection of retrospectives on famous crimes that turned on forensic evidence.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
I had intended to read only two or three of these cases, those that I was most familiar with, the O. J. Simpson case and the Jeffrey MacDonald case, for example, but found myself reading more and more into the book until I had read all fifteen of them.
What Evans does so very well is concisely and clearly present the facts of the cases so that the reader feels clearly involved; and then he brings into sharp focus the controversies about the evidence and the interpretation of the evidence. In starring roles are the forensic experts themselves, botanists and microbiologists, pathologists and coroners, many of them with international reputations and big egos to match. Then Evans argues his position along with the experts. He is not shy about letting us know which side he prefers, concluding, for example, in the Dr. Sam Sheppard murder case from the fifties, that "there wasn't a scintilla of hard evidence in 1954 to prove that Sam Sheppard killed his wife. There still isn't."
I think Evans's decision to be candid about where he stands in each of the cases strengthens his credibility and helps to make this an enjoyable read. It gives the reader an opportunity to agree or disagree. I won't mention where he stands on some of the other famous cases, some of which are still controversial today, e.g., whether Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy, or the credibility of the Turin Shroud relic, or whether Napoleon was poisoned or not. That would spoil a little of the fun. I will say I found myself in agreement with him in almost every instance, but that may be partly because he guided me so well!
But did he change my mind in any of the cases? Partially. I still think Dr. Sam did it, but now believe that there was too much doubt for a conviction to be justified. And in the infamous Lindy Chamberlain case, which Evans dubs "Australia's Forensic Nightmare," where I had doubts, I now have assurance. You will recall that Chamberlain was the woman who claimed that a dingo grabbed her baby out of the family's camping tent and carried it off and ate it to the horror of much of the world. However the police didn't believe her story and arrested her for murder. A film A Cry in the Dark (1988) starring Meryl Streep was made from a book about the case, Evil Angels by John Bryson.
Another thing that Evans does well is evaluate and critique the forensic experts themselves. He shows in the case of one Donald Merrett how the mistaken conclusion and testimony of Sir Bernard Spilsbury "the first and greatest forensic superhero" (p. 42) on whether a shooting was a suicide or not allowed a killer go free to kill again, and he did. In the Rachel Nickell murder in Britain in 1992 he delineates how psychological profiling can mistakenly narrow the field of suspects to exclude the actual murderer. In the O.J. Simpson case it is not the forensic experts who come under fire, but a system that allows such a mismatch of legal talent that the forensic evidence can become blurred in the eyes of the jury.
My favorite chapter was the one on the Kennedy assassination. Having argued the controversy endlessly with fellow students while an undergraduate at UCLA, and having read several books on the subject, I can tell you that what Evans presents in a mere sixteen pages is as clear and forthright summation of what happened as I've read anywhere. His conclusions are the same as mine (which may account for my enthusiasm).
Bottom line: an engaging collection of retrospectives on famous crimes that turned on forensic evidence.
--Dennis Littrell, author of the mystery novel, “Teddy and Teri”
May 19, 2019
This is the sort of book that may provide amusement for an idle hour and then make you wish you had spent your time reading something with greater depth. Evans is a clever writer, and his opinionated handling of fifteen stories doesn’t bother me because I usually agree with him. But his narrative treatment is (like many of his subjects) tawdry. Furthermore, the reader should be wary of factual errors. Some years ago I enjoyed reading his short version of the Sacco-Vanzetti case in his Casebook of Forensic Detection (1996). In my view he was absolutely correct about Sacco’s guilt—but he also called Sacco’s Colt automatic pistol a revolver. The warning lights went up. When you’re hunting big game, your aim has to be dead on.
April 13, 2022
Nice read. Random find at a 2nd hand book shop. Evans is a great conveyor of information. Described the crimes and science involved in the cases in a clear and interesting manner. His selection of cases was excellent I’d either heard if them or they are now embedded in my memory!
February 8, 2019
This book is not for people under 20
October 25, 2013
Covering fifteen of the most controversial cases, A Question of Evidence presents a nice range of forensic science blunders and outright mysteries. Without re-using much of his previous material, (only three cases have been mentioned in less detail in other books), Evans gives the reader a sampling of both historical (Turin Shroud, Napoleon Bonaparte) and modern (O.J. Simpson) cases that document the limits of forensic science and the influence defense attorneys possess when introducing doubt. Each case is detailed but fairly short, about ten pages on average, so reading isn't too much of a chore for those interested in forensic science but bored by the scientific details. As with all his books, Evans presents evidence and explanations easily and without confusion. My favorite cases from this volume were: Alfred Packer, the Colorado Cannibal; Samuel Sheppard, Medical Malpractice and Dr. Sam (Cleveland area near my grandparent's house); Lee Harvey Oswald, the Calculating Patsy; and Colin Stagg, Mind Games (crazy police entrapment techniques). Overall, a nice short read for those well-versed in forensic science or those interested in learning more about it.
November 12, 2019
Rather like The Annals of Unsolved Crime, A Question of Evidence looks at fifteen cases where the forensics of the matter are controversial. The author considers things like the death of Napoleon Bonaparte, the murder of Marilyn Sheppard, and Lindy Chamberlain to show how forensics can help or hurt a case. Some of the cases are solved, or all-but-solved as in the OJ case, where in others, like the death of Roberto Calvi, we're not even necessarily sure a crime was committed. They're almost all murders, though, so if that's not you, maybe just read the first chapter.
I think the author manages to go into just enough detail to be educational while not being so technical the average layperson couldn't follow the case. It's a clever book, an interesting read, and certainly worth a look if you're a fan of true crime.
I think the author manages to go into just enough detail to be educational while not being so technical the average layperson couldn't follow the case. It's a clever book, an interesting read, and certainly worth a look if you're a fan of true crime.
June 9, 2015
Intriguing review of forensic controversies, wherein one learns that forensic "science" consists in equal parts of science, art, persuasion, fraud, and bribery, with people's lives at stake.
Highlights: a review of "The dingo ate your baby!" (referenced in a hilarious Sienfeld episode), in which it turns out the dingo really did, and of course a thumbnail of the OJ case. Evans points out that cases of the OJ type are rare because it takes massive amounts of money to buy private forensic investigators like OJ did, but most trials of rich people dod not involve cases of violent crime.
Highlights: a review of "The dingo ate your baby!" (referenced in a hilarious Sienfeld episode), in which it turns out the dingo really did, and of course a thumbnail of the OJ case. Evans points out that cases of the OJ type are rare because it takes massive amounts of money to buy private forensic investigators like OJ did, but most trials of rich people dod not involve cases of violent crime.
September 23, 2007
I hadn't heard of a lot of the cases in the book, so I liked being introduced to those, and I also liked the recap of ones I was familiar with, like the Lindy Chamberlain story (dingoes ate her baby) and O.J. of course.
June 6, 2007
The stories are short and I tore through them on my daily commute. Written sort of in a serial thriller/mystery style, they don't go into any deep detail but I still found them fairly interesting, especially some of the earlier crimes with which I was less familiar.
August 9, 2010
Just finished reading this, and as a crime scene investigator, it makes me feel a lot better about the mistakes I have made in my career, and thankful that the ones I have made have not been compounded by my co-workers, or exploited by a vengeful lawyer.
Interesting reading in any case.
Interesting reading in any case.
May 23, 2012
I registered a book at BookCrossing.com!
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11147434
http://www.BookCrossing.com/journal/11147434
August 7, 2014
This book is interesting but A little dry. I use it as a reference book more than anything else.
September 1, 2008
Kinda boring.
April 3, 2015
An interesting book, although I do not agree with all of their conclusions
Displaying 1 - 15 of 15 reviews