Mystery/Thriller Reading Friends discussion
Spoiler Talk on Books We've Read
>
The Reversal in progress
date
newest »
newest »
This is such a good book! I loved it when Michel Connelly called out Shutter Island (as a movie someone was watching I think) and that he doesn't shy away from interspersing the book with current topics and things that add a timeline of "when it happened" to the story. I know sometimes this dates a book when you read it decades later, but is that really a bad thing?
I enjoy my trips into whatever period the book is written in. We tend to not see as much progress around us as there really is, and the technology of a '70s era book is a real wake up. Those poor detectives going through microfiche and looking for a phone both!
I'm currently reading this one now. Just started it and I am the point where Bosch agrees to work with Haller.
Lorraine:It has been killing me that my copy of The Reversal is in the car waiting for me to drive to work again. Not enough to go to back work yet though. ;)
Spoiler on the Reversal************************
I just finished this book yesterday. The defense brought up Sarah's drug use and how it affected Sarah's memory of her sister's kidnapping. But at the same time, the defense was using a witness that was a known drug user, he met Sarah in rehab, and using his memory of conversations with Sarah for the trial. Of course, later on the stand, he told the truth. I didn't think this part of the plot was plausible for a defense attorney, when accusing the drug use of a prosecution witness and then using a druggie as their witness. Other than that, I did enjoy the book.
You should have been here watching the Charlie Buck trial (in Sherry's backyard). I would not put anything past the defense after they put on a case that the husband did not murder the wife, because she had a heart attack first. The guy was acquitted based on rogue forensics.
Barry wrote: "You should have been here watching the Charlie Buck trial (in Sherry's backyard). I would not put anything past the defense after they put on a case that the husband did not murder the wife, becau..."oh don't even get me started on that whole farce.
Spoiler on the Reversal************************
Lorraine: I agree, it would certainly be a stretch for the defense to expect the jurors to believe one and not believe the other for the same reason.
It almost seemed as if the intent by Connolly regarding the defense was to contrast the defense strategy (flawed by design and a stretch even before the witness was discredited) with the idea that one rogue juror could hang the case.
It was,especially in the end,a rather cynical view of the criminal justice system. and in LA, it is all about politics and public perception. I felt a letdown that Mickey and Maggie didn't have a triumphant case. Harry, I guess I have come to expect him to be unhappy in the end
Brakedrum wrote: "I didn't think this part of the plot was plausible for a defense attorney, when accusing the drug use of a prosecution witness and then using a druggie as their witness.."
Cynical, thy name is Barry. How about the gov of Illinois? Did not even put on a defense and trial was hung by a juror. I have a hard time swallowing this.
So true, Barry. Sign me cynical on this subject too. I have a feeling that may have been part of the point of the novel. I would love to ask Michael Connelly that question. Harry's own books always have that cynical edge, don't they?
Barry wrote: "Cynical, thy name is Barry. How about the gov of Illinois? Did not even put on a defense and trial was hung by a juror. I have a hard time swallowing this."
Barry wrote: "I would not put anything past the defense after they put on a case that the husband did not murder the wife, because she had a heart attack first. ..."Okay, I'll bite. How was the guy supposed to have murdered his wife?
Good point, Lorraine, I didn't think of the contradiction you pointed out.I had a hard time swallowing Jessup going postal on his legal team after they screwed up in court. Of course I guess he was insane, why else would he create that little cell like place under the boardwalk for himself when he could enjoy all the luxuries and freedoms of "outside."
It was,especially in the end,a rather cynical view of the criminal justice system.Switch "realistic" for cynical and I'd be in complete agreement. As to Barry's example of Blago, just goes to show ya how screwed up the system really is.
Carol/Bonadie wrote: Okay, I'll bite. How was the ..."
The prosecution believed he did it with heavy cable that he kept under the seat of his truck, but were unable to recover it. She had a wound that matched that more than the edge of a stairway. Most of the forensic types, believed this scenario, but not all, so the panel of judges had doubt. Buck had bragged to friends that he would do it this way, and clearly was in the thrall of a local barlady, one that he bought a car for, jewels, a house...
The day before the death, the wife was kidnapped by Buck's handyman. He was convicted, but then retired since his defense team said he did not have a chance to face his accuser, the wife, who was dead by the time of the trial, so the prosecution used an affidavit.
Might as well add that at the handyman trial, Buck pleaded the fifth.
http://southcapitolstreet.com/2010/12...
Oh, I remember hearing something about this. I remember the image of her crumpled in a heap at the bottom of the stairs in her own home.Barry wrote: "Carol/Bonadie wrote:
Okay, I'll bite. How was the ..."
The prosecution believed he did it with heavy cable that he kept under the seat of his truck, but were unable to recover it. She had a wou..."
A lot of the initial press conference tension between Mickey and Williams regarding Mickey's not being a 'yes man' to the prosecutor was cut out as was some of the background of the tension between Mickey and ex-wife Maggie 'McFierce'. Perhaps not critical to the story, but important in my mind.
A question, it seemed odd to me when Madeline Bosch was referred to with that last name. Wouldn't her last name have been the same as Eleanor's or did I miss this in a previous book?