American Sherlock

The Book in 1 Sentence

The pioneer of American crime scene investigation introduce great and terrible science to world of criminal forensics.

Brief Review

A case defined history of the lessons and ego of Oscar Heinrich. Dawson writes very well provided great insights into the cases, Heinrich's thought process, as well as the evidence and the problems that occurred with them. This is a great introduction into the early years of forensic science as well as the repercussions of shotty science that still affect cases today.

Why I Read this book

I wanted to know more about CSI. I watched the show CSI when I was younger and it is interesting science. I have watched the Sherlock Holmes TV show and Movies and loved them. I wanted to know more about what the American side of the house really looked like.

In-Depth Review

Having no idea of what I was getting myself when I started reading this book. I was pleasantly surprised by the case-to-case type explanation of the timeline. It showed a nice growth of techniques and trials that Heinrich attempted and surpassed. His ego for sure got in the way multiple times, but I do appreciate the fact that he was continued to work on his craft about presenting to juries to make his conclusions more understandable to them.

I am not really sure what to say about this book. It was interesting, but I wouldn't even think about reading it again. Dawson does a great job writing this book, but there was a lot of time spent talking about his financial records and the finances of his family, that didn't really add to the science of the book.

I wish there had been more conversation about the lasting impacts of this teaching and investigative worked. He set international precedent on multiple things that have since been either confirmed or now is considered junk science. I would have loved a chapter or two about the continued impacts of his case work.

How my life / behavior / thoughts / ideas have changed as a result of reading the book.

There really isn't much to say here other than the line that came from the book. Paraphrasing "Juries need to look at the science of the investigators and not the results as untrained investors can create confirmation bias without the intent to do so." I was just called to Jury Duty myself so I will keep this in mind if I end up serving.

Rating

This was an interesting book. It didn't pull me in though. It was full of great details on cases from the 1920s-1930s and the science behind them, but I never was itching to continue to the book. Did it keep my interest? Yes it did, but I wasn't thrilled to continue and wasn't really sad it was over. It is a 7 because of its massively informative nature, but isn't a must read.

Want to get a hold of me?
Email | [email protected]