A description of a trial? Hardly.

The authors are two unqualified reporters who have written a stream of consciousness, not a chronologically clear, immersive book. They spend more ink writing about themselves and subjects about which they are interested than they do about the trial. You will, for example, not read a single question in examination-in-chief or cross-examination, not a single submission to the court or to the jury. They tell you at length how boring the trial is, which begs the question of why they have purported to write a boring book about it. The content of the first three weeks of the trial is encompassed by a brief sketch of who the leading lawyers are and how they wear their gowns and whigs,with a brief discussion of the crown prosecutor’s use of voice. No description of the assisting (second seats) is given other than a remark about one of them coming to court on the first day wearing ankle-strapped stilleto-healed shoes. This is not just a book to pass on, but to be avoided if you value your time and decent writing. Why a publisher accepted it must remain a mystery.

You voted on this review!

You reported this review!