|
In the end there is hope. This was a great book as it was based on a true story. It was an eye opener to how people with mental illness need to get diagnosed without stigma.
But I'm not sure the feeling of a marathon is what Grisham was intending to create when he wrote this thing.and here's my biggest dislike with this book: The sarcasm contained within. Honestly, this made me gag.I'm not saying the book shouldn't be read, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone I know because of the way this was done. Having read all of Grisham's books to date, I was very intrigued to see a book he had written which was based on fact. Eyeopening it sure was in regard to the travesty of justice, but, wow, what a tedious and laborious read. My thought is if you are doing a straight documentational work, stick to the facts and credit the reader with the ability to draw the correct conclusion. Did he forget he has the ability to even engage the reader - fiction or otherwise. I wanted to put the book down so many times, but decided I had already invested so much time into getting so far it would be a shame not to see it through just to read the conclusion.
I'll watch TV news reports if I want someone to think for me and slant it with their tone of voice. I felt I was being talked down to on many occasions - not pleasant - whether or not I agree with his viewpoint.
Quite honestly, this read like one really, really long, dry, newspaper report. But surely someone as gifted in writing could have come up with better language and text to try to persuade the reader to agree with his personal viewpoint.
Having read some decent reviews, I was expecting a gripping and eye opening read. Credit goes to Grisham for tackling this and he is entitled to feel strongly about it and say what he thinks.
Such a shame, when the subject matter itself is so important that I think it should be shared with everyone. Was this even the same writer who crafted such engaging stories as "The Testament" and "The Brethren".
Does a blues musician forget he even knows how to play guitar just because he's decided to try and do a rock number.
The Innocent ManThis is the best of Grisham's great books; a true story, truth is stranger than fiction and it could happen to you or someone you love.
The stress of defending an innocent person with minimal financial resources is incredible. But the results can be extremely malicious. I am confident he could have written several fiction books in the same time that this book took. His royalties would have been much greater with fiction.I rarely read fiction because non-fiction is about real life and not about imagination. The system is geared to convict and the concept of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a fiction.If any of you ever have the opportunity to sit on a jury, I pray that you will fulfill your duty with your head and not your heart.Thank you John Grisham. Victor Hugo's description of Jean Val Jean was somewhat detailed also.
I find many of the reviews in this thread amusing. One should read what s/he prefers and decline to impose the same standard on works that are totally different in concept.I note that some reviews criticize the fact that Grisham spent time detailing the personal history of Williamson and Fritz. The elected official often rationalizes his/her conclusion by the opinion that the defendant may not be guilty of that particular crime but is probably guilty of some other crime for which s/he has not been charged.Is the elected offical a malicious person. It is incredible that their testimory is given any weight. A jailhouse snitch has no credibility but the prosecution will use them and jurors will believe them. The reason for that is Williamson and Fritz were/are real people with actual histories. One should not compare non-fiction with fiction. John Grisham has written a masterpiece of legal non-fiction.
The actual practice of law is totally different. The conviction of an innocent person is reprehensible but equally disturbing is the fact that the actual perpretrator remains free and no one is looking for him/her. Generally not. The use of hair analysis is similar in nature. An elected public official is under tremendous pressure to convict someone when there is an heinous crime.
They have watched television and think they understand the system. If someone else had written this book, it would not have received equal publicity.Read the Dreams of Ada as a followup to Grisham's book. It is just one step away from letting a clairvoyant testify.Most people think they are lawyers. His journey through transcripts and the history of this case is equivalent to a public service. The saving grace in the Williamson/Fritz case is that the actual perpertrator ended up in prison for another crime before his involvement was discovered.The use of jailhouse snitches would be comical if it was not so serious.
The elected official and his supporting staff can become convinced that someone committed the crime and lose his/her objectivity. A person generally favors one over the other and to analyze them with the same standard is unfair. :)I am familiar with the cases referenced in the book and know some of the persons involved.
Though, I found the story of Fritz more compelling (Fritz's wife was murdered several years before he was accused of killing Carter, and the killer was never captured), in hindsight, I understand why Grisham chose Williamson. Of the two, Grisham chose to focus his book on Williamson -- a local baseball hero turned mentally disturbed small-town criminal. Even someone you hate, loathe, and despise, doesn't deserve the death penalty for a crime he did not commit. The lack of evidence against Williamson will appall you, particularly when you consider the fact that he was sentenced to die for his "crime." The lack of evidence against Dennis Fritz was even more grotesque. But, he wasn't a murderer.Williamson and Dennis Fritz were convicted of murdering Debra Sue Carter in 1988. It closes with details about Williamson's & Fritz's life after prison and exoneration.Local reaction to the DNA exoneration seems to range from embarrassment, anger (at Grisham), disbelief, a continuing belief - despite DNA evidence - that Williamson and Fritz were guilty, sadness, and outrage. If you believe the criminal justice system is fair, this book will infuriate you."Ron Williamson was a deadbeat. If you are interested in reading local reactions, you can find them by searching the Ada Evening News archives.Overall, Grisham did a bang-up job telling Williamson's story.
(Note: The book is also an interesting study on the problems with the mental health care system in the United States). An alcoholic, and a petty criminal. "If you believe that in America you are innocent until proven guilty, this book will shock you. Williamson was everything a jury would dislike and hate. His behavior was awful, and at times, it was almost impossible to sympathize with him while reading the book.He's exactly the kind of person an individual sees and thinks, "Why isn't he in prison."But, even the town drunk deserves a fair shake.
A drain on the system. Mentally disturbed and lacking treatment for a majority of his life - both in and out of prison. He was a burden on his family. If you believe in the death penalty, this book will disturb you.
I zoomed through the second half of the book in one sitting. I'm a very fast reader, and I found myself having to trudge through the first half of the book. The details paint a horrific picture - no embellishment is needed or necessary, and it shows just how wrong the justice system can be when the individuals charged with finding justice are more interested in obtaining a conviction of the person they deem guilty, despite everything the evidence is telling them.The second half of the book details Williamson's and Fritz's life in prison, their appeals, and eventually, the involvement of The Innocence Project. Even the town deadbeat deserves justice. The trial begins about halfway through the book, and that's when the pace really picks up.
A burden on what few friends he was able to make and keep. Then again, I think anyone that wasn't involved in the initial investigation would be biased against how it was conducted. And, despite the early pacing problem, this is definitely a book that everyone should read. Throughout the book, Grisham makes no attempt to hide his bias. He was useless.
And, in between the shock and horror you feel when reading about how badly the police and DA botched the investigation, how disturbing it is that one could be sentenced to life in prison and death on such flimsy and circumstantial evidence, that's the message Grisham is sending.The book starts out as a slow read. He was loud, obnoxious, and irritating. Williamson was given the death penalty, and Fritz faced life in prison. A burden on his town.
|
