I went to hear Sebastian Junger talk and read about his new book about the Boston Strangler tonight at Politics and Prose. It was quite disappointing, and I know that the review of his book have been mixed.
I do not know much about Junger. His bestseller was "The Perfect Storm", which I have not read.
The strangler, Albert di Salvo, worked at the Junger house in Belmont MA when Junger was a child and while the murders were taking place. This gave him a connection.
But, he says, the story is really about "reasonable doubt". What is it? How do you measure it? How do we know that we know what we think we know? Not only as a murder case juror, but throughout life?
He does not present particularly well, and he does not convince you that he has a lot to add on the subject of reasonable doubt.
All I could think of was O.J. Simpson. Why does everyone assume (know) he was guilty?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment