additionaddiction's review against another edition

Go to review page

5.0

Both fascinating and terrifying at the same time, this is a memoir of sorts, from Dr. Elizabeth F. Loftus, who writes about her experiences as an expert witness for defendants in cases where eyewitness testimony ranged from sketchy to downright incorrect.

I’m pretty sure I added this book to my “To Read” list 7 years ago. I’m not sure why (as I usually don’t enjoy non-fiction) but I’m guessing that I either heard this mentioned on NPR on possibly referenced in another book. Whichever the case, I’m glad I finally got around to reading it.

When I said that this book is terrifying, it’s in two different ways. 1. The crimes themselves were all very horrific, and Loftus doesn’t sugar-coat any of it. But 2. In almost every case mentioned, the defendant was mistakenly identified and often had their lives ruined as a result. It’s a hard line to walk between acknowledging the severity of a crime as well as the victims, and realizing that (in America) we are innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, in many of these cases, it appears that the defendants were guilty until proven innocent.

Several of the trials which Loftus was called in for were very high profile (especially at the time). Ted Bundy is probably the most recognizable, but many of the other cases she discusses made national and international headlines. The writing felt a little clunky at times, but overall once I started a chapter, I couldn’t put the book down until I finished. I was instantly invested in these cases and needed to know the outcome.

This was definitely a captivating read, and something that will stick with me for a long time. I don’t think I could ever do what Loftus does, and I’m glad that there are people like her out there in the world. If you have any interest in the legal system, true-crime, or how the human mind works, you’ll probably love this book.

sarahelizabethii's review against another edition

Go to review page

I wanted straightforward non-fiction about how and WHY eyewitnesses' memories work or fail in a courtroom setting. This had too much dialog and description (which I suspect were invented to give a more fiction-y style) and not enough science for my purposes.
More...