A review by krista7
Framed: Why Michael Skakel Spent Over a Decade in Prison For a Murder He Didn't Commit by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
2.0
Before I review this book, I have to admit that I came to the case at its heart (the Martha Moxley murder) with a firm belief in Michael Skakel's guilt.
That said, I'm attempting to review this book as objectively as possible, given that Robert F. Kennedy is arguing for his cousin's innocence. I do in fact find that he makes several compelling arguments (the location of Michael that night, a possible confession from another party, the strength needed to break a golf club, the weakness of Michael's defense lawyer, and so on.) But the book is set back by two items: 1.) RFK Jr. is frequently over-the-top in his denunciation of various opposed forces. I certainly understand why he doesn't like Dominick Dunne or the CT police, but his constant references to how they "lied," or how they're bottom-feeders, and so on, are just tiresome. I'm not persuaded of a conspiracy just because the author repeatedly says there was one. 2.) The book seems to be going into various directions, rather than telling one coherent story. It would have been stronger with a tighter organization, less excessive interpretative commentary on the "other side," and a more singular argument as the focus of the book. As it is right now, the book seems to be arguing for a mixture of bad luck, bad defense, bad cops, bad parenting, and more in the case--and that is just too much for me to buy.
That said, I'm attempting to review this book as objectively as possible, given that Robert F. Kennedy is arguing for his cousin's innocence. I do in fact find that he makes several compelling arguments (the location of Michael that night, a possible confession from another party, the strength needed to break a golf club, the weakness of Michael's defense lawyer, and so on.) But the book is set back by two items: 1.) RFK Jr. is frequently over-the-top in his denunciation of various opposed forces. I certainly understand why he doesn't like Dominick Dunne or the CT police, but his constant references to how they "lied," or how they're bottom-feeders, and so on, are just tiresome. I'm not persuaded of a conspiracy just because the author repeatedly says there was one. 2.) The book seems to be going into various directions, rather than telling one coherent story. It would have been stronger with a tighter organization, less excessive interpretative commentary on the "other side," and a more singular argument as the focus of the book. As it is right now, the book seems to be arguing for a mixture of bad luck, bad defense, bad cops, bad parenting, and more in the case--and that is just too much for me to buy.