Scan barcode
johnbreeden's review
4.0
I am impressed with Rod Englert's efforts and ability to educate himself to become an expert in the blood spatter field. The style of this book lends itself to smooth combinations of the how to do along with the examples best used to demonstrate these elements. Very well written and a great read.
whattheyarereadingnow's review
4.0
A good look into what cop work was like long before I was born and how now we are so much more advanced at solving crimes. It's a good look at the dedication a good cop can take into their career in justice.
liralen's review
4.0
I had this out from the library, and my mother asked to read it after me. I advised that she not read it while eating, because some of the material is rather…grisly. Thus, a day or two later…
My mother: ‘Well, I’m eighty pages in, and so far there’s been nothing that would put me off my breakfast. Maybe I just have a stronger stomach than you do.’
(This is true. Indisputable, in fact.)
On the other hand, she described the Harlequin that she read around the same time as ‘grim’ and ‘never again’.
But I’m a little off topic. I love me a good nonfiction blood-and-body-parts book, and this is no exception. Englert was at the forefront of bloodspatter analysis: as a rookie cop, he came across a death scene that could really only be described as violently bloody, something he was sure was the site of an axe murder…so when it turned out that the real culprit was ulcers (and violent coughing/vomiting up blood), he vowed to learn more and do better the next time. That sent him off on a quest to learn as much as he could about what information crime-scene blood could offer. Some of the information in the book gets a little dry (I didn’t care about angles when I took a forensics class as a teenager, and I don’t care about them now), but overall the stories manage to be both entertaining and informative. I’m not sorry not to be in the field of forensics, but I’ll very cheerfully keep reading this sort of thing. Bring on the blood!
My mother: ‘Well, I’m eighty pages in, and so far there’s been nothing that would put me off my breakfast. Maybe I just have a stronger stomach than you do.’
(This is true. Indisputable, in fact.)
On the other hand, she described the Harlequin that she read around the same time as ‘grim’ and ‘never again’.
But I’m a little off topic. I love me a good nonfiction blood-and-body-parts book, and this is no exception. Englert was at the forefront of bloodspatter analysis: as a rookie cop, he came across a death scene that could really only be described as violently bloody, something he was sure was the site of an axe murder…so when it turned out that the real culprit was ulcers (and violent coughing/vomiting up blood), he vowed to learn more and do better the next time. That sent him off on a quest to learn as much as he could about what information crime-scene blood could offer. Some of the information in the book gets a little dry (I didn’t care about angles when I took a forensics class as a teenager, and I don’t care about them now), but overall the stories manage to be both entertaining and informative. I’m not sorry not to be in the field of forensics, but I’ll very cheerfully keep reading this sort of thing. Bring on the blood!
julia_rhys's review against another edition
4.0
Blood Spatter
I enjoyed this book and learned from it. I always like hearing the personal stories and lessons from experts and Rod did not disappoint. If you enjoy learning about solving crimes, I recommend this book.
I enjoyed this book and learned from it. I always like hearing the personal stories and lessons from experts and Rod did not disappoint. If you enjoy learning about solving crimes, I recommend this book.
kayla__renee's review
5.0
One of my favorite books. This was the book that got me more interested in nonfiction, because it was so compelling and interesting.
skullfullofbooks's review
3.0
Rod Englert promised to deliver some great information about bloodspatter and the developing field that he is an expert in, but failed to deliver. I had to bounce between 3 and 4 stars since the book itself was enjoyable, but just not what I was looking for based on the description.
If you haven't read this yet and are looking for more information beyond the basics of bloodspatter analysis, then look elsewhere. There were some basic details that could be learned in any introductory forensics class, with even less information than what I was taught in high school, peppered throughout a book of memoirs. Maybe I should have been prepared when the title says "chronicles" of the crime scene reconstructionist, but I had hoped for more information from someone touting so much expertise. You get maybe 20 pages of descriptions of the basic blood patterns and that's it.
The book itself had interesting cases that obviously related to bloodspatter in some way. He starts out with background autobiography about how he began going into the police force and started his interest in bloodspatter evidene, then begins fragmented descriptions of cases with hypocritical opinions about impartiality and remaining aloof, yet seeing no issues with writing a book about his involvement with the cases. This is most evident when he reviews his efforts in the O.J. Simpson case, and pieces together references throughout the book instead of making it neat in a singular location. I just feel like he threw impartiality out the window on that one.
He mentions a lot of things towards the end that I disagree with, mainly calling it a stupid argument when an expert mentions that a toothbrush could recreate high velocity spatter when used in the correct way. While I agree with him that this admission is more theoretical than practical, it is still true. You cannot ignore the possibility of random acts just because it doesn't fit into the picture neatly.
Finally, he seems to feel that one cannot just enter the crime scene reconstruction field without immense experience as a police officer or other related jobs. Yet he cites countless times where students in High School or those not involved in those fields helped solve a case that he could not. It just seems a little egotistical to heft around his experience but then still admit to relying on the viewpoint of outsiders to solve the case because he could not see something in a way they could. You can't claim to be great like that and then turn around and admit that dumb luck is a huge part of it. A lot of bloodspatter analysis is being able to look at the spatter and say "hey, this is x velocity and goes in y direction" and anything can be recreated in a lab setting, as he admits. I think it's great that he values the opinions of others in work and it's good that he's humble enough to do that, but I feel that it disproves his idea of needing the years and years of experience when a High School student finds the solution to a case with no previous forensic training.
If you're looking to read this book for interesting cases and want a little information about bloodspatter, then this is the book for you. It was enjoyable to read with good highlights of cases. Towards the end he does seem to ramble but I wonder if he had a page goal to meet, because he goes into some experiences in Russia and Bogota that don't really deal with cases at all.
If you haven't read this yet and are looking for more information beyond the basics of bloodspatter analysis, then look elsewhere. There were some basic details that could be learned in any introductory forensics class, with even less information than what I was taught in high school, peppered throughout a book of memoirs. Maybe I should have been prepared when the title says "chronicles" of the crime scene reconstructionist, but I had hoped for more information from someone touting so much expertise. You get maybe 20 pages of descriptions of the basic blood patterns and that's it.
The book itself had interesting cases that obviously related to bloodspatter in some way. He starts out with background autobiography about how he began going into the police force and started his interest in bloodspatter evidene, then begins fragmented descriptions of cases with hypocritical opinions about impartiality and remaining aloof, yet seeing no issues with writing a book about his involvement with the cases. This is most evident when he reviews his efforts in the O.J. Simpson case, and pieces together references throughout the book instead of making it neat in a singular location. I just feel like he threw impartiality out the window on that one.
He mentions a lot of things towards the end that I disagree with, mainly calling it a stupid argument when an expert mentions that a toothbrush could recreate high velocity spatter when used in the correct way. While I agree with him that this admission is more theoretical than practical, it is still true. You cannot ignore the possibility of random acts just because it doesn't fit into the picture neatly.
Finally, he seems to feel that one cannot just enter the crime scene reconstruction field without immense experience as a police officer or other related jobs. Yet he cites countless times where students in High School or those not involved in those fields helped solve a case that he could not. It just seems a little egotistical to heft around his experience but then still admit to relying on the viewpoint of outsiders to solve the case because he could not see something in a way they could. You can't claim to be great like that and then turn around and admit that dumb luck is a huge part of it. A lot of bloodspatter analysis is being able to look at the spatter and say "hey, this is x velocity and goes in y direction" and anything can be recreated in a lab setting, as he admits. I think it's great that he values the opinions of others in work and it's good that he's humble enough to do that, but I feel that it disproves his idea of needing the years and years of experience when a High School student finds the solution to a case with no previous forensic training.
If you're looking to read this book for interesting cases and want a little information about bloodspatter, then this is the book for you. It was enjoyable to read with good highlights of cases. Towards the end he does seem to ramble but I wonder if he had a page goal to meet, because he goes into some experiences in Russia and Bogota that don't really deal with cases at all.
More...