Scan barcode
clarkso6's review against another edition
emotional
informative
sad
medium-paced
5.0
Very thorough true crime novel. I didn't know it was nonfiction until the end (there i go not reading the description before I read a book again....). The whole thing is chilling to think that this isn't the only case like this in the country.
This book looks at a wrongful conviction of an individual with mental illness and his journey through the system and on death row.
This book looks at a wrongful conviction of an individual with mental illness and his journey through the system and on death row.
jimbowen0306's review against another edition
4.0
John Grisham's "The Innocent Man" was a really irritating book, but only because of what happened in the story (and not in the way it was written).
It's the story of two guys (a manic depressive former minor league ball player (and former small town baseball hero) and a teacher) who are found guilty of murder when a more obvious suspect is available, but passed over in an effort to convict the mad guy and his friend.
The book's irritating because from page one you're thinking "Yeah, but why aren't they looking at this guy as a suspect?" and wondering whether this is what justice looks like if you're poor, a minority, or behave weirdly in small town America (I'm afraid to say that having read the book, the answer is that yes, justice probably does look like that).
I have a couple of grumbles with the book. First, the book's interesting and well written, but part of me wonders if this book could have been better presented if it wasn't structured in the way that it is. Knowing who the murderer is from page 1 is always going to make you feel infuriated when the police "don't get their man," but the prosecution had so many holes in it that the reader might have found it hard to buy into the story if it was written in any other way.
My second grumble is that I wanted Grisham to give is a call to arms at the end of the book and tell us what to do, but he didn't, so you better not expect one when you finish the book.
It's the story of two guys (a manic depressive former minor league ball player (and former small town baseball hero) and a teacher) who are found guilty of murder when a more obvious suspect is available, but passed over in an effort to convict the mad guy and his friend.
The book's irritating because from page one you're thinking "Yeah, but why aren't they looking at this guy as a suspect?" and wondering whether this is what justice looks like if you're poor, a minority, or behave weirdly in small town America (I'm afraid to say that having read the book, the answer is that yes, justice probably does look like that).
I have a couple of grumbles with the book. First, the book's interesting and well written, but part of me wonders if this book could have been better presented if it wasn't structured in the way that it is. Knowing who the murderer is from page 1 is always going to make you feel infuriated when the police "don't get their man," but the prosecution had so many holes in it that the reader might have found it hard to buy into the story if it was written in any other way.
My second grumble is that I wanted Grisham to give is a call to arms at the end of the book and tell us what to do, but he didn't, so you better not expect one when you finish the book.
lethaldose's review against another edition
4.0
I did not realize when I began this book that it was so polarizing. I found out when about halfway through I did a little background research and read some reviews trying to find out more information about the parties involved and the history in the book. I am always a little wary of just accepting a single account of an actual event in history. Now apparently I am a little too late to the party here, Bill Peterson the DA that wrongfully tried and convicted both Williamson and Fritz had a website up defending his actions and codemning Grishams account. And he had launched a libel suit against Grisham and Dennis Fritz, one of the men he wrongfully had put in jail for 12 years for a murder he did not commit. Now the website is gone and in a strange twist I can't actually find any of the information that was on it, I didn't waste too much time looking but I am actually stunned that a quick preliminary search didn't find it, so I can't account too much for the what site may or may not have said, I found a review of the site and read what I could find on the lawsuit he filed. The lawsuit was dismissed by a judge, and rightfully so. There really is some strange "through the looking glass logic" when a man can sue someone for libel that he was personally responsible for putting behind bars for 12 years for a murder he did not commit. What I find most troubling is that all this seems to indicate a person who does not think he did anything wrong and it was just unfortunate that two innocent men were wrongfully convicted of a crime. And even giving him the benefit of the doubt that he truly believe the two men to be guilty, and even if most of what Grisham points out in the book is false, there is still enough troubling information and doubts that Mr Peterson should probably shut up, go to his room, and spend at least a few minutes thinking about what he might could have done wrong and how this situation might have been avoided.
Ok that deals with the polarizing part of it and what I think, as for the book itself, it was great and very interesting. My only complaint about the book is that maybe the level of detail that Grisham went into at times bordered on exhaustive and tedious. But there is something to be said for even that, maybe we should made to feel a certain amount of drudgery in the book, a very slight taste of what it was like to be on death row for 12 years, maybe we should feel just a bit of long process of exoneration, or worse the slow torture that came before it in conviction. Grisham is a fantastic writer and he gives you a deep connection to people involved and the events that take place, to a level to where I am reminded of course of "In Cold Blood". Grisham manages to humanize the headlines in that sameway, he puts you the reader right in the peak set of this real life tragedy and it unfolds in a very human way that you can't get with just the headlines. Like Truman Capote before him, did he engage in a bit of sensationalizing? Probably. Did he take a liberal interpretation of events? Sure, maybe, maybe Dennis Fritz wasn't as wonderful of a person as he was portrayed in the book, but he was innocent of the crimes the book detailed so why does that matter. I have read that potraying him as a loved school teacher was a lie, that maybe true, but he also had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Debbie Carter, so maybe since the police and the DA so villified him during that trial and the subsequent years, maybe a certain amount of revision to him and his reputation is owed him since the important part of the story is that he was an innocent man. I am sure Grisham may have even got some of the facts wrong because of numerous reasons, but he was not the man who put away two innocent men for 12 years, and for such a famous writer to tackle a subject like this and to hold those responsible accountable is important, it makes people pay attention. And you know I think there is something more to Grisham's account here too, Grisham is an ex lawyer and because of his books still a very much legally minded guy, I think he portrayed Peterson as a villina here because as a former lawyer he understands the power a lawyer has and responsibility they have, and he felt insult by how Peterson handled everything and felt insulted not just for himself but for all the lawyers he knows who do the right things and follow the right procedures, for the hard working lawyers out there that get it right. I think Bill Peterson pissed him off because he expects more from attorneys, he obviously didn't care much for how the investigation in general was handled, but Grisham saves most his venom for Peterson.
It was a great book though and if you like true crime books, or just great written story-like nonfiction then you will love this book.
Ok that deals with the polarizing part of it and what I think, as for the book itself, it was great and very interesting. My only complaint about the book is that maybe the level of detail that Grisham went into at times bordered on exhaustive and tedious. But there is something to be said for even that, maybe we should made to feel a certain amount of drudgery in the book, a very slight taste of what it was like to be on death row for 12 years, maybe we should feel just a bit of long process of exoneration, or worse the slow torture that came before it in conviction. Grisham is a fantastic writer and he gives you a deep connection to people involved and the events that take place, to a level to where I am reminded of course of "In Cold Blood". Grisham manages to humanize the headlines in that sameway, he puts you the reader right in the peak set of this real life tragedy and it unfolds in a very human way that you can't get with just the headlines. Like Truman Capote before him, did he engage in a bit of sensationalizing? Probably. Did he take a liberal interpretation of events? Sure, maybe, maybe Dennis Fritz wasn't as wonderful of a person as he was portrayed in the book, but he was innocent of the crimes the book detailed so why does that matter. I have read that potraying him as a loved school teacher was a lie, that maybe true, but he also had absolutely nothing to do with the murder of Debbie Carter, so maybe since the police and the DA so villified him during that trial and the subsequent years, maybe a certain amount of revision to him and his reputation is owed him since the important part of the story is that he was an innocent man. I am sure Grisham may have even got some of the facts wrong because of numerous reasons, but he was not the man who put away two innocent men for 12 years, and for such a famous writer to tackle a subject like this and to hold those responsible accountable is important, it makes people pay attention. And you know I think there is something more to Grisham's account here too, Grisham is an ex lawyer and because of his books still a very much legally minded guy, I think he portrayed Peterson as a villina here because as a former lawyer he understands the power a lawyer has and responsibility they have, and he felt insult by how Peterson handled everything and felt insulted not just for himself but for all the lawyers he knows who do the right things and follow the right procedures, for the hard working lawyers out there that get it right. I think Bill Peterson pissed him off because he expects more from attorneys, he obviously didn't care much for how the investigation in general was handled, but Grisham saves most his venom for Peterson.
It was a great book though and if you like true crime books, or just great written story-like nonfiction then you will love this book.
gkaltam's review against another edition
dark
informative
sad
medium-paced
3.0
Content Warnings
Graphic: Suicide attempt