ROD,
div>
I have to disagree with your assessment of the book. I thought it was very engagingly written. Filled to the brim with new facts, connections and chock-full of unknown information. It is true; it is not a straightforward dissection of the case like Edgar Lustgarten or the account you generously posted (from 1932). That has already been done to death.
I guess you want to wait awhile (although I am dying to dissect some finer points) to discuss specific content. But it just baffles me how, in light of all the new information and intricacies of the case, one can think Wallace was not behind it. So many things to explain away...
Bookmarks