No comments about The Loss of Innocents: Child Killers and Their Victims.

No comments about Relentless Pursuit.

No comments about Arctic Justice: On Trial For Murder, Pond Inlet, 1923 (McGill-Queen's Native & Northern Series).

No comments about Killer Couples: True Stories of Partners in Crime.

No comments about Wanted for Murder.

No comments about Death and Celebrity (True Crime).

No comments about Crime and Murder.

4 comments about Circle of Fire: Murder and Betrayal in the "Swiss Nanny" Case (Circle of Fire).

1. I read this book and believe me I was disgusted at Joyce Egginton's arrogance in claiming that only Olivia Riner murdered the child and used some obscure dissertation from the 19th century to "prove" her so-called guilt. She also lambasts the defense attorney for the way she used the media. If the prosecution was upset at the way the defense used the media then why didn't they get the judge to issue a media blackout on the attorneys? What really disgusted me about Ms. Egginton was the way she declared that Ms. Riner was mentally unstable. Instead of a psychiatrist she used a hand-writing expert! I was also disgusted at the way the Fischer family handled having Ms. Riner in their home. Ms. Riner came over here not just to take care of the child but also for a cultural exchange and to learn about the United States. I only recommend this book if you want the Fischer's side of the story. Otherwise read "The Nanny Murder Trial" by Don Davis for a more balanced view of this story.



2. I think that Ms. Egginton's book is far superior to Don Davis's book, "The Nanny Murder Trial." Ms. Egginton includes information about Olivia Riner which Mr. Davis either did not know or simply neglected to include in his book. Until I read this book, I did not know that Olivia had stolen a whole bag full of baby clothes from the Fischer family. (How do Olivia's supporters explain that?) The passage from Olivia's diary in which she wished that her previous employer, the German doctor, would die was also bizarre. Ms. Egginton builds a persuasive case against Olivia Riner. She explains why Olivia's alibi is not believable, and she rebuts the false charges that Olivia's defense team raised against John Gallagher and Leah Fischer. Ms. Egginton identifies the Fischer family member who made the infamous "barbecue" remark which was erroneously attributed to John Gallagher. Ms. Egginton explains that the remark was actually made by one of Kristie Fischer's paternal uncles, and Ms. Egginton makes it clear that the uncle was only joking and was not malicious. One of the most fascinating parts of this book was the final chapter. I thought that the similarities between Olivia's situation and the cases of the murderous eighteenth- and nineteenth-century nursemaids were both amazing and disturbing. By the time I finished this book, I was one hundred percent certain that Olivia Riner was guilty. I was also deeply moved by Ms. Egginton's account of the extended Fischer family's history and the other tragedies that they had already endured. My only complaint is that Ms. Egginton occasionally criticizes Olivia for alleged shortcomings which have nothing to do with the crime. What does it matter that Olivia didn't wear makeup when she went out to eat? I also do not agree with Ms. Egginton that Olivia's long hair "should have been either braided or cut short." I am a long-haired woman, and I resented Ms. Egginton's irrelevant beauty tips. Another portion of Ms. Egginton's book that annoyed me was a set of quotes by Linda Sawyer, an early defender of Olivia who eventually turned on her. According to Ms. Sawyer, Olivia was "screwed up about sex" because she was proud of being a virgin. Virgins are NOT "screwed up about sex," and virginity is NOT evil! I am a virgin, and I resented the connection that Ms. Egginton drew between virginity and criminality. I would have given this book five stars if Ms. Egginton had omitted the snide remarks about Olivia's hair, her failure to wear makeup, and her lack of sexual experience.



3. It was an okay book, but there were some things that I didn't agree with. I don't think homesickness was much of a murder motive. Stealing babyclothes is a lot different than murder. Being a shy virgin doesn't make you screwed up (I am also a virgin), and having an eating disorder doesn't make you violent. Maybe the reason Olivia didn't rescue Kristie was that Olivia was terrified of fire. Arson investigators have made some serious mistakes. I once heard of a case where a mother was accused of starting a fire that killed her 8-month-old son. The investigators thought that the fire started in the closet in the baby's room. There shouldn't have been anything flammable in there. It later turned out that the fire started in the attic, because something was wrong with the heating system. That is a big difference. The investigators trying to solve Kristie's murder could have been wrong, too. Someone could have been in the house with Kristie and Olivia. Maybe Olivia didn't want to admit that she wasn't paying enough attention. John Gallagher told a lot of lies. Another thing, you can't tell whether or not someone is a murderer by their handwriting. This doesn't mean that I am sure she is innocent, I just have reasonable doubt, like the jury.



4. This book was very interesting and grabbed my attention.
   
   I live in Valhalla, NY (about 1 mile from Thornwood, NY). I know Louis Alagno, and Greg Wind (police lieutenant and fire chief in the book). Louis Alagno is now my Boy Scout leader, and Chief of Police for Mount Pleasant, NY (Thornwood, Valhalla, and Hawthorne).
   
   After reading this book, I talked to them. They recall the incident clearly, and say that this book is not exaggurated at all.

No comments about The Mothershed Case.

5 comments about By Two and Two: The Scandalous Story of Twin Sisters Accused of a Shocking Crime of Passion.

1. I want to know some background on Betty and Peggy. Maiden name and parents, and siblings?? What city and state they were born in? childhood pictures?



2. Schutze has no clue as to what happened or how. He has been swayed. There is a new book coming in mid 2004, it tells who, what, when, how and why. You just might be suprised!



3. I should be surprised, but am not, by two so-called reviews of the book. What they present are not reviews but personal opinions. This is largely what the book lays out as a reason for the conviction of Betty Wilson. This woman was not convicted on any evidence or fact but on the testimony of a proven liar, schizophrenic, alcoholic, drug-addicted man that turned on his own men in Vietnam. Whether people agree or disagree with the verdict, people are supposed to be convicted on fact and not opinion. This book is eye opening and needs to be read by those possessing skills of discernment and reason. One can only hope that justice will prevail in the end although it appears that will not happen in this case.



4. Author Jim Schutze has written some terrific non-fiction books in the past but this is his best one! Unlike most true-crime books, this one uncovers a judicial travesty where one twin sister was sent to prison for life and the other one acquitted for a crime they didn't commit. The first twin to be tried, Betty Wilson, was a controverial figure,in that she lived a life of luxury, had numerous affairs, some with black men, and cussed a lot. These traits were instrumental in paving her way into prison for the horrific beating death of her husband, a wealthy dentist. She was convincted on the incredible testimony of a known psychotic and drug addict,James White, with a rap sheet a mile long. He was given a written contract by the district attorney, that assured him of avoiding the electric chair if he would testify that the twin sisters were behind the murder of the dentist. Betty was painted as a promiscuous, alcoholic "slut" in the Tuscaloosa, Alabama courtroom and this is basically what sealed her fate. Her twin sister, Peggy, whose case was tried in Montgomery, Alabama, was acquitted on the basis of the identical testimony that doomed her sister. This time around, her lawyers pointed out the bizarre lies told by the killer who, by the way, was sent to a dentist to have his teeth capped for his trial appearance. In the jailhouse, he was awarded the status of mascot while he smirked and grinned at the imprisoned Betty. The author says frankly that he considered the twin sisters to be guilty of something when he first started covering the courtro testimony. But he said he gradually became outraged that the district attorney used a known psychopathic criminal to railroad the twin sisters into prison. The fact that it was election year and the DA wanted a high profile case to impress the voters for his re-election, contributed to this travesty. Betty Wilson is now serving life sentence without a chance of parole in the Tutwiler Prison in Alabama. Her twiwn sister, Peggy, is still working with attorneys to have her case appealed. In the meantime, the real killer, James White, is free after savagely murdering a man. The state of Alabama has been good to him for his crime.



5. A few months ago, I saw this case on "48 Hours." It interested me because I had knowledge about this situation that was not in the program, so I bought the book. Not surprisingly, Schultze is even more biased in the book than he was on the program.
   
   Betty: "He [Jack] insisted upon my having affairs." That statement is so outrageous that it is laughable.
   
   Betty said that she had rather face execution in the Electric Chair rather than be locked up for life. I find that comical because if she is being honest, she should kill herself. She didn't. Yes, this is yet another outrageous lie by Betty.
   
   Betty is a patholical liar.
   
   Schultze either "bought into" her lies or isn't being honest in the book. When you buy it, do some independent research. Don't be fooled by Shultze's incredible lack of even basic legal concepts, and don't be fooled by his bias. He doesn't tell the entire story.
   
   Lord, they were tried by 2 different juries. Betty's sister wasn't sleeping with whomever she met that day. The defendants were different in many ways. It was Betty's husband that she had killed, not her sister's husband. The trial of Betty's sister and the trial of Betty are two completely different events. Schultze seemingly cannot understand that basic concept.
   
   Or, can he?
   
   I bet his book sold more copies the way he wrote it rather than it would if he had done his research and reported the truth as unbiased as possible.
   
   Could it be that Schultze is more concerned with $$ than with the truth?
   
   You decide. I already have.