The Great Sniper! Blog Tour

The Great Sniper! Blog Tour begins next week. Please visit these blogs on the dates indicated and give them some love!

November 17 – RABT Book Tours – Kick Off

November 18 – Book Review Virginia Lee – Spotlight

November 19 – A Life Through Books – Interview

November 20 – Saph’s books – Spotlight

November 23 – Book Junkiez – Spotlight

November 24 – Book corner news and reviews – Spotlight

November 25 – Teatime and books – Spotlight

November 27 –  Crossroad reviews – Spotlight

November 30 – Nesie’s Place – Guest Post

December 1 – On a Reading Bender – Review

December 2 – Momma says to read or not to read – Spotlight

December 3 – Momma and Her Stories – Excerpt

December 4 – Nana’s Book Reviews – Spotlight

December 6 – Our Town Book Reviews – Spotlight

December 7 – Texas Book Nook – Review

December 8 –Dina Rae’s write stuff – Spotlight

December 9 – The Avid Reader – Interview

December 10 – Silver dagger tour – Spotlight

December 11 – Novel News Network – Review

December 13 – Jazzy Book Reviews – Interview

December 14 – My Reading Addiction – Interview

December 15 – Novelty Book Designs – Spotlight

December 16 – Sylv net – Spotlight

December 17 – The Indie Express – Review

December 18 – RABT Reviews –  Wrap Up

Book Review – The Mathematical Murder of Innocence, by Michael Carter

The Mathematical Murder of Innocence by Michael Carter

My rating: 3 of 5 stars


Michael Carter’s The Mathematical Murder of Innocence is an important book. It is based on an actual miscarriage of justice in which a woman who had to of her children die of SIDS was convicted of murder due to fallacious statistical evidence given at her trial. Carter uses his novel to demonstrate why such evidence is flawed, which is most definitely a public service.
However, the novel has several failings. Perhaps the greatest one is the vehicle of a having a juror cross-examine an expert witness at trial. Despite the justifications given in the novel, this would never happen in reality. And it’s unnecessary. The protagonist could have easily been a defense attorney himself, or someone who was in the courtroom for another reason who heard the expert’s flawed testimony and went to the defense about it, or an expert witness hired by the defense to refute the prosecution’s witness. The other major flaw was the protracted nature of some of the courtroom arguments. While accurate, they tended to turn the book from a novel to a set of lecture notes or a textbook, robbing the story on much dramatic character.
However, even with these flaws, the book is eminently worth reading as an example of how probabilistic arguments may be misapplied to affect public policy or even personal freedom.



View all my reviews