Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

First review of the year, and it's a DNF at 75% of a book that has a 4.37 average rating on Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ. Off to a great start!

I requested this from Netgalley last year because it sounded super freaking interesting. I love true crime, and I love forensics, and so this seemed right up my alley. But here I am, nearly midnight, trying to chip away at this book that I've now been reading for a full month and a day, and... I'm just over it. My Kindle informs me that I have just over 2 hours and 10 minutes of reading time left in the book, and 25% to go, and I just find myself increasingly frustrated and annoyed by the writing, and more particularly, the tone of this book.

It's not the anatomy lessons, which are detailed and informative and interesting. It's not the "I was called in to investigate..." segments, which I was hoping would be "riveting" as the cover blurb promises, but... weren't. It was the weirdly condescending judgemental tone I felt underneath the writing about people - often victims - who lived lives presumably different from her own. This was then juxtaposed with her exceedingly considerate redemptive hope for the perpetrators of heinous crimes.

I'm not saying that she should be all "OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!" or anything, and I find it commendable that she's able to have compassion for killers and violent offenders. (Though I find it odd that she was so gleefully smug about the arrest of a tattooed man who did nothing violent -yet anyway - but disassembled and reassembled a gun on video.) But there was just something about how she phrased certain passages or sentences about innocent people who live differently that really rubbed me the wrong way, especially in light of the compassion shown elsewhere.

Here are some of the standouts:

On women found mutilated, murdered, and buried: "This was now a murder inquiry, and when, in the summer of 1995, a farmer found a sack containing a mutilated female corpse on land near Stevanin's house, the investigation escalated and heavy digging equipment was brought in to search the farm thoroughly. The badly decomposed remains of four more women were discovered, some with bags over their heads and ropes around their necks. The most pressing question was: who were they? Sex work can be a transient trade, and a haphazard lifestyle often goes with the territory. Girls appear on a particular "patch" for a while and may then move on without warning. Few will notice a missing prostitute, and their fellow sex workers are reluctant to talk to the police for fear of inviting trouble."

My first thought reading the first half of this section was that obviously these women, who were in their early-to-mid 20s, were sex trafficked and then murdered. But then I got to the second half, and when the possibility of trafficking was not even mentioned, and when the "haphazard lifestyle" was casually tossed out there, and when "their fellow sex workers are reluctant to talk to the police for fear of inviting trouble" I was literally like "Seriously? It's 2021, and she doesn't even CONSIDER that they may have been trafficked back then? Even if she didn't think so at the time??" (Edit to add: These women were identified as Eastern European, which is a key reason for my belief that they were trafficked, and which I neglected to mention during my 1am ranting last night.)

Even more annoying is that she then goes on to talk at length about the SHOCKING way that the Italian police just causally laid out crime scene photos in a cafe (A PUBLIC CAFE!), and then her HORRIFIC ordeal of having to fly (COMMERCIAL) to Scotland with the disembodied and decomposing heads of two of the women, and the *gasp* looks of horror from the airport and airline and customs staff when they learned what was in her carry-on. She was put in Business Class... BY HERSELF. "Far from receiving special treatment, I was effectively quarantined for the entire flight. Not so much as an offer of a glass of water."

THE HORROR. A whole TWO HOUR flight? It's amazing she survived. Snark aside, I mean, yeah. I get it. That's probably a less than enjoyable situation, but it's not one that I'm particularly empathetic about.

And then there was this, which is about a different case and trying to find the identity of a dead woman: "There is some irony in the fact that, once a name has been assigned to a body, our natural inclination is to anonymize the victim out of respect for them and their family. But while a body remains unidentified we do the opposite: we publicly spread all the information we have in the hope that a name might one day be forthcoming.
The challenge is often tougher when a victim either originates from, or has chosen to live within, a transient or chaotic community."

I read that last line and literally thought "What the fuck is THAT supposed to mean?" It struck me as VERY victim-blamey. As though she was implying that had the person made better choices, they wouldn't have died... or at least would have people who cared enough to identify them if they did. And thinking back to the former section I quoted, about the "prostitutes" and their "haphazard lifestyles", it bothered me all the more.

Then there's a section referring to a Trans Woman... "Yvonne, whose birth name had been Martin, was a prostitute who worked the red-light district picking up gay men -- a specialist known by the clients in those days, rather crudely and offensively, as a 'chick with a dick'. She had apparently been a heavy heroin user and substance abuse had indeed been suggested by the evidence visible on her rib ends." [...] "The bones in her chest told us some of her story, guided the police down the right track to find out who she was and allowed her to be buried with both her names, old and new.

I was initially a little surprised that Black correctly gendered Yvonne here, despite the "birth name" thing - which I get is necessary for context for the reader and was critical to the investigation. But then the last line - the "allowed her to be buried with both her names, old and new" really irritated me. I get that when this took place (which wasn't specified) "deadnaming" may not have been a thing - but it sure is now, and considering how progressive and considerate the rest of the section is toward referring to Yvonne as she clearly wanted to be known - as a woman called Yvonne - the satisfied tone of that last part really irked me. This felt to me like someone so proud of their aiding the identification that they dismissed that person's EXPRESSED identity in favor of getting the last word on who they are.

Finally, much later in the book, this: "The skin and soft tissue covering the limbs, as well as the bones beneath, can aid with identification. The most common part of the body chosen for tattoos is the forearms in men and the shoulder or hip in women. As for the designs themselves, we like to think our inkings are unique but in reality most people go into a tattoo parlour and either pick one from a catalogue or ask the artist to copy something they've seen on someone else."

LOOOOOOOOOONG SIGH. I can't comment on the "most common" location for tattoos, because I haven't yet completed my survey of all the tattooed people, but that second part irritated the fucking shit out of me.

First of all, Judgy McFucking Judgerson, IN REALITY it is none of your business or concern why or where someone gets the tattoo they get - even if they simply pick it off the flash art wall. Mind your fucking business and be happy that someone may have made your job easier if you ever have to identify their rotting tattoo canvas. It is THEIR body.

SECONDLY, it's very much frowned upon and therefore extremely unlikely that any reputable "artist" (YOUR WORD) would be willing to COPY SOMEONE'S TATTOO onto another person, OR that someone would ask for that in the first place. Does it happen? Sure, but there is an etiquette in the tattoo community just like there is everywhere else. The impugning of an entire artform and industry and the professionality of tattoo artists, AND all tattooed people, is bullshit and you should be goddamned ashamed of yourself.

Sue Black, tattoo expert, then goes on to talk about identifying the tattoos of a BAD MAN: "I compared the tattoos in the video with those sported by the accused. The ever-popular 'Madonna with a rose' on his left forearm could be seen above the top of his [gloves]. On his right forearm, his Celtic cross tattoo had been inked right next to a very prominent nevus (birthmark), and both the top of the cross and the birthmark were visible above the right glove. So we could match not only the tattoos to our bold hero but his birthmark, too, which led to him being detained at Her Majesty's pleasure."

I literally can't with this tone right here. Religious symbolism is very popular for tattoos, yes. Wonderfully observant! Just as it is very popular in ART. And in every fucking thing else. Bumper stickers. Candles. Inspirational posters. THE LIST GOES ON. But apparently this man, being tattooed, is beyond the reach of the compassion she showed for sex offenders or murderers she hopes can be rehabilitated. Tattoos are forever, you see. Sigh, it's just too late for him. OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!

Ugh. Anyway. This is where I gave up and drew my line. I was already growing tired of trudging through this book, and her smug self-congratulatory pedantry, and her shade-casting at other "less scrupulous" forensic anthropologists who CUH-LEAR-LY aren't on her level, and so on. At one point she lapses into weird second-person narrative style, ("You will be" doing such and such, and wearing this thing etc). I'm over it.

It's late and I have to be up early, so I'm calling it on this review too. I was gonna try to end on a more positive note, so... At least I didn't pay for it. There we go. I did it!