scotts book is a good read choc 
It is a good read, Andrea, though I prefer the Wilkes book so far because Wilkes details the substantial amount of research he did - and I don't doubt that he did this research. I'm critical though of both of these books - and of Shaw's manuscript too - because not one of the authors of these three analyses of the case provides the sort of detailed notes and bibliography of sources that is essential for real credibility.
I accept that these books are not written by academics and that different standards apply to books written outside academia. However, any serious author who wishes to make the sort of claims these three authors do must would make themselves accountable to their readers by detailing their sources. Without such substantiation, their work has less credibility.
At the same time, I can understand why they fail to fully attribute their sources. Detailing sources is of course difficult, time consuming and costly, even under normal circumstances. To do so in respect of a case as complex as this one, which has generated a gigantic paper trail running into millions of documents, would be a nightmare and would probably require the same amount of time that it took to write these books or the manuscript in the first place. Yet none of these books are ever going to make a lot of money and my guess is that a detailed bibliography of the sort I wish to see would probably mean they would make a loss. So I'm really asking too much of these authors.
