I went into this work with an open mind, but more than a few things bothered me. Contrary to M. William Phelps other bodies of work there were constant “micro-aggressions’ ‘ displayed throughout the body of this work. I was particularly bothered by M. William Phelps’ repeated stance that the “police ” could never be involved in “faking or planting evidence”. His constant diminishing of the supposed perpetrators’ voice, led me to believe it was a slide against her simply because of her gender. In fact, toward the end of the book he spent several chapters defending” his own honor on writing this book against the supposed perpetrator. We the audience only get to hear some of the emails sent back and forth, I am sure at this point only a sliver of the picture, as now I find him dishonest. His constant aura of white male privilege is a constant reminder. The author chooses to literally defame the defendant in this case, and she is given no opportunity to really honestly be represented to tell any of her story. When contrary evidence through interviews was brought to light, the author chose to quickly diminish it and not represent the voice of the person he was exploring. In fact the supposed defendant in this book was framed in a light from the beginning to suggest guilt, to suggest that the “police ” could do no wrong, and any contrary evidence supplied by the interviewee was dismissed, often ridiculed and diminished. Any author that feels the need to expose how “honest and truth seeking” they are as an author is on bullsh*t pure and simple. This case was presented clearly in favor of law enforcement with no voice given to the actual person the author interviewed to write about.
I am not saying this woman did or did not do what she is being charged with. My issue with this book is the author chose to form an opinion, not use neutrality when presenting the story. The author constantly rallies for the side of law enforcement when in all honesty if he were ” seeking the truth”, you would not interject your one sided opinion as much as he did. I am particularly bothered by his white privilege displayed in this book in regards to his opinion on the “police ”. Stating time and time again as if it were a god given fact that the “police ” could never plant or fake evidence and it would never happen. It displays white male privilege as we know this to be contrary and has been contrary in society for many, many years back. I suppose as a white male since he is not exposed to this time and time again as minorities and women are, there is no reason to state it does in fact exist.
Overall I am very disappointed with this book and this author. I will be returning the rest of the works I purchased and have not listened to for credit. If you are going to lend your voice to recount a story, then lend it with neutrality. Don’t go in as a micro-aggressive cheerleader for law enforcement and not represent all parties equally.