Can someone please explain why Ann Rule's true crime book on this case is continually referenced as "evidence?" I listened to the audiotape of that book a few years back, and as I recall, all Ann was able to do was try to piece together what might have happened, because obviously, there was an astonishing lack of actual evidence to evaluate in the case. What passes for evidence in Ann's book is essentially what passed for evidence according to the crack "investigative" team. As I recall, I didn't learn a thing from her book that I hadn't already come across on the various online blogs and forums discussing the case.
Since when are true crime novels relied upon as evidence? I've followed a handful of cases, the murder of Caylee Anthony was the one I followed most closely, and there was a mind-boggling amount of actual evidence in that case, in addition to the theories of LE and the prosecutors. Diane Fanning, another true crime writer, wrote a book about that case long before Anthony went to trial, and while I remember seeing her book discussed, it was never discussed in the context of evidence.
:thinking: