|
[ Home ]
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
Courtroom dramas are some of my favorite books in the mystery genre. As with everything else, they often don't click with me. This first novel almost clicked too much. I recognized some of this book and some of that book in it. MISSING WITNESS seemed to borrow from both THE VERDICT by Barry Reed (at least the film, I confess I haven't read the novel) and PRESUMED INNOCENT by Scott Turow. Maybe with experience, Gordon Campbell will find his own voice. MISSING WITNESS tackles one of those questions, which all defense attorneys probably hear. "How can you defend someone you believe, or know, to be guilty?" In this story set in 1973, Doug McKenzie, who assists trial lawyer Dan Morgan is pretty sure of the answer. It's partly an abstract belief in the basics of justice, that everyone deserves a fair trial. Defense counsel work hard to ensure their clients are found not guilty and in this case, it works almost too well. It's pretty clear that Rita Edgington shot her husband dead. She was seen entering the house with her daughter Miranda, shots were heard and she was seen leaving the house with a gun in her hand. Still, no one knows exactly what took place inside that house. After Rita is taken into custody, Miranda, who has a history of mental illness, apparently depression, goes into a catatonic state and is hospitalized. More baffling is that Rita's defense costs are being paid for by her father-in-law – the father of the man she allegedly shot. Some of the novel is the straightforward trial preparation and testimony regarding this murder. When the first verdict settles some issues but brings up others, the story goes down a different path. When lawyers sense their clients are lying, it's different from knowing the client is lying. And things are anything but resolved in this case. As McKenzie continues to look into what happened, Morgan backs off, and the developing relationship between the two is damaged. I found a number of problems with MISSING WITNESS, many of which are common first novel blues. There are entire characters who disappeared without ever being explained adequately, including a couple who apparently created a rather elaborate conspiracy. While Miranda is said to be mentally ill, so severely ill that she's been shipped off to famous clinics, it's never well-detailed or defined. Even in 1972 there were treatments for depression, and I never sensed that there was any understanding of the girl's problems. The morning of the murder, Rita actually allows Miranda to handle the gun – would this be a smart act when you have a daughter who's been hospitalized and treated for serious mental illness? The lawyers do commit at least one act that would have led to jail time, and I found it unnecessary. And Morgan, after the first trial, has such a massive personality change that I found him less than convincing. We've all read about cops who, once they've found their suspect, ignore all other possible suspects, right? Morgan mirrors them, and his behavior is often baffling. Finally, I do wish Campbell's editor had advised him to dump both the final paragraph, which was far too neat and cute (and implausible) and to scratch the entire first chapter. True, I don't know golf terminology so descriptions of golf matches are pointless wastes of time, but more to the point, I never got the importance of this tournament or game to McKenzie and it fell completely flat when he gave it all up to help on this case. Apparently it was a major sacrifice; it just seemed like a golf game between amateurs. All that aside, Campbell's pacing is very good and he writes clearly and well about legal procedure and the court. A trial attorney himself, he kept me interested and intrigued. McKenzie is mostly a good character, although occasionally I find him rather oddly naïve. Everyone in the book is pretty much in awe of Don Morgan, but Morgan often acts rudely, childishly and without restraint. He's clearly got heart and soul but I don't believe he was as complex as either McKenzie nor the author seemed to believe. It's a damn good story though and this is one of the few times that while I tend to read for character, here I will advise you to read for the plot.
Reviewed by Andi Shechter, September 2007
[ Top ]
QUICK SEARCH:
Contact: Yvonne Klein (ymk@reviewingtheevidence.com)
[ About | Reviews | Search | Submit ]
[ Home ]
| 
