Baaz's choice to tell this story as an unreliable narrator is an interesting one, and I don't necessarily mean this as a compliment. In removing Nesbit from the story titled after her, in place of her husband, making him out to be sympathetic before revealing he had perpetrated the violence he'd been accusing of, and begining and ending the book with two VERY different accounts of Nesbit's sexual encounter with White makes for interesting storytelling, but it doesn't lend credibility to the story being told. This book sheds light on the judicial and law practices of the late 19th and early 20th centuries inAmerica. It is understandable that the author would want to use the same title as Nesbit's biopic to tell her story, but in doing so, and then telling another story for 2/5 of the book, I nearly forgot the book was meant to be about Nesbit.

Well written, overall, but I don't know that the author actually stuck with the truth of the situation, or if he sensationalized it like the journalists he notes to have sensationalized Nesbit's testimony. Had this book been framed differently, I think my rating would be higher