Arrived today from a paperbackswap member. Good condition.

I ordered this book because I was thinking of another writer. So I was a little disappointed when I realized my mistake.

Barbara Holloway is a defense attorney with a small office and a partner who happens to be her father. She is married to a doctor who is in charge of an addiction center.

She is engaged to represent a man who becomes the prime suspect in the murder of Robert, a former classmate and current state senator. Not only that, but he is also suspected of killing another person over 20 years earlier. David Etheridge is the author of a few books, and is on a lecture tour based on his latest. Apparently the book is causing some ripples wherever he speaks, in part because of his atheism. After giving a lecture attended by Barbara Holloway and her father Frank, David is attacked and lands in the hospital, close to death.

Is the attack related to the two murders? Or to his book? Either way, many in the police department are convinced that if he dies the case will be closed.

Etheridge's odd personality can rub people the wrong way. He can be abrupt and rude. So working with him is not always a dream. Nevertheless, Barbara believes in his innocence and is not willing to let the case die if he does.

The plot is a bit twisted and odd, but I suspect in real life such cases exist. However, the procedural aspects of this case bothered me. For one: when Robert is murdered the police don't search his house or his room. Especially considering he died in his house this seems strange indeed. For another: there are suggestions that Robert had influence on zoning decisions . While a senator can advocate for a zone change, he has no power to make any. Such decisions are made at the local level by city councils and boards of supervisors.

The police proceed on their case against David solely on statements made by a few people. No physical evidence, especially because they didn't even look beyond the body. Seems really weak to me, and likely not to win any hearts in the District Attorney's office. I also had some difficulty liking the characters and believing the riots at the lectures. At times Barbara mentioned the prejudices some people have against atheists and how they believe that atheists have no morals. I got the sense that she might have believed that, too. As an atheist myself I can attest that we are like anyone else in that regard. Some have morals and others do not. Further, riots at lectures? Anyone who reads books and follows lecturers is not generally inclined to break out in physical violence. Who would those people have been?

It's readable, kept me interested, but I like to see greater care taken in procedures and more interesting and fuller development of characters.

Inside the box.