To be fair, I read the "other" book first written by the officers involved and I think this has perhaps prejudiced me in some way. In fact, now I feel the need to go back and reread that book for comparison. I wish this author had just written a fair and balanced narrative about the story, which he does seem to do, but without mentioning the shortcomings of the "other" book. Or, if he felt the need to do that, then perhaps specific examples from the book rather than vague criticisms should have been used, but I suppose legally he might not be able to do that. I have changed this rating several times back and forth between a 3 and 4 star. I admire the work and research that has gone into this work and appreciate someone setting the record straight, but truthfully, if I had picked this up first and had no knowledge of the officer's account, I would have found it a little boring.