Title: Interesting hypothesis, but falls short
Product review: This book is an interesting read, but there is ABSOLUTELY no evidence to support their conclusion. This book belongs to the category "if we can't solve the crime, the parents did it".In addition, the book is repetitive and touches on a very small fraction of the evidence, in a very superficial way.I came away with the conclusion that the authors had an original idea, but were extremely lazy in developing it. Because there is no evidence to support their theory, it is nothing more than slander...but, then, the dead can't sue.
Would you say this review depicts the product in a flattering or unflattering light?
