The book

[Happy]

Should local libraries carry this book?
What about future books on this topic?
Is it the job of readers or libraries to boycott a book like this?
Book banning is a slippery slope, individual boycotting is an easy decision.

[BillCarson436]

Hello....

My Opinion....

The Library should have a copy of this book...

but people should know enough NOT to read it.

Let it sit unopened on the shelf and rot.... like the author in his cell.

End of story.

[don'tcareattitude]

read Alan Bisborts column in the latest Hartford Advocate. The libraian is correct in having the book. Those who will not read should simply not read. Get off the rest of our backs.

I'll read it- just to be contrary.

[LynnB13]

What book?

[Happy]

The book I was referring to is the one on the Cheshire Murders.

[LynnB13]

The book I was referring to is the one on the Cheshire Murders.

Cool. Never heard of it - will look it up now.

[Snakebite]

Cool. Never heard of it - will look it up now.
Are you a pod person, how da hell have you not heard of the murders.

-take me to your leader-

[jackie]

Cheshire citizens have a right to read & think. There are plenty of books written & read about small town murders & other unclean issues. The gag order from Judge Blue did not include authors or the public. This author's interview with Komisarjevsky proven to be successful. Brian McDonald didn't include the details of the murders as in the 1st book written, Murder in CT. What the Petit supporters did was to try to dictate & control others, which caused the Cheshire library to folded under their pressure & forsaking it's own policy. It's a shame that those who want justice, used censorship and continue to cast a dark shadow over Cheshire. I've read both books and did not find them practicularly graphic or descriptive of the murders, but informative.
What isn't in the book is Komisarjevsky 16 page report to the Cheshire P.D. as the Petit house was still burning. He has been well known by the Cheshire P.D. and the court for telling the truth about his crimes. Lucky for him and Mr. Petit that his intent was not to kill. Although, Komisarjevsky is guilty of all other charges, but murder. This is why his trial will follow Hayes, who strangled Mrs. Petit and set the house on fire.

[jackie]

Hello....

My Opinion....

The Library should have a copy of this book...

but people should know enough NOT to read it.

Let it sit unopened on the shelf and rot.... like the author in his cell.

End of story.
Cheshire library did have this book, but because Joshua Komisarjevsky was able to convey to Brian McDonald what transpired before & during this home invasion, a small group that support & loved the Pe**** rejected & disliked anything JK had to say. Few people know that JK is honest in reporting & confessing his crimes. He wrote a 16 page report at the Cheshire P.D. as the Petit house was still burning. He helped the investigation and this is why there are two separate trials because he didn't play or did the same crimes as Hayes. Obviously, after months of being pressured the library forsaked their own policy & freedoms by fear of being unsympathic to the Petit murders. Apparently, no one was about to subject themselves to this vigilante group's hatred for JK. So, their petition to remove "In the Middle of the Night" was removed, while "Murder in CT" was not targeted. :eek:

[jackie]

Hello....

My Opinion....

The Library should have a copy of this book...

but people should know enough NOT to read it.

Let it sit unopened on the shelf and rot.... like the author in his cell.

End of story.
Cheshire library did have this book, but because Joshua Komisarjevsky was able to convey to Brian McDonald what transpired before & during this home invasion, a small group that support & loved the Pe**** rejected & disliked anything JK had to say. Few people know that JK is honest in reporting & confessing his crimes. He wrote a 16 page report at the Cheshire P.D. as the Petit house was still burning. He helped the investigation and this is why there are two separate trials because he didn't play nor did the same crimes as Hayes. Obviously, after months of being pressured the library forsaked their own policy & freedoms by fear of being unsympathic to the Petit murders. Apparently, no one was about to subject themselves to this vigilante group's hatred for JK. and fight for their constitutional right to read. After all this isn't a communist country. So, their petition to remove "In the Middle of the Night" was removed, while "Murder in CT" was not targeted. :eek:

[JohnH]

Hello....

My Opinion....

The Library should have a copy of this book...

but people should know enough NOT to read it.

Let it sit unopened on the shelf and rot.... like the author in his cell.

End of story.

+1 for the 1st Amendment.

[wawogi]

+1 for the 1st Amendment.

I do not live in Cheshire. I grieve for Dr. Petit and the families of his wife and daughters, and I can't even begin to imagine their pain. But I believe the residents of Cheshire should be proud of their librarian. That whole controversy was, indeed, about the First Amendment and an attempt at censorship. That librarian stood up for principle and made the right decision, and I hope any future attempt by the board at micromanaging or second-guessing fails.

Now, having said that...although I did not contribute one penny of royalty to the author's pocket, I have read it (borrowed it from a friend, who got it I know not where). I will make three points:

(1) do not believe for one moment that this book contains "truth" in any way, shape or form; and do not believe for one moment that Komisarjevsky is any less culpable than Hayes.
(2) there are two separate trials because it would have been logistically impossible to try them together (it was considered and rejected), and because each is going to blame the other for the most heinous events.
(3) if there is such a thing as an award for "worst book ever written", this book deserves to win it. It is full of errors and inaccuracies, and the most awful writing style I think I've ever seen. The only thing that would save the author from accepting the award solo is the fact that somebody proofread and edited it. I can only imagine how bad it was before being edited.

[CMNSNC]

Read it, or do not.
Nobody is forcing you to read it, but do not ban the book for those who want to.
Wawogi read the book, but was not willing to contribute a thin dime to the author's bank account.
Out of curiosity, I might someday read it, but I certainly won't buy it!
If it were left up to some, our library bookshelves would be empty!
This is not Iran where the only 'authorized' book is the Koran!
Must be a pretty small library over there!

[MOMOF2BOYS]

I do not live in Cheshire. I grieve for Dr. Petit and the families of his wife and daughters, and I can't even begin to imagine their pain. But I believe the residents of Cheshire should be proud of their librarian. That whole controversy was, indeed, about the First Amendment and an attempt at censorship. That librarian stood up for principle and made the right decision, and I hope any future attempt by the board at micromanaging or second-guessing fails.

Now, having said that...although I did not contribute one penny of royalty to the author's pocket, I have read it (borrowed it from a friend, who got it I know not where). I will make three points:

(1) do not believe for one moment that this book contains "truth" in any way, shape or form; and do not believe for one moment that Komisarjevsky is any less culpable than Hayes.
(2) there are two separate trials because it would have been logistically impossible to try them together (it was considered and rejected), and because each is going to blame the other for the most heinous events.
(3) if there is such a thing as an award for "worst book ever written", this book deserves to win it. It is full of errors and inaccuracies, and the most awful writing style I think I've ever seen. The only thing that would save the author from accepting the award solo is the fact that somebody proofread and edited it. I can only imagine how bad it was before being edited.



I just read the book last night (borrowed it from the library, b/c I too would not pay for this book). and I agree 100% w/ Wawogi's assessment. It had so many spelling errors and gramatical errors in it.

95% of the book was strictly about Joshua's upbringing, childhood and his stints in jail, extremely boring if you ask me, I actually skipped pages and pages. (not that I was looking for the details of this terrible crime). He also seems very proud of his 1200+ burglaries that he has committed in his 26 years.

Dont waste your time reading this book. I finished it in an hour.

[wawogi]

I just read the book last night (borrowed it from the library, b/c I too would not pay for this book). and I agree 100% w/ Wawogi's assessment. It had so many spelling errors and gramatical errors in it.

95% of the book was strictly about Joshua's upbringing, childhood and his stints in jail, extremely boring if you ask me, I actually skipped pages and pages. (not that I was looking for the details of this terrible crime). He also seems very proud of his 1200+ burglaries that he has committed in his 26 years.

Dont waste your time reading this book. I finished it in an hour.

Thanks, MOMOF2BOYS. As I was reading, I started making a list of errors, but it got to be too burdensome. The most humorous was when the book referred to the church on the green as the "Congressional" Church. I know that Congress needs prayers, but I always thought Cheshire had a Congregational Church.
And you are right, MOM, about Komisarjevsky's smug gloating about all the burglaries he committed.

[tjohnl]

bury him and the book in a small unmarked grave - simple