Three cousins go to hang out on an old bridge, then are attacked. They are shoved into the Mississippi. One lives. He's accused of raping/killing his cousins.

This book is not good. It is interesting, in the based-on-real-life-events way (which is pretty *@^%ing interesting) and the person who wrote it was involved in the incident.

So what bugged me, right off the bat, is that the author explained who she was (sibling to the survivor, there for the incident) in her prologue, and then wrote about herself in the third person. I thought that was kind of uncomfortable, as she had just explained who she was.

There was a heavy dose of over-writing. Lips were bitten, people furrowed their brows, you know.

A big part of this book is how the survivor was accused of the crime, and the police and the media tried really hard to make that accusation stick. There is a certain amount of bitterness that happens in that case. It makes for a good story, and it reminds us how the good guys can be bad, and the media is not telling you impartial truths.

But I wondered, then, how this book could be written impartially.

But hey, it's a fast read, and I don't loathe that I spent the time reading it. I skimmed a great deal, but the underlying story is pretty fascinating, so it's worth reading, if you're into this genre.