Collateral Book: Exam Questions
1. A. Fred Rosen is a former columnist for the Arts and Leisure Section of The New York Times. He is the son of a Polish immigrant-clothing buyer. Rosen is originally from Brooklyn and is Jewish. Rosen is a known true crime author in the United States. His wife and daughter (who is seven) now currently reside with him in New York, New York.
B. Rosen teaches criminal justice and film at Ulster County Community college. Mr. Rosen author attended the University of Southern California film school. He then moved back to New York and found work as a technical writer, specializing in photography where he met his wife. He edited Studio Photography magazine and wrote a photography column for the New York Times. This led to an eight-year job as a journalism professor at Hofstra University.
C. Fred Rosen is the winner of Library Journal’s Best Reference Source 2005 award for The Historical Atlas of American Crime. His published works in the genre include the true crime classic, Lobster Boy. In that case it was Mr. Rosen’s detective work that led to the conviction of the killer. This proves Rosen’s competence to write a book about historical murders as his evidence helped solve the case. Rosen has a lot of experience writing about true crime having published over twelve books on the subject of true crime.

2. A. Fred Rosen has published thirteen or fourteen books related to criminal justice some include: There But For the Grace: Survivors of the 20th Century’s Infamous Serial Killers, Body Dump, When Satan Wore a Cross, Lobster Boy, and Needle Work.
There But For the Grace: Survivors of the 20th Century’s Infamous Serial Killers, covers the details of those who lived through some of the most gruesome crimes in history and is similar in subject matter to the volume. This is related to Did They Really Do It? because it analysis some of Americans most notorious crimes while adding an interesting outlook. Rosen’s book Body Dump is set in Hudson Valley, Poughkeepsie and recounts the recent case of Kendall Francois. This black serial killer preyed on prostitutes and stashed their bodies inside his house. The several cases in Did They Really Do It? Involves several serial killers. This book is about the mind frame of a serial killer. The author covers details about serial killers and thoroughly uses evidence to explain the information involved in both books.
When Satan Wore a Cross is set in 1980 in Toledo, Ohio when the body of a nun was discovered in the sacristy of a hospital chapel. Seventy-one-year-old Sister Margaret Ann had been strangled and stabbed, her corpse arranged in a shameful and stomach-churning pose. But the police's most likely suspect was inexplicably released and the investigation was quietly buried this is similar to other cases in Did They Really Do It? . Despite great evidence, Father Gerald Robinson went free. Twenty-three years later the priest's name resurfaced in connection with a bizarre case of satanic ritual and abuse. It prompted investigators to exhume the remains of the slain nun in search of the proof left behind that would indelibly mark Father Robinson as Sister Margaret Ann's killer. When Satan Wore a Cross is a shocking true story of official cover-ups, madness, murder, and lies. This relates to Did They Really Do It? because both books cover later evidence discovered. Also the “who really did it” question is a constant theme in both works. Each books colorful evidence and detailed descriptions are similar.
Lobster Boy is similar to the other book because it is an incredibly realistic psychological account of the haunting emotional devastation flung upon a family. Both books have realistic details covering emotional subjects of political and sociological issue’s. The insight the author uses in both books is similar.
On a November day in 1997 in Flint, Michigan police found the body of forty five year old waitress Nancy Billiter. Her corpse had survived a botched attempt to burn it. An autopsy revealed that she'd been bound, beaten, sexually violated, and then injected with a lethal mixture of battery acid and heroin. Police suspected Nancy's friend, Carol Giles twenty-six and Giles boyfriend Tim Collier, who had a murderous gang related past. These gruesome details are similar to Did They Really Do it?. Also, both books have similar story plots of more than one accused and the question of their history and past. The author uses thorough sources in both works. 3. A. The setting is nine various murder trials, which occur across The United States. The years of these cases vary from 1862-2005 depending on the case. The first case is set in Maryland at a rural farm. The time period is from 1865-1869. The second case is set in Fall River, Massachusetts in 1892. The third case is set in Atlanta, Georgia in the year 1914-1916. The fourth case was set in Flemington, New Jersey during the year 1934. The fifth case is set in the Midwest mainly Kansas, Arkansas, and Missouri. The year of the bank robber was 1934. The sixth case involved a large group of people who were scattered through out the United States during 1954. The seventh case was set in Mississippi during 1964. The eighth case is set in Boston from 1962-1966. The ninth case was set in New York City and Washington, D.C. in 2001.
B. This work covers one hundred and thirty five years of American criminal History. Did They Really Do It? Spans over major historical cases from The Atomic spies to the infamous September Eleventh twentieth hijackers. Rosen shows how the innocent sometimes serve time for a crime they did not commit because the court signs off the last appeal. The pursuit of truth and justice overall is the authors main goal. The author shows how in some cases the guilty get away with murder. Rosen uses thorough facts and evidence to tell the story of history’s most notorious crimes.
C. This book covers the details of famous historical cases and the question of if the accused really did commit the murder and the details involved. There are a total of nine cases, which cover the details and facts of the accused and cases. The first case is the Dr. Samuel Mudd case pertaining to did he innocently set the ankle of John Wilkes Booth after the assignation of President Lincoln. Another case is the Lizzie Borden case and the question of her innocence after the murder of her parents. The Leo Frank case and the controversy of race and status. The Bruno Richard Hauptmann case and the issue of was he really framed. The infamous bank robber Pretty Boy Floyd case. The Atomic Spies during the height of the Red Scare. The Murdered Civil Rights Workers and who was really guilty during this controversial time. The Boston Strangler and the detailed description of this cereal killer, Albert DeSalvo. The Twenty Hijackers and how they were involved with nine eleven and the destruction and murder of over two thousand seven hundred people.

4. A. Mainly this is a secondary point of view, as Rosen did not experience the issues first hand but researched the material involved. The majority of the cases are set in a place or time period the author had no access to. Although cases such as The Twentieth Hijacker and The Boston strangler were during the same era that Rosen lived, he did not experience the situations first and hand. Yet, the media was mainly the source of Rosen's information when the incidences occurred.
B. The author does not demonstrate objectivity
C. The author is bias towards the victims compared to the accused. “Bruno Hauptmann was an idiot who got what he deserved. Julius Rosenberg was a sleaze ball,”(202). Here the author uses descriptive language to describe the accused demonstrating his bias towards the victims. Rosen is also bias because he believes that he almost knows more than the authorities in solving murder mysterious.
D. The author states his opinion, “The answer, I think, is more personal.”(191). This demonstrates bias as the author is not just objectively stating facts but stating his personal opinion on the statue of limitations. “These men and women can best be compared to Nazi hunters”(191). This is a bias description of cold case squads as Rosen sometimes tries to appear as if he knows more about the authorities when in comes to solving a complicated case. “When asked if he was involved in the Stranglers murders he claimed he did all of them, that’s a lie”(159). Here the author states an opinion about a fact found from research. An instance of objectivity would be on page one hundred and fifty two when Rosen states the victims and dates precisely along with the background of the thirteen women, “Between June 1962 and January 1964, thirteen women in the Boston area were strangled”(152). Fred Rosen is constantly searching for the truth although he is partial to the victims and his opinions on the cases.

5. A. Fred Rosen covers a broad range of facts and material, which involve eyewitness testimony and details interwoven into the text. Everything this author writes he sees as in a movie format because of his education and training. Rosen attended the University of Southern California Film School and teaches on the subject of film. Rosen also describes major events and details from his own point of view.
B. This book was somewhat organized chronologically although the cases do not go in order when the same case later has a part two. The years are all mainly in consecutive order from 1865 to 2005. The overall message of the book is written in a suitable style easy to comprehend.
C. The author has an almost random writing style, speckled at times with lame and completely unnecessary personal comments. This was an interesting fast paced read. Sometimes the information was more fluff. Some sentences are poorly written. The text is vibrant initially capturing the reader’s attention with quotes and stories. The quotes and interviews are interesting and add a colorful detail. Overall the book was well researched.
D. This work needs more interesting stories and less monotonous details. The information on the prosecuted could also be more thorough. Rosen should have his editor cut more portions of this volume because some case information is a bit long. Sentence involved also could be re-worked along with the chapters, which are confusing because they are complicated. 6. A. Fred Rosen’s approach to convey American criminal history is told from a variety of short stories and facts. Rosen even includes a detailed index and appendix. Rosen was a journalist and already a trained efficient fact builder.
B. The bibliography is completely thorough. It is four pages long with a gigantic span of references. Rosen tracks testimonies and interviews from individuals affiliated with cases from various time periods and locations across the country. Rosen covers interviews of eyewitness testimony, official court documents, Federal bureau of investigation files, crime scene analysis, and research from extensive sources. The bibliographies also have an assortment of references from different parts of the country. The author covers a solid legal and social history of the cases and issues.
C. Rosen’s notes are in-depth and overview a large span of sources all in chronological order and in-sync with the chapters. The author also had interviews with his sources. The notes cover papers, interviews, web postings, and crime scene analysis.
D. The author does cover a huge-array of primary and secondary sources. This spans from the national archives to a personal interview with President Carter. Rosen uses the national Washington library, reference books, crime files, newspapers, and crime scene analysis.
E. Older legal cases are covered, doctor files, and even the declaration of independence. Rosen refers to archival sources within each time frame covered and older. This thorough methodology involved incorporates sources dating back to 1865 referenced in the bibliography.
F. The volume covers documented references and an original conclusion all-contributing to knowledge in an original form. The cases had original claims with a new point of view and evidence. The criminal history covered and information has never been approached in that way before so therefore it has a unique and innovative to knowledge.
G. Rosen draws conclusions and sets the premises while analyzing the material he cites in his own voice. These characteristics all combine making the content of the volume authentic and factual. Rosen writes to tell criminal history in a unique and informative way. 7. A. The value of quality is fair, because the information is valuable and interesting. Overall the book had a good description and interesting facts. This was a surprisingly fun book to read as it had historic stories with great details. The work was a creative and passionate page-turner, which told stories important to criminal history today.
B. The intended audience is broad ranging from a high school to college-educated individual who is of any race, class, or gender. The aim of this market is general from mainly age twenty and up. This audience would have to be generly interested in the subject of historical murder cases. The audience of upper high school to college and up has to be interested in the subject of controversial popular cases.
C. Personally this book is worth reading if you are interested in the gory interesting details of famous cases. Overall Did They Really Do It? happened to be a great educational read which was enlightening.
D. A forensics investigator or an individual involved with crime would enjoy reading this book. Someone also who is interested in crime history and getting down to the truth. Also, a young college student who is interested in joining the crime force.
E. The subject matter involved is vast covering some the biggest criminal cases in United States History. If someone happened to be studying or involved in criminal justice the content in this book would be valuable. The cases covered also have historical relevance and contemporary significance. The author is clever in stating the facts and information putting it all in a story like form, which is interesting.
F. Although this is a well-researched book with interesting case the content can seem a bit juvenile. Also the subject is somewhat gruesome which would not be good for children or people that are sensitive. Another reason an individual would not want to read this work is the author sometimes considers himself smarter than the police authority in solving the mysteries of the cases, which can be annoying.