Customer Reviews
Oddly Unsatisfying - By: Jon D, 24 May 2007 
John Emsley is one of my favourite science writers & I came to this tome with high hopes of being thoroughly entertained, but finished it with a vague sense of disappointment
Entitled « Elements of Murder » the book actually only considers the malicious use of five _ mercury, lead, arsenic, thallium & antimony. Unhappily for Emsley (and even more unhappily for the recipient), the alleged use of polonium as a poison post dates this work, or the variety could have been improved.
The science bits of the book (how & why these things are so darned nasty) is superbly written, as are the sections of what can only be called trivia - the speculations the both Mozart & Napoleon met their ends as the result of ingesting, either by accident or design, toxic metals. Where the book fails to deliver isin the description of some famous proved cases of murder by poisoning, such as those carried out by George Chapman. Emsley is a talented science writer, not a teller of juicy scandal & by the time the last couple of murders are reached, the tales are getting a little repetitive.
Buy the book for well written popular science & you will not be disappointed: buy it for the history of crime & I think you might feel short changed.
Just what the Doctor ordered. - By: OvalTom, 08 Feb 2007 
I really enjoyed reading this book. It struck an excellent balance between scientific insight & salacious gossip. What a combination!
I was reading thisin my hospital bed needing something demanding enough to save me from terminal boredom, but that I could pick upin short bursts. Just what the Doctor ordered.
A Cheap 'Cut and Paste' Effort. - By: RJ Lane, 27 Nov 2006 
The concept of the book is clever: it takes the main heavy metal elements & discusses their uses & misuses,in respect of murder.
The result, however, is disappointing. It appears to have been written across a weekend by taking a few very basis facts & then pastingin chunks of `off the shelf' (often rambling) criminal biography.
Considering Emsley is a scientist most parts of the book are so un-scientific to be exasperating. I quote just two examples:in respect of the possibility of lead ingestion being the cause of gout (in the 1800's) `there is no reason why this could (cause gout) but it does' (!). Equally the madness of King George III he attributes to lead (despite a mass of contrary research on this subject - which he fails to quote), `because he was fond of lemonade & sauerkraut' (allegedly highin lead).
Readable, but a really cheap `put-together'. Mr Emsley, please spend a little more time
It didn't meet my expectations. - By: G. Bowtell, 03 Sep 2006 This book was promising. My advice would be to read the introduction which is well written & interesting & ignore the rest of it. Everything that followed the introduction was of such a poor quality that I could not believe the author of the introduction to be the same as for the main body of the book. For reasons best known to the author there were digressions into vitriolic judgements on the sexual proclivities of King Charles & some quite unsustainable remarks about Isaac Newton. What a shame! I was really looking forward to this book, & whereas the introduction had some very nicely written paragraphs the main body of the book wasin ungainly prose. I didn't read much beyond the third chapter -perhaps it improved.
For something much more worthwhile read Poisons: From Hemlock to Botox & the Killer Bean of Calabar by Peter Macinnins.
