Trace of Doubt

by Samantha Weinberg

In the summer of 1985, a brilliant young British DNA scientist Helena Greenwood is found murdered in her front garden in a quiet suburb in California. The police believe they know the killer’s identity but there’s no evidence against him, and the only thing linking him to the crime is the fact he’d been charged with sexually assaulting Helena just a few months previously. Fifteen years later the case is reopened and after a breakthrough in DNA evidence, David Paul Frediani is re-investigated, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. It was almost as if Helena was pointing to her killer from beyond the grave, using the very scientific technology she had spent her life working on. Author Samantha Weinberg has been fascinated by this case, writing an award-winning book about the tragic sequence of events. She’s spent time with the man convicted of the murder and was utterly convinced of his guilt. But, in 2018, she received a letter from a jailhouse lawyer, a fellow inmate of Frediani that would blow the case apart. Together, they reopen the investigation, embarking on a shocking journey to discover the truth - in the process uncovering systematic failings and abuses in the American criminal justice system.

Genres: True Crime, Audiobook, Nonfiction, Crime, Murder Mystery, Adult, Mystery

Audiobook

Published November 16, 2023

About the author

Samantha Weinberg is the real name of the author Kate Westbrook.

Reviews

[Nina (ninjasbooks) · Rating 3 out of 5]

Engaging and the author did a great job describing her investigation into the cold case.

[Karen · Rating 2 out of 5]

Disappointing.

In 1986 this British author traveled to California to report on the murder of a British DNA scientist who had purportedly been sexually assaulted by her killer one year earlier. Thirty-plus years later, some information comes to light that perhaps the man is not guilty. So she travels to meet him in prison and tries to uncover more details.

She uncovers almost nothing. There is some missing evidence and perhaps some planted evidence. No explanation for it. We hear some conflicting information about where the man had been on the day of the murder, with no explanation for why his recollection is different than the witness’. That’s all we really learn. Nothing has changed for the man in prison. There is no new perpetrator. At the end of the book the only new thing is that the author now thinks the imprisoned man is not guilty.

The book is a vanity project meant to assuage the writer’s guilt.

I guess that’s what I get for finding something short to cram into Goodreads at the end of the year 😉

[Michele · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author, Samantha Weinberg, has befriended this prisoner, this con man, and has lost sight of what was presented in the court documents. He cannot get his story straight. He tried before to change the mind(s) of another victim and her parents when he was caught peeping in a window and masturbating outside that window. I believe Samantha’s theory is plausible, that he didn’t intentionally mean harm but I think he did kill Helena.

[Sherrie · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a good book but I disagree with the author. The man was guilty. He lied in court about being in San Diego. He lied for 20 years about it then changes his story that he was there. Innocent people never change their story! Only guilty people do!

[Kasey Casey · Rating 1 out of 5]

Do not recommend. This story seems to have lost its way. The author becomes connected to the convicted murderer and even discusses visiting him in jail multiple times and how she wonders if she should hug him.
There were issues with the evidence presented in the court but this man has masturbated in front of a child and sexually assaulted the woman that he was convicted guilty of murdering. It doesn’t appear that he has remorse and I think she loses her journalistic integrity in the process from befriending the assumed murderer. Even in the course of the book, she uncovers him in a bed of lies that he cannot articulate or explain away and arguably perjured himself during the original 2001 hearing.
Additionally, her concern over a % of DNA missing shows that she does not fully understand the topic as it is a common practice to retain a percentage of DNA especially on capital murder cases. This was a waste of time and I’m grateful it was free (on audible) and is over.

[Mahayana Dugast · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is very interesting [true crime] and such a compelling story, until the end, it is impossible to know if he did it or not. This would have made a good movie.

[Jelena · Rating 3 out of 5]

Closer to 2.5 stars.

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this book was. It seems obvious that the system is broken—something that's been clear for a long time. It feels somewhat naive that the author has only just now discovered this. The twist of hearing true crime story from the perspective of the accused, questioning how many innocent people are in prison and how many guilty ones are free, is interesting, but the theme itself isn't particularly new.

What I found compelling was the perspective that we all, especially lawyers, simply tell stories, and we take into consideration only what fits into our narratives. My favorite person was Dustin, who accepted the consequences of his recklessness and made the best of himself while in prison. I'm glad he was released.

The narrator has a fantastic voice and accent, reminding me of Emma D'Arcy, which is largely what kept me engaged until the end. The music was also great. I enjoyed learning about how DNA testing started and how, despite now taking it for granted, it's actually a relatively new concept. BTW, he sounds guilty.

[Ruta Alb · Rating 3 out of 5]

When is a person really guilty of a crime?
Is it really better that 10 guilty walk free than 1 inoccent suffer? How would this story have ended in different circumstances?
This is true crime story, about a conivcted murderer and the author is looking for the reasonable doubt in his conviction.
Nicely narrated in 8 episodes, a bit too extended for my taste.
So, what did I take from this book to myself?
Not guilty, but not inoccent either.

[Nicole Bonfante · Rating 4 out of 5]

Overall I enjoyed this book and found myself wanting to know what would happen next. There was a bit of bouncing between cases that at times was difficult to follow. I listened on audible and a lot of the court testimony was, ironically, inaudible 😂

I was bummed that the story ended on a cliffhanger and am hoping there will be updates.

[Jocelyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was only on audible and the first time that I have ever listened to this type of audiobook. Seemed more like a podcast of sorts but overall, if you like true crime it’s a good listen. The ending definitely leaves you guessing, did he do it or not???

[Mariana · Rating 4 out of 5]

3.5 ⭐

[Denise B · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well done and fascinating. Also I appreciate the warning issued by the author in advance about the graphic details. I appreciate her sensitivity.

[Sachi Pena · Rating 4 out of 5]

I’ve read quite a few of the reviews from others claiming that the author is trying to assuage her guilt or has been manipulated by a murderer. I disagree with this. Samantha Weinberg wrote a book back when David Paul Frediani was convicted of murdering Helena Greenwood. She has written this as a reflection of the original case and has brought to light new elements that were never addressed during his trial. Trace of Doubt has been written because there is a Trace of Doubt. Our judicial system says that an individual should be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What Weinberg has done is provide the evidence from the case and added additional information that has either been brought to her attention after the trial, or evidence that was never brought up during it.

I enjoy documentaries that dig deep into the evidence, the trial, and the suspect/convicted offender’s psyche. You can hear Frediani speak about the incident, and listen to him excuse away certain events. Weinberg doesn’t believe everything he’s saying, and tells the listeners that she has difficulty believing those things. Obviously, if Frediani did truly murder Greenwood, then he would lie to serve his own purposes.

This book has brought up new points that weren’t addressed in the initial trial. At the end, she’s asked if she would find him guilty. She said during the 2001 trial, yes she would, BUT if it were to be retried today with the new evidence, that she could not say beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty. That is to not say she doesn’t THINK he has done it, but that there is enough doubt to be able to convict him for the murder of Greenwood.

Many of the people who have written these negative reviews believe that she’s been manipulated and/or is guilty for profiting on her book back in 2021, and now is saying he’s innocent. She never says that she thinks he didn’t do it. I actualluy respect her saying that she couldn’t find him guilty if she was a juror, because that means she understands our judicial system. I actually think she feels guilty that she wrote the book saying he did it with almost 100% certainty, when there is some doubt that she has brought up. It’s important to remember that you can think someone has done something, even know it is true in your gut, but in the eyes of the law they would be found not guilty because it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. You may need to remember that when reading, but regardless I thought that the way she discusses each part of the case was intriguing and well thought out. I’m only giving it a 4, because I wanted more. I wish she dug in deeper with each facet, but this was a great overview of the case.

[Teri · Rating 3 out of 5]

I think we are all tainted by our natural manner of being (inherent bias). It seems to be the investigator/author is a good-hearted Leftist wanting to always believe the best of people. She actually states she is. And I believe that desire leads her to her conclusions, speculations & hopes.

This book, above all else, clearly shows that our inherent biases make it where there is truly no perfect Justice in this world by any one of us. Therefore, as our extremely wise Founding Fathers knew, we must rely on law to determine Justice *as best as is possible* - And that while doing so we must, MUST be moral and religious people, for that is the surest safeguard to our looking at, understanding, and applying the law *as best as is possible*. The tidbit she states about it being better for several guilty people to go free rather than that one innocent be punished & incarcerated for life, is true (though hard to live by) - and our Founders believed in that too, as do I, hence the law of the land which they gave us.

In combining my personal beliefs, morals & deep study of the Constitution and my limited understanding of law, I believe justice was done as best it could be in this particular case. There is not more than 10% uncertainty in my mind about the guilt of the accused. (and never has there been a percentage standard that says it's ok to vote someone as innocent because I, as juror, has a certain percentage doubt.) Yet here again I am showing my own inherent bias to not always believe the best of people. I tend to judge the tree by its fruit, and the fruit by the tree. Of one thing I am certain: and that is the absolute truth that a Good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit. If the fruit is bad, the tree is bad.

This tree she investigated, the accused, is proven beyond doubt that its fruit is bad. Therefore the tree is bad. That is the unalterable truth of nature. That is justice and mercy. That is fact. Yet she didn't consider such a thing. I felt she was almost wanting badly for him to be innocent. Though clearly she struggled with her doubts.

I feel there is concerted effort too, to show that the entirety of the legal system is corrupt. While I believe a big chunk of it is, I also believe there are many other parts that are not. So each reader will have to determine for himself what to make of it.

In fact, this book made nothing definite. It discusses a case, and several side cases, and fills the head with a bunch of “but’s” and “what if’s” But changes nothing.

It is an I retesting book full of speculations and no end-results. I guess I expected more of a final "yes" or "no" in terms of his guilt. But no such thing was exposed. So in that way, I was disappointed. Perhaps I misunderstood the intent of the book from it's description. My bad. Still, it was an interesting case to learn about.

Note: the book warns of graphic descriptions. I am very prudish about these things, but I must say there was only a couple of places where there were descriptions that young ears/eyes should not be subjected to. The first happened in the first chapter. Thereafter there was once more that same scene was brought up as memory/reminder. The scene was not gruesome murder, blood, guts, and descriptions of the sort. Rather it was a sexual act he forced the woman victim to perform on him and then he “finished” on her face. Rude. Nasty. Ugly. Evil. But that was the extent of gruesomeness. FYI for those wondering. The rest of the book I'd label "PG-16".

I will not read this book again. I will not recommend this book. But for those interested (for whatever reason) in “Who really dunnit” cases, this might be of interest.

As a child victim of sexual assault by a police officer, I’m not a stranger to bad and unfair things happening and how corrupt/evil those who are supposed to protect us can be. But I have learned to not use broad brushes to paint parts of society or groups. Each case deserves its own attention. Innocent until proven guilty is the best of law. Yet when enough evidence is present, then no matter how much we hope the person is innocent, we must be willing to see the justice and mercy in bringing a guilty verdict upon them.

Alas, I ultimately believe all mercy & Justice will be met perfectly in the next world, through the perfect Atonement of Christ, which is the ultimate purpose of said Atonement. So rest in peace, everyone, and trust in that most glorious assurance.

[Vermillion · Rating 3 out of 5]

I thought this was going to be a serious undertaking from the start. But my perception of this project began to change after awhile. Some of the things that Mrs. Weinberg was saying and doing felt like she was bent on a wild goose chase. I saw no acceptable reason to muddle this case with another case, as she does needlessly go on to do. And I admit to being pissed off by the distraction. And it was at this point that I felt this whole thing was going to prove to be a waste of my time. I still thought Mrs. Weinberg was a serious person, in spite of my misgivings. It wasn’t until the words “Right-wing media” fell out of her mouth that I then became convinced that this project had turned into a donkey show.And I no longer held Mrs. Weinberg as someone to be taken seriously. And I have no confidence in her judgement with respect to Frediani. I have never believed that this man, if innocent, would confess to sexually assaulting a woman, with both his parents and his sister bearing witness in the courtroom. I am more inclined to believe that this woman has become something like one of the Nightstalker’s groupies. Otherwise, why did she feel the need to tell us that she once had to go braless in a jumper that was too tight, while she was still nursing, when she visited Frediani? And that is relevant to these cases how exactly? I mean, she could have rescheduled her visit; after all, it is not as if Frediani was going to be having a busy schedule for the foreseeable future.

[Smooballs · Rating 5 out of 5]

I enjoyed this audible. It is recorded more like a podcast, which was my only critique about it, because I’d let it play in the background if my phone and even though she describes what/where she is, I kept checking my phone to look for a video, before the member if it wasn’t a video.

Anyway, true crime, kinda following down the rabbit hole of an old case the author had previously followed.

I found myself convicting the man, then changing my mind more than once.

The over arching point I think that is made though is the fact that the justice system has flaws and shows the gray areas while looking into this case.

The title indicates how you are suppose to be tried without a reasonable doubt before being convicted and yet, there might be a trace of doubt. And the conflict one might have letting a murderer go free because there is a trace of doubt or possibly convicting an innocent person because you have a trace of doubt they might be a murderer.

The main story is following around this true crime story but there is a sub story about the justice system and human nature there as well.

In general, if you like to binge watch true crime tv, you’d probably like it.

[Sari Cochrane · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book was poorly premised, researched, and written.
The author previously wrote a book reqarding the murder and I read with interest as my first husband worked with Helena Greenwood and my second husband worked with the murderer.
It was incredulous that Weinberg then went on to write this “thing” based on the murderer’s words and a questionable “jailhouse lawyer”. The only explanation would be she hoped to make a little more money off the cruel murder of her countryman, the gifted scientist, Helena Greenwood.
The author has no understanding of American justice or California geography and apparently was too lazy to research either out. At one point calling Amador county (a preeminent wine district) “Central Valley desert”.
The author seems overly sensitive to her own relationship to the murderer, once found by the janitor of NorCal Waste of SF naked and flexing his muscles in the mirror of the company bathroom and feared by the women working for my husband, more important than his despicable tracking down and murder of , beautiful, and kind person

[Holly Helscher · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an Audible book based on a true story. In the summer of 1985, DNA scientist Helena Greenwood is found murdered. David Paul Frediani is the only suspect, having assaulted Helena a few months previously. There is no other evidence linking him to the murder. Fifteen years later, based on the science of DNA, he is re-investigated, convicted and sentenced to life in prison. In 2018, the author received a letter from a jailhouse lawyer, a fellow inmate of Frediani that blew hole after hole into the case. The two embark on a journey to discover the truth.

The book necessarily examines the the systemic failings of the criminal justice system and is, at times, triggering and emotionally jarring. The book is short and absorbing. The reader will wonder if Frediani is guilty or not. The book fails on one point. At the end I wanted to know what ultimately happened to Frediana and the jailhouse lawyer who, himself, was in jail for life and had an opportunity to be paroled during this case, yet he wanted to finish what he started. But she never says....

[Alison Giese · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was an interesting true crime case and I appreciate the author's open-mindedness and sensitivity. She's very heartfelt in addition to being analytical. My feelings about his guilt vs. innocence pretty much coincided along with hers until the very end. I do feel he committed the crime, but I understand there is a trace of doubt. I don't I find it a "reasonable doubt," given how he changed his story, so I do believe him to be guilty. The likely possibility of the police manipulating evidence (or ignore evidence that doesn't support their theory) to get the conviction against person they believe to be guilty is reprehensible. Whether or not they did it in this case is unknown for certain, but I'm sure it does happen, and that's a crime as bad as a criminal's, in many ways worse, because we are supposed to trust them to find the truth and get the real criminals off the streets, not imprison an innocent person just so that they can close the case.

A bonus enjoyment for me was the setting of San Diego, in particular Del Mar, being close to where I live. As I drove around listening to this book, there were times I was literally drive right by the place she was talking about on the street she was mentioning at that moment.

[Norma · Rating 4 out of 5]

( Format : Audiobook )
"For science to work the system must work."

I am finding it difficult to determine a rating for this book. As an audible diary it was very well and emotionally delivered. The author returns to the case of a murder she'd followed through court and about which she had written a book to illustrate that science in the form of DNA had now made court verdicts cleaner, more certain. But returning to look again years later finds that, even here, the evidence is only as good as the people who produce it, a conclusion which is quite terrifying considering how imperfect are the people and institutions involved.

The author reads her own writings with some interviews also played for the microphone and this makes for a quietly dramatic listen which will, I know, stay with me for a long time. However, it felt incomplete as indeed it must. Sad, disquieting, thought provoking - I settled on 4 out of 5 stars

Currently available with the Audible Plus programme

[John B · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently ventured outside my usual genre preferences to listen to Samantha Weinberg’s audiobook 'Trace of Doubt,' and I was pleasantly surprised. Awarding it 4 stars, I must admit that although this genre typically isn't to my liking, the audiobook's quality and presentation were impressive. The inclusion of interview snippets added a dynamic layer to the storytelling, enhancing the overall experience.

What struck me most about this narrative was its disturbing exploration of how easily one's freedom can be jeopardized. 'Trace of Doubt' serves as an eye-opener, highlighting the fragility of our liberties in the face of uncertain circumstances. The story's ability to unsettle and provoke thought made it a noteworthy listen.

Despite my initial reservations due to the genre, the audiobook's concise and well-executed format made it an engaging and thought-provoking experience. It's a commendable short audiobook, especially for those looking to explore themes of freedom and justice.

[Dianna · Rating 3 out of 5]

The author annoyed me! Her dedication to a man who admitted to SA of the victim was beyond comprehension.

Sure, some evidence was "missing." The evidence was from 1985! I'd be shocked if every piece of evidence was accounted for. Investigators are human beings, and sometimes, they misplace things. The one lawyer who examined the evidence she was questioning stepped back from the case? Why? Because what he found didn't substantiate the author's claims.

It's bizarre that a woman who identified with and aligned herself to the victim would be so easily persuaded by a convicted criminal.

All that aside, it was well written and well researched, but at times, the author contradicted herself in regard to her beliefs of the case. I don't recall the exact comment, but it was a completely different thought regarding the original murder case and then her subsequent investigation to try and get the murderer a new trial. Very hypocritical.

[Lee M Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

This Audible Original audio book that was suggested to me by my Audible subscription.

This would not be my my choice for a relaxing and entertaining mystery book.
This would be of interest for someone who is interested in True Crime and the legal justice system proceedings. It is basically a slick dramatization of a podcast series. It is in the same genre as television's 20/20 - not news and not entertainment.

I mainly keep listening because of my interest in the history of DNA forensics and because the audio book was only slightly more than 4 hours.

Well in the end - there is no ending. Instead, we are able to see how a sociopath can play even a person who claims to be a writer with the investigative journalism goal of truth. We also see how the legal system paints a VERY focused picture for the jury to decide upon. Who needs details ?!

Overall, not a waste of 4+ hours, but not something I would chose to read or recommend to my niche of readers.

[Felicia B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

Audible Freebie
2.5 stars rounded down for lack of focus.

What is this story about?
How DNA technology has evolved rapidly from the wild west of science to the backbone of definitively proving guilt or innocence?
The author's internal stuggle with profiting off of the demise of multiple lives (the victim and the convicted)?
A jailhouse lawyer searching for redemption by helping other inmates?
A dieing man's last ditch attempt to be free?
The story of a bad man using charm to abuse and win over the loyalty of those around him
A crime conspiracy theory at most or a cover up of mishandled evidence at the least?
Pondering if it is worse to convict an innocent man or set free a guilty one?

Any of those stories could have been good, but cramming them all into 3.75 hours leaves the listener feeling like we followed the author all over California, finding partial clues but ultimately resolving nothing and ending exactly where we started.

[AMEZUA CARMEN · Rating 2 out of 5]

I felt the author was milking the story, for a sequel to her previous book.
"Doubts" based on the convict's, and his convict lawyer friend's, protestations of innocence? If I got a dollar for every convict protesting innocence I'd be a millionaire.

Not on board either for her "ten guilty free better than an innocent convicted" The guilty do go free with alarming frequency, free to kill, rape or whatever again. Thank God for the police and prosecutors, they have a thankless job.

Samantha seems to prefer to believe the police is guilty of a convoluted conspiracy, than to disbelieve the twice found guilty rapist and murderer.

Could not even finish listening to her pearl clutching at the idea of the "injustice" perpetrated.

[Mark Warren · Rating 3 out of 5]

I listened to this on Audible and it was an enjoyable listen and certainly very different from anything I have listened to previously.

It follows a convicted murderer and attempts to unravel the case which was made against him. While forensic science had a massive impact on the case, it considers the impact people and processes play in forensic science and how that is equally important.

Also, it was in a manner to make it feel like a real life story - with interviews, prison calls, transcripts etc.

Very interesting.
The end was a bit of a let down - but that's similar to how real life is.
3 stars

[Sheree Norman · Rating 3 out of 5]

The audible read by the author made the interesting to listen to. Very much like a TV presentation & the script could be used on Unsolved Mysteries or Dateline.
DNA has rapidly advanced as an investigative tool much like fingerprints at the turn of the last century. There have been numerous cases over turned via newly analyzed DNA. Abuse of misused analysis is marginally a small event, but law enforcement needs to remain ever vigilant to prevent misuse as it erodes the validity of the process. The rather small class of the highly intelligent criminal predator are very manipulative personality whose goal is to outfox everyone else which feeds their egos.

[Kelly Conrad · Rating 2 out of 5]

Since pain is keeping me from sleeping or being in 1 position for more than a short spell, I decided to try to use the time to catch up on my book reviews…which I do, truly, for the sole purpose of keeping track for myself what I read. I loathe dedicating a good chunk of my time to a story and then promptly forgetting it. So gotta head dump while it’s hot.

This book was mildly interesting and had me reeling at how “truth” can be distorted and manipulated in our law system and also that an event can have more than 1 “reality.” But it is really not worth reading unless you are looking to be an investigative journalist or a lawyer in the near future.

[Shaebay · Rating 1 out of 5]

I don't get why she used a lot of interviews from a biased jailhouse lawyer (a term that she described as, as I believe she said, cool sounding...what???) rather than any other lawyers that specialize in overturning or appealing murder convictions. It would have lent a lot of credibility to her theories of his innocence if she had spoken with a representative from an organization like The Innocence Project, which is very well-known and well-regarded, or another unrelated third party. It's just random navel gazing. Do not recommend.

[Barbara Williford · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book was narrated like a podcast. Helena was an up and coming doctor in the field of DNA. She was sexual assaulted and waiting to testify when she was brutally murdered. The science she specialized in was crucial in putting away her murderer….or was it?

It was an interesting approach to narration. It was a bit hard to get used to but ended up being a pretty good book. It did leave you wondering.

Trigger warning: sexual assault, language, graphic content.