What do you think?
Rate this book
Final Appeal: Anatomy of a Frame
The Canadian politician who was convicted of murder tells his story ― and argues for his innocence In 1984, Colin Thatcher was convicted of killing his ex-wife and sentenced to life in prison. The murder and trial provoked a national media frenzy, casting the once-prominent Saskatchewan politician as the villain. After serving twenty-two years, Thatcher was released and finally able to offer his own account of what happened from the time of the murder up until he left prison. Though firmly proclaiming his innocence from the start, he is now able to go behind the bureaucratic red tape and provide full disclosure, including evidence not seen at the trial, legal documents, and personal correspondence, ultimately questioning the public’s faith in local law enforcement, mainstream media, and justice.
- GenresTrue Crime
390 pages, Hardcover
First published September 1, 2009
10 people are currently reading
34 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 3, 2010
I'm not even finished with this book, but I have to write my review now before I explode.
For reasons I cannot disclose, I know exactly when Colin Thatcher was shopping for a publisher for this book. A few months later, when I discovered the publication date, I couldn't help thinking, Gee, that's awful soon....
AND IT SHOWS. This book is an absolute editorial fail. It's incredibly convoluted, off-putting in tone, aimless, and rife with redundancies and repetitions.
This book should have been revised with a fine-tooth comb. It's obvious that Colin Thatcher is out to convince the reader that he did not kill his wife on January 21, 1983, for which he served a 22-year sentence. With this in mind, the publisher and the author had to have known that any convolution in language or arrogance in tone would undermine that message, rendering the book ineffective.
And indeed it did. Caused no doubt by Thatcher's inability to focus on one point for any significant amount of time, the text jumps from one "injustice" to the next: the Crown withholding evidence, a fake credit card slip, circumstantial evidence, etc., ad nauseum, They were picking on meeeeee!
Thatcher demonizes those who "hindered" his case while putting those who helped him on a pedestal, and he gets personal and petty with his comments. At one point he calls Maggie Siggins, author of A Canadian Tragedy, "a squat woman with the face of a frog." Nice, real nice.
One glorious little interlude that comes completely out of nowhere and would have been edited out had the book not been rushed through the publishing process is Thatcher's charming opinion on the prison system. Without acknowledging his bias in the least, Thatcher educates us on how he thinks a prison should be run, including the fact that he "makes no apologies" for believing that women have no place in the prison system. Had this been expressed in a more inviting and dual-sided tone, I may not have been so offended when he wrote, "women in positions of authority in Edmonton [Max:] frequently compensated for a lesser physical presence with meanness, vindictiveness, and pickiness." (Yes, "pickiness.") Not once did he say, "in my experience" or "my personal experience is". He used this kind of narrative and an isolated incident to "prove" his point. He does the same in regards to a gay parole office, within the same chapter.
I'm not interested in Colin Thatcher's innocence. I acknowledge that we'll never know for sure whether or not Thatcher committed the crime. I even acknowledge that, if I'm understanding his case correctly, there may not have been enough evidence to convict him. But at the same time, Thatcher does NOTHING to benefit his case via this book. All he does is further validate his asshole reputation, which is probably the last thing he needs. Not that cares now, seeing as he's living a quiet life on his farm in Saskatchewan after being paroled in 2006.
He should have left things alone. What do they say? He who protests too much...
For reasons I cannot disclose, I know exactly when Colin Thatcher was shopping for a publisher for this book. A few months later, when I discovered the publication date, I couldn't help thinking, Gee, that's awful soon....
AND IT SHOWS. This book is an absolute editorial fail. It's incredibly convoluted, off-putting in tone, aimless, and rife with redundancies and repetitions.
This book should have been revised with a fine-tooth comb. It's obvious that Colin Thatcher is out to convince the reader that he did not kill his wife on January 21, 1983, for which he served a 22-year sentence. With this in mind, the publisher and the author had to have known that any convolution in language or arrogance in tone would undermine that message, rendering the book ineffective.
And indeed it did. Caused no doubt by Thatcher's inability to focus on one point for any significant amount of time, the text jumps from one "injustice" to the next: the Crown withholding evidence, a fake credit card slip, circumstantial evidence, etc., ad nauseum, They were picking on meeeeee!
Thatcher demonizes those who "hindered" his case while putting those who helped him on a pedestal, and he gets personal and petty with his comments. At one point he calls Maggie Siggins, author of A Canadian Tragedy, "a squat woman with the face of a frog." Nice, real nice.
One glorious little interlude that comes completely out of nowhere and would have been edited out had the book not been rushed through the publishing process is Thatcher's charming opinion on the prison system. Without acknowledging his bias in the least, Thatcher educates us on how he thinks a prison should be run, including the fact that he "makes no apologies" for believing that women have no place in the prison system. Had this been expressed in a more inviting and dual-sided tone, I may not have been so offended when he wrote, "women in positions of authority in Edmonton [Max:] frequently compensated for a lesser physical presence with meanness, vindictiveness, and pickiness." (Yes, "pickiness.") Not once did he say, "in my experience" or "my personal experience is". He used this kind of narrative and an isolated incident to "prove" his point. He does the same in regards to a gay parole office, within the same chapter.
I'm not interested in Colin Thatcher's innocence. I acknowledge that we'll never know for sure whether or not Thatcher committed the crime. I even acknowledge that, if I'm understanding his case correctly, there may not have been enough evidence to convict him. But at the same time, Thatcher does NOTHING to benefit his case via this book. All he does is further validate his asshole reputation, which is probably the last thing he needs. Not that cares now, seeing as he's living a quiet life on his farm in Saskatchewan after being paroled in 2006.
He should have left things alone. What do they say? He who protests too much...
July 12, 2023
I only read this book because I’m from Saskatchewan and never knew much about the murder of his wife.
It’s very detailed, many different sides to the story.
I believe since it was written by he himself, he took the one huge part of his action in the murder.
There is two other books written about the murder by a lawyer, and another person who’s version got turned into a movie by CBC.
It’s very detailed, many different sides to the story.
I believe since it was written by he himself, he took the one huge part of his action in the murder.
There is two other books written about the murder by a lawyer, and another person who’s version got turned into a movie by CBC.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews