What do you think?
Rate this book
Sign of the Cross: The Prosecutor's True Story of a Landmark Trial Against the Klan
This is a prosecutor's harrowing -- and ultimately triumphant -- account of his struggle to punish the Ku Klux Klan for its acts of terror in southern California in the 1980's. Using actual testimony -- recorded conversations, and reports of police, Klansmen, informants, and prosecutors -- Phillips tells the story of his unprecedented and stormy legal battle against the Klan.
319 pages, Hardcover
First published April 1, 2000
2 people are currently reading
10 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
April 13, 2018
This book just sort of appeared on my shelf. I don't remember getting it but I'm sure that I got it at a library sale, one of many that I like going to. When I looked at the synopsis, a real, landmark trial against the Ku Klux Klan in California during the early 1990s, I understood why. It sounded fascinating and potentially interesting. Some aspects of the book, and thus the crime itself, were exactly that. However, I had too many problems with how this book was written to have enjoyed it whatsoever.
My main problem with this book is that the author took too many privileges with something that is supposed to be nonfiction. I would rather have a nonfiction book without any personal touches telling me facts and statements that can be corroborated by other sources than to have a personal story told as definite fact.
I spent a lot of time wishing that the author had not used quotes during his personal exchanges with his coworkers and his wife. Memory is a faulty thing, there is no way of knowing that these discussions happened exactly the way he said. Instead I wish he had mentioned that this is how he remembered this situation going down or "now that I look back" moments instead of saying this is exactly what he was thinking at the time. There is no way of remembering everything exactly as it happened yesterday, much less something that happened in the early 90s when this book was published in 2000.
It wasn't just my questioning the author's memory recall that I had a problem with. All of the liberties taken with what happened in real life bothered me as well. An early example was a supposed discussion between two prosecutors who were generally disliked by the author and their colleagues. This was a snide discussion that led us, the reader, to how the DA got the case and how the author was brought back onto the case. A great literary device. If this was a work of fiction. But I couldn't see how anyone could have heard this private discussion or that it was recorded. So how do we know it actually happened? Instead it just feels as though the author is imagining a discussion between two awful people and further vilifying them in the narrative. Another example was guessing the thoughts of others when there was no way of the author substantiating it. This is mainly because the people who were "thinking" these thoughts were alone and were murdered. There is no way of anyone knowing exactly what these deceased victims were thinking or feeling at the time of their deaths.
I might have given this book a higher rating if only it hadn't taken liberties with what was supposed to be a nonfiction account. I wish that the author had told the story with an air of it being his truth and as what he remembered and his own reflections rather than as a definite account filled with segments that can't be proven to have even occurred.
A quote I saw on Twitter attributed to John McPhee said: "With nonfiction, you've got your material, and what your trying to do is tell it as a story in a way that doesn't violate fact, but at the same time is structured and presented in a way that makes it interesting to read."
I wish that John W. Phillips had done this, but sadly he did not, thus the abnormally low rating on my part.
My main problem with this book is that the author took too many privileges with something that is supposed to be nonfiction. I would rather have a nonfiction book without any personal touches telling me facts and statements that can be corroborated by other sources than to have a personal story told as definite fact.
I spent a lot of time wishing that the author had not used quotes during his personal exchanges with his coworkers and his wife. Memory is a faulty thing, there is no way of knowing that these discussions happened exactly the way he said. Instead I wish he had mentioned that this is how he remembered this situation going down or "now that I look back" moments instead of saying this is exactly what he was thinking at the time. There is no way of remembering everything exactly as it happened yesterday, much less something that happened in the early 90s when this book was published in 2000.
It wasn't just my questioning the author's memory recall that I had a problem with. All of the liberties taken with what happened in real life bothered me as well. An early example was a supposed discussion between two prosecutors who were generally disliked by the author and their colleagues. This was a snide discussion that led us, the reader, to how the DA got the case and how the author was brought back onto the case. A great literary device. If this was a work of fiction. But I couldn't see how anyone could have heard this private discussion or that it was recorded. So how do we know it actually happened? Instead it just feels as though the author is imagining a discussion between two awful people and further vilifying them in the narrative. Another example was guessing the thoughts of others when there was no way of the author substantiating it. This is mainly because the people who were "thinking" these thoughts were alone and were murdered. There is no way of anyone knowing exactly what these deceased victims were thinking or feeling at the time of their deaths.
I might have given this book a higher rating if only it hadn't taken liberties with what was supposed to be a nonfiction account. I wish that the author had told the story with an air of it being his truth and as what he remembered and his own reflections rather than as a definite account filled with segments that can't be proven to have even occurred.
A quote I saw on Twitter attributed to John McPhee said: "With nonfiction, you've got your material, and what your trying to do is tell it as a story in a way that doesn't violate fact, but at the same time is structured and presented in a way that makes it interesting to read."
I wish that John W. Phillips had done this, but sadly he did not, thus the abnormally low rating on my part.
February 19, 2011
We had the opportunity to have the author speak to our book group and that gave even more meaning to the book. He spoke of his involvement in bringing some of the most notorious klansmen and white supremacists to justice for cross burnings in the San Fernando Valley. His family was put at risk and threatened. It is difficult to imagine that this took place not so long ago and not so far away. Unfortunately it is a reminder of the cruelty of mankind when hatred is allowed to target a particular group of people.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews