Fieldnotes:
1 Expert Forensic Anthropologist
1 Utterly Unnecessary Chapter Regarding Baboons
Several Largely Irrelevant 'Soapbox' Chapters Regarding Suicide and His Moral Qualms Therewith, Child Abuse, Disdain for Psychology, etc.

3 Famous Historical Cases (Pizarro, Zachary Taylor, Romanovs)
including 2 Instances of Blatant Hypocrisy
namely 1 Overly Intricate Theory Ignoring the Most Likely Scenario Given the Evidence and
1 Case of Leaping to Identification Conclusions based on Insufficient Evidence

1 Intriguing Criminal Case (Meeks/Jennings)

1 Painfully Overabundant Ego Evidenced by:
Countless Instances of Ostentatiously Not Giving His Opinion as Irrelevant
An Equal Number of Instances of Giving His Opinion Despite an Utter Lack of Expertise in Pathology/Psychology/Other Discipline

The Short Version
When Maples focused on his actual cases, his discipline (and his conclusions) are generally quite interesting - though his arrogance put me off. Seriously, never tell me as a reader that something is 'beyond any doubt' - especially when the evidence is far from conclusive. Unfortunately for much of the book, Maples doesn't talk about his actual expertise and discipline - that of making skeletons 'talk'. Instead we're treated to snippets here and there interspersed with Maples views on suicides, sexual practices, child abuse, dismemberment, etc. While some of this might be link-able to his profession, most of these links are poorly done and don't really tie back to forensic anthropology. And I'm just not that interested in his soapbox. ( )

This is a good but at times very graphic book, but as a person with a similar undergraduate degree, I can definitely appreciate this book!

I loved this book and it made me even more interested in the science of death and forensic anthropology. Dr Maples is a dear man, you can tell that in every word you read and by the respect he pays to the dead. Overall, this is a fascinating account of a long and richly full career and, indeed, life.

May he rest in eternal peace. ( )

forensic anthropology, including ID of Romanovs and Pizarro

From my Cannonball Read 5 review ...

Dead Men Do Tell Tales is a fascinating, detailed book by Dr. William Maples, an amazingly accomplished forensic anthropologist. You may be familiar with that field if you watch “Bones,” although as is usually the case, what you see on screen doesn’t closely match reality. A forensic anthropologist is trained in examining human remains to learn more about the decedent. They can tell if bones belonged to a woman or man, approximate age, and explain wounds. It’s very detail-oriented work, at times taking months or years when the identity is unknown (not the 45 minutes plus commercials Emily Deschanel might suggest).

In his book from the 90s, Dr. Maples takes the reader through many different cases he’s participated in over the years. Some involve people you’ve never heard of, and some are so famous it would be understandable if you didn’t quite believe what you were reading. Dr. Maples was, no joke, part of the small team that confirmed the identity of the bones of the murdered last Tsars of Russia. He put to rest the idea that President Taylor was killed by arsenic poisoning. He also helped convict murderers whose crimes were devastating but whose names you and I might not recognize.

As evidenced by my line of work, I find this to be an extremely interesting topic. I’ve read Mary Roach’s Stiff, as well as a couple of other books about the lives of medical examiners. If nothing else is on TV, I’ll likely leave it tuned to Dr. G. Medical Examiner or some other disease-related show on TLC or Discovery. I say all of that in service of the recognition that this type of writing is just not for everyone.

It is EXTREMELY graphic. Not to shock, but to explain. How else can he express to you how he was able to identify a murder weapon than to explain how he matched it to the wounds to the victim’s bones? Without the detail, it would be a very short book, with each chapter consisting of “so I did my work and concluded X.” His way of writing is so much better – it makes sense, and gives the reader a real insight into how forensic anthropology works.

If you enjoy history, or true crime stories, or science, and are not easily sickened by detailed descriptions of human remains, I think you’ll really enjoy this book. The only reason I gave it four stars is because at times the non-forensic writing (the set-up to the crime, or background) is a bit too flowery for my tastes. I appreciate creative turns of phrase, and I don’t doubt that the authors really do write this way, but at times it felt a little like one of them just got a new thesaurus. Additionally, while it suits the structure of the book, each chapter feels like its own independent essay; he re-explains some things as though the reader hadn’t just learned about them 50 pages prior.

But those are minimal complaints. It’s a great book. ( )