DNA doesn't lie is the second Sue Swanson novel. These crime novels aren't science fiction, but describe how science meets the world of crimes, told from the perspective of an English scientific consultant living in Germany. When this story begins, Sue Swanson is happy to start with a new project: writing a book on laboratory methods for forensic investigations. However, two recent local murder cases draw her attention, as there seems to be something wrong with the DNA evidence related to those cases. Reluctantly, she starts her own investigations, while her marriage gets seriously shaken up and the impact of the murders increases steadily. Eventually, her life becomes frustratingly complicated.

ISBN: 978-1519339966
Paperback, 206 pages
Publisher: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform
First published: 3 December 2015

DNA doesn't lie is available from Amazon as paperback and Ebook

Buy a printed version at Amazon.com , Amazon.co.uk or order at Amazon.de.

And here are the links for an Ebook version at Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.de.

You can also order a copy via the Contact form (within EU only). Payment is easy by Paypal or SEPA following receipt.  This service is not available for Ebooks.

Sue Swanson did it again: she solved a crime without any authority, on her own and by her own methods. Thrilling, tense and wiitty.

A reader told me: "I couldn't put the book down!"

A peek inside the book:
    Out of frustration I hit the machines in the gym with extra force. The rhythmic movements of my body slowly pacified me. I had tried my best to help Monica; it was all I could have done, and I didn’t think the incident that had forced her to leave the Forensic Institute would prevent her from finding another job. Stop feeling responsible, Sue! While I was cycling away the kilometres on the stationary exercise bike as part of my routine training I tried to explain why this thing wouldn’t leave my mind. Was it really the future of a young lab assistant that I was concerned about? Or was it because there was an inconsistency in a particular piece of forensic evidence that was blatantly being ignored? The latter, of course. I was frustrated that someone in the position of Gottfried Kazinski allowed himself such sloppiness. That went against everything I believed in: veracity, responsibility, accuracy, reliability. It was for this reason that I couldn’t let it go.