Sten Forshufvud (1903–1985)

Dr. Forshufvud writes in a distinctly different style than Mr. Weider, but nonetheless in an informative [if not more so] manner. He did, of course, have the benefit of an education including medicine & toxicology as well as knowing at least three different languages, which would have greatly aided his research. His list of resources is extraordinary, his arguments convincing, & yet it is so well written that the language need not be broken down for a lesser reader.
The book includes views by the spectators as listed in his [Napoleon’s] memoirs, which not only make it interesting as to the point of view each scene [for lack of a better word] as it was played out day-by-day by Napoleon’s entourage at Saint Helena, but also because each person had such a different, individual writing style. Marchard; sincere & thorough. Bertrand; terse & to the point. Montholon; secretive & devious, as well as over-imaginative. Napoleon’s personal physicians’ views versus that of the English doctors’ autopsy reports---Henry gives an odd, yet much quoted view, which goes into great detail about Napoleon’s pubic region which today would question his sexual preferences, despite his medical background.
Toward the end of the book are the articles from the British newspapers listing the particulars of the death & burial of Napoleon, which even though they refused to name him by his respectable title, indicate that by the time of his death the general opinion of “the Corsican Ogre” had been greatly reversed.… (meer)

Dr. Forshufvud writes in a distinctly different style than Mr. Weider, but nonetheless in an informative [if not more so] manner. He did, of course, have the benefit of an education including medicine & toxicology as well as knowing at least three different languages, which would have greatly aided his research. His list of resources is extraordinary, his arguments convincing, & yet it is so well written that the language need not be broken down for a lesser reader.
The book includes views by the spectators as listed in his [Napoleon’s] memoirs, which not only make it interesting as to the point of view each scene [for lack of a better word] as it was played out day-by-day by Napoleon’s entourage at Saint Helena, but also because each person had such a different, individual writing style. Marchard; sincere & thorough. Bertrand; terse & to the point. Montholon; secretive & devious, as well as over-imaginative. Napoleon’s personal physicians’ views versus that of the English doctors’ autopsy reports---Henry gives an odd, yet much quoted view, which goes into great detail about Napoleon’s pubic region which today would question his sexual preferences, despite his medical background.
Toward the end of the book are the articles from the British newspapers listing the particulars of the death & burial of Napoleon, which even though they refused to name him by his respectable title, indicate that by the time of his death the general opinion of “the Corsican Ogre” had been greatly reversed.… (meer)

Between Forshufuud's Who Killed Napoleon? & Assassination at St. Helena, Revisited, there was Assassination at St. Helena: The Poisoning of Napoleon Bonaparte. David Chandler collaborates with Forshufuud & Weider to write the forward for this book & express his belief in the arsenic theory as well. With his endorsement & as greatly researched as this these works are, it is difficult to understand why so many other so-called experts doubt the poisoning of Napoleon. This book differs from most, exploring the arsenic theory, & elaborating on the history prior to the exile[s] & briefs on similarities between the death of Napoleon & his son, the King of Rome.
It is an interesting & informative book, well worth reading.… (meer)