Original sentence: According to McKillop, the lawsuit was unsuccessful due to the prejudice against a woman suing a well known and famous male author; McKillop paints a detailed story based on the circumstantial evidence of the case, and suggests that in a more modern court, she would have been successful.He argues that she had a weak case that was not well presented, and though she may have met with sexism from her lawyers, she did receive a fair trial.He goes on to say that the law applied is essentially the same law that would be applied to a similar case today (i.In 2004, Denis N.Magnusson, Professor Emeritus of the Faculty of Law, Queen”s University, Kingston, Ontario, had published in “Queen's Law Journal” an article on Deeks v.McKillop had been researching another Canadian historical figure when he came across information relating to this, and intrigued, followed through with this book.There are some more detailed reviews of the book on the Internet easily found by searching under A.This re-examines the case in relation to McKillop's book (described as “a novel” in the editorial introduction).While having some sympathy for Deeks, he “challenges the outpouring of public support” for her.e:2004)
Edited sentence: McKillop had been researching another Canadian historical figure when he came across information relating to this, and intrigued, followed through with this fascinating book.There are some excellent more detailed reviews of the book on the Internet easily found by searching under A.While the lawsuit was unsuccessful due to the prejudice against a woman suing a well known and famous male author, McKillop paints a detailed story based on the circumstantial evidence of the case, and suggests that in a more modern court, she would have been successful