oppostate : From the review at http://truthhistory.blogspot.com/2016/04/a-review.html it sure seems like Dr. C. got a lot of facts wrong
I think you skimmed Dr. de Vienne's review. Tracing what happened 150 years ago is difficult (even 50 years ago can be difficult). A scholar can spend decades studying a particular era of history and still have some details wrong.
That's more pertinent when it comes to a small, obscure sect like the first 'Bible Students' who were Russell's followers. Who thought to keep a diary of the activities of those involved? Who knew all of the movements of the people who appeared in the story.
For a comparison, look at how little we really know about the life of Jesus or the history of the early church. And what we do have is clearly coloured and biased.
Twice, de Vienne, makes the point that getting a detail wrong does not detract from the value of the book.
In the first paragraph de Vienne states:
"It is free of polemic, largely accurate and well written. ... In these respects it is superior to almost every book written about the Bible Student and Witness movements since 1920."
And later in his review he writes:
"While I believe it necessary to point out some flaws, I restate my opening point. This is an exceptional book, well worth the time spent reading it (four times.) It is impossible, or nearly so, to write a book like this and not have errors appear."