Reviewed by Jeanne
(Note: while two
authors are credited, Bill James’ is the dominant voice, so instead of trying
to tease out who said what, I’m just going to use “he” and “James” to indicate
author.)
While public fascination with serial killers is fairly
modern, such killers are not: Jack the Ripper, H.H. Holmes, Mary Ann Cotton,
and Jesse Pomeroy were all active pre-1900. Bill James, best
known as a baseball analyst, became interested in two
historical murder cases. The first was a horrific murder in June, 1912, in
which a family was massacred in Villisca, Iowa. Several books have been written
about this one, as the perpetrator was never found. Just about a year earlier, there were two
families murdered by axe on the same night in Colorado Springs. In all these cases, the murderer was
organized and brutally efficient—professional, almost. James hired his daughter to research newspaper
databases of the era to try to discover if there were other such murders.
There were. During the course of the book, James describes a
number of cases, noting similarities and deviations, and invites the reader to
join in the speculation. At the end, James believes he has found a definite pattern, and, indeed, a suspect.
I read a bit of true crime, but I prefer historical cases
rather than contemporary; this book appeared to fit the bill. I opened the book to discover that the first
instance was in a little town in rural southwest Virginia called Hurley—about 95
miles from Bristol.
Naturally, I was hooked.
In some of the cases, people were actually convicted of the
crime and executed, but often on very little evidence. For example, while robbery was the usual motive
given, but in many instances money and other valuables were found in plain
sight. This became one hallmark James
used to sift through the cases. Other
features included use of the blunt end of an axe in commission of the crime,
the events usually taking place late at night, victims found in their beds with
their faces covered by a cloth, indications that the murderer spent time in the
house after committing the crime, locking doors, and covering windows.
Of course, the main feature that connected these murders was
the proximity of the home to railroad tracks.
James’ theory (and others) is that the murderer would hop a train and
leave town, hence the title of the book.
Some reviewers took exception to the light tone James
employs in describing events, but as he explains, the book is about occurrences
so dreadful that the only way to deal with the continuous horror is to try to
lighten the mood. I agree with his choice, but others may not. He also doesn’t linger over details except
when they pertain to his pattern, so he avoids gruesome images inasmuch as
possible.
Another thing I appreciated is that James doesn’t take the
stance that he is right in all instances but allows the reader to agree or
disagree. Some cases may have four or
five features in common with the profile but have others that seem to be at
odds with it. James gives his reasons
for including or excluding that event but doesn’t insist that others agree with
his conclusion. I have to say this is rather unusual in my experience. Often, an author is fixated on getting the
reader to conclude that the author’s explanation is the only possible one. (It
seems to me that this is especially true of books about Jack the Ripper, but
isn’t limited to those.)
Part of what I like about historical mysteries is that
usually the author sets the stage by telling us about the social, economic,
and/or governmental situation of the day.
In James’ book, we get a bit of a lesson in how police departments and
crime scene investigation evolved, not to mention the role of the press. It’s not surprising that in several cases
when the crime is “solved,” the accepted solution is usually a person of color
or low social standing in the community. Some of the accused were lynched
before a trial could take place. As I mentioned at the beginning, serial
killers have been around a long time, but the concept that someone could be
murdering people for the thrill of it is newer.
This hampered many investigations because authorities were certain the
perpetrator had to have some connection with the victims; even when two
families were murdered in very similar ways in the same area, the police looked
for connections between the families, not really considering the attack could
have been from a stranger. I think most eye-opening to me was the information
about detectives, a job for which there were very few (if any) qualifications
except a desire to make a buck.
My only real complaint about the book is the lack of an
index. With so many cases and so much
ground to cover, I sometimes wanted to refresh my memory on details but
locating specifics was difficult without aforementioned index. A more minor
complaint is the lack of a bibliography.
Sources are cited, and due credit is given to authors (Beth Klingensmith
gets especial thanks) and newspapers but sometimes a bit more information would
have been helpful if someone wanted to read the original material.
Overall, I found this to be a fascinating book and recommend
it. I will say it’s sometimes enjoyed best in small doses as the body count
rises; even the light tone adopted can’t gloss over the fact that a large
number of people are brutally murdered, usually in their beds. It went down much better when read during the day and not in the evenings.
This would be a good book for a reader’s group, wherein people could debate the
various murders and decide which ones were part of a pattern and which weren’t.
Thanks for your great review of this book! I'm not normally a reader of true crime stories (cured myself of that with Helter-Skelter & In Cold Blood), but I admit that this one sounds very interesting, despite the brutality of the crimes. Being that the crimes occurred a century ago gives the reader distance, too. I might look this one up. Thanks!
ReplyDeleteHi, Linda, thanks for reading the blog! If you do give the book a try, I'd like to know what you think. I find I really prefer true crime done long ago enough that there is some historical perspective. Helter Skelter scared me senseless but when I read it, the crimes were still comparatively recent. (Yes, I read it a LONG time ago!) Thanks again! Jeanne
ReplyDelete