A review by jakobmarleymommy
The Devil's Gentleman: Privilege, Poison, and the Trial That Ushered in the Twentieth Century by Harold Schechter
4.0
***WARNING*** This review contains MANY SPOILERS!
I hesitate to call a book about murder by poison enjoyable, but this book really was. It read like a novel, and had so many twists that I really wasn't quite sure where we were going to end up.
There weren't a lot of likable personalities in this book, which one would expect, being a book about murder. The General was very likable, if a bit naive in his unfailing trust of his son. For me, the most unlikeable personality was Roland's wife, Blanche. She was clearly manipulative, insincere, untruthful, melodramatic, and looking out only for herself. While the same could easily be said of Roland, he also had documented mental illness, while not excusing his actions, at least provide an explanation.
Was Roland guilty? I believe that based on the evidence provided by the author, that yes, he was very clearly guilty. I concur with the author's opinion that it was really the General who was found not guilty at Roland's second trial. The jury just didn't have the heart to convict a man who had been so admirably and unquestionably supported by his Civil War hero father.
One of the things I enjoy reading about in crimes of this era is the battle between the NYC newspapers, and this book did not disappoint. If we think our modern media is obtrusive and biased, we should really take a look back at the war between Pulitzer and Hearst. They went to absolutely insane lengths to sell their papers, truth be damned.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in true crime, the gilded age, and the battle of the titan NYC newspapers.
I hesitate to call a book about murder by poison enjoyable, but this book really was. It read like a novel, and had so many twists that I really wasn't quite sure where we were going to end up.
There weren't a lot of likable personalities in this book, which one would expect, being a book about murder. The General was very likable, if a bit naive in his unfailing trust of his son. For me, the most unlikeable personality was Roland's wife, Blanche. She was clearly manipulative, insincere, untruthful, melodramatic, and looking out only for herself. While the same could easily be said of Roland, he also had documented mental illness, while not excusing his actions, at least provide an explanation.
Was Roland guilty? I believe that based on the evidence provided by the author, that yes, he was very clearly guilty. I concur with the author's opinion that it was really the General who was found not guilty at Roland's second trial. The jury just didn't have the heart to convict a man who had been so admirably and unquestionably supported by his Civil War hero father.
One of the things I enjoy reading about in crimes of this era is the battle between the NYC newspapers, and this book did not disappoint. If we think our modern media is obtrusive and biased, we should really take a look back at the war between Pulitzer and Hearst. They went to absolutely insane lengths to sell their papers, truth be damned.
I would recommend this book to anyone who is interested in true crime, the gilded age, and the battle of the titan NYC newspapers.