Skip to main content

A trial and punishment page turner

I'm not a great true crime reader. I find an excessive enthusiasm for the details of real crimes rather ghoulish. So when Icon Books sent me a copy of Slaughter on a Snowy Morn, which according to the cover is 'a tale of murder, corruption and the death penalty case that revolutionised the American courtroom' I was a bit hesitant in getting round to reading it. But that hesitation was unnecessary - it's a stunner.

Colin Evans tells the story of a double murder in rural New York state in 1915. Charlie Stielow, a farmhand with little education and less mental acuity is prosecuted for the crime and ends up on death row at Sing Sing prison, heading for the electric chair. But the crime is almost unimportant. It's the legal proceedings that provide an incredible story of one step forward, two steps back that eventually brings Stielow within one hour of execution.

For the first half of the book I read with interest, but as Stielow's increasingly high power team (as New York lawyers come in on what they believe is a terrible miscarriage of justice) face unbelievable setbacks in the face of strong evidence, I literally got to the stage where I couldn't put it down and had to read to the end. Bearing in mind Stielow's date with the electric chair, I hate to say this - but it's electrifying.

There are several themes of interest that come through. One is the dubious expert for hire who totally bungles the examination of the bullets used in the killings, swearing they came from Stielow's gun. Remarkably in his enlarged photos of the bullets he manages to show the opposite side to the side where the scratches that identify them are alleged to be - yet he still sways the jury. One outcome of this case is a direct link to the setting up of the first proper forensic lab for examining bullets. Then there are confessions extracted under pressure by corrupt officials who are so determined to be proved right in the spending of county money that they are prepared to send an innocent man to the chair. And there's the incredibly parochial nature of the grand jury assembled to see whether another man who has confessed to the crime should be tried, and who ignore swathes of evidence, apparently once more under pressure from the local administration.

Stielow himself sits at the centre of all this, mostly ignorant of what is going on while dramatic legal battles and last minute attempts to win a reprieve are fought.

There are a couple of things that aren't perfect. You'd think from the way the author writes about the growing storm of the First World War, which acts as a backdrop to the case, that he believes Germany was in the right and Britain the aggressor. This might have been intended to highlight the negative feelings against Stielow who was German in origin (though this doesn't come out anywhere in the trials), but instead comes across as anti-British. And there's a bit tacked on the end about the founding of the forensic bureau to deal with bullets that is vaguely interesting, but a real anti-climax after the book's main story.

But these are very minor complaints. This is a true crime story for people who don't read true crime stories - because it's not really about the crime at all, it's about justice and the legal system - and a number of individuals fighting to overcome corruption and petty parochial stupidity - which makes for a riveting read.

You can see more about Slaughter on a Snowy Morn at and at


Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's recent gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some ex

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Which idiot came up with percentage-based gradient signs

Rant warning: the contents of this post could sound like something produced by UKIP. I wish to make it clear that I do not in any way support or endorse that political party. In fact it gives me the creeps. Once upon a time, the signs for a steep hill on British roads displayed the gradient in a simple, easy-to-understand form. If the hill went up, say, one yard for every three yards forward it said '1 in 3'. Then some bureaucrat came along and decided that it would be a good idea to state the slope as a percentage. So now the sign for (say) a 1 in 10 slope says 10% (I think). That 'I think' is because the percentage-based slope is so unnatural. There are two ways we conventionally measure slopes. Either on X/Y coordiates (as in 1 in 4) or using degrees - say at a 15° angle. We don't measure them in percentages. It's easy to visualize a 1 in 3 slope, or a 30 degree angle. Much less obvious what a 33.333 recurring percent slope is. And what's a 100% slope