When I watched "Downton Abbey", I was intrigued by the idea of wealthy American heiresses marrying titled British peers in order to gain a crown and a title. It was a win/win: wealthy American girls who weren't welcome in the tightly controlled New York society took their millions across the pond to the genteel poor who got to save their giant estates from ruin with the influx of foreign cash. De Courcy's book was well written and very interesting, I really enjoyed learning about the excess of wealth on display in the Gilded Age and how regimented society was.
I actually read a book I bought! Last month I happened to see this title at Barnes & Noble, and wondered why my library hadn't bought it. I was a bit worried it might have gotten poor reviews, but I figured I'd give it a shot anyway. It was pretty good. Eatwell makes a convincing case that the LAPD actually had a very good suspect for the murder of Elizabeth Short back in 1947, but due to his connections with some high-ups in the police department, detectives working the case were yanked off and reassigned whenever they got too close to the truth. Her suspect is a man named Leslie Dillion, who apparently killed the Dahlia on the orders of Mark Hansen, a nightclub owner who was friends with Thad Brown of the LAPD. Hansen's name was on the cover of the address book the killer later mailed to the newspaper. She also claimed Elizabeth was murdered at the Ascot Motel: several witnesses as well as the husband and wife who owned the motel remembered a girl matching her description staying there during the week she was missing, before her body was found. The motel owners claimed someone made a mess out of a cabin, it was covered in blood and they had to burn most of the sheets and towels. She was rather dismissive of Steve Hodel's claims that his father, Dr. George Hodel, killed Elizabeth, but I'm not as convinced. Of course at this point who knows, it's all just speculation. I do wish I knew what James Ellroy thought of this theory, though.
I am a self-confessed Lizzie Borden fanatic and read everything I can get my hands on about the trial. I was *really* excited about this one (over 100 years later, people don't write about Lizzie so much anymore). It was extremely well written, very nicely summing up the crimes and the trial, but I was disappointed. She posited no theory on the case, I have no idea if she thinks Lizzie is guilty or innocent. Which is fine: if she wanted to present a very fair minded look at the case without injecting her own opinions into it she did a masterful job of it (I wish other nonfiction authors would take note and emulate...). That being said, there was nothing new. No new revelations, no bombshells, no wild theories and speculations. It was about as tame a book as you could get recounting two brutal still unsolved murders from 1892. I would highly recommend it to anyone who hasn't read dozens of books about the case, it's a great introduction to the crimes and allows the reader to make up their own mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment