Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence

Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence

by Bill James


$17.99 $19.99 Save 10% Current price is $17.99, Original price is $19.99. You Save 10%.
View All Available Formats & Editions
Choose Expedited Shipping at checkout for guaranteed delivery by Tuesday, October 22


The man who revolutionized the way we think about baseball now examines our cultural obsession with murder—delivering a unique, engrossing, brilliant history of tabloid crime in America.

Celebrated writer and contrarian Bill James has voraciously read true crime throughout his life and has been interested in writing a book on the topic for decades. Now, with Popular Crime, James takes readers on an epic journey from Lizzie Borden to the Lindbergh baby, from the Black Dahlia to O. J. Simpson, explaining how crimes have been committed, investigated, prosecuted and written about, and how that has profoundly influenced our culture over the last few centuries— even if we haven’t always taken notice.

Exploring such phenomena as serial murder, the fluctuation of crime rates, the value of evidence, radicalism and crime, prison reform and the hidden ways in which crimes have shaped, or reflected, our society, James chronicles murder and misdeeds from the 1600s to the present day. James pays particular attention to crimes that were sensations during their time but have faded into obscurity, as well as still-famous cases, some that have never been solved, including the Lindbergh kidnapping, the Boston Strangler and JonBenet Ramsey. Satisfyingly sprawling and tremendously entertaining, Popular Crime is a professed amateur’s powerful examination of the incredible impact crime stories have on our society, culture and history.

Product Details

ISBN-13: 9781416552741
Publisher: Scribner
Publication date: 05/08/2012
Pages: 496
Sales rank: 342,775
Product dimensions: 6.08(w) x 8.80(h) x 1.27(d)

About the Author

Bill James made his mark in the 1970s and 1980s with his Baseball Abstracts. He has been tearing down preconceived notions about America’s national pastime ever since. He is currently the Senior Advisor on Baseball Operations for the Boston Red Sox, as well as the author of The Man from the Train. James lives in Lawrence, Kansas, with his wife, Susan McCarthy, and three children.

Read an Excerpt

Popular Crime

  • In Rome in the year 24 AD, the praetor Plautius Silvanus pushed his wife Apronia out of the window in the middle of the night. They hadn’t been married very long, or, we might guess, very happily. It was a high window, and she did not survive the fall.

    Silvanus was a member of one of Rome’s most celebrated and successful families. His father, also Plautius Silvanus, had been consul in 2 BCE. His grandmother, Urgulania, was a close friend of the empress, and a cousin, Urgulanilla, was then married to the man who would later become the emperor Claudius.

    Apronia’s father rushed to the palace and awakened the emperor Tiberius. Tiberius went immediately to the scene of the crime, where he saw obvious signs of a struggle and the marks of Apronia being forced out the window. Silvanus had no explanation. He claimed that he had been asleep at the time, and that Apronia must have leapt to her death. He was arrested, judges were appointed, and Tiberius presented his evidence to the Roman senate.

    A great public scandal arose, in the midst of which Urgulania sent her grandson a dagger. This was taken to be a hint. Silvanus attempted to stab himself with the dagger, and, that failing, apparently enlisted the aid of confederates; in any case, Tacitus records that he “allowed his veins to be opened,” and was soon gone.

    There was still to be a trial, however. Silvanus’ first wife, Numantina, was put on trial on charges of having driven her late ex-husband insane with incantations and potions … what we would now call “witchcraft.” She was acquitted.

    Silvanus’ family was destroyed by the scandal. Claudius divorced Urgulanilla, who was believed to have been implicated in the matter in some opaque way. The grandmother disappears from history.

    In 61 AD the Prefect of the city of Rome, L. Pedanius Secundus, became embroiled in a dispute with one of his slaves, either because he had agreed to release the slave for a price and then reneged on the deal—the story told by the slave—or because Pedanius and the slave had both fallen in love with the same slave boy who was kept as a prostitute, which was apparently the story circulated in the streets. In any case, Pedanius was murdered by the slave.

    Roman law required that, when a slave murdered his master, all of the slaves residing in the household were to be executed—in fact, even if the master died accidentally within his house, the slaves were sometimes executed for failing to protect the master. Pedanius had 400 slaves. The law had been as it was for hundreds of years, Roman law being harder to change than the course of a river, and there had been cases before in which large numbers of slaves had been executed, but now people were losing respect for the old values, and the slaves no longer saw the point in this tradition. Crowds of plebs—rank-and-file civilians, neither slaves nor aristocracy—gathered to protest the executions. Rioting broke out, and not for the first time, incidentally. Rioting had erupted over the same issue at other times through the centuries.

    The senate debated the matter, and most of the senators realized that the executions were unjust. They were unable to block implementation of the law, however, and the order was given that the executions must be carried out. Troops attempted to seize the slaves, but a crowd gathered to defend them, armed with stones and torches, and the soldiers were beaten back. By now Claudius’ stepson Nero was the emperor, never known for his civility. Nero ordered thousands of soldiers to the scene. The slaves were taken into custody, and legions of soldiers lined the streets along which they were taken to be put to death.

    Ordinarily, crime stories sink gradually beneath the waves of history, as proper stiff-upper-lip historians are generally above re-telling them, but street riots are one of the things that sometimes cause them to float. On January 1, 1753, an 18-year-old girl disappeared from a country lane in an area which is now part of London, but which at that time linked London to the village of Whitechapel. Employed as a maid in London, Elizabeth Canning had spent New Year’s Day with her aunt and uncle in Whitechapel. As the holiday drew toward evening she headed back to London, and the aunt and uncle walked with her part of the way. With less than a mile to go along the thinly populated lane her relatives turned back, assuming that she would be safe making the last leg of the trek alone in the gathering dusk. In 1753, of course, the streets were unlit, and also, London had no regular police service. She had with her a little bit of money, what was left of her Christmas money, which was called a “Christmas Box,” and a mince pie that she was carrying as a treat for one of her younger brothers.

    She failed to arrive back in London. What happened then is oddly familiar to us. Her mother immediately raised the alarm, and her friends, relatives and her employers immediately organized a volunteer search. Within hours of her disappearance they were knocking on doors throughout the area, and within two days they had covered much of London with advertisements and fliers asking for information and offering a small reward. Her disappearance attracted the attention of the city. Someone along the lane thought that he remembered hearing a woman scream about the time she disappeared.

    The search, however, went nowhere for several weeks. On January 29, late in the evening, Miss Canning suddenly reappeared at her mother’s house, looking so bedraggled that her mother, when first Elizabeth came through the door, had not the slightest idea who she was. She had bruises on her face and body, a bad cut near one ear, she was dirty and emaciated and the nice dress she had been wearing at the time she disappeared had been replaced by rags. Her mother screamed, and, in the crowded part of London where they lived, the house filled quickly with friends and curious neighbors.

    At this point the system of justice, such as it was, flew into action with unfortunate speed. Her neighbors began peppering her with questions about her disappearance—an obvious lapse of judgment, but what do you expect from eighteenth century peasants? We’re lucky they weren’t carrying pitchforks. Where have you been? Who took you? Where were you held? When you escaped, where did you find yourself?

    Elizabeth, I believe, tried to answer these questions as best she could in her desperate condition. The story that she told, confused and disjointed and somewhat incoherent, is that, walking along the lane on the fateful holiday, she had been accosted by two thugs, who robbed her of her coins and her nice dress, and then pushed and dragged her several miles to a large house. There they turned her over to a group of women who made some half-hearted efforts to force her into a life of immoral trade. Resisting these efforts, she was locked in the hayloft—the attic, we would call it now—and apparently forgotten until she finally managed to escape, injuring her ear in the process. She had lived for four weeks on a loaf of bread, a pitcher of water and the mince pie.

    Within minutes, the finger of suspicion had been pointed at the residents of a particular house, a large house filled with gypsies, tramps and thieves. There were some loose women who lived there, and some other oddballs and eccentrics. Yes, said Elizabeth; that sounds like that must be the house.

    She was given a day to rest and recover, and then taken before an Alderman, who interrogated her and expressed some doubts about her account, but ultimately issued a warrant for a search of the property in question. A posse of Elizabeth’s over-eager friends descended on the house, accompanied by a representative of the Lord Mayor of London and by other officials. All of the residents of the house were arrested. They were arraigned days later before a Justice of the Peace, who happened to be the novelist Henry Fielding. Fielding issued warrants for the detention of two women.

    This story, very much like the story of the Duke Lacrosse team, would soon explode into a divisive national controversy with political overtones, occupying the attention of the British people to an extent that is ultimately inexplicable. Elizabeth Canning was destined to become, for a few months at least, perhaps the most famous person in the world. Crime stories of this magnitude make entire cast and crew into celebrities. In this cast we have an old gypsy woman named Mary Squires, with a face like a child’s drawing of a witch, and a mistress of the house called Mother Wells, and in the crew we have a man bearing the moniker (I am not making this up) Fortune Natus, and a young prostitute named Virtue Hall.

    Mary Squires smoked a pipe and would tell your fortune for a penny. She was the ugliest woman in the history of the world, a skinny old crone with a face full of warts, a nose the size of a pear and a lower lip, said the writers, the size of an infant’s arm. Ms. Canning accused Squires and Susannah Wells, who owned the house, of stealing her corsets or, as they were called at the time, her “stays.” (They were probably called “stays” because they helped the woman’s body stay where it was put.) The underwear was worth perhaps less than Ms. Virtue’s virtue, but at that time one could be hanged for theft in England, and while that was not the usual punishment this was not the usual case. In the early days of the story, due to the great public sympathy for Ms. Canning, her accusations were accepted at face value, and by late February the old gypsy stood in the shadow of the gallows.

    The mayor of London at that time was Sir Crispe Gascoyne. Gascoyne became concerned that an injustice was occurring on his watch, and took it upon himself to prevent this. The story told by Elizabeth Canning had serious problems. She had given a description of the house which did not match the suspect dwelling in one particular after another, and she had failed to mention things about the hayloft which, having been locked in there for 28 days, she could hardly have failed to notice. It seemed to many observers inexplicable that, in describing the events before the court, she had failed to give a hint about her assailant’s quite remarkable face. Further, Mrs. Squires stated immediately upon being accused that on the first of January she had been a hundred and twenty miles away, and, on investigation, this appeared to be true; once somebody finally bothered to check, she had witnesses.

    The trumpet of justice had sounded, however, and Ms. Canning refused to recant. All of England now began to choose sides, the Canningites against the Egyptians (the gypsies being commonly believed to have originated in Egypt). Which side you were on tended to match up with which pub you socialized in. There was a class division, somewhat inaccessible to us now, between domestic servants and lower-class people who lacked a position.

    So one pub would decide that Mrs. Squires was guilty and the one across the street would decide that Miss Canning was lying, and occasionally they would meet in the middle of the street and try to settle the matter with fists and stones. Canning’s supporters raised large amounts of money to prosecute those she had accused; Squires’ defenders raised essentially equal amounts for the other side. A legal battle raged back and forth for a year, bills of indictment being sought and obtained on all sides. Henry Fielding authored a pamphlet, A Clear Statement of the Case of Elizabeth Canning, supporting the Canningites; Tobias Smollett was among many publishing on the other side of the issue. Voltaire published a history of the affair (Histoire d’Elisabeth Canning, et de Jean Calas). At one point the Lord Mayor—the head of the Egyptians, who opposed Canning—was dragged from his coach and roughed up by a mob of Canningites.

    Mother Wells, immediately upon being convicted as a thief, was branded with a red-hot iron, the letter “T” being seared into her skin near her thumb. This was done in open court in full view of the spectators to the trial. Mary Squires, sentenced to be hanged, was pardoned by the King, outraging Canning’s supporters, some of whom lobbed stones at the King’s carriage. In April of 1754, a little more than a year after the first event, Elizabeth stood trial at the Old Bailey on a charge of perjury, accused of giving false testimony against Mary Squires. The trial lasted for seven days, making it perhaps the longest trial of a commoner in English history up to that point, and certainly the most avidly followed. She was convicted on a close vote, a unanimous verdict not being required, and was ordered to be transported to America for seven years as punishment.

    Elizabeth’s opponents insisted that she had made up the whole story as an excuse for some adventure that had gone awry. This is unlikely. Her supporters insisted to the end that she was right about everything except a few details of her account, that Mary Squires’ gypsy friends had created a false alibi. This is unlikely. Miss Canning may have suffered exactly what she said she had suffered, but mixed up the details in her confusion, and wound up innocently participating in the prosecution of innocent people. She may have run off to meet a man she knew or thought she knew, and found herself in a horrible situation, which she never came clean about. She may have lied to avoid admitting that she had been raped. Ultimately, we just do not know.

    Elizabeth Canning’s supporters raised money for her to travel to America in comfort and with a little bit of a purse, to which the British judicial system made no objections. On the ship across the Atlantic she was befriended by a Philadelphia minister and his wife. She met and married a well-off young man named John Treat, the grandson of a former Connecticut governor, bore three sons and a daughter, died before the revolution, and is believed to be buried in Wethersfield, Connecticut.

    The modern American phenomenon of popular crime stories is in absolutely no way new, modern, or American. That it is truly a universal phenomenon throughout human history perhaps should not be asserted without a more complete survey, but I know of no society which did not have sensational crimes and huge public interest in them, except perhaps societies which were so repressive that the government was able to quash them.

    Crime stories rush by us like oncoming traffic. New crime stories emerge in the national media almost every day. Each one roars by us for a few days, is remarked upon in casual conversation and filed away as something less than a memory. Occasionally a crime story turns and follows us, visible in our mirror for months or years afterward. Each one is important to somebody, and a few of them—something less than 2% of the murders—become books.

    We are, not as a nation but as human beings, fascinated by crime stories, even obsessed with them. The Bible is full of them. On your television at this moment there are four channels covering true crime stories, and five more doing detective fiction. And yet, on a certain level, we are profoundly ashamed of this fascination. If you go into a good used book store and ask if they have a section of crime books, you will get one of two reactions. One is, the clerk will look at you as if you had asked whether they had any really good pornography. The other is, they will tell you that the crime books are down the aisle on your left, in the alcove beside the detective stories. Right next to the pornography.

    The internet service that I use headlines news stories with links to them. A huge percentage of these are crime stories—yet in the chart attached, where their news summaries are sorted into categories, there is no category for crime. Maybe a third of their top news stories are crime stories; you would think that would rate one category among their 25. Apparently not.

    Cable television networks which are financed and organized with high-minded civic purposes—the Biography channel, Arts & Entertainment Network, Discovery Channel—find themselves being swallowed up by crime stories, because when they put on crime stories, people watch. Forensics are a wedge, respectable science applied to dirty little crime.

    If you go to a party attended by the best people—academics and lawyers, journalists and school bus drivers, those kinds of people … if you go to a party populated by the NPR crowd and you start talking about JonBenet Ramsey, people will look at you as if you had forgotten your pants. If you are a writer and you try to talk your editor into working on a book about famous crimes, he or she will instantly begin hedging you toward something more … something more decent. Maybe if you included a chapter on Watergate, it would be alright. If you write anything about JonBenet, you need to say how un-important that really was, compared to the attention it drew; that’s really the only appropriate thing to be said about that case.

    If you try to talk to American intellectuals and opinion-makers about the phenomenon of famous crimes, they immediately throw up a shield: I will not talk about this. I am a serious and intelligent person. I am interested in politics and the environment. I do not talk about Natalee Holloway. It is as if they were afraid of being dirtied by the subject.

    Of course, no one has a social responsibility to be interested in Rabbi Neulander; that’s not what I am saying. What I am saying is that given the magnitude of this subject, given the extent to which it occupies the attention of the nation, there are a series of obvious questions which one might guess would be matters of public discussion, but which are not discussed anywhere because the kind of people who participate in the national conversation are terrified of being thrown out of the boat if they confess to an interest in such vulgar matters. Why do some crime stories become famous? Why does the Scott Peterson case become a national circus, while a thousand similar cases attract nothing beyond local notice? Why are people interested in crime stories? Is this a destructive phenomenon, as so many people assume it to be, or is there a valid social purpose being served? Who benefits from this? Who suffers from it? Who makes the critical decisions that cause crime stories to explode or fizzle? Are these stories actually significant to the nation, or are they truly as petty and irrelevant as intellectuals tend to assume they are?

    Beyond this roomful of questions there is another room where the questions are yet more important. Does our criminal justice system work well? How could it work better? When it fails, why does it fail? How could this failure have been avoided? Do the rules make sense? What does it take to earn a conviction? What should it take?

    Crime stories are very often the basis on which new laws are proposed and old ones modified. We have Megan’s Law and Sarah’s Law and Jeremy’s Law and Amber Alerts. This has been true for many years. In the 18th century several new laws sprung from the story of Elizabeth Canning. In the 1930s we had the Lindbergh Laws and the Little Lindbergh Laws. A great deal of our law and of our criminal procedure has always been shaped and re-shaped by these very famous crimes that the best people refuse to discuss.

    Of course there is a national discussion about those types of issues—among the lawyers. When the rest of us try to comment, we are reminded firmly that we are not lawyers and therefore don’t know what we’re talking about. No one writes about these issues. Name a book by a non-lawyer, published in the last ten years for the general public, which attempts to discuss these issues in a serious way. On truTV, whenever a guest tries to comment on some irrational wrinkle of judicial procedure, some self-important lawyer immediately steps forward to “explain” why the system has to work this way, why the system of justice would collapse if a juror were allowed to read a news report about the case or a cop was allowed to mention his prior run-ins with the defendant.

    It is not my intention to bash lawyers. It is my belief that the lay public—non-lawyers—should participate actively in the discussion of crime and justice. It is my notion that popular crime stories could be and should be a passageway that the lay public uses to enter into that discussion.

    I said that no one writes about these issues, which is not literally true. I am sure that in some corner of the academic world there hides an intellectual who knows vastly more about these issues than I do and has written 208 published articles about them, which none of us have ever heard of, probably because he writes like a troll, or, not to be sexist, she writes like a troll or trollette. I am not here to bash intellectuals, either; I’m just a sarcastic bastard by nature.

    This book is about three things. First, it is about famous crimes, and in particular about famous crimes which have happened in the United States since about 1880. Second, it is about crime, in a general way, about the kinds of issues I have tried to introduce here.

    And third, it is about crime books. I am not a lawyer or an academic, nor even a cop or a court groupie. My understanding of these issues is based on what I have read, which includes a thousand or more crime books. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no book about crime books.

    The world has lost track of Elizabeth Canning’s grave. She lies somewhere in Connecticut, but no one seems to know exactly where. Her story is not a part of proper history, you see; she is just someone in whom the world was so foolish as to take an interest. We know where ancient athletes were born and where they died, and the same for actors and politicians, generals and inventors, musicians and artists, writers and industrialists. Elizabeth Canning was about the same age as George Washington, and was for many years vastly more famous than he was—and yet we have entirely lost track of her, her story sinking gradually beneath the waves.

  • Table of Contents

    I 1

    Plautius Silvanus 1

    L. Pedanius Secundus 2

    Elizabeth Canning 3

    Introductory Comments 6

    II 10

    Elma Sands 10

    Helen Jewett 15

    Mary Rogers 15

    III 23

    Ann McAllister 23

    Missing White Girls 24

    The Yale Murder 26

    Webster/Parkman Case 26

    On American Crime Rates 31

    IV 33

    Boys on the Ice 33

    On Why Certain Crimes Are Chosen for Fame 35

    Charlie Ross 36

    The Wild West 41

    V 43

    Lizzie Borden 43

    Motive, Means and Opportunity Argument 44

    On Weighing Evidence 45

    VI 66

    "Profiting" from Crime 66

    H. H. Holmes 67

    Kansas Charley 69

    William Goebel 69

    Old Man Rice 71

    Griffith J. Griffith 74

    Frank Steunenberg 75

    Chloe Canfield 75

    Erich Muenter, Part 1 75

    Stanford White 76

    Thomas H. Swope 76

    Radicalism and Crime 77

    VII 80

    Clarence Darrow and the McNamaras 81

    VIII 89

    Erich Muenter, Part 2 89

    On the Astonishing Openness of American Society a Hundred Years Ago 93

    IX 95

    Old Murder Statistics 95

    Moman Pruiett 96

    On the Evolution of the Legal System 101

    X 106

    Mary Phagan Introduction 106

    A System of Categorizing Crime Stories 106

    Mary Phagan Case 107

    XI 119

    Robert Stroud, Part 1 119

    Grace Roberts 120

    Harry K. Thaw 122

    Sacco and Vanzetti 122

    XII 129

    The Hall/Mills Case 129

    The Oregon Train Robbery 135

    The Snyder/Gray Case 137

    Summary of 1920s Crimes 139

    XIII 141

    Levels of Description 141

    The Lindbergh Baby 144

    Post-Lindbergh Journalism 156

    XIV 159

    The Mad Mutcher of Kingsbury Run 159

    XV 173

    Mad Dog Killer Stories 173

    Thalia Massie 174

    The Scottsboro Boys 176

    Robert Stroud, Part 2 178

    XVI 181

    William Heirens 181

    The Black Dahlia 182

    Carul Chessman 187

    On the Importance of What People Choose to Be Interested In 193

    XVII 198

    Sam Sheppard 198

    XVIII 216

    Lowell Lee Andrews 216

    In Cold Blood 217

    Robert Stroud, Part 3 218

    The Onion Field 220

    The Warren Court 223

    XIX 226

    The Boston Strangler 226

    XX 241

    On the Success Rate of the Judicial System in High-Profile Cases 241

    True Crime Movies 244

    The Kennedy Assassination 245

    XXI 257

    The Michigan Murders 257

    Definition Creep 261

    XXII 264

    The Zodiac 264

    XXIII 273

    Susan Nason 273

    Katherine Ann Power 274

    Juan Corona 278

    John List 281

    The Burger Court 285

    XXIV 287

    Randall Dale Adams 287

    Ted Bundy 289

    Gary Tison 293

    Fatal Vision 296

    Echoes in the Darkness 297

    XXV 299

    Charles Hatcher 299

    On the Value of Police Sketches 303

    The Yale Murder and the Insanity Defense 305

    Reviving Prison Reform 309

    XXVI 310

    Sid Vicious/Nancy Spungen 310

    Dallas Egbert III 310

    Dean Milo 314

    Chris Hobson 314

    Lawrencia Bembenek 317

    McMartin Preschool 317

    Wayne Williams 318

    John Delorean 318

    Aside on Car Companies 319

    Jean Harris 319

    Jody Plauché 319

    Bernard Goetz 319

    Kenneth McElroy 319

    Joseph Kallinger 322

    XXVII 323

    Richard Kuklinski 323

    Robert Hansen 327

    Putting the Criminal Justice System Back Together 331

    XXVIII 335

    John Joubert 335

    Charles Sasser 337

    Notes toward a Theory of Injustice 340

    Lake and Ng 342

    XXIX 347

    Jon Dunkle 347

    On the Differences between Real and Fictional Serial Murderers 351

    New Bedford, Massachusetts 352

    Richard Grissom 354

    Ray Copeland 356

    William Lester Suff 358

    How Serial Murderers Are Caught 359

    XXX 362

    Computer Spy Case 362

    Mel Ignatow 363

    The Menendez Brothers 365

    Pam Smart 367

    O. J. Simpson 368

    XXXI 374

    On Fictional Elements in Real Crimes 374

    Rabbi Neulander 375

    XXXII 387

    JonBenet Ramsey, Part 1 387

    XXXIII 409

    JonBenet Ramsey, Part 2 409

    On Prison Reform 412

    On Partisanship and Justice 419

    XXXIV 423

    Summary of Recent Crime Stories 423

    On False Confessions 435

    On Popular Crime 437

    Addendum 445

    Acknowledgments 475

    Index 479

    Customer Reviews

    Most Helpful Customer Reviews

    See All Customer Reviews

    Popular Crime: Reflections on the Celebration of Violence 2.8 out of 5 based on 0 ratings. 24 reviews.
    Chowbell More than 1 year ago
    I am thoroughly enjoying this book. I love the author's casual and often humorous style of writing. As far as his critiques of others, that is his privilege, and even If I am not sure I always agree with him, I am still interested in his opinion and entertained by what he says.  I highly recommend this book to anyone who is really interested in true crime .
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Things I liked about this book: details on crimes I'd only heard about by name and knew little about (e.g. Son of Sam), some snarky and witty comments, general observations by the author. Things that got annoying by the end: the author's pompous tone in critiquing other crime writers' work (even for those he said we good books, there was ALWAYS a "but" followed by his opinion of how they could've done better. Also annoying was his propensity to use bullets to lay out his thoughts. Overall it was pretty good, but it would've been a better book with more assertive editing (he made some of the same mistakes he criticized others for!). Having said all that, I enjoyed his thoughtful reasoning throughout and the fresh look at old crimes.
    browner56 on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
    To a life-long baseball fan like me, Bill James is a hero. As the founder of the ¿sabermetric¿ movement that brought creative statistical analysis to bear in a sport traditionally dominated by conventional wisdom platitudes, it is really no exaggeration to state that he single-handedly changed the way we watch and think about the game. I have been reading his fascinating and witty musings about the game for almost 30 years and I have greatly benefitted from the experience.It was that regard for James as a writer that led me to read ¿Popular Crime¿ without knowing in advance anything about the book. To be honest, I am not quite sure what to make of this project. On one hand, it is a jumbled mess of facts and speculations offered as summaries of virtually every one of the most publicized murder mysteries in America over the last two centuries, including Lizzie Borden, the Lindbergh Baby, Sam Sheppard, the Boston Strangler, JFK, Ted Bundy, O.J., and JonBenet Ramsey. (Who knew that being a crime story geek was James¿ hobby on the side of his day job as a baseball stat geek?) However, while some of these discussions can be quite engaging¿the author¿s profiling of the Butcher of Kingsbury Run, for instance¿they are more often of random depth and length and even somewhat contradictory. On the other hand, there are also many brilliant moments when the author dissects¿skewers, really¿how our system of justice works in such sensationalized cases. Fans of James¿ baseball writing know that one of the areas in which he really excels is quantifying various aspects of the game in imaginative ways (e.g., statistical measures such as Runs Created, Win Shares, and Ballpark Adjustment Factors). Unfortunately, it simply is not possible to provide the same degree of numerical precision to the investigation and prosecution of a criminal act. Nevertheless, James does attempt to apply some ¿concreteness¿ to the analysis where possible, such as his 100-point system for establishing guilt or the six-level scale for identifying suspects. These are both provocative ideas that, if further refined and widely adopted, could easily lead to more uniform decision-making in the criminal justice system.Overall, then, this book is both superficial and uneven in some parts, but interesting and highly thought-provoking in others. The problem the reader faces, though, is that the former and the latter are so thoroughly mixed together that it is virtually impossible to pick out the useful bits in a coherent way. The relentless descriptions of the crimes¿and, worse, James¿ critiques of other books about the crimes¿become quite monotonous long before the end. Still, his ruminations on how to improve the court system are likely to make any careful reader a more effective juror someday. Of course, just admitting that you read this book might be enough to keep you from being selected for a jury in the first place!
    2percentmilk on LibraryThing More than 1 year ago
    I really couldn't finish it. I love crime and I love Bill James, but this book was, in my opinion, totally unorganized and confusing.
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Anonymous More than 1 year ago
    Krystal Watkins More than 1 year ago