19 of 20 people found the following review helpful:
3.0 out of 5 stars
Perfunctory and haphazard, May 31, 2006
This review is from: A Death in Belmont (Hardcover)
Junger has, in the past, intertwined a number of narratives to add complexity and texture to his writing. This structure added to the drama of A Perfect Storm, as the reader moved from the Coast Guard rescue operations to the Weather Service, to the fishing fleet, etc.
Here, though, the multiple narrative threads diluted the work, and felt like padding. The book is the story of a black man caught up in the Boston Strangler investigation. Junger deftly presents evidence which suggests he was innocent. A small amount of additional interest arises from the recounting of the crimes associated with Albert DeSalvo, and even less from the fact that DeSalvo worked briefly at the author's parents' home.
The rest, racism in the South, the economics of Parchman farm prison, Kennedy's assassination, discussions of serial killers and the justice system (which appear to be written for sixth-graders) are strictly padding. They're completely pointless, and still any momentum the narrative might have achieved.
Junger writes well, and this inflated magazine article is not a complete disaster. Admirers of Junger's writing can only hope he finds a story better suited to his considerable talents.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
24 of 28 people found the following review helpful:
2.0 out of 5 stars
Outrageously Padded, August 12, 2006
This review is from: A Death in Belmont (Hardcover)
By all rights, this should have been a five page magazine article instead of a 300+ page book. Although the premise is mildly interesting, most of the book consists of obvious filler. The need for more and more filler means that Junger (and his editors) imposed no self-discipline in his sometimes excrutiating meanderings. For example, it is clear that whoever killed Bessie Goldberg committed murder. To add a couple pages to the book, however, Junger inserts a completely irrelevant description of the legal standards for voluntary and involuntary manslaughter that (by the way) are not even accurate. When you're trying to fill up pages, every random tangent becomes fair game. The telling detail is overshadowed by the extraneous detail, which leaves the reader with the impression that Junger is a sloppy thinker. It's too bad, because he's a generally fabulous writer -- he's not only an excellent stylist, but he usually can put together a tight, cohesive narrative. I'm sure he got a hefty advance on this one, but I can't imagine it is worth the hit to his reputation to turn what could have been a lively magazine article into a book length swamp.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
20 of 23 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
RESPONSE TO LILA, May 9, 2006
This review is from: A Death in Belmont (Hardcover)
A Response to Lila
Smith's appeal is never discussed in the book. You are told in an oblique manner that the case in under appeal. Never is the reader told the results of the appeal when in 1966 the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court upheld the conviction
stating in its opinion " The jury could have found unusual opportunity, motive, possession after the crime of unexplained funds, incriminating action in leaving the house in disorder and the work unfinished, and subsequent conduct and false
statements showing consciousness of guilt. Evidence of consciousness of guilt, while not conclusive, may with other evidence be sufficient to prove guilt"
"This is not a case on which the guilt of the defendant is left to conjecture and surmise with no solid basis in fact."
Junger clearly states on page 254 that Smith was thought to be the Boston Strangler. Mike Giacoppo may have thought he was after the strangler, but Massachusetts State Police officials and FBI agents at the house on Scott Road the evening of March 11, 1963 told Leah Goldberg that Roy Smith was a parolee who was in prison during many of the murders and that this was a copy cat killing committed to cover up a robbery. The District Attorney's office at no time believed Smith was the Boston Strangler. If a newspaper reporter got carried away with a story, that has nothing to do with the police.
Leah Goldberg never told Sebastian Junger her impression of Smith's reaction to the verdict. She didn't see Smith's reaction because she wasn't there the day the verdict was
read.Actually Ms. Goldberg once told Junger that when she testified at trial she looked at Smith who seemed unemotional As for not quoting Ms Goldberg, Mr. Junger promised Ms.Goldberg in writing thathe would use only open sources for his book.
Mr. Delaney never states the name and address of the supposed Goldberg neighbor with whom he spoke in reference to a tip to the police about a man looking for work on the day of the murder. The Belmont Police have no record of any such tip. The entire matter is undocumented.
"Children coming home from school about 3 P. M. and soon thereafter playing ball in the street saw the defendant on the street near the Goldberg house and saw Goldberg come home. Their opportunity for observation extended over a good part though not all of the time between the defendant's departure and Goldberg's return." Commonwealth vs. Smith 350 Mass. 600
On page 256 Junger states "The logical problem with the state's case against Smith is that its core elements are known only because he told the truth. Admittedly the truth makes him look awfully guilty, but a theory about his guilt is incomplete without somehow taking into account the fact that he never lied about what he did that day."
1. Smith told police he was at the Goldberg home for 4 hours, when he was actually there for at most 2 hours and 20 minutes.
2. Smith told police he had been paid for 4 hours of work at $1.50 per hour plus .30 for transportation for a total of $6.30
3. Smith told police he had finished cleaning the house and left the rooms "in order". When Mr. Goldberg and, soon after, the police arrived they found the house had not been cleaned; all the living room furniture was pushed to the center of the room, the ornaments from the living room were on the dining room table and the vacuum cleaner with attachments was left in the middle of the living room.
4. Palm or fingerprints, later identified as Smith's were found on the mantel in the living room, on the mirror hanging above it, and on the vacuum cleaner. After his arrest, the
defendant told police that he did not clean the mirror, that he"didn't have anything to do" with it and he did not recall seeing a mantel.
The jury and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court thought these statements by Smith were lies. What do you think?
If Smith told the truth and he had finished the cleaning leaving the house in good order,
than someone else would have had to get into the house leaving no sign of his presence,
kill Mrs. Goldberg, steal her money, and unclean the house; push the furniture into the middle of the room, and move the living room ornaments onto the dining room table. He also would have had to remove the vacuum cleaner from the closet, leaving it with attachments in the middle of the living room with Smith's palm and fingerprints undisturbed. Somehow he would have had to leave Smith's handprints on the dirty mirror. Smith left the house at 3:05 PM. Mr. Goldberg arrived home at 3:50 PM.
The author wants to tie his family's connection with Albert DeSalvo into a best selling mystery thriller. The only mystery is why Junger took a solid case and staked his credibility on a book which either omits or scatters the evidence in order to confuse the reader.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
