Murder, Culture, and Injustice: Four Sensational Cases in American History. [Hardcover]

Walter L. Hixson (Author)

Book Description

ISBN-10: 1884836674 | ISBN-13: 978-1884836671 | Publication Date: November 1, 2000 | Edition: 1

Walter Hixson's pithy narrative account of four sensational national murder cases "the Lizzie Borden murders, the Lindbergh baby case, the Sam Sheppard case, and the O. J. Simpson case" offers interesting observations into the greater cultural and political forces that shaped their verdicts. His step-by-step analysis of the details of each case provides not only insight by skillful synthesis of the existing literature but also a solid overview of the events surrounding these four cases, each of which became a national obsession as well as a miscarriage of justice. Taking a fresh look at the criminal justice system and the role of the media in the larger American milieu, Hixson delves into sociocultural impacts of crime that are both thought-provoking and fascinating reading.

Editorial Reviews

From Booklist

If justice is blind, after reading this book, you might also be convinced that it is tone deaf. These cases are sensational not just because of the crimes themselves but because they reflect how easily cultural forces can subvert justice. The prevailing opinion of the 1890s was that a genteel, upper-class woman such as Lizzie Borden could not have accomplished the ax murders of her parents. Years later in the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby, the evidence pointed to Richard Hauptmann, and the public worship of "Lucky Lindy" guaranteed that Hauptmann would not get a fair trial. However, the most infamous "trial by media" was that of Dr. Sam Sheppard after the murder of his wife. Poor police work, an inept defense, and a judge whose final charges to the jury might have been a closing argument for the defense led to his conviction. Finally, public opinion and race would play a part in the O. J. Simpson trial for the murders of Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. The author effectively illustrates that justice (or injustice) and the media are inexorably intertwined. Marlene Chamberlain
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

About the Author

Walter Hixson is professor of history at the University of Akron. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado and is a member of the Organization of American Historians. His previous books include: Parting the Curtain: Propaganda, Culture, and the Cold War; Charles A. Lindbergh: Lone Eagle; Witness to Disintegration: Provincial Life in the Last Year of the USSR; and George F. Kennan: Cold War Iconoclast.

Product Details

• Hardcover: 274 pages
• Publisher: Univ of Akron Pr; 1 edition (November 1, 2000)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 1884836674
• ISBN-13: 978-1884836671
• Product Dimensions: 8.1 x 6.1 x 1.1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1.3 pounds
• Average Customer Review: 3.0 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (4 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #653,772 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Discover books, learn about writers, read author blogs, and more.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

3 of 3 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Nix On Hixson's Stories, September 16, 2005

By 

Acute Observer (By the Shore NJ) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Murder, Culture, and Injustice: Four Sensational Cases in American History. (Hardcover)

Hixson has picked four murder cases as "highly revealing" as to "history, culture, and jurisprudence". He is mistaken in his judgments. What is the purpose of this book? Was it created as propaganda for the last case? A good history is based on reality, not the author's prejudices about "gender", "nativism", "class anxieties", or "racial injustice" (p.2). His arrogance is shown in his comments on page 3 regarding other's works. Hixson seems proud of not using footnotes, and points to his "critical bibliography".

Hixson has no excuse for failing to list David Kent's "Forty Whacks", the one best volume on this murder. In 1960 Edward Radin went to Fall River to re-investigate this case; he was a reporter who attended hundreds of murder trials. His book ended with a suggestion that Bridget did it, a new solution that would sell his book. Did Hixson read this book? Frank Spiering's book has a lot of background material, including the financial motives for arresting a suspect. A relative and heir of Lizzie did in fact offer this solution, however "far-fetched". Arnold R. Brown's book is based on the personal recollections of Henry Hawthorne plus the investigations noted in his book. It is the final chapter until someone writes a better solution.

Anthony Scaduto is another newspaper reporter who investigated this long-closed case to bring out new evidence: Hauptmann's time sheet had been blotched to hide evidence that he worked in Brooklyn that day. It seems impossible for Hauptmann to drive to a distant rural spot on a day when the Lindberghs would normally be absent. Ludovic Kennedy's book also raises serious questions as to Hauptmann's guilt of kidnapping. Hixson appears wrong in rejecting these books. As to a "Lindbergh baby" being alive, that is also likely. Lindbergh was a superstar like today's sports stars or musicians, it was possible for him to meet his groupies. We now know of one family in Germany. Did Hixson put that in his book? Not understanding this suggests a naive ivory-tower academic.

James Neff's book tells of the commercial rivalry in this case. Hixson says Dr. Sam Sheppard was wrongfully convicted, but I wonder what he would have said back in 1954, if he dared to speak out then? Note how he praises Paul Holmes' work, even thought this reporter pointed to a married couple as being guilty! No quaint sneer about "historical accuracy"?

The last case may have motivated this book. O. J. Simpson was correctly found "not guilty". It took a new law and a biased judge to fix the wrongful death suit. Hixson should be ashamed of his poor choice in the bibliography. One of the first books was Stephen Singular's "Legacy of Deception" which told of his investigation until stopped by the LAPD. Vincent Bugliosi never attended the trial; his book is his opinions of the case. The other books cited were written to justify the actions of the authors. Hixson has no excuse for failing to list Donald Freed & Raymond Briggs? "Killing Time", the one best volume on this case. It is the only book to contain the autopsy reports, and offers arguments both for and against guilt. No other book is objective enough to offer an opposing viewpoint! Certainly not Hixson's and that is why he gets a low score. Aside from his bias, it provides a condensed digest of four sensational murder trials. Just don't believe everything you read. Lizzie Borden was "not guilty", and O. J. Simpson is innocent.

Pages 141-142 tell about rigging a lie detector test in 1954. Page 202 tells about emotions affecting lie detector tests. How many people wrote this book?

5 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Attempting to Revise History, July 16, 2001

By 

A Customer - See all my reviews

This review is from: Murder, Culture, and Injustice: Four Sensational Cases in American History. (Hardcover)

The author is a professor of history who has written about four murder cases as a "scholarly inquiry". He claims the verdicts in all four cases were wrong! The author is wrong about Lizzie and OJ; the jury verdicts were correct.

Page 24 does not mention the other suspects: Brayton, Carpenter, etc. Page 41 quotes Lizzie as saying "she heard her (Abby) come in", but misdirects the reader to think of the guest bedroom. But if Abby did come in she would take the back stairs to her room, not the front stairs to the girls' rooms; Andrew did just that. Page 42 repeats the lie about the "broken handle" of the hatchet; it was sawn off! Page 44 quotes Fleet as to a cursory search; in fact they searched the house "down to a bump in the wallpaper". Page 47 tells that the new hatchet did not fit the wounds, but doesn't tell about the shred of gilt paint found. Page 48 quotes two boys as saying the barn was "nice and cool"; perhaps lightly dressed boys had a different experience from adults?

The author claims Lizzie was "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" (p.56) but can give no proof. Only Bridget and Lizzie were known to be present from 9AM to after 11AM. Bridget was seen outside around 9:30 when Abby was killed; Lizzie was seen outside at 11AM when Andrew was killed. If one person killed them both then neither Bridget or Lizzie did it. No bloodstains on dresses, no murder weapon found. Lizzie said "it wasn't Bridget or anyone who worked for Father"; the jury said it wasn't Lizzie. The author knows Bridget was ordered to wash the windows that morning (p.57) but doesn't know its significance. Page 59 mentions that the testimony about an attempted poison purchase was barred; could it be that they knew it wasn't Lizzie? It is dishonest to say Arnold R. Brown "insists that (WSB) dropped into the Second Street home to murder the Bordens" (p.265). Hixson should have read David Kent's "Forty Whacks".

The last murder case seems to be the reason for this book. It is an attempt to rewrite the historical facts on the trial of OJ Simpson.

Page 207 tells why a preliminary hearing was used rather than a grand jury. This put all the witnesses on the record just after the murders, and prevented the prosecution from concocting a story months later. It was not a mistake to hold the case in downtown LA where the facilities were superior, and closer to the command post. Page 210 tells of "TIME" magazine's darkened mug shot of OJ, but does not realize this was done to hide the fact that OJ had no scratches or bruises on his face! Page 214 does NOT mention that Johnnie Cochran Jr. was an Assistant DA in the 60s, and the #3 DA in the late 70s; why? Page 215 says "media coverage ... had now become more favorable to the defense"; how was that measured? One page 219 he talks about DNA tests, but doesn't say the flesh and blood found under Nicole's fingernails did not match the blood type and DNA of OJ Simpson, Ron Goldman, or Nicole herself! Page 229 says the limousine driver saw no white Bronco when he came to pick up OJ, but claims he saw the Bronco obstructing his view when he left; is the author inventing facts? The truth is that rehearing the limo driver's testimony convinced the jury to acquit. Page 233 says "brown leather gloves" but the crime scene photos show black leather gloves (with Caucasian limb hair!).

Why is OJ Simpson innocent of the murders? When the police arrived at 12:15AM they found two bodies whose red blood was trickling down the sidewalk. The photos taken showed this red blood. This means the murders occurred after 11:30PM, because the blood would be black and clotted if they were dead for over an hour. Since the limo driver left for the airport with OJ at 11PM, he could not have been present at the murders. In 1999 Herb MacDonnell said this in a newspaper interview, and discussed other facts in this case. Perhaps the author should show more regard for these facts?

0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars Great book, September 19, 2001

By 

"cutie051087" (Fairlawn Ohio) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Murder, Culture, and Injustice: Four Sensational Cases in American History. (Hardcover)

I suggest anyone who loves crime to go out and buy this book. It gives you a good perspective of 4 great trials of american history.