Vol. 11 No. 3 (March 2001) pp. 108-113.


MURDER, CULTURE, AND INJUSTICE: FOUR SENSATIONAL CASES IN AMERICAN HISTORY
by Walter L. Hixson. Akron, OH: University of Akron Press, 2001. Cloth $27.95. ISBN: 1-884836-67-4.


Reviewed by Barry N. Sweet, Department of Political Science, Sociology, and Philosophy, Clarion University of Pennsylvania.


Walter L. Hixson has written an engaging and readable book on four of the most sensational murder cases in America. The four cases span over a century of history. Hixson starts with the Lizzie Borden ax murders of the late 19th century. He then moves on to the mid 20th century kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh baby and the Sam Sheppard case. The author finishes with the double murder trial of O. J. Simpson in the late 20th century.

The book is more than a simple factual account of the murders and the subsequent trials. An argument is made that the perceived miscarriages of justice seen in all four cases can be partially explained by the zeitgeist and the involvement of the media. Hixson's argument is intriguing, but not equally convincing across all four cases. The degree to which Hixson convinces the reader may depend upon the egregiousness of the miscarriage of justice and the probative value of the evidence he presents. An innocent man being punished is generally believed to be a more serious miscarriage of justice than a guilty man being set free. Therefore, the guilty verdict and subsequent imprisonment in the Sam Sheppard case is probably the greatest injustice covered in the book. The murder conviction and subsequent execution of Bruno Hauptmann is the least of the injustices, despite a less than fair trial. The acquittals of Lizzy Borden and O. J. Simpson, in the face of overwhelming evidence, fall somewhere in between. The more serious the injustice, the less convincing the argument seems to be. Even after Hixson's thorough account, why Sam Sheppard was railroaded still remains a mystery to this reader.

The murder cases are discussed in chronological order. The discussion starts with the Borden ax murders in Fall River, Massachusetts. Hixson effectively describes what life was like in a bustling New England mill town in patriarchal Victorian America that was experiencing rapid growth and an influx of immigrant workers. The specific facts of the case are described as well as the general atmosphere of the times. The cause of the tension in the Borden home is well laid out. Ultimately money seems to be the motive for the killings. However, a passionately disliked stepmother and a distrust of other relatives combined with jealousy and an apparent discontent with life to provide the necessary impetus for murder.

A common problem in all the murder cases covered in the book is inept police work. Given the state of criminal forensics in the late 19th century and the sociocultural limitations on police investigations, the missteps in the Borden case are understandable. The most glaring example was the reluctance of the police to thoroughly search Lizzy Borden's wardrobe

Page 109 begins here

for blood stained clothes. Lizzy subsequently was seen burning the dress she wore the day of the murders. The dress undoubtedly had bloodstains on it. Lizzy also received sympathetic coverage by the press, while the prosecution was routinely criticized. The judges handling the case also appeared to be quite biased in Lizzy's favor. Lizzy's contradictory and incriminating statements made during an inquest were not admitted into evidence. The exclusion was because Lizzy did not have counsel present at the inquest. There was no precedent at the time for such a ruling. Evidence that Lizzy had attempted to purchase poison the day before the murders was not admitted, as well as testimony about the acrimonious Borden household. Furthermore, Lizzy did not take the stand, but after counsels' closing arguments she was allowed to stand, face the jury, and proclaim her innocence. The final blow to the prosecution's case came with the charge to the jury. The judge basically just reiterated the defense case. The jury deliberated for minutes before reaching a unanimous not guilty verdict. However, to avoid the appearance of a rush to judgment, they waited an hour before coming out of the jury room.

Hixson does a good job at convincing the reader that Victorian gender mores played a decisive role in winning Lizzy's acquittal. The perception that women could not commit such vicious ax murders was echoed and reinforced by both the media and the trial court. However, at times Hixson's incessant criticism of gender roles in the Victorian era becomes an annoying leitmotif. There is no doubt that the patriarchal society of that time was oppressive, even though it ironically worked to Lizzy's advantage in this instance. To even suggest that Lizzy's brutal double murder was in some small part attributable to the social conditions of the time detracts from an otherwise convincing explanation of the case. The Borden double murder was no more attributable to societal gender roles than was the Menendez brothers' slaying of their parents. Hixson also states that only one woman has ever been executed in Massachusetts and that was in 1778. Inexplicably he does not count the Salem witch trials and executions. Despite these very minor latter points, the account of the Lizzy Borden murders is very well done.

As stated above, the second case examined Bruno Hauptmann's conviction and execution for the kidnapping and murder of the Lindbergh child. Hixson makes clear that there was not a miscarriage of justice. However, the trial was a denial of due process and occurred in a xenophobic lynch mob environment fueled by a highly prejudicial media. Hauptmann may have gotten what he deserved in the end, but he did not receive a fair trial. As in the Borden case, there was botched police work. The crime scene was not properly secured and valuable evidence was lost. The search around the Lindbergh estate was poorly conducted. Therefore, the child's shallow grave was not discovered for two months. Hixson accurately states that this inept search turned out to be a blessing in disguise. If the body had been found before the ransom had been paid, Hauptmann most likely never would have been caught. Some impressive forensic work was done which linked the homemade ladder to a lumberyard near Hauptmann's home and to his attic. The luckiest break in the case was the fact that Lindbergh had paid the ransom with gold certificates. Part of FDR's banking reform required that these certificates be turned in. Hauptmann failed to turn all of his in and foolishly kept on spending them. Gas station attendants were alerted to record the license plate number of anyone buying fuel with the then expired gold certificates.

Page 110 begins here

This is how Hauptmann was ultimately identified. Once captured, Hauptmann's apartment and garage were thoroughly searched. All sorts of incriminating evidence were found, including thousands of dollars worth of Lindbergh ransom gold certificates.

What followed this good police work was less than admirable. Hauptmann was interrogated for over thirty-two hours without food or sleep. He was also savagely beaten with a blunt object. The FBI, New Jersey State Police and prosecutors withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. If the evidence had been made available to the defense and skillfully used, some doubt in the jurors' minds may have been possible, even though through the voir dire process the prosecution secured a death qualified jury. The media coverage was massive and circus like. Furthermore, the media condemned Hauptmann from the outset. The coverage left no room for doubt as to his guilt. As if this were not enough, the hapless immigrant defendant had completely ineffective assistance of counsel. As in the Borden case, the judge's charge to the jury was highly biased, but in the opposite direction this time. The jury returned the expected guilty of first-degree murder verdict and Hauptmann received the death penalty. A fairer trial and more able counsel may have spared him the chair, but the evidence of his guilt was overwhelming. The outcome of this case isn't that offensive, unless one opposes the death penalty. What is disturbing is reading about one more case where a criminal defendant was denied basic due process rights.

As stated earlier, the miscarriage of justice stemming from the Sam Sheppard murder trial remains the most difficult to understand. The influence of the media in all four murder trials covered is clear enough. The importance of prejudicial and or botched police work is also well argued. The impact of gender, xenophobia and race, respectively, in the Borden, Hauptmann and Simpson cases is convincingly argued. The argument that social class played a role in the railroading of Sam Sheppard, though plausible, just doesn't sit well. Sam Sheppard was a successful doctor who lived in an upscale neighborhood and drove expensive cars. He also, allegedly, had a snobbish personality that reflected his sense of social superiority. Furthermore, it was established that Sheppard was a womanizer and had had at least one affair. Hixson argues that Sheppard's ostentatious lifestyle and marriage infidelity were not well received by the socially conservative and sedate culture of 1950s America.

Although cultural values may have played a part in Sheppard's long nightmare, the county coroner, police and the media frenzy appear most blameworthy. The county coroner was both the medical examiner and chief investigator of the murder and he zeroed in on Sheppard from the beginning. A public inquest was held in a high school gymnasium in front of a crowd of at 500 spectators. Sheppard was grilled unmercifully and denied the assistance of counsel during the inquest. Hixson compares this with the McCarthy's hearings in the early fifties. After the inquest the coroner publicly declared that Sheppard murdered his wife. The media then amplified and repeated the declaration of Sheppard's guilt. The jury was then later selected from this very same media market. Sloppy police work also contributed to the injustice. The police initially failed to secure the crime scene and conduct a thorough investigation. The police not only ignored exculpatory evidence, but they also did not examine for sexual assault or test the various blood samples found in the

Page 111 begins here

Sheppard home. Had they done either of these, serious doubt would have been cast on Sheppard's guilt. The defense was denied access to the crime scene until after the trial. Therefore, they were not able to do any forensic work. Politics also played a role. The prosecutor was running for a judgeship and the trial judge was running for reelection. Since the coroner and the media had already convinced the public of Sheppard's guilt and demanded his head, all that the prosecutor and the judge had to do was deliver. The jury was not sequestered, despite the media blitz, and it received a highly partisan charge from the judge. Not surprisingly given the circumstances, Sheppard was found guilty of murdering his wife.

Sheppard's first attorney failed to obtain a new trial and died shortly thereafter. Luckily for Sheppard, a rising legal star took an interest in his case. F. Lee Bailey read a book about the case and offered to help. Bailey decided to bypass the apparently tainted state courts and filed for a writ of habeas corpus in federal court. The federal district court agreed with Bailey that Sheppard's trial had been unfair. He specifically pointed out the prejudicial trial court judge's handling of the case and the surrounding media circus. The federal appellate court then reversed the district court, but Bailey then successfully appealed this reversal to the United States Supreme Court. Sheppard was not out of the woods yet. Bailey had only won him the right to a new trial. In the second trial the defense was able to introduce evidence that was only obtained after the first trial. The defense had a well-respected forensic scientist examine the crime scene evidence and he established that a third person had been at the scene. This was enough evidence for the second jury to find Sheppard not guilty. Sheppard's ordeal had taken its toll on him, and he died three years after his acquittal.

If Sheppard did not murder his wife, who did? Hixson presents additional forensic evidence using DNA that points to a window cleaner employed by the Sheppards. This window cleaner had a long criminal history and made incriminating statements to fellow prisoners. With this evidence of a third person being the likely murderer, Sheppard's son sued the state of Ohio for wrongful imprisonment. Despite there being sufficient evidence to cast a reasonable doubt on Sheppard's guilt, the third jury, nearly fifty years after the first, was not prepared to say he was wrongly imprisoned. The criminal justice system and the media played an important part in this legal travesty. The role of culture is less clear. The culture of the nineties is worlds away from that of the fifties, yet a jury failed to redeem Sam Sheppard's name.

The last murder case Hixson examines is that of O. J. Simpson. This case is recent enough that most readers will have some familiarity with it. Hixson methodically points out the causes of this miscarriage of justice. Simpson was acquitted of a double homicide charge because of bungled police work, an incompetent prosecution, a multi-million dollar defense team, and most importantly the serious racial divisions that exist in America today.

The first mistake the prosecution made, and perhaps the most critical, was to have the trial in downtown Los Angeles instead of Santa Monica. Moving the trial downtown ensured more minorities in the jury pool. The defense also followed expert jury advice and used the voir dire process to obtain a disproportionate African-American female jury. The prosecution was convinced that with the overwhelming evidence against

Page 112 begins here

Simpson race would not tip the scales of justice. They did not predict that the defense would build its case on the race card. The Los Angeles Police Department's (LAPD) history of white-on-black police brutality provided an excellent starting point for the defense strategy. When LAPD officers were caught lying under oath the defense strategy was only reinforced. The defense was also able to show that one of the officers, Mark Fuhrman, used racial epithets and possibly held racist views. Furthermore, the police had mishandled some of the evidence from the crime scene and blood samples taken from Simpson.

Despite all these problems, the prosecution still had seemingly irrefutable DNA evidence linking Simpson to the crime scene and the victims to Simpson's Ford Bronco and estate. To attack this evidence the defense brought in lawyers who specialize in DNA evidence, Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld. Hixson accurately describes these lawyers as "morally flexible." They have done some really praiseworthy work by using DNA evidence to exonerate wrongly convicted defendants. In the Simpson case they attacked and called into question the DNA evidence to win an acquittal for a man that was clearly guilty of a double homicide. Hixson refers to Scheck's discrediting of DNA evidence as a "national disservice."

Incompetent judicial management also played into the defense's hands. Judge Lance Ito's wife was a captain in the LAPD and he apparently overcompensated to show he was not biased in favor of the police. He also started to play to the cameras that he allowed into the courtroom. Ito made numerous rulings letting the defense probe areas of questionable relevancy that only bolstered the defense's race-based strategy. He also ruled against the prosecution on the admissibility of incriminating evidence. Hixson suggests that Ito knew the evidence of Simpson's guilt was overwhelming and was more generous to the defense in anticipation of an appeal. Ito also let the trial spin out of control due to excessive defense objections and the media circus.

The prosecution failed to introduce important evidence, such as Simpson's contradictory and incriminating statements made to the police before his arrest. They also failed to introduce evidence about Simpson's famous Bronco chase through Los Angeles County and the fact that he had a gun, money and a disguise. The prosecution then summed up their evidence in a disorganized closing. The defense presented a very effective flamboyant closing that suggested a vast racist conspiracy to frame Simpson. The defense demanded and received jury nullification. Simpson later lost the civil case filed against him and was ordered to pay $33.5 million in damages. Hixson correctly indicates the acquittal of an obviously guilty man was not the most disturbing outcome of the Simpson trial; it was the bringing to light of the deep racial divisions that exist in America.

Overall, Hixson's account of four famous murder trials in American history is an enjoyable book to read. He effectively explains the interface of the criminal justice system, the media, and the cultural setting of the times. His argument about the role of gender, ethnicity and race is convincing. The class argument in the Sheppard case is somewhat doubtful. The strongest criticism of the book is that there are no endnotes or footnotes. Hixson states that he did not use any to make the "book more accessible" and instead included a critical bibliography. This approach diminishes the value of the book as a starting point for future research. Many interesting points were made in the

Page 113 begins here

book and knowing their source would be beneficial. The reader can look at the bibliography but doesn't know which source supports specific parts of the text. Because of this shortcoming, the book is better suited for pleasure reading or perhaps a gift. The book would make a good assigned text in a course only if used to stimulate discussion. This reviewer was able to have a number of interesting conversations after having read the book.


Copyright 2001 by the author, Barry N. Sweet.