Death By Talons is a fascinating and fastidious investigation into a highly complex death. The crime scene is bizarre, and Smith matches it with a bizarre theory which nonetheless seems more and more believable as the book goes on.
It’s hard to believe there is so much to say about a case that has already had so much attention. This book is actually the first media I’ve consumed on this case (now I’m watching The Staircase to get another perspective) but it does a great job of covering the whole story.
The owl theory is undeniably whacky, but Smith does a good job of making it plausible and showing how it can tie together a lot of different bits of evidence that are otherwise in tension with either the prosecution theory, or the defence theory, or both. Something I found myself repeatedly thinking as I read through is “yeah this owl business seems very weird, but then under any scenario something very weird must have happened here – so why not an owl?”
A section I really liked was Smith’s evaluation of the earlier death of Elizabeth in the other staircase in Germany. The coincidence is utterly compelling and inescapable, but… what does it really mean? Sure, there are clear points of similarity, but also significant points of difference, and none of it really sheds light on the Kathleen Peterson case in any tangible way. This is tricky thing to think about, because it means we have to detach from our human intuitions about coincidence. Sometimes when things coincide it simply doesn’t mean anything. The book has a very sophisticated discussion of this philosophical point. I guess that makes sense, given that Smith is a professional academic philosopher by trade.
Some parts of the book's argument were less convincing to me. One of the boldest elements of the owl theory is that it entails a high level of police corruption in the handling of the crime scene. In particular, without police malfeasance there is no clear way to explain the lack of feathers. I kept asking myself “when is there going to be some evidence of corruption?” Now Smith does turn to this towards the end of the book, but I found the evidence a bit thin.
One of Smith’s claims on this point is that the police behaviour was so inexplicable, they must have had some hidden motivations. I don’t buy that. To be sure there was a lot of police incompetence, but that comes up in almost every true crime story I encounter. Police failed to secure evidence? They always do. Someone scuffed up the murder scene? Typical. Vital exhibit misplaced? Par for the course. Clearly, incompetence doesn’t equal corruption.
For example there is a lot of discussion about the shifted planter. So someone shifted a large and heavy planter with the ostensible motive of protecting a blood spot. Best practice? Of course not. But it didn’t seem that odd to me. I can kind of imagine myself doing it when I try to think my way into the body of a dim-witted cop fluffing around a crime scene with adrenaline pumping. And Smith doesn’t really show how an anomaly like this indicates anything about an owl. He’d be better off recalling his own reasoning about coincidences and how they don’t necessarily mean anything. The same applies to anomalies in crime scene handling and documentation.
I hope that these quibbles and questions don’t suggest that the book is anything other than excellent. These are the kinds of doubts and questions you have when you read an argument for a counter-intuitive story that is nonetheless convincing enough to make you bother looking for holes.
Was I convinced that an owl killed Kathleen Peterson? Not exactly. But I wouldn’t say I was convinced by the prosecution or defence theories either. I actually don't know quite what to make of it all. As I said before, it is clear that something exceedingly odd occurred that night. Maybe Smith’s right and it was a bird of prey, or maybe something else happened. But to my mind the mark of success for this book is that I’m taking the ridiculous-in-the-abstract owl theory seriously.