What do you think?
Rate this book
The Axeman of New Orleans: The True Story
From 1910 to 1919, New Orleans suffered at the hands of its very own Jack the Ripper–style killer. The story has been the subject of websites, short stories, novels, a graphic novel, and most recently the FX television series American Horror Story. But the full story of gruesome murders, sympathetic victims, accused innocents, public panic, the New Orleans Mafia, and a mysterious killer has never been written. Until now.
The Axeman repeatedly broke into the homes of Italian grocers in the dead of night, leaving his victims in a pool of blood. Iorlando Jordano, an innocent Italian grocer, and his teenaged son Frank were wrongly accused of one of those murders; corrupt officials convicted them with coerced testimony. Miriam C. Davis here expertly tells the story of the search for the Axeman and of the eventual exoneration of the innocent Jordanos. She proves that the person mostly widely suspected of being the Axeman was not the killer. She also shows what few have suspected—that the Axeman continued killing after leaving New Orleans in 1919.
Only thirty years after Jack the Ripper stalked the streets of Whitechapel, the Axeman of New Orleans held an American city hostage. This book tells that story.
The Axeman repeatedly broke into the homes of Italian grocers in the dead of night, leaving his victims in a pool of blood. Iorlando Jordano, an innocent Italian grocer, and his teenaged son Frank were wrongly accused of one of those murders; corrupt officials convicted them with coerced testimony. Miriam C. Davis here expertly tells the story of the search for the Axeman and of the eventual exoneration of the innocent Jordanos. She proves that the person mostly widely suspected of being the Axeman was not the killer. She also shows what few have suspected—that the Axeman continued killing after leaving New Orleans in 1919.
Only thirty years after Jack the Ripper stalked the streets of Whitechapel, the Axeman of New Orleans held an American city hostage. This book tells that story.
9 pages, Audiobook
First published March 1, 2017
131 people are currently reading
2045 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews
March 30, 2017
The Axman of New Orleans: The True Story by Miriam C. Davis is a 2017 Chicago Review Press publication.
I thought I had heard about most serial killers, recent, past or distant past, but I never heard about this case. I understand this story was even featured on ‘American Horror Story’, but I don’t want much television, so I missed out on that.
This case is utterly fascinating and so absurdly strange, it’s impossible to believe some of the things that happened back then.
Starting in 1910, a series of murders targeting Italian immigrants, who mainly operated grocery stores, began to occur with an uneven frequency.
The murders are very gruesome and harrowing, and there doesn’t appear to be much a motive aside from the obvious one, which was a strong dislike toward the Italians.
The police, of course, had limited resources and New Orleans was especially under funded and inexperienced. Interviews with the victims and eyewitness accounts were often all they had to go on, other than suspicious behaviors. Often a suspect was held, only to be released due to a lack of evidence.
But, eventually, a couple of arrests were made, based on false testimony. A trial was held which ended with a couple of convictions, the details of which are detailed at length in this book and made for some pretty interesting courtroom drama.
But, the real killer was never brought to justice, and in fact continued to kill after leaving the New Orleans area.
It’s a perplexing case, which caused hysteria, and frankly echoes the sentiments people still seem to hold against immigrants, or other races, no matter what era of time, or the circumstances. But, it is worth noting that New Orleans was packed with immigrants from a number of areas, so why Italians? There are several theories, but it is still very strange.
It was also sad, since several of the victims were young married couples, some with small children. Some of the cases were pinned on the ‘Cleaver’, that may not have been connected, and innocent people found themselves under suspicion. There were several odd incidents that turned out to be unconnected, but were very curious, indeed.
New Orleans is always an interesting locale, and despite the grim subject matter, I did enjoy reading many of the historical details of the period.
I’m thankful the author decided to tackle this case, which as far as I know hasn’t garnered the mass media attention other serial killers from long ago did, and has remained relatively forgotten.
The book isn’t very long, but it’s packed with intrigue and drama and is very puzzling, as well as frustrating to think someone got away with so many murders, and people suffered who were innocent of any wrong doing.
This a quick and easy to read true crime story that definitely held my attention and has piqued my interest in this crime and the era it took place in.
True Crime readers and those who enjoy history or historical mysteries will not want to pass this one up.
4 stars
I thought I had heard about most serial killers, recent, past or distant past, but I never heard about this case. I understand this story was even featured on ‘American Horror Story’, but I don’t want much television, so I missed out on that.
This case is utterly fascinating and so absurdly strange, it’s impossible to believe some of the things that happened back then.
Starting in 1910, a series of murders targeting Italian immigrants, who mainly operated grocery stores, began to occur with an uneven frequency.
The murders are very gruesome and harrowing, and there doesn’t appear to be much a motive aside from the obvious one, which was a strong dislike toward the Italians.
The police, of course, had limited resources and New Orleans was especially under funded and inexperienced. Interviews with the victims and eyewitness accounts were often all they had to go on, other than suspicious behaviors. Often a suspect was held, only to be released due to a lack of evidence.
But, eventually, a couple of arrests were made, based on false testimony. A trial was held which ended with a couple of convictions, the details of which are detailed at length in this book and made for some pretty interesting courtroom drama.
But, the real killer was never brought to justice, and in fact continued to kill after leaving the New Orleans area.
It’s a perplexing case, which caused hysteria, and frankly echoes the sentiments people still seem to hold against immigrants, or other races, no matter what era of time, or the circumstances. But, it is worth noting that New Orleans was packed with immigrants from a number of areas, so why Italians? There are several theories, but it is still very strange.
It was also sad, since several of the victims were young married couples, some with small children. Some of the cases were pinned on the ‘Cleaver’, that may not have been connected, and innocent people found themselves under suspicion. There were several odd incidents that turned out to be unconnected, but were very curious, indeed.
New Orleans is always an interesting locale, and despite the grim subject matter, I did enjoy reading many of the historical details of the period.
I’m thankful the author decided to tackle this case, which as far as I know hasn’t garnered the mass media attention other serial killers from long ago did, and has remained relatively forgotten.
The book isn’t very long, but it’s packed with intrigue and drama and is very puzzling, as well as frustrating to think someone got away with so many murders, and people suffered who were innocent of any wrong doing.
This a quick and easy to read true crime story that definitely held my attention and has piqued my interest in this crime and the era it took place in.
True Crime readers and those who enjoy history or historical mysteries will not want to pass this one up.
4 stars
Read
June 13, 2018I am DNFing this book. For a story about the axeman, it is so incredibly dull and lacking in focus. The author has clearly done her homework but she's included too many sidelines that have nothing to do with the murders. If I wanted to learn about the origins of the Italian Mafia in New Orleans I would've picked up a different book.
This story was also one of the subplots in American Horror Story’s season of “Coven”. The "axeman" is the guy Jessica Lange gets cozy with. The gals over at MY FAVORITE MURDER also covered the case in one of their many disturbingly amusing podcasts. I’d say listen to that instead. Life's too short and stressful so I'm picking up something else rather than struggling to stay awake during this one.
This story was also one of the subplots in American Horror Story’s season of “Coven”. The "axeman" is the guy Jessica Lange gets cozy with. The gals over at MY FAVORITE MURDER also covered the case in one of their many disturbingly amusing podcasts. I’d say listen to that instead. Life's too short and stressful so I'm picking up something else rather than struggling to stay awake during this one.
November 17, 2019
This is a hard book to rate. Davis does some good research, debunking myths about the Axeman and making good suppositions about events, such as the Mumfre thesis as well as Besumer's status as victim. She is good as a straight historian. Her background information on New Orleans, the Mafia, Louis Marrero, and the rest is welcome. Her theory that the Axeman moved west has legs; her theory that he was "the Cleaver" of 1910 less so. Yet, the writing is sloppy. Davis sometimes tries to tell a story, but she is not very good at it. Furthermore, she is a bit too fast to make hard judgements on a case with a lot of questions. At any rate, this book is worth it for the research even if it can be a slog to read.
April 26, 2022
I like my historical true crime to give me some very specific elements. First, I need to be able to feel what it was like to be in that time period. Second, I need to feel the terror which each crime solicited. Finally, I need to feel like the criminal can be identified, even if it is just a best guess.
Davis does all of those things in this book. You feel what it is like to live in New Orleans (pardon me, N’Awlins) during a vicious crime wave. Davis is also meticulous in laying out the crime and the crime scene after so that you feel like you are actually part of the investigation. Finally, she posits some very possible if not probable answers to who the Axeman actually was.
If you like true crime but may not know if you’d like historical true crime, then this is the book to start with. It’s relatively short, sticks to the important details, and immerses you into the time period. Check it out!
Davis does all of those things in this book. You feel what it is like to live in New Orleans (pardon me, N’Awlins) during a vicious crime wave. Davis is also meticulous in laying out the crime and the crime scene after so that you feel like you are actually part of the investigation. Finally, she posits some very possible if not probable answers to who the Axeman actually was.
If you like true crime but may not know if you’d like historical true crime, then this is the book to start with. It’s relatively short, sticks to the important details, and immerses you into the time period. Check it out!
February 18, 2020
Now that was a good read. This book will help you remember to lock your doors at night but not help you sleep or feel safe in your own bed. All I know is people sure did sleep soundly back in the day. This guy could chisel his way through a door and no one wakes up. If one of my cats fart in the middle of the night it wakes me up. I'm jealous....of the sleeping soundly part, not the getting brained with an axe in your sleep part. Anyway, a really good book.
January 21, 2018
A waste of paper. No answers, just 262 pages of what-ifs and maybes and armchair psychology. Save your money.
March 8, 2018
Nothing great. Kind of a weak telling of this early 1900s event.
November 21, 2017
3.75*s
Oddly enough I've never heard of this particular serial killer in US history. This seems to be the USA's own Jack the Ripper style case, with just as much over the top detailing and even more of a kill count. Mrs. Davis does a great job of breaking down the case, and any murders/attacks related to it. She presents a fascinating and well researched challenge to the accepted to conclusion as well, arguing her case well. This is one those true crime books that will settle under your skin, much like any Jack the Ripper story would, and make you wonder who did it and why.
Oddly enough I've never heard of this particular serial killer in US history. This seems to be the USA's own Jack the Ripper style case, with just as much over the top detailing and even more of a kill count. Mrs. Davis does a great job of breaking down the case, and any murders/attacks related to it. She presents a fascinating and well researched challenge to the accepted to conclusion as well, arguing her case well. This is one those true crime books that will settle under your skin, much like any Jack the Ripper story would, and make you wonder who did it and why.
March 18, 2021
You’ll find my copy of this book flagged with post its. This was research for a future serial killer novel. Not only did I find the book educational and insightful I learned the Axe man of New Orleans was nothing like he is portrayed in any movie. He was a serial killer, and that idea was still alien to those in the early 1900s. He escaped and likely continued his terror elsewhere. I recommend the read for those interested in the reality. My note taking was heavy at first and then as the truth manifests near the end I took fewer notes and its is likely the legend that makes for a better tail.
dnf
March 1, 2021DNF @21%
2017; Chicago Review Press
Tried a few times to get into this one, but the writing style is not for me, and I tried to research the case to get some interest but even that didn't get me into this book.
***I received a complimentary copy of this ebook from the publisher through Edelweiss. Opinions expressed in this review are entirely my own.***
2017; Chicago Review Press
Tried a few times to get into this one, but the writing style is not for me, and I tried to research the case to get some interest but even that didn't get me into this book.
***I received a complimentary copy of this ebook from the publisher through Edelweiss. Opinions expressed in this review are entirely my own.***
September 21, 2017
I had never heard of the Axeman of New Orleans until he was a character on AMERICAN HORROR STORY: COVEN (which I contend is by far the best AHS season of all time). I hadn't felt terribly compelled to check him out beyond that show, but when he was covered on MY FAVORITE MURDER I was intrigued again. And THEN my boss at work was ordering books and said 'hey, have you heard of these murders that took place in NEw Orleans?' and I was like 'YOU MEAN THE AXEMAN !?', no doubt living up to every perception she has of me and my interests. So she ordered THE AXEMAN OF NEW ORLEANS by Miriam C. Davis, and I got on the request list for first crack at it.
Background: in the early 20th Century a series of attacks/murders occurred in New Orleans in which Italian grocers were beaten/bludgeoned with an axe in their beds in the dead of night. A notorious letter left by "The Axeman" was published in the paper, saying that he was going to strike again on a certain night (St. Joseph's Day) and any house that wasn't playing jazz would be a target. Though some people went to trial for various attacks, the murderer was never caught, and Miriam Davis has reexamined the case in this book.
The good: Davis has no qualms dismissing the apocryphal and sensationalized aspect of this case, specifically the letter that was sent to the press. She says that it's very unlikely that the actual Axeman sent it, as a profile of him put together in modern times suggests this just wouldn't fit his style. I also liked that she wasn't willing to name anyone (or probably knew she couldn't), and therefore didn't speculate too much on identity. As far as anyone can know, he was probably a xenophobic, insecure loser who hated the fact that immigrants and first generation Italian Americans were more successful than he was. But then the not so good is that while she's very professional and very good at examining various clues, it did tend to make this read a bit dry at times. I found myself skimming here and there, because while I like that she was very respectful, the fact we know so little means that it really is a 'just the facts, ma'am' kind of story. And that can get a bit tedious.
THE AXEMAN OF NEW ORLEANS was a thorough and well researched book about a killer that we know very little about. If you're looking for something with more definitive answers, this may not be for you, but if you want to read a responsible and well studied account, this is probably a good bet.
Background: in the early 20th Century a series of attacks/murders occurred in New Orleans in which Italian grocers were beaten/bludgeoned with an axe in their beds in the dead of night. A notorious letter left by "The Axeman" was published in the paper, saying that he was going to strike again on a certain night (St. Joseph's Day) and any house that wasn't playing jazz would be a target. Though some people went to trial for various attacks, the murderer was never caught, and Miriam Davis has reexamined the case in this book.
The good: Davis has no qualms dismissing the apocryphal and sensationalized aspect of this case, specifically the letter that was sent to the press. She says that it's very unlikely that the actual Axeman sent it, as a profile of him put together in modern times suggests this just wouldn't fit his style. I also liked that she wasn't willing to name anyone (or probably knew she couldn't), and therefore didn't speculate too much on identity. As far as anyone can know, he was probably a xenophobic, insecure loser who hated the fact that immigrants and first generation Italian Americans were more successful than he was. But then the not so good is that while she's very professional and very good at examining various clues, it did tend to make this read a bit dry at times. I found myself skimming here and there, because while I like that she was very respectful, the fact we know so little means that it really is a 'just the facts, ma'am' kind of story. And that can get a bit tedious.
THE AXEMAN OF NEW ORLEANS was a thorough and well researched book about a killer that we know very little about. If you're looking for something with more definitive answers, this may not be for you, but if you want to read a responsible and well studied account, this is probably a good bet.
March 31, 2023
I'm giving this an extra star for the massive of amounts of research that must have gone into the book.
But for a book about axe murder in New Orleans, it was extremely boring. It read more like a textbook, listing names of victims along with incidents, but no storytelling.
Some people may think that nonfiction isn't about storytelling, but it is. It's telling TRUE stories. I think some nonfiction writers forget that and just spit out facts and stats.
I wanted to feel more of an emotional connection with these Italian grocer families. I wanted to feel the suspense and terror that must have been prevalent at the time.
There were so many victims listed that I didn't get to know any of them. Perhaps there wasn't a lot of info about the families, but I think a more skilled author could have brought these people and their stories to life, not just turned them into another statistic.
I did learn a lot though and appreciate all the work that it must have taken to write this.
But for a book about axe murder in New Orleans, it was extremely boring. It read more like a textbook, listing names of victims along with incidents, but no storytelling.
Some people may think that nonfiction isn't about storytelling, but it is. It's telling TRUE stories. I think some nonfiction writers forget that and just spit out facts and stats.
I wanted to feel more of an emotional connection with these Italian grocer families. I wanted to feel the suspense and terror that must have been prevalent at the time.
There were so many victims listed that I didn't get to know any of them. Perhaps there wasn't a lot of info about the families, but I think a more skilled author could have brought these people and their stories to life, not just turned them into another statistic.
I did learn a lot though and appreciate all the work that it must have taken to write this.
February 7, 2025
I really enjoyed this book by Miriam C. Davis. Ms. Davis being an historian, as she is, taught me much about life in New Orleans early in the 20th century and even before, including some illuminating history regarding Italian immigrants in the area and their propensity for industriousness, hard work, and saving money enough to wind up bettering themselves as legitimate owners of business, most of the time as grocers. But as their tale also includes many who sought to get ahead by taking to the wrong side of the law, perhaps our killer was counted among the Italian criminal element considering his victims were Italians, too? We may never know, of course, but though the case of the Axeman of New Orleans remains unsolved to this day, his reign of terror thrills and terrifies even now, in much the same way as does the better-known and older tale of Jack the Ripper. Good read!
March 17, 2023
Interesting read about a series of break-ins/murders in the early 1900's in New Orleans. It's well researched and does a good job of putting the reader in that period and mindset. I wished there wasn't so much jumping around in time as I found myself getting confused with all the names. A nice, neat graphic showing dates and names would have been a nice reference. Enjoyed the pictures and found the story very interesting (even scary at times).
April 13, 2025
Could not put this one down, been dying to read it for ages. I’m not sure why readers expected an identification or even a short list of plausible suspects, that’s unlikely to ever happen. But the author was able to definitively rule out those who were blamed at the time and this is just as important. Review to come.
January 3, 2024
Pretty good book about true accounts of a serial killer in 1900 New Orleans. The writer really did a ton of research. Loved seeing the old pictures and newspaper articles.
September 25, 2024
I find I’m usually more excited about true crime, but this was told in sort of a dull way. Lots of information though
November 26, 2025
Decent read for a true crime history. I think the author did a good job of interpreting sources fairly objectively.
June 17, 2020
Totally gave me the heebie-jeebies, but I could not put it down. Well-written and researched. Kind of reminded me of an Erik Larson book. Highly recommend if you’re a fan of true crime. Just don’t read it at night!
June 18, 2020
Went off on a lot of tangents the didn't really have much to do with the overall subject.
March 25, 2017
Amazing and quick read. A must for lovers of New Orleans, true crime and history.
February 27, 2018
Absolutely AWFUL. While the premise is promising, the author does very little to deliver. The Axeman? In New Orleans? How can you screw this up?
1. By writing two long and detailed chapters about the rise of the Mafia in New Orleans, and La Cosa Nostra doesn’t even play a part in the actual narrative, so you basically get a 65-page footnote on organized crime in The Big Easy;
2. At least half of each chapter is devoted to the corruption in law enforcement and judicial system of 1910-1920 New Orleans
3. Interchangeable victims, none of whom we really get to know. The crimes read like a compilation of newspaper articles from the Times-Picayune
4. No speculation as to who the Axeman may have been, and just a few paragraphs on possible motivation tacked onto the last chapter, like the author suddenly came to in front of the microfiche machine and realized “I’m about done with this book, and I haven’t mentioned anything about the Axeman’s motives. Better add that now.”
5. No continuity, no uniting force or theme. Is it true crime in New Orleans? Grisly deaths of Italian Grocer families? Crooked cops? The trial of a father-son, unjustly tried and convicted? What’s going on here?
It’s difficult to write a true crime account that happened in the past, but a few authors (Larsen, Schecter, Cornwell) have managed to pull it off by painting a broad picture of the world at the time, then focusing on the crime and the victims. If an author has to write filler about outside details, like organized crime unrelated to the story at hand, or corrupted courts, again unrelated, maybe the author doesn’t understand the gist of the crime/killer she is trying to convey. Back off and immerse yourself in the story, then see if you have enough understanding to capture the essence of it—don’t attempt an expose on corruption in New Orleans courts and try to bill it as “The Axeman of New Orleans;” write a separate book about that, THEN come back to the murders. There’s waaaaay too much going on in this book to be successful at revealing the identity of the title character.
1. By writing two long and detailed chapters about the rise of the Mafia in New Orleans, and La Cosa Nostra doesn’t even play a part in the actual narrative, so you basically get a 65-page footnote on organized crime in The Big Easy;
2. At least half of each chapter is devoted to the corruption in law enforcement and judicial system of 1910-1920 New Orleans
3. Interchangeable victims, none of whom we really get to know. The crimes read like a compilation of newspaper articles from the Times-Picayune
4. No speculation as to who the Axeman may have been, and just a few paragraphs on possible motivation tacked onto the last chapter, like the author suddenly came to in front of the microfiche machine and realized “I’m about done with this book, and I haven’t mentioned anything about the Axeman’s motives. Better add that now.”
5. No continuity, no uniting force or theme. Is it true crime in New Orleans? Grisly deaths of Italian Grocer families? Crooked cops? The trial of a father-son, unjustly tried and convicted? What’s going on here?
It’s difficult to write a true crime account that happened in the past, but a few authors (Larsen, Schecter, Cornwell) have managed to pull it off by painting a broad picture of the world at the time, then focusing on the crime and the victims. If an author has to write filler about outside details, like organized crime unrelated to the story at hand, or corrupted courts, again unrelated, maybe the author doesn’t understand the gist of the crime/killer she is trying to convey. Back off and immerse yourself in the story, then see if you have enough understanding to capture the essence of it—don’t attempt an expose on corruption in New Orleans courts and try to bill it as “The Axeman of New Orleans;” write a separate book about that, THEN come back to the murders. There’s waaaaay too much going on in this book to be successful at revealing the identity of the title character.
April 20, 2017
I’ve always loved reading different genres of books but lately everything I read is romance. The Axeman of New Orleans was a nice departure, taking me back to true crime.
Miriam Davis has done an amazing job researching this book. The amount of detail she provides for a century old crime is incredible. Using quotes from multiple newspapers, police reports and archive photos, Davis supplies more than enough evidence to support her premises on various murders. Some she is able to discount as work of the Axeman by reasoning through the circumstances and facts and others she makes sounds cases for assuming they were the same killer. She provides insight into the period; New Orleans life, politics, police practices and crime scene analysis techniques. At times she even adds humor to an otherwise grim topic.
Davis provides so much detail on the victims that we get to know them. They are real people, not just corpses in the coroner's office. We also get to know the police, politicians and neighbors in depth. Davis paints an accurate and detailed picture of the effect the murders had on the entire city especially the Italian immigrants and even more so the Sicilian grocers.
The Axeman of New Orleans is a very well written book about one of histories most baffling unsolved series of murders. It will be interesting to see if Davis’s final statement comes true and at some point someone will relate murders in other locations or find some elusive evidence to answer the question of who the Axeman was.
Miriam Davis has done an amazing job researching this book. The amount of detail she provides for a century old crime is incredible. Using quotes from multiple newspapers, police reports and archive photos, Davis supplies more than enough evidence to support her premises on various murders. Some she is able to discount as work of the Axeman by reasoning through the circumstances and facts and others she makes sounds cases for assuming they were the same killer. She provides insight into the period; New Orleans life, politics, police practices and crime scene analysis techniques. At times she even adds humor to an otherwise grim topic.
Davis provides so much detail on the victims that we get to know them. They are real people, not just corpses in the coroner's office. We also get to know the police, politicians and neighbors in depth. Davis paints an accurate and detailed picture of the effect the murders had on the entire city especially the Italian immigrants and even more so the Sicilian grocers.
The Axeman of New Orleans is a very well written book about one of histories most baffling unsolved series of murders. It will be interesting to see if Davis’s final statement comes true and at some point someone will relate murders in other locations or find some elusive evidence to answer the question of who the Axeman was.
Read
May 29, 2023For a book about someone killing people with axes, this isn’t the most interesting book I’ve read….this week. This is the story of a New Orleans serial killer who targeted primarily Italian shopkeepers in the early 20th century.
This book is drenched with a time in the country in which anti-Italian sentiment was pretty strong, and this book investigates that aspect of these crimes. But it oversells the “racial” dynamic of these crimes. As weird and sad as these crimes are, the real miracle is that some poor black man wasn’t falsely accused of them. In fact, the witnesses keep mentioning that their assailant was white.
Anyway, something is not great about this book. It barely hangs together as a cohesive story, and I think that’s the real problem. There’s not really enough evidence presented in this book to suggest that these crimes are all that connected. The author goes to some length to talk about what investigative approaches would have been different and what should have been done, but also spends a lot of time weighing in on the evidence, but doesn’t actually have all the evidence available either and probably reaches too far out to make assertions about what it means. But the book has to hang on something. There anti-Italian sentiment is too sold in this one, the crimes are interesting but not necessarily connected, the would-bes and what-ifs are too forward, and ultimately this feels like a passion project that was built out of an article or a love of local lore instead of something substantive.
This book is drenched with a time in the country in which anti-Italian sentiment was pretty strong, and this book investigates that aspect of these crimes. But it oversells the “racial” dynamic of these crimes. As weird and sad as these crimes are, the real miracle is that some poor black man wasn’t falsely accused of them. In fact, the witnesses keep mentioning that their assailant was white.
Anyway, something is not great about this book. It barely hangs together as a cohesive story, and I think that’s the real problem. There’s not really enough evidence presented in this book to suggest that these crimes are all that connected. The author goes to some length to talk about what investigative approaches would have been different and what should have been done, but also spends a lot of time weighing in on the evidence, but doesn’t actually have all the evidence available either and probably reaches too far out to make assertions about what it means. But the book has to hang on something. There anti-Italian sentiment is too sold in this one, the crimes are interesting but not necessarily connected, the would-bes and what-ifs are too forward, and ultimately this feels like a passion project that was built out of an article or a love of local lore instead of something substantive.
July 1, 2019
Warning spoilers!!!!
The axeman of New Orleans has never been that well known. Kind of an obscure case, only recently has the case gained some notice. As a true crime fanatic I was course had read about him but there was never that much info to get really into the case. Info made public. I must also add that for several years now the photo of serial killer Jake Bird has been commonly associated with the Axeman in terms of the internet. In fact if you look up "The axeman of new orleans" his photo is the first photo you see. Idiots!
The author mentions how she stumbled upon the case. She was sitting with her brother out in the patio and the conversation turned to a discussion of serial killers. She writes "as usual" which I like.
Her brother bought the case up but with misinformation. She then decided to look it up and decided to do some investigating which lead to her eventually going to New Orleans and looking at old documents about the case.
I really enjoy her writing style. She talks about the police force at the time and the culture of New Orelans at the time. The book made my perspective of the state change. Her description of New Orleans at the time [1800s and the 1900s] is very good and she makes it very interesting and I couldn't help but think of it within the context of today. Including the fact that the "american dream" is practically dead. I really enjoyed the chapter where she talks about the Italian immigration into New Orleans and Louisiana. I really appreciated that historical context.
I already knew about modern forensics and modern policing. It all begin in the 1800s in Italy, France, and Germany. I knew America was very primitive at the time but never really understood it that well enough. This book made it more clear. Turns out that it was state by state, but of course they were all still pretty primitive when it came to policing and forensics. The coroner in New Orleans didn't even do autopsies.
The author mentions a famous type of Louisiana sandwhich and how it originated. Looked it up and it does look absolutely delicious.
After the first actual murder by the axe man [not in the book but in the time line of crimes. Like other authors she starts off with a later murder but then goes back to the very beginning.] she begins to talk about the Mafia in New Orleans and how it came to be and where it originated from.
After this the author goes back to the investigation of course and after a couple more attacks and the murder of a couple city of New orleans not only got angry at the police department for failing to catch the guy but many Italians especially grocers began to sit at their door all night with a gun in hand, just waiting for the axeman to come in. Search parties were also formed and finally the police did what I would of done; patrol the areas favored by the killer.
From descriptions of the axeman he was wearing a "workingman's shirt." and I am going "why didn't they look into that?" That would of been something else I would of done. Looked into those jobs and I would of also looked at those with a history of burglary. The author at one point suspects that the axeman was in prison for several years which would explain his long cooling off period. I would agree.
The book then moves on to two men totally railroaded. I suspect the author is very aware of the satanic panic/child day care panic or at least read all the evidence debunking the manipulative tactics that were used and the horrible mentality of everyone involved except the accused and their defense team of course.
Of course railroading tactics are gonna be identical. Very much like pseudo science and denialism.
It all looks the same. The same tactics, so of course it also looks very similar to other cases where an accused was falsely accused and convicted.
The author stated that the entire case pretty much boiled down to the testimony of a victim who CLEARLY was unreliable.
It reminded me of a quote by a reporter during the moral panic of the 1980s I mentioned above.
The children were coerced into fabricating stories of sexual abuse. Adults in therapy were also brainwashed and manipulated into believing they were in satanic cults. The cases had ZERO evidence and we are talking about 3 - 6 year old children who claimed the accused stuck knives and swords into their sex orifices. Not a SHRED of evidence to support that and the kids were clearly coerced. One little girl said she was asked if she was abused 100 times by her mother [constantly badgered] and the unqualified therapist kept asking her and finally said "We don't want to hear anyone 'No's." and the girl yelled at her "NO! NO! NO!" Another kid was physically assaulted by a cop and told to tell. In another case a father said "it was more of them TELLING HIM WHAT HAPPENED." while he watched and listened and of course he didn't believe his son was abused.
Parents of the accusing children who believed it all would argue "children couldn't make this up." and of course we know that the sex acts that were described all came from the police, their parents, and therapist. "did he put his penis into your mouth?" and the child would say "yeah, he did." Which is known as LEADING THE WITNESS. Also known as putting words into someone's mouth. My immediate response to those parents is "They didn't say that. YOU SAID THAT!" We saw the same thing with many false confessions. Including Henry Lee Lucas the "serial confessor" where he would confess to a murder. He's go "I shot her" and the cop would say "no, that aint right" and Henry would go "Alright...I must of stabbed her." and the cop would say "That aint right either." so he'd go "I strangled her. I choked her to death." and the cop would go "she was strangled. That's right." and charge him with that murder. Henry didn't say he strangled her, YOU DID!
How would you react if you were constantly badgered day in and day out for MONTHS and YEARS and told "tell me what they did to you!" Imagine if your mother grabbed you by the shirt and she shook you and demanded "tell me what they did?!" Wouldn't you confess? One child said he told him self "Just say this to get them off your back." and made his false confessions. One little girl was told she couldn't have dessert until she confessed. In so many cases these children began crying from the constant nonstop badgering! How is that not child abuse?!
Many people were falsely convicted 100% on the word of manipulated children. Not only no physical evidence but zero eyewitnesses. They committed these crimes supposedly in the open. One said they were flown on a space ship/air ballon/plane and taken to palm springers. Not only that but the day care had huge windows and was in front of a busy highway with cars passing constantly. Another said they were taken out on a boat and threatened with sharks in the water and this was in a public lake which was heavily populated and was NOT shark infested. The kid who testified about the sharks said a friend of the accused "invented" a shark catching machine. Not a single eyewitness and of course no spaceships and no shark catching machine. Not a single shred of corroboration. Oh and the kids confessed that they lied and made it all up once they were adults. One kid said he would sit in his bed at night and just think about what other crazy insane claims he could make to "shock" the court. The only children that claimed it was "true" were the kids who went through "therapy" where it was reinforced through countless therapy sessions and went through sessions of hypnosis which has been widely debunked. The fact that adults can go through hypnosis and come out believing they were raped by aliens on a UFO or had a "past life" experience of being a famous historical figure instead of some peasant should cast serious doubt enough. The panic was 100% total and complete NONSENSE in every sense of the word. Prosectorial misconduct, junk science, obscene tactics that violate the bill of rights such as an obscene amount of charges to force the accused to plead guilty, setting an obscene amount of bail, like $10,000 for bail. Even a second judge saw this and was like "that is unfair. I'll set $1,000." threatening to arrest and prosecutor witnesses...and yet there are still idiots who believe it to this day and the prosecutors and therapist refuse to admit they did anything wrong and or give pathetic half apologies like "maybe we could of done things differently" Instead of "Yes, we absolutely screwed up." Or "this was in the 80s" despite the overwhelming evidence that standards for such cases were ALREADY in place at the time and they utterly rejected well established standards. Very much like the UVA rape scandal, where Rolling Stone utterly rejected basic journalistic practices and published a false rape story. Experts said that if basic standards and ethics had been followed the whole scandal would of never ever of happened. Same thing with the satanic/day care panic of the 80s. They totally lacked integrity and ethics.
Back to the quote and the reporter. The reporter said
"All evidence was based on the victims testimony which reinforces prosecutor's statements that a child's testimony can convict."
In the "shark" case one of the ONLY THREE RATIONAL members of the jury argued with the rest of the jury. In an interview he said
"It all sounded like something a two or three year old youngin and some dumb parents would dream up. 'you heard what the youngins said and I believe the youngins.' I told them 'you aint proved a thing to me.' I said 'you've got to have - I said your messing with a man's life. You've got to have some proof! But still the same way. Same way."
A lawyer in the "shark" case said "You have people testifying and you know that a large portion of what they say is absolutely impossible. That it can not be true. Then you have a jury that has shown that they are willing to accept a small part of what they say [confirmation bias] and reject the rest and convict someone."
Of course the verdict was overturned. 98% of all the 'satanic panic/day care panic" cases got overturned and the accused were declared innocent.
Back to the axeman case.
The women who was axed and accused the 2 men...she accused her husband of swinging the axe.
She then said he didn't do it. Then she claims she did not know who did it and like mental patients who were coerced into claiming they were in a satanic cult she was also high on drugs which made her very suggestable. Her doctor asked her if she knew who did it and she told him she didn't.
Her doctor who examined her and took care of her every single day for 2 weeks said you can't believe a word out of her mouth. She was unreliable. In one instance the couple were asked several questions by reporters and it became clear to the reporters that they could of asked them if they were aliens from outer space and they would of said "yes." In fact they asked these Italian immigrants if they were french and they said yes. Later she was coerced by police.
Her story about what happened made no sense what so ever and was contradictory and implauseable. She claimed first that her baby was hit first and then they "gave me two licks."
Later when the defense made her tell the story all over again she said she was hit in the head first which caused her to drop the baby. She said the accused swung the axe with both hands and when she was hit first [instead of second as she originally stated.] she dropped her baby and the accused somehow grabbed the baby at the same exact time he was swinging the axe with both hands. The whole story was completely incoherent and contradictory and made no sense. The author didn't mention the contradiction of being hit first or second but it was clear to me that she contradicted her self.
The most disturbing part of her testimony was when the defense asked her if she realized/appreciated the serious ramifications of her testimony. That her testimony if believed would lead to the two men being sentenced to death and hanged. The defense lawyer had to ask her this question a total of THREE TIMES because she didn't "understand the question."
The author also points out that the wonderful human right of "assumed innocent until proven guilty." or "presumption of innocence." which has always been challenged and still challenged to day was basically swept aside like so many cases. Why should 1919 be any different? Hell, why should 1985, 1987, 1989, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 be any different?!
These men were 100% railroaded.
After this part of the story the author mentions 3 or 4 attacks and murders that are very similar to the axeman. The only real difference is that the axeman liked to chip out door panels, all of these cases she found had the killer crawling through windows, but the axeman had used windows before.
At this point, basically the end of the book it becomes a bit disappointing.
Some people criticize Davis for talking about Joseph Mumfre and the mafia, and other crimes during the time. This criticism makes zero sense to me. Mumfre was widely misidentified and forever tied to the axeman of New Orleans. She had to talk about him and debunk that. She also had to talk about the mafia because of it's historical ties to the case and the theory that it wasn't some lone killer who wanted to see blood, but that it was killings done by the mafia. Also, true crime specially those that take place during such time periods must involve the historical aspects around them. That's one of the great things about true crime, especially true crime that takes place during a specific period.
I think the book started off strong but how it ended was disappointing and I can totally understand why he was never caught. All the people who were originally on the case from the very beginning died and they were not equipped to deal with him. Plus the police force in New Orleans and in the state over all were incompetent and small.
Over all not a great book, but also not a bad one either.
Better then decent.
The axeman of New Orleans has never been that well known. Kind of an obscure case, only recently has the case gained some notice. As a true crime fanatic I was course had read about him but there was never that much info to get really into the case. Info made public. I must also add that for several years now the photo of serial killer Jake Bird has been commonly associated with the Axeman in terms of the internet. In fact if you look up "The axeman of new orleans" his photo is the first photo you see. Idiots!
The author mentions how she stumbled upon the case. She was sitting with her brother out in the patio and the conversation turned to a discussion of serial killers. She writes "as usual" which I like.
Her brother bought the case up but with misinformation. She then decided to look it up and decided to do some investigating which lead to her eventually going to New Orleans and looking at old documents about the case.
I really enjoy her writing style. She talks about the police force at the time and the culture of New Orelans at the time. The book made my perspective of the state change. Her description of New Orleans at the time [1800s and the 1900s] is very good and she makes it very interesting and I couldn't help but think of it within the context of today. Including the fact that the "american dream" is practically dead. I really enjoyed the chapter where she talks about the Italian immigration into New Orleans and Louisiana. I really appreciated that historical context.
I already knew about modern forensics and modern policing. It all begin in the 1800s in Italy, France, and Germany. I knew America was very primitive at the time but never really understood it that well enough. This book made it more clear. Turns out that it was state by state, but of course they were all still pretty primitive when it came to policing and forensics. The coroner in New Orleans didn't even do autopsies.
The author mentions a famous type of Louisiana sandwhich and how it originated. Looked it up and it does look absolutely delicious.
After the first actual murder by the axe man [not in the book but in the time line of crimes. Like other authors she starts off with a later murder but then goes back to the very beginning.] she begins to talk about the Mafia in New Orleans and how it came to be and where it originated from.
After this the author goes back to the investigation of course and after a couple more attacks and the murder of a couple city of New orleans not only got angry at the police department for failing to catch the guy but many Italians especially grocers began to sit at their door all night with a gun in hand, just waiting for the axeman to come in. Search parties were also formed and finally the police did what I would of done; patrol the areas favored by the killer.
From descriptions of the axeman he was wearing a "workingman's shirt." and I am going "why didn't they look into that?" That would of been something else I would of done. Looked into those jobs and I would of also looked at those with a history of burglary. The author at one point suspects that the axeman was in prison for several years which would explain his long cooling off period. I would agree.
The book then moves on to two men totally railroaded. I suspect the author is very aware of the satanic panic/child day care panic or at least read all the evidence debunking the manipulative tactics that were used and the horrible mentality of everyone involved except the accused and their defense team of course.
Of course railroading tactics are gonna be identical. Very much like pseudo science and denialism.
It all looks the same. The same tactics, so of course it also looks very similar to other cases where an accused was falsely accused and convicted.
The author stated that the entire case pretty much boiled down to the testimony of a victim who CLEARLY was unreliable.
It reminded me of a quote by a reporter during the moral panic of the 1980s I mentioned above.
The children were coerced into fabricating stories of sexual abuse. Adults in therapy were also brainwashed and manipulated into believing they were in satanic cults. The cases had ZERO evidence and we are talking about 3 - 6 year old children who claimed the accused stuck knives and swords into their sex orifices. Not a SHRED of evidence to support that and the kids were clearly coerced. One little girl said she was asked if she was abused 100 times by her mother [constantly badgered] and the unqualified therapist kept asking her and finally said "We don't want to hear anyone 'No's." and the girl yelled at her "NO! NO! NO!" Another kid was physically assaulted by a cop and told to tell. In another case a father said "it was more of them TELLING HIM WHAT HAPPENED." while he watched and listened and of course he didn't believe his son was abused.
Parents of the accusing children who believed it all would argue "children couldn't make this up." and of course we know that the sex acts that were described all came from the police, their parents, and therapist. "did he put his penis into your mouth?" and the child would say "yeah, he did." Which is known as LEADING THE WITNESS. Also known as putting words into someone's mouth. My immediate response to those parents is "They didn't say that. YOU SAID THAT!" We saw the same thing with many false confessions. Including Henry Lee Lucas the "serial confessor" where he would confess to a murder. He's go "I shot her" and the cop would say "no, that aint right" and Henry would go "Alright...I must of stabbed her." and the cop would say "That aint right either." so he'd go "I strangled her. I choked her to death." and the cop would go "she was strangled. That's right." and charge him with that murder. Henry didn't say he strangled her, YOU DID!
How would you react if you were constantly badgered day in and day out for MONTHS and YEARS and told "tell me what they did to you!" Imagine if your mother grabbed you by the shirt and she shook you and demanded "tell me what they did?!" Wouldn't you confess? One child said he told him self "Just say this to get them off your back." and made his false confessions. One little girl was told she couldn't have dessert until she confessed. In so many cases these children began crying from the constant nonstop badgering! How is that not child abuse?!
Many people were falsely convicted 100% on the word of manipulated children. Not only no physical evidence but zero eyewitnesses. They committed these crimes supposedly in the open. One said they were flown on a space ship/air ballon/plane and taken to palm springers. Not only that but the day care had huge windows and was in front of a busy highway with cars passing constantly. Another said they were taken out on a boat and threatened with sharks in the water and this was in a public lake which was heavily populated and was NOT shark infested. The kid who testified about the sharks said a friend of the accused "invented" a shark catching machine. Not a single eyewitness and of course no spaceships and no shark catching machine. Not a single shred of corroboration. Oh and the kids confessed that they lied and made it all up once they were adults. One kid said he would sit in his bed at night and just think about what other crazy insane claims he could make to "shock" the court. The only children that claimed it was "true" were the kids who went through "therapy" where it was reinforced through countless therapy sessions and went through sessions of hypnosis which has been widely debunked. The fact that adults can go through hypnosis and come out believing they were raped by aliens on a UFO or had a "past life" experience of being a famous historical figure instead of some peasant should cast serious doubt enough. The panic was 100% total and complete NONSENSE in every sense of the word. Prosectorial misconduct, junk science, obscene tactics that violate the bill of rights such as an obscene amount of charges to force the accused to plead guilty, setting an obscene amount of bail, like $10,000 for bail. Even a second judge saw this and was like "that is unfair. I'll set $1,000." threatening to arrest and prosecutor witnesses...and yet there are still idiots who believe it to this day and the prosecutors and therapist refuse to admit they did anything wrong and or give pathetic half apologies like "maybe we could of done things differently" Instead of "Yes, we absolutely screwed up." Or "this was in the 80s" despite the overwhelming evidence that standards for such cases were ALREADY in place at the time and they utterly rejected well established standards. Very much like the UVA rape scandal, where Rolling Stone utterly rejected basic journalistic practices and published a false rape story. Experts said that if basic standards and ethics had been followed the whole scandal would of never ever of happened. Same thing with the satanic/day care panic of the 80s. They totally lacked integrity and ethics.
Back to the quote and the reporter. The reporter said
"All evidence was based on the victims testimony which reinforces prosecutor's statements that a child's testimony can convict."
In the "shark" case one of the ONLY THREE RATIONAL members of the jury argued with the rest of the jury. In an interview he said
"It all sounded like something a two or three year old youngin and some dumb parents would dream up. 'you heard what the youngins said and I believe the youngins.' I told them 'you aint proved a thing to me.' I said 'you've got to have - I said your messing with a man's life. You've got to have some proof! But still the same way. Same way."
A lawyer in the "shark" case said "You have people testifying and you know that a large portion of what they say is absolutely impossible. That it can not be true. Then you have a jury that has shown that they are willing to accept a small part of what they say [confirmation bias] and reject the rest and convict someone."
Of course the verdict was overturned. 98% of all the 'satanic panic/day care panic" cases got overturned and the accused were declared innocent.
Back to the axeman case.
The women who was axed and accused the 2 men...she accused her husband of swinging the axe.
She then said he didn't do it. Then she claims she did not know who did it and like mental patients who were coerced into claiming they were in a satanic cult she was also high on drugs which made her very suggestable. Her doctor asked her if she knew who did it and she told him she didn't.
Her doctor who examined her and took care of her every single day for 2 weeks said you can't believe a word out of her mouth. She was unreliable. In one instance the couple were asked several questions by reporters and it became clear to the reporters that they could of asked them if they were aliens from outer space and they would of said "yes." In fact they asked these Italian immigrants if they were french and they said yes. Later she was coerced by police.
Her story about what happened made no sense what so ever and was contradictory and implauseable. She claimed first that her baby was hit first and then they "gave me two licks."
Later when the defense made her tell the story all over again she said she was hit in the head first which caused her to drop the baby. She said the accused swung the axe with both hands and when she was hit first [instead of second as she originally stated.] she dropped her baby and the accused somehow grabbed the baby at the same exact time he was swinging the axe with both hands. The whole story was completely incoherent and contradictory and made no sense. The author didn't mention the contradiction of being hit first or second but it was clear to me that she contradicted her self.
The most disturbing part of her testimony was when the defense asked her if she realized/appreciated the serious ramifications of her testimony. That her testimony if believed would lead to the two men being sentenced to death and hanged. The defense lawyer had to ask her this question a total of THREE TIMES because she didn't "understand the question."
The author also points out that the wonderful human right of "assumed innocent until proven guilty." or "presumption of innocence." which has always been challenged and still challenged to day was basically swept aside like so many cases. Why should 1919 be any different? Hell, why should 1985, 1987, 1989, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, or 2019 be any different?!
These men were 100% railroaded.
After this part of the story the author mentions 3 or 4 attacks and murders that are very similar to the axeman. The only real difference is that the axeman liked to chip out door panels, all of these cases she found had the killer crawling through windows, but the axeman had used windows before.
At this point, basically the end of the book it becomes a bit disappointing.
Some people criticize Davis for talking about Joseph Mumfre and the mafia, and other crimes during the time. This criticism makes zero sense to me. Mumfre was widely misidentified and forever tied to the axeman of New Orleans. She had to talk about him and debunk that. She also had to talk about the mafia because of it's historical ties to the case and the theory that it wasn't some lone killer who wanted to see blood, but that it was killings done by the mafia. Also, true crime specially those that take place during such time periods must involve the historical aspects around them. That's one of the great things about true crime, especially true crime that takes place during a specific period.
I think the book started off strong but how it ended was disappointing and I can totally understand why he was never caught. All the people who were originally on the case from the very beginning died and they were not equipped to deal with him. Plus the police force in New Orleans and in the state over all were incompetent and small.
Over all not a great book, but also not a bad one either.
Better then decent.
October 5, 2017
I was hoping this would be a page turner and have me on the edge of my seat. Ms. Davis is an academic and that shows in this book. It tends to come across a bit dry. Added to the fact that she leaves us without a finger to point at a real perpetrator, I could only give give it 3 stars. It is obvious that the book was well researched. Definitely worth a read if you are fan of unsolved murders and/or the history of New Orleans.
December 21, 2019
As far as true crimes book goes, I didn't really like this one. The story jumps from one thing to the next. I had never heard of The Axeman, so appreciated the historical detail that added context to the crimes. But some of those details were irrelevant or cluttered the narrative.
TL;DR The historical aspect is good, the storytelling not so much
TL;DR The historical aspect is good, the storytelling not so much
October 5, 2017
Well-researched and well-written book about a serial killer in New Orleans in the early 1900s.
October 3, 2017
Well researched.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 127 reviews