What do you think?
Rate this book
Rex v Edith Thompson
On 3 October 1922, as Thompson and her husband Percy were walking home from the theatre, a man sprang out of the bushes and stabbed Percy to death. The assailant was Bywaters. Believing herself to be a witness, rather than an accomplice, Edith gave the police details of her association with Bywaters, then found herself arrested as his accomplice. Her love letters to Bywaters, read out at the ensuing trial, sealed Edith's fate. She and Bywaters were hanged for the murder in January 1923.
But was Edith really guilty? And what role did the contemporary media play in her conviction? Laura Thompson investigates what a disturbing case tells us about perceptions of women in early twentieth-century Britain.
Paperback
First published March 1, 2018
51 people are currently reading
604 people want to read
About the author
Laura Thompson
92 books183 followersPlease note: Laura Thompson's account is mistakenly merged with another author's account by the same name. Goodreads Librarians are working to solve the issue.
Laura Thompson writes about life - and is unapologetic in what she captures. She is a sexual assault survivor, has navigated near death traumas with her daughters' medical issues, and possesses the ability to capture what is true, honest, and worthy.
True to form, her writing will resonate powerfully with other survivors and with anyone who knows a survivor - because she embodies the word.
Thompson has worked in nonprofit administration for seven years. She and her husband, Edward, have three children: identical twin daughters, Jane and Claire, and son, Stephen. They reside in the Lowcountry of Charleston, SC.
Laura Thompson writes about life - and is unapologetic in what she captures. She is a sexual assault survivor, has navigated near death traumas with her daughters' medical issues, and possesses the ability to capture what is true, honest, and worthy.
True to form, her writing will resonate powerfully with other survivors and with anyone who knows a survivor - because she embodies the word.
Thompson has worked in nonprofit administration for seven years. She and her husband, Edward, have three children: identical twin daughters, Jane and Claire, and son, Stephen. They reside in the Lowcountry of Charleston, SC.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews
September 30, 2019
I normally love true crime books but sadly, this one flowed very underwhelming for me due to the slow pace and not really gripped by the writing style. Set in 1922 following a husband and wife marriage breakdown, the husband is then murdered in the street by a young man. This young man however when identified turns out to be a secret lover to the wife and now a widow after her husband's murder. Was she in the knowledge of the shocking plans to kill her husband? I liked the historical setting but overall, was left more frustrated rather than fulfilled.
October 26, 2021
In January 1923, Edith Thompson, aged 29, and her lover Frederick Bywaters, aged 20, were hanged for the murder of her husband. Bywaters had stabbed Percy Thompson during a scuffle on a street close to the couple’s home in Ilford. The case was front page news for weeks.
Although Edith was present, there was no suggestion that she played a physical part in the killing, and yet she was found guilty of conspiracy: of foreknowledge and incitement. It was Freddy who confronted Edith and Percy as they walked home on the fatal night, and Freddy alone who stabbed Percy to death. Laura Thompson is persuasive in her argument that Edith knew nothing of his plan and that her conviction under the law of common purpose was a miscarriage of justice of the most iniquitous kind.
The actual evidence against Edith Thompson was pretty much non-existent, but it made absolutely no difference. The presumption, from the first, had been that hers was the hand that had metaphorically guided the knife. Almost everybody wanted to think this, and sympathy was almost entirely for Bywaters. As the magistrate at the initial hearing put it: “He was exposed for many months to the malign influence of a clever and unscrupulous woman eight years older.”
The case was always know as The Ilford Murder, as if nobody could quite believe that such a thing could have happened in such a place. Ilford represented not just a suburb but all suburbs, and all that suburbs stood for, which has been undermined and ripped apart by the behaviour of Edith Thompson and her young boyfriend. Ilford was one of several Edwardian London suburbs. It had been a village and was developed alongside a branch of the Great Eastern Railway known as the Fairlop Loop which opened in 1903. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this suburban milieu in pushing the Thompson-Bywaters case to prominence.
Edith Thompson, while regarded as a foolish woman, attracted some sympathy because it was generally considered abhorrent to hang a woman (no woman had been executed in Britain since 1907). However, she paid an extreme penalty for her perceived immorality.
These extraordinary murder cases can, in the hands of a capable author like Laura Thompson, shine such a powerful light on the past. In particular the prevailing social attitudes.
Other examples I have recently read include....
The Wicked Boy: The Mystery of a Victorian Child Murderer by Kate Summerscale
Handsome Brute: The Story of a Ladykiller by Sean O'Connor
A Fine Day for a Hanging: The Real Ruth Ellis Story by Carol Ann Lee
When they are done well, like Rex v Edith Thompson, they are about so much more than a crime. They bring a lost world vividly back to life.
None of the murder case had much to do with truth, but then what is truth? A man had died, justice was required. Edith’s letters to Freddy Bywaters, which formed almost the entirety of the evidence against her, made a narrative that could be followed, as long as one knew what to look for: a countdown to murder. The contents of this cache of love letters, written during their 18-month affair, was the basis of the case for the prosecution. Laura Thompson makes extensive use of these letters to paint a picture of Edith as a proto-modern woman, not highly educated but free-spirited and ambitious.
Perhaps 'Rex v Edith Thompson' by Laura Thompson is a tad repetitive, and too detailed for my level of interest, nevertheless it is still a detailed and insightful look at an era-defining crime.
4/5
Although Edith was present, there was no suggestion that she played a physical part in the killing, and yet she was found guilty of conspiracy: of foreknowledge and incitement. It was Freddy who confronted Edith and Percy as they walked home on the fatal night, and Freddy alone who stabbed Percy to death. Laura Thompson is persuasive in her argument that Edith knew nothing of his plan and that her conviction under the law of common purpose was a miscarriage of justice of the most iniquitous kind.
The actual evidence against Edith Thompson was pretty much non-existent, but it made absolutely no difference. The presumption, from the first, had been that hers was the hand that had metaphorically guided the knife. Almost everybody wanted to think this, and sympathy was almost entirely for Bywaters. As the magistrate at the initial hearing put it: “He was exposed for many months to the malign influence of a clever and unscrupulous woman eight years older.”
The case was always know as The Ilford Murder, as if nobody could quite believe that such a thing could have happened in such a place. Ilford represented not just a suburb but all suburbs, and all that suburbs stood for, which has been undermined and ripped apart by the behaviour of Edith Thompson and her young boyfriend. Ilford was one of several Edwardian London suburbs. It had been a village and was developed alongside a branch of the Great Eastern Railway known as the Fairlop Loop which opened in 1903. It is impossible to overstate the importance of this suburban milieu in pushing the Thompson-Bywaters case to prominence.
Edith Thompson, while regarded as a foolish woman, attracted some sympathy because it was generally considered abhorrent to hang a woman (no woman had been executed in Britain since 1907). However, she paid an extreme penalty for her perceived immorality.
These extraordinary murder cases can, in the hands of a capable author like Laura Thompson, shine such a powerful light on the past. In particular the prevailing social attitudes.
Other examples I have recently read include....
The Wicked Boy: The Mystery of a Victorian Child Murderer by Kate Summerscale
Handsome Brute: The Story of a Ladykiller by Sean O'Connor
A Fine Day for a Hanging: The Real Ruth Ellis Story by Carol Ann Lee
When they are done well, like Rex v Edith Thompson, they are about so much more than a crime. They bring a lost world vividly back to life.
None of the murder case had much to do with truth, but then what is truth? A man had died, justice was required. Edith’s letters to Freddy Bywaters, which formed almost the entirety of the evidence against her, made a narrative that could be followed, as long as one knew what to look for: a countdown to murder. The contents of this cache of love letters, written during their 18-month affair, was the basis of the case for the prosecution. Laura Thompson makes extensive use of these letters to paint a picture of Edith as a proto-modern woman, not highly educated but free-spirited and ambitious.
Perhaps 'Rex v Edith Thompson' by Laura Thompson is a tad repetitive, and too detailed for my level of interest, nevertheless it is still a detailed and insightful look at an era-defining crime.
4/5
May 4, 2018
This historical true crime book looks at, what was termed, ‘the Ilford Murder.’ On the 3rd October, 1922, Edith Thompson and her husband, Percy, were walking home from the station. They had been to the theatre and were strolling through the suburban streets, when Edith’s young lover, Freddy Bywaters, a twenty year old seaman, stabbed him to death. Despite the fact that Edith did not physically kill her husband, she was arrested as an accomplice. The name, ‘the Ilford Murder,’ referred to the fact that Ilford was an unlikely place for a murder and it was the place, as well as the event, which caused such shock.
I recently read the story of Ruth Ellis, and both women shared common traits which, despite the fact that women were far less likely to be hung than men, led to them facing the death penalty. Both were overtly sexual, both took lovers and were accused of immorality, and they lacked sympathy from much of the public – particularly from a proportion of the female population. In this book, Laura Thompson makes an interesting case as to why Edith Thompson was viewed with such public disfavour. However, I would ultimately have liked her to have told the story of this case more simply – there was, especially at the beginning of the book, an awful lot of speculation about what people thought about Edith, rather than a recounting of the facts.
That said, this was still a fascinating account of a crime which gripped the nation at the time. Ilford was, at the time, suburbia. It was a place the working class aspired to move to; where people kept their net curtains white, polished their steps and kept their gardens neat and tidy. It was not considered a place of deep passions and exciting events. Without doubt, though, Edith Thompson did not fit into the area, or the era, she was born into. She should have been happy with marriage and a neat house in the suburbs, but she defied her class and gender roles. She preferred work to staying home and keeping house. She had sex appeal and enjoyed flirting with men. She wrote letters which were full of passionate love and emotion; but not addressed to her husband, rather to her lover, Freddy Bywater, a man eight years younger than her.
Before becoming involved with Freddy, it was Edith’s sister, Avis, who was interested in him. The young, rather louche looking man, who also defied class expectations to exude masculine good looks and sexuality, was a friend of Percy. A former lodger with the Thompson’s and a young man who society felt was influenced by his older, more experienced lover. Ultimately, after Percy’s murder, it was Edith’s passionate and personal letters, twenty seven of which were used in her trial, to show her involvement in her husband’s death, which saw her sentenced alongside her lover. More than that, it was her words which saw her judged, not just by the law, but by the public.
This is an interesting account, both of the crime, and the era in which it happened. Edith was attacked by press and public. Rebecca West called her, “a shocking piece of rubbish,” and much of public opinion agreed. She was undoubtedly partly judged, not just for the crime, but for her sex and class. However, Thompson sometimes steers this book into judgemental areas too, giving us her opinion consistently, rather than letting us draw out own opinions from the evidence. Still, a sobering account of how Edith was judged, which should serve as a warning as to how women still face public condemnation - aimed at them if they step ‘out of line,’ and do not conform to society’s expectations.
I recently read the story of Ruth Ellis, and both women shared common traits which, despite the fact that women were far less likely to be hung than men, led to them facing the death penalty. Both were overtly sexual, both took lovers and were accused of immorality, and they lacked sympathy from much of the public – particularly from a proportion of the female population. In this book, Laura Thompson makes an interesting case as to why Edith Thompson was viewed with such public disfavour. However, I would ultimately have liked her to have told the story of this case more simply – there was, especially at the beginning of the book, an awful lot of speculation about what people thought about Edith, rather than a recounting of the facts.
That said, this was still a fascinating account of a crime which gripped the nation at the time. Ilford was, at the time, suburbia. It was a place the working class aspired to move to; where people kept their net curtains white, polished their steps and kept their gardens neat and tidy. It was not considered a place of deep passions and exciting events. Without doubt, though, Edith Thompson did not fit into the area, or the era, she was born into. She should have been happy with marriage and a neat house in the suburbs, but she defied her class and gender roles. She preferred work to staying home and keeping house. She had sex appeal and enjoyed flirting with men. She wrote letters which were full of passionate love and emotion; but not addressed to her husband, rather to her lover, Freddy Bywater, a man eight years younger than her.
Before becoming involved with Freddy, it was Edith’s sister, Avis, who was interested in him. The young, rather louche looking man, who also defied class expectations to exude masculine good looks and sexuality, was a friend of Percy. A former lodger with the Thompson’s and a young man who society felt was influenced by his older, more experienced lover. Ultimately, after Percy’s murder, it was Edith’s passionate and personal letters, twenty seven of which were used in her trial, to show her involvement in her husband’s death, which saw her sentenced alongside her lover. More than that, it was her words which saw her judged, not just by the law, but by the public.
This is an interesting account, both of the crime, and the era in which it happened. Edith was attacked by press and public. Rebecca West called her, “a shocking piece of rubbish,” and much of public opinion agreed. She was undoubtedly partly judged, not just for the crime, but for her sex and class. However, Thompson sometimes steers this book into judgemental areas too, giving us her opinion consistently, rather than letting us draw out own opinions from the evidence. Still, a sobering account of how Edith was judged, which should serve as a warning as to how women still face public condemnation - aimed at them if they step ‘out of line,’ and do not conform to society’s expectations.
June 27, 2019
I greatly enjoyed Laura Thompson's imaginative retelling of the lives of the Mitford sisters; I hadn't thought there was anything new to say about them, but she pulled it off. So I looked forward to this account of the Thompson-Bywaters case, expecting the same. Alas, this was overwrought and repetitive and insights were buried in platitudes. This was far too long and self-indulgent; perhaps Thompson was channeling her isonymous subject?
February 1, 2019
3.5 stars, really. The biographer weaves a bit of magic, but starts from lots of assumptions - that we know this case, weird rumors about it, and the history of the death penalty in England, and worst of all, offers ALL THE SPECULATION you could imagine. She suggests what is going on in everyone’s head constantly and includes all sorts of speculation by others as well. There’s a bit of folding back and forth through time that can get quite confusing, especially combined with the constant assumption that you know a lot about this already. The title is also very off, as it inclines the reader to expect more than the scant chapter at the end an a few paragraphs at the beginning that will address the death penalty as “judicial murder.”
It’s a fascinating story but frankly I wasn’t sure how many of the author’s assertions I should believe. That’s too bad, as her access to files that had been sealed for nearly 100 years ought to have made this a more reliable account rather than a sensationalistic tale including all sorts of odd assumptions.
It’s a fascinating story but frankly I wasn’t sure how many of the author’s assertions I should believe. That’s too bad, as her access to files that had been sealed for nearly 100 years ought to have made this a more reliable account rather than a sensationalistic tale including all sorts of odd assumptions.
October 23, 2018
Note: I received an eARC of this book from NetGalley, the publisher, and the author in exchange for an honest review.
I love true crime, and I was initially very excited about this title. It has a pretty cover, it involves true crime (set in the 1920s, which is always an interesting decade), promises a discussion of morality (should we have the death penalty?), and aims to suggest an otherwise innocent woman was compelled by a man (thus getting into some gender issues!). This all sounds really exciting. But then I started reading and everything became rather glum.
To begin, the writing throughout is tedious. First and foremost, the author tends to over-write, meaning that Thompson tends to use 10 pages to say something that could have been summarized in 2-3 sentences. Arguably, some of the things that she spent time explaining were not necessary. The first pages discuss the 1920s and how women struggled in these times: they weren't supposed to have jobs, and if they did the jobs sucked, they had to get married, contraception was bad, abortions were illegal (then legal, then illegal), you had to host parties, make dinner, there were all kinds of societal pressures... okay. This would be good information if (1) it was drastically paired down and (2) was really relevant to the case itself--which you don't hear about in any detail for some time because you're busy learning that for a long time States didn't want to execute women (because, women are fragile) but if you committed a crime they stripped you of your sexuality so you were really just a body...and you can hang any body you want.
Another issue with the writing was how droll it became, and I argue it became boring rather rapidly. I feel like the author was reading a lot of source material and ended up writing in the same style as those sources--so you end up with some awkward phrases that sound like they were written in the 1920s by a Victorian individual with a monocle. It just reads 'funny' throughout and is far too wordy when it does not need to be.
The focus of the story is Edith Thompson, who wants to divorce her husband. She's carrying on an affair with Freddy Bywaters (Eddie and Freddie, that would be a cute!)--documented in love letters--and the pair decides that if Edith cannot leave the marriage perhaps killing her husband will provide an answer. The letters are actually the only thing that link Edith to the crime, so perhaps she didn't know Freddy was going to kill her husband, Percy. But she definitely wanted Percy dead so she could carry on with Freddy, thus she gets arrested and faces trial for murder as well. There is a media circus and eventually both are sentenced to be executed. (There were two murders, see. Percy was murdered. But then Edith was murdered...because according to Thompson maybe she was innocent?).
The overarching theme of the book may be: Was Edith innocent? How do we feel about capital punishment if we're not 100% sure if someone is guilty of a crime?
Unfortunately, getting through this book is nearly impossible because of the sluggish writing. I'm all for research and source material, but it shouldn't weigh your subject down. A Kirkus review (which in part inspired me to request this book for review) suggests the book is "An exhaustive look into the passionate love affair that led to one of the most infamous murders in 1920s England." The book is indeed exhausting and the crime is indeed well-known, which means you should consider looking elsewhere for researching this case. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the Wikipedia page is easier to read through than this book.
This is all just my honest opinion though. If you're set on researching this case--pick this book up and give it a go!
I love true crime, and I was initially very excited about this title. It has a pretty cover, it involves true crime (set in the 1920s, which is always an interesting decade), promises a discussion of morality (should we have the death penalty?), and aims to suggest an otherwise innocent woman was compelled by a man (thus getting into some gender issues!). This all sounds really exciting. But then I started reading and everything became rather glum.
To begin, the writing throughout is tedious. First and foremost, the author tends to over-write, meaning that Thompson tends to use 10 pages to say something that could have been summarized in 2-3 sentences. Arguably, some of the things that she spent time explaining were not necessary. The first pages discuss the 1920s and how women struggled in these times: they weren't supposed to have jobs, and if they did the jobs sucked, they had to get married, contraception was bad, abortions were illegal (then legal, then illegal), you had to host parties, make dinner, there were all kinds of societal pressures... okay. This would be good information if (1) it was drastically paired down and (2) was really relevant to the case itself--which you don't hear about in any detail for some time because you're busy learning that for a long time States didn't want to execute women (because, women are fragile) but if you committed a crime they stripped you of your sexuality so you were really just a body...and you can hang any body you want.
Another issue with the writing was how droll it became, and I argue it became boring rather rapidly. I feel like the author was reading a lot of source material and ended up writing in the same style as those sources--so you end up with some awkward phrases that sound like they were written in the 1920s by a Victorian individual with a monocle. It just reads 'funny' throughout and is far too wordy when it does not need to be.
The focus of the story is Edith Thompson, who wants to divorce her husband. She's carrying on an affair with Freddy Bywaters (Eddie and Freddie, that would be a cute!)--documented in love letters--and the pair decides that if Edith cannot leave the marriage perhaps killing her husband will provide an answer. The letters are actually the only thing that link Edith to the crime, so perhaps she didn't know Freddy was going to kill her husband, Percy. But she definitely wanted Percy dead so she could carry on with Freddy, thus she gets arrested and faces trial for murder as well. There is a media circus and eventually both are sentenced to be executed. (There were two murders, see. Percy was murdered. But then Edith was murdered...because according to Thompson maybe she was innocent?).
The overarching theme of the book may be: Was Edith innocent? How do we feel about capital punishment if we're not 100% sure if someone is guilty of a crime?
Unfortunately, getting through this book is nearly impossible because of the sluggish writing. I'm all for research and source material, but it shouldn't weigh your subject down. A Kirkus review (which in part inspired me to request this book for review) suggests the book is "An exhaustive look into the passionate love affair that led to one of the most infamous murders in 1920s England." The book is indeed exhausting and the crime is indeed well-known, which means you should consider looking elsewhere for researching this case. I'm not trying to be harsh, but the Wikipedia page is easier to read through than this book.
This is all just my honest opinion though. If you're set on researching this case--pick this book up and give it a go!
April 25, 2019
I was given this as a gift, having placed it on my wish-list on recommendation of the CWA, and having seen a TV documentary about the real-life case at the centre of this. I was glad I did so, and glad I read it, despite the three-star rating. This reflects my mixed feelings about it.
Firstly speaking, it was a very interesting story and the author takes a very bold approach. Well-researched, often beautifully quirky in written style, and placed in a really interesting historical context. Objectively I can see why this has been critically acclaimed, and I understand how strongly the author feels about the suggested miscarriage of justice at the centre of this paradigm of early 20th Century legal history - Edith Thompson sentenced to death for her involvement in the death of her husband - who was stabbed by her younger (and possibly 'in thrall') lover Freddie Bywater.
But ultimately, it didn't fully convince me. It didn't completely work for me. It didn't leave me satisfied. The main reason for this is the attempt to say something very important about feminism in the 1920s, and the perceived unfairness of Edith Thompson's hanging. This is not to say there isn't merit in this - it's just that the way the author went about putting across this argument didn't win me over completely.
The author takes a very long time, and goes in to a lot of detail, writing about a great deal. Much of this is pertinent, much is relevant but of very little factual basis, and much is pretty tangential. There is a lot of quotation of letters the accused woman wrote to her lover, the inclusion of which goes long past the point at which it adds anything - anything to establishing her character or the nature of her relationship with her husband and her lover. It just screamed of the author saying "I have done my research and I'll damn well include it all!" to me.
Overall, however, I wasn't convinced of Edith Thompson's innocence (just as the jury who found her guilty at the time). It's hard to prove unequivocally that the frustrated sentiments expressed in her letters are genuine, no-one can really say what was reality and what was imaginary, and many people (me included) have exaggerated, omitted, lied and fantasised in love letters. As a consequence there is a lot of supposition based on a lot of information of dubious nature, where I wanted forensic non-fiction. It wouldn't be enough to convict her had this happened a century later, but it wasn't enough to make me sure she was innocent either.
I couldn't help feeling the cultural and feminist discussion was a bit moot (and of no practical benefit almost 100 years since she and her lover both were hanged). Yes, she may have been a quirky woman trapped in a dull, loveless marriage and it is sad that there were many women similarly living unhappy. However, to my knowledge most of these women did not commit adultery, and almost all of them refrained from getting (directly or indirectly) their husband stabbed to death by their lover. For all the lovely romantic passion at the centre of this sad love triangle where all three members were killer, there is sadly no right to get what you want, and I understand why punishment was metered out - and why in that day and age, with the public perception as it was, this was the death sentence.
Firstly speaking, it was a very interesting story and the author takes a very bold approach. Well-researched, often beautifully quirky in written style, and placed in a really interesting historical context. Objectively I can see why this has been critically acclaimed, and I understand how strongly the author feels about the suggested miscarriage of justice at the centre of this paradigm of early 20th Century legal history - Edith Thompson sentenced to death for her involvement in the death of her husband - who was stabbed by her younger (and possibly 'in thrall') lover Freddie Bywater.
But ultimately, it didn't fully convince me. It didn't completely work for me. It didn't leave me satisfied. The main reason for this is the attempt to say something very important about feminism in the 1920s, and the perceived unfairness of Edith Thompson's hanging. This is not to say there isn't merit in this - it's just that the way the author went about putting across this argument didn't win me over completely.
The author takes a very long time, and goes in to a lot of detail, writing about a great deal. Much of this is pertinent, much is relevant but of very little factual basis, and much is pretty tangential. There is a lot of quotation of letters the accused woman wrote to her lover, the inclusion of which goes long past the point at which it adds anything - anything to establishing her character or the nature of her relationship with her husband and her lover. It just screamed of the author saying "I have done my research and I'll damn well include it all!" to me.
Overall, however, I wasn't convinced of Edith Thompson's innocence (just as the jury who found her guilty at the time). It's hard to prove unequivocally that the frustrated sentiments expressed in her letters are genuine, no-one can really say what was reality and what was imaginary, and many people (me included) have exaggerated, omitted, lied and fantasised in love letters. As a consequence there is a lot of supposition based on a lot of information of dubious nature, where I wanted forensic non-fiction. It wouldn't be enough to convict her had this happened a century later, but it wasn't enough to make me sure she was innocent either.
I couldn't help feeling the cultural and feminist discussion was a bit moot (and of no practical benefit almost 100 years since she and her lover both were hanged). Yes, she may have been a quirky woman trapped in a dull, loveless marriage and it is sad that there were many women similarly living unhappy. However, to my knowledge most of these women did not commit adultery, and almost all of them refrained from getting (directly or indirectly) their husband stabbed to death by their lover. For all the lovely romantic passion at the centre of this sad love triangle where all three members were killer, there is sadly no right to get what you want, and I understand why punishment was metered out - and why in that day and age, with the public perception as it was, this was the death sentence.
April 8, 2020
In the early 1920s the British authorities hung Edith Thompson and her lover Frederick Bywaters. Bywaters had stabbed to death Edith's husband but Edith was found guilty as well. This book explores the lives of the trio, the crime and the societal misogyny that led a woman to the gallows. It's interesting to see how far women's lib developed between the wars but how much prejudice still survived. Edith wanted to be free but was restrained by society and the laws that still went against women.
June 26, 2022
Overall: ☆☆(2.0)
Writing style: ☆☆
Entertainment :☆☆
Ending:☆☆
This book was the epitome of beating a dead horse. The same topics were covered over and over. There wasn't much delving into those involved, thus leaving it feeling very shallow. The main topic was the letters. Which were discussed over and over. Overall, very boring and took a long time to get through.
Writing style: ☆☆
Entertainment :☆☆
Ending:☆☆
This book was the epitome of beating a dead horse. The same topics were covered over and over. There wasn't much delving into those involved, thus leaving it feeling very shallow. The main topic was the letters. Which were discussed over and over. Overall, very boring and took a long time to get through.
February 12, 2019
O.k. If I'd wanted a read on class war, politics or feminism this wouldn't have been a bad read. But I wanted to read about Edith her lover, her husband and the crime committed and the trial and it's aftermath.Sadly Ms Thompson spent so many chapters discussing the social situation in Britain I lost the will to live. Don't often give up on a book but had to ditch this one.
September 12, 2022
I loved this book. Though it was often flawed and repetitive, it came alive and resonated for me. I felt the utter tragedy of it all, though I realize many other readers were not so impressed. This, the story of Edith Thompson and Freddy Bywaters, star-crossed lovers from lower middle-class suburban England who were convicted and hung for the death of Thompson's husband Percy, was a huge scandal and cause celebre when it occurred in 1922. Author Laura Thompson has painstakingly researched the case, though her writing style has been criticized for being too poetic, convoluted and over the top. Indeed, many people who commented on this book said it was also old news to them. Well, duh, not to me. Though the story is hardly as iconic- if one wishes to use that cliched word- as the saga of OJ Simpson or other recent tales of murder and mayhem, it caused quite a stir in the early post WWI years in Great Britain. Thousands stood outside the prison on the day of Thompson's hanging and no-one needed cell phones or the Internet to inflame them into outrage.
Edith Thompson, to my surprise, was gainfully and successfully employed in her short lifetime and actually made more money than her husband. She was also the co-owner of their home in the slightly dreary, very conventional suburb of Ilford, London. She was only 28, but in the so-called early Roaring Twenties, especially in Ilford, 28 was probably like 48 would be today. Today Edith would be Botoxed and whippet thin, on Instagram and Tinder, and probably represented by the loathsome Marie Heinen or some other awful insincere lawyer-Gloria Allred comes to mind- but then, well then, she was for much of her married life anyway, a tragedy waiting to happen. Or as the Brits used to say, Edith was for the high jump. All because--though she was surrounded by a loving family and a bit of genteel affluence --Edith Thompson was a passionate and charismatic romantic and obviously unhappy in her dull, stifling marriage. She was also, for her sins,an obsessive inveterate letter-writer who spilled copious amounts of ink to a handsome young neighbour who served on merchant ships as a steward for months at a time and for whom she had conceived a reciprocal tormented passion. Though she couldn't seem to decide whether to leave her marriage or not, it is possible that Edith may have tried to kill Percy before his death by putting ground glass or some kind of poison into his food. This was never satisfactorily proven by autopsy. In general her many letters to Bywaters were filled with pain, but maddeningly unclear in their meaning.
The upshot of all this was that shortly after Thompson's husband was attacked and killed by Bywaters in what appears to be a crime of passion, the many letters she had written to him were discovered and she was charged with inciting him to murder. Though there wasn't really much evidence against her and, as the author shows us, her case probably wouldn't even come to court today-though she certainly would have been villified and slut-shamed on social media for her folly- Thompson was charged, publicly humiliated at her trial and within three months, walked to her death in chains before she suffered death by hanging for her sins.
It is true that this book is over-written and repetitive. I can certainly understand why many readers found the treatment of the case to be tedious but for me, despite this, I was filled at the sense of horror and tragedy surrounding the case. Bywaters was only 20 when he went to the gallows--Thompson offended the British public because she wasn't just a brazen adulteress but an adulteress who seduced a handsome younger man, someone who should have been doing the Charleston with a girl his own age not some older hussy. At least those were the thoughts of the many of the prurient public and the dozens of legal officials, all men who- lol -probably had NEVER looked at a younger woman with lust in their hearts. Oh well.
What the author tried to show us, I think, was the horror of seeing someone tried and executed for doing something other people secretly were envious of, while everyone pretended to be shocked and appalled. And sadly, despite what I said earlier, the fact that things really haven't changed that much in the court of public opinion and in the secret juries of people's hearts.
Edith Thompson, to my surprise, was gainfully and successfully employed in her short lifetime and actually made more money than her husband. She was also the co-owner of their home in the slightly dreary, very conventional suburb of Ilford, London. She was only 28, but in the so-called early Roaring Twenties, especially in Ilford, 28 was probably like 48 would be today. Today Edith would be Botoxed and whippet thin, on Instagram and Tinder, and probably represented by the loathsome Marie Heinen or some other awful insincere lawyer-Gloria Allred comes to mind- but then, well then, she was for much of her married life anyway, a tragedy waiting to happen. Or as the Brits used to say, Edith was for the high jump. All because--though she was surrounded by a loving family and a bit of genteel affluence --Edith Thompson was a passionate and charismatic romantic and obviously unhappy in her dull, stifling marriage. She was also, for her sins,an obsessive inveterate letter-writer who spilled copious amounts of ink to a handsome young neighbour who served on merchant ships as a steward for months at a time and for whom she had conceived a reciprocal tormented passion. Though she couldn't seem to decide whether to leave her marriage or not, it is possible that Edith may have tried to kill Percy before his death by putting ground glass or some kind of poison into his food. This was never satisfactorily proven by autopsy. In general her many letters to Bywaters were filled with pain, but maddeningly unclear in their meaning.
The upshot of all this was that shortly after Thompson's husband was attacked and killed by Bywaters in what appears to be a crime of passion, the many letters she had written to him were discovered and she was charged with inciting him to murder. Though there wasn't really much evidence against her and, as the author shows us, her case probably wouldn't even come to court today-though she certainly would have been villified and slut-shamed on social media for her folly- Thompson was charged, publicly humiliated at her trial and within three months, walked to her death in chains before she suffered death by hanging for her sins.
It is true that this book is over-written and repetitive. I can certainly understand why many readers found the treatment of the case to be tedious but for me, despite this, I was filled at the sense of horror and tragedy surrounding the case. Bywaters was only 20 when he went to the gallows--Thompson offended the British public because she wasn't just a brazen adulteress but an adulteress who seduced a handsome younger man, someone who should have been doing the Charleston with a girl his own age not some older hussy. At least those were the thoughts of the many of the prurient public and the dozens of legal officials, all men who- lol -probably had NEVER looked at a younger woman with lust in their hearts. Oh well.
What the author tried to show us, I think, was the horror of seeing someone tried and executed for doing something other people secretly were envious of, while everyone pretended to be shocked and appalled. And sadly, despite what I said earlier, the fact that things really haven't changed that much in the court of public opinion and in the secret juries of people's hearts.
September 16, 2022
I’m not quite sure when I first heard about Edith Thompson. Given how much Christie, etc., I’ve read, it was probably a while ago though (this book even uses quotes from Christie and others that reference the case). I’ve watched Another Life, I have A Pin to See the Peepshow and Messalina of the Suburbs to read. There’s just something fascinating about this case, so when I heard about this book I knew had to read it.
This was really well done. I wish it was a bit more linear of a recounting, but the information is so well presented and the sources are used really well. (I can see why Laura Thompson’s new book is an edited compilation of the letters!) There’s so much detail here. You really get a feel for Edith and Freddy (though he less so). Highly recommend this if you like true crime and/or history.
This was really well done. I wish it was a bit more linear of a recounting, but the information is so well presented and the sources are used really well. (I can see why Laura Thompson’s new book is an edited compilation of the letters!) There’s so much detail here. You really get a feel for Edith and Freddy (though he less so). Highly recommend this if you like true crime and/or history.
May 18, 2021
I’ve been interested in the Thompson Bywater murder case since reading A Pin to See the Peepshow, the excellent fictional version of the story when it was first published by Virago. Laura Thompson’s book, as well as making a strong case for Edith Thompson’s innocence, uses the public and newspaper attitudes to the case as an insight into the social history of England in the 1920s and, in particular, changing attitudes to women. She has the advantage of access to Edith Thompson’s letters and other documents only recently made public.
She makes a strong case that vital ‘evidence ‘ was twisted and misused in the trial and shows up the bias of the judge. My only reservation is that the non-chronological structure leads to repetition and the book is therefore too long.
She makes a strong case that vital ‘evidence ‘ was twisted and misused in the trial and shows up the bias of the judge. My only reservation is that the non-chronological structure leads to repetition and the book is therefore too long.
September 6, 2020
Reading this book I found myself thinking it's a shame Edith Thompson didn't turn her hand to novel writing, I think she would've done quite well. What a delight to receive letters with such a wealth of description (though do men really want to know about a woman's menstrual cycle, even in the case of potential pregnancy?) While I can't help but wonder about Freddy Bywater's motives for keeping the letters--was it sentimental? Security should he need to turn to blackmail? Actual love? Stupidity or a cocksure certainty/arrogance that he wouldn't be caught? We'll never know and while they were never meant to be read by such a large audience, they are fascinating. I also never realized how many books (of the time period) that I've read that have mentioned or referred back to this case in passing.
Sometimes I found the author a little redundant when trying to press a point home, always circling back to it but rather than giving the reader something new to chew on she instead beat upon the same point. Style wise this read more like a historical novel than a nonfiction containing cold hard facts about a case. Not sure if I would count that as a plus or minus but I would've liked more facts.
I do agree that, in Edith's case, what seemed to be on trial was her sexual propriety (or lack there of), the fact that she was the breadwinner (in a time when women were expected to keep house once married, perhaps with more emphasis on this in post WWI years), that she was an older woman with a younger man for her lover, her childlessness, and her damning, fanciful letters. To have had such an partial judge, who seemed to be steeped in Victorian morals didn't help either. Sadly she went against the conventions of the time and paid the highest price for it.
I will definitely look into reading other books that were mentioned within this one and books that I've since found relating to the case. (As though I need to add more books to my to-reads list).
Sometimes I found the author a little redundant when trying to press a point home, always circling back to it but rather than giving the reader something new to chew on she instead beat upon the same point. Style wise this read more like a historical novel than a nonfiction containing cold hard facts about a case. Not sure if I would count that as a plus or minus but I would've liked more facts.
I do agree that, in Edith's case, what seemed to be on trial was her sexual propriety (or lack there of), the fact that she was the breadwinner (in a time when women were expected to keep house once married, perhaps with more emphasis on this in post WWI years), that she was an older woman with a younger man for her lover, her childlessness, and her damning, fanciful letters. To have had such an partial judge, who seemed to be steeped in Victorian morals didn't help either. Sadly she went against the conventions of the time and paid the highest price for it.
I will definitely look into reading other books that were mentioned within this one and books that I've since found relating to the case. (As though I need to add more books to my to-reads list).
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 20, 2019
What a frustrating book. This is an examination of the execution of Edith Thompson in 1922, after being (dubiously) charged with and convicted of murdering her husband. And there's a lot to examine: Edith was a clever, charming woman with a good job and an unhappy marriage, who wrote fantastical letters to her lover in which she alludes to poisoning her husband... which caused all sorts of problems when her younger lover stabbed her husband and their joint murder charge led to frenzied coverage of the trial.
The problem with the book is in the telling: jumping back and forward chronologically, repeating anecdotes, repeating phrases (Edith "grasped the numinous" several times, and the book includes the word "irruption" more times than I've read it in my entire life). And after all that, I still don't really understand the crime at all: what really happened on the night of the stabbing, what Freddy (the lover) thought he was doing, how much of Edith's letters were really true. (Having said that, I do agree with the hypothesis of the book, which is that the murder conviction was unwarranted and the execution a miscarriage of justice.)
The problem with the book is in the telling: jumping back and forward chronologically, repeating anecdotes, repeating phrases (Edith "grasped the numinous" several times, and the book includes the word "irruption" more times than I've read it in my entire life). And after all that, I still don't really understand the crime at all: what really happened on the night of the stabbing, what Freddy (the lover) thought he was doing, how much of Edith's letters were really true. (Having said that, I do agree with the hypothesis of the book, which is that the murder conviction was unwarranted and the execution a miscarriage of justice.)
Read
October 13, 2018DNF at 7% , was so hoping that this was going to be good , because it was nonfiction ( true crime) which is something I love to read but unfortunately not true with this one , it sounded so instereting but just by the first chapter alone I couldn't even get past that and I tried two times , in the first 7% minutes of the book you learn what it was like for women to have jobs, the style of clothes, how it was hard to get out an unhappy marriage, how women was looked upon and how they was to act , and so on . It was just boring and tedious to keep reading .With that said I would like to thank Netgalley for giving me the chance to read and review it in change for my honest opinion.
Read
September 30, 2018DNF at 30%. A Tale of Two Murders sounded interesting but what could have been a fascinating look into a highly publicized case of the time complete with a woman who dared step outside society's conventions reads like a doctoral dissertation. There's lots and lots of telling, to the point where the actual woman Thompson is trying to write about is obscured by the endless explaining and theorizing about everything. No stars on Goodreads because it didn't make me angry enough to keep reading, just bored and frustrated.
February 10, 2019
DNF - The writing was horrendous and the subject matter was all over the place!!
June 3, 2019
There is a good book hidden in here somewhere and true crime enthusiasts will enjoy it. But I found it tedious and rambling.
May 15, 2019
I’m not sure what to make of this one really. It’s a fascinating case as it seems Edith Thompson was convicted of murder solely on the basis of her alleged incitement, in her letters presented during the trial. Some of the things she says in the letters do appear rather damning but as we do not have her lover’s letters it’s difficult to get a true picture of what was going on in their correspondence.
The main issue though for the author is the fact that there was so much prejudice against Edith: for her lifestyle, her personality, and the type of fearless sensuality she represented, which many people found shocking and abhorrent that time.
The author’s unpicking of the case in minute detail is interesting and shocking in terms of the efforts which were made to ensure Thompson hanged. However, I did find there was a large amount of speculation in the book, and I would have preferred either a factual account or a semifictionalised one rather than so many assumptions about feelings and actions. At times I found it difficult to distinguish between what was actually known, and what was being assumed. However, a very interesting book and it did keep me absorbed.
The main issue though for the author is the fact that there was so much prejudice against Edith: for her lifestyle, her personality, and the type of fearless sensuality she represented, which many people found shocking and abhorrent that time.
The author’s unpicking of the case in minute detail is interesting and shocking in terms of the efforts which were made to ensure Thompson hanged. However, I did find there was a large amount of speculation in the book, and I would have preferred either a factual account or a semifictionalised one rather than so many assumptions about feelings and actions. At times I found it difficult to distinguish between what was actually known, and what was being assumed. However, a very interesting book and it did keep me absorbed.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 22, 2024
This notorious case took place a hundred years ago and the execution of Edith Thompson has continued to cause controversy.Only two years ago the CCRC found that even though the trial had been unfair and the Judge biased, as there was no new evidence, a pardon could not be granted.
Edith's fate was sealed by the reading of her love letters. She was a married woman and her lover several years her junior. When her lover attacked and killed her husband in the street, the court and the press and public opinion decided Edith had instigated the whole thing. And despite there not being any evidence of her having any knowledge that the attack was to take place, she was found guilty. After all, who needs evidence when there is steamy love letters to read out. So despite her lovers' protestations that Edith knew nothing and was unaware of his intentions, Edith had to share his fate.
It's a fascinating story.
Edith's fate was sealed by the reading of her love letters. She was a married woman and her lover several years her junior. When her lover attacked and killed her husband in the street, the court and the press and public opinion decided Edith had instigated the whole thing. And despite there not being any evidence of her having any knowledge that the attack was to take place, she was found guilty. After all, who needs evidence when there is steamy love letters to read out. So despite her lovers' protestations that Edith knew nothing and was unaware of his intentions, Edith had to share his fate.
It's a fascinating story.
September 30, 2020
4.5 stars.
A meticulously researched book. I learned more from this book about the Thompson and Bywaters case than any previous books or internet searches. I downgraded it half a star because it does suffer from a surfeit of prolixity, especially the first half of the book, but this is Laura Thompson's preferred style and she hammers home the facts repetitiously that the reader is left in no doubt of the veracity of them.
Highly recommended.
A meticulously researched book. I learned more from this book about the Thompson and Bywaters case than any previous books or internet searches. I downgraded it half a star because it does suffer from a surfeit of prolixity, especially the first half of the book, but this is Laura Thompson's preferred style and she hammers home the facts repetitiously that the reader is left in no doubt of the veracity of them.
Highly recommended.
April 11, 2020
Freddy Bywaters sprang out of the darkness and butchered Percy Thompson as the latter perambulated home from a night out at theater with wife Edith. Freddy slipped back into the darkness. It came out almost immediately that Edith had been carrying on a torrid if intermittent affair with the seafaring Freddy and he was collared quickly, just before due to ship out again. And if their romance wasn't enough to cast a suspicious eye on Edith, well, Freddy had very helpfully kept a trove of letters from Edith documenting the pair's plot to poison Percy so as to free the caged songbird Edith. Instead, she found herself in a real cage and she and Freddy were swiftly convicted and hanged.
All of this is well-known. Still, questions about Edith's culpability have raged ever since, along with the issue of whether her execution was condign. Laura Thompson (no relation) carries a brief for Edith's innocence but it is burdened by an ideological insistence that Edith, in Thompson's telling a victim of British sexism, wasn't merely executed but "murdered." Edith's execution may or may not have been warranted -- perhaps the Home Office or Crown should have reprieved her -- but there's ample evidence of her culpability. Thompson herself all but concedes that the lovebirds plotted to poison Percy. Indeed, it's virtually impossible to reach any other conclusion; Edith's own letters establish as much. Thompson shrugs off this damning evidence: well, maybe only 20% of Edith's letters contained this damning evidence, so 80% of the time Edith wasn't occupied with plotting to kill Percy. I exaggerate, but not by a lot. Better to deal with the highly inculpatory material candidly rather than simply minimizing it. More: Edith didn't help her own cause by testifying against counsel's advice, only to come across as a brazen liar.
Thompson's defense reduces to something like, Edith was a fabulously gifted writer who immersed herself so thoroughly in the world of literary characters she didn't literally mean it when she wrote about slipping poison or even crushed glass into Percy's food. Or something like that. I'm not sure it's a terribly convincing defense, and in any event was made worse by Edith's testimonial denial that her own words meant what they said.
A "technical" defense might have been available nonetheless, but Thompson only hints at it. Take as given that Edith and Freddy conspired to *poison* Percy. Could Edith nonetheless be held responsible for Freddy going off on his own and knifing Percy to death? Sure, in a modern American sense: one conspirator is guilty for the acts of a co-conspirator arising as a "natural and probable consequence" of the "object" of the conspiracy. Surely, Percy's death was the conspiracy's object, and the instrumentality would have been a mere detail. But: maybe that wasn't true of post-WWI England, maybe guilt hinged on the precise details of the agreement (something I wouldn't know) If guilt was circumscribed in that way, then Thompson has a point, namely that the evidence of an agreement to knife Percy was too thin, if not quite non-existent. Nor is there any evidence that Edith, though present, assisted Freddy in the stabbing. Still, I'm not sure it does Edith any favors at this point to reduce her to a mere victim. I can agree she didn't deserve the death penalty, but it still seems clear that she bore some culpability for Percy's undeniable murder at her lover’s hands, if not in a legal sense then a moral one. Laura Thompson is, to be sure, an excellent and insightful writer, it's just that this book -- worth reading as it is -- could have been much better still had she removed her ideological blinkers.
All of this is well-known. Still, questions about Edith's culpability have raged ever since, along with the issue of whether her execution was condign. Laura Thompson (no relation) carries a brief for Edith's innocence but it is burdened by an ideological insistence that Edith, in Thompson's telling a victim of British sexism, wasn't merely executed but "murdered." Edith's execution may or may not have been warranted -- perhaps the Home Office or Crown should have reprieved her -- but there's ample evidence of her culpability. Thompson herself all but concedes that the lovebirds plotted to poison Percy. Indeed, it's virtually impossible to reach any other conclusion; Edith's own letters establish as much. Thompson shrugs off this damning evidence: well, maybe only 20% of Edith's letters contained this damning evidence, so 80% of the time Edith wasn't occupied with plotting to kill Percy. I exaggerate, but not by a lot. Better to deal with the highly inculpatory material candidly rather than simply minimizing it. More: Edith didn't help her own cause by testifying against counsel's advice, only to come across as a brazen liar.
Thompson's defense reduces to something like, Edith was a fabulously gifted writer who immersed herself so thoroughly in the world of literary characters she didn't literally mean it when she wrote about slipping poison or even crushed glass into Percy's food. Or something like that. I'm not sure it's a terribly convincing defense, and in any event was made worse by Edith's testimonial denial that her own words meant what they said.
A "technical" defense might have been available nonetheless, but Thompson only hints at it. Take as given that Edith and Freddy conspired to *poison* Percy. Could Edith nonetheless be held responsible for Freddy going off on his own and knifing Percy to death? Sure, in a modern American sense: one conspirator is guilty for the acts of a co-conspirator arising as a "natural and probable consequence" of the "object" of the conspiracy. Surely, Percy's death was the conspiracy's object, and the instrumentality would have been a mere detail. But: maybe that wasn't true of post-WWI England, maybe guilt hinged on the precise details of the agreement (something I wouldn't know) If guilt was circumscribed in that way, then Thompson has a point, namely that the evidence of an agreement to knife Percy was too thin, if not quite non-existent. Nor is there any evidence that Edith, though present, assisted Freddy in the stabbing. Still, I'm not sure it does Edith any favors at this point to reduce her to a mere victim. I can agree she didn't deserve the death penalty, but it still seems clear that she bore some culpability for Percy's undeniable murder at her lover’s hands, if not in a legal sense then a moral one. Laura Thompson is, to be sure, an excellent and insightful writer, it's just that this book -- worth reading as it is -- could have been much better still had she removed her ideological blinkers.
Did not finish
February 9, 2019I needed a Playaway audio book after leaving the one I had in progress at work, so I grabbed this at the library during my weekly visit. I originally thought I would use this for task #5 of the 2019 Book Riot Read Harder challenge: A book by a journalist or about journalism. Thompson was identified as a journalist on the cover, so I thought that would work. However, if I'm going to listen to non-fiction by a journalist, I expect a certain kind of writing. Not necessarily completed detached but where the majority of the writing is a compilation of the writer's research. This book seemed well-researched but, as other reviewers have pointed out, there is so much conjecture and supposition that it rubbed me the wrong way. I wanted to give up (16 hours!!) but I realized I could use this for task #9 of the challenge instead: A book published prior to January 1, 2019, with fewer than 100 reviews on Goodreads.
I just couldn't finish this book. It bounced around too much for a reader who has never heard of this murder case.
I just couldn't finish this book. It bounced around too much for a reader who has never heard of this murder case.
February 20, 2019
I did finish this book, mostly out of a morbid curiosity to see if there would be any additional revelations about the crime, trial or outcome. Unfortunately, as so many other readers noted, this book was really hard to slog through because the author had an axe to grind and she ground it completely away. She makes a good case for her view that the judge, attorneys and general public had it in for Edith Thompson from the start and that, in order to convict her, they had to vilify her. This opinion, however, runs through the entire book and really drags it out. Quite a few paragraphs seemed like opinion rather than narrative. I don't recommend it, tho the life, relationship, letters and crime were very interesting.
December 1, 2019
Very nearly 5 stars. An utterly absorbing account of the Bywaters and Mrs Thompson murder case from 1922. I found it, in the end, very difficult not to agree with the books title and that despite some of the evidence the dreadful punishment meted out to Edith Thompson was a grave miscarriage of justice brought about in part because of the circumstances involved and the prejudicial view of her lifestyle (in the BBC series 'Murder, Mystery and My Family' it was indeed concluded by both the senior judge and both barristers that the conviction was unsafe). The account of her execution, in particular, was simply awful and will stay with me for a long time.
December 4, 2018
Listened to audiobook.
I've read a fair amount of true crime nonfiction, and in my opinion, this book is rather unique in the genre. Essentially, the narrative consists predominantly of the recounting of letters from the wife of the victim to her lover. Rather than providing facts and drawing logical conclusions, the author seems to have an agenda: that is, to show that Edith Thompson was not guilty of the crime for which she was executed.
In summary, this is a very rambly, long-winded, stream of conscious-seeming recounting of one side of an extra-marital affair through letters.
I've read a fair amount of true crime nonfiction, and in my opinion, this book is rather unique in the genre. Essentially, the narrative consists predominantly of the recounting of letters from the wife of the victim to her lover. Rather than providing facts and drawing logical conclusions, the author seems to have an agenda: that is, to show that Edith Thompson was not guilty of the crime for which she was executed.
In summary, this is a very rambly, long-winded, stream of conscious-seeming recounting of one side of an extra-marital affair through letters.
October 3, 2018
This should have been an interesting story. It was not. Mainly because the author likes to take a chapter to make a simple point that could be said in a sentence. Way too many extra words. This book just sounded pretentious. I can use big words too. Thompson has very distinct writing style and after I started reading her book I knew I would not like this book. I like things that get straight to the point. I think Thompson does thorough research but that is all I can recommend about this book.
April 10, 2019
If you want to read a 1922 trial used to discuss feminism, socioeconomic class, politics, and gender differences in how British capital punishment was carried out, this is the book for you. However it is NOT a true crime read. As such, I’ve moved it from my true crime shelve to my historical nonfiction shelf.
Frankly it was horribly wordy, the author repeated the same things over and over and OVER again.
Frankly it was horribly wordy, the author repeated the same things over and over and OVER again.
March 18, 2020
This was overly long and highly biased. It doesn’t stay in topic and attempts to weave a meandering story that is simple uncompromising dull. It should have been a suspenseful story of love and murder. Instead it resorts to repeating the same phrases hundreds of times in the hopes you become sympathetic.
After 13 discs of an audiobook it abruptly ends and says This is part one of two. I will not be listening to that. I’ve wasted enough time.
Would not recommend.
After 13 discs of an audiobook it abruptly ends and says This is part one of two. I will not be listening to that. I’ve wasted enough time.
Would not recommend.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 67 reviews