Mystery/Thriller Reading Friends discussion

Spoilers welcome on this thread to discuss part three to the end of The Ghosts of Eden Park: The Bootleg King, the Women Who Pursued Him, and the Murder That Shocked Jazz-Age America.
If the first to post please briefly summarize to guide the discussion.
How did you like the book?

The last part of the book is concerned with the circumstances of George Remus's trial for the murder of his wife Imogene. Remus freely admitted to having done it; the only question was whether he was temporarily insane at the time. Strangely enough, Remus acted as co-counsel in his defense, raising the stakes on the temporary insanity question. Was it possible that his sanity returned immediately upon his wife's death, to the extent that he was capable of assuming the role of attorney shortly thereafter?

According to the jury, the answer to that question was yes. They determined that Imogene's actions while Remus was in prison, culminating with her plans to kill him had he not killed her first, were sufficiently cruel and heartless to have driven him insane, regardless of his obvious mental clarity at the time of the trial.

Karen Abbott, by contrast, leaves no question that Remus concocted his "madness" defense over an extended period of time as part of his plan to kill Imogene in an act of revenge. The drama behind the emotional fits he staged was part of the same theatrical persona that he would later use, successfully, in the courtroom.

Amidst all the bizarre circumstances of the trial, I was struck most by the fact that the opinions of lay men and women - not trained psychologists/psychiatrists/alienists - as to Remus's sanity were allowed in evidence. That seems so strange given the professional standards required today.

I thought Abbott did an excellent job of moving the story along, carefully interweaving the activities of the various individuals toward the common end. Anyone have thoughts about whether the trial outcome was a just a reflection of a particular place and time? Not long ago I read Charlatan: America's Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam, about a world-class con artist operating at the same time, and I found myself wondering whether people were simply more gullible in the 1920's and 30's. But I suppose our era has Johnny Cochran...

Barbara wrote: "Amidst all the bizarre circumstances of the trial, I was struck most by the fact that the opinions of lay men and women - not trained psychologists/psychiatrists/alienists - as to Remus's sanity"

First of all, Barbara, I’ve been forgetting to thank you for the summaries. You did a good job sorting through the intricacies and overlapping of several indictments, not to mention the sometimes overwhelming detail included by Abbott.

I agree that the evidence presented of Remus’ sanity/insanity was quite different from what we’d expect today. What particularly struck me is that today lawyers and psychologists try to establish and keep a bright line between “insanity” and “mental illness.” The former is a legal term meaning that the subject didn’t know the difference between right and wrong at the time of his crime; the latter refers to disordered thinking. All of those lay witnesses were making a determination that Remus seemed crazy which, whether it was fake or real, doesn’t address whether he knew right from wrong. That’s a question for psychologists and legal scholars to address. In my opinion, even if he had serious neurosis, a mental illness, or a good act, he knew what he was doing was wrong. That’s why he worked so hard to build a defense.

I also found it bizarre that for part of the trial the alienists sat with the judge and the judge conferred with them—apparently off the record. At least two of the alienists were paid by Remus. Wouldn’t it be terribly prejudicial for them to have the judge’s ear?

On the whole the look at our justice system during that time was enlightening. It was just a matter of weeks between the murder and the verdict. The wheels of justice ground much more quickly then! Remus’s huge privileges while on trial—his suite of rooms and parade of visitors while in “jail” —wouldn’t be tolerated by anyone these days. The jurors attending Remus’ victory celebration—unimaginable!

I was frustrated that there was no clear resolution whether Remus was truly mentally ill or just acting it, especially because in the second section Abbott had presented it as if he were sick. It wasn’t until the trial that there was any question of how many times Remus had discovered the looting of his mansion for the “first” time with various witnesses. With all the confusion of dates and times in the witnesses’ testimony there was plenty of doubt in my mind. Plus I remembered that Remus had shut down his home before going to jail in Atlanta—putting some things in storage, selling or giving away others.

If the “discoveries” of the looting were staged, that means he had been premeditating Imogene’s murder and his defense for a LONG time! What a wily man.

One of the downfalls of true crime especially historical true crime, in my opinion, is that the author can’t tie up all the loose ends. While Remus was living in his stripped down mansion in full-on (or fake?) paranoia, one night a caravan of cars silently parades around his drive. That left a powerful and creepy image in my mind but we never get an explanation. Dodge’s hold over Willebrandt isn’t explained. No doubt Willebrandt was completely circumspect in her own records and Dodge doesn’t seem to have left any personal records.

Finally, I was left thinking about poor court reporters’ jobs at that time. Imagine having to keep a record of Remus’ disjointed discourse with all the 50 cent vocabulary, gesturing, ranting, and pointless digressions, not to mention the objections, judge’s rulings, and wrangling among 5 lawyers. The parts Abbott provides of the transcription of Remus’ closing argument was enough to give me a brainstorm! I’m amazed that someone managed to do it.

OMalleycat wrote: "Dodge’s hold over Willebrandt isn’t explained. No doubt Willebrandt was completely circumspect in her own records and Dodge doesn’t seem to have left any personal records...."

I too was struck by this. Abbott suggests that Willebrandt was worried that her initial confidence in Dodge would reflect poorly on her character judgment given his subsequent over-the-top transgressions, but that doesn't work for me as an explanation. Yes, it was another time and as a trailblazing woman in a man's world she was vulnerable to criticism, but given her commitment to the enforcement of the law, it seems unlikely that she would hold back on her involvement with establishing Remus's guilt for that reason. You really have to wonder if there wasn't more to their relationship that she didn't want exposed.

Barbara and Jan:
This third part with the trial was something indeed. I was amazed at the shenanigans allowed, the alienists' testimony, as in real time they met, observed, and rendered their opinion of George's mental state, and then the jurors decided. Wow.
I also assumed the jurors were all men and potentially predisposed that Imogene "deserved what she got" at the hands of her cuckholded husband.

Barbara wrote: "Amidst all the bizarre circumstances of the trial, I was struck most by the fact that the opinions of lay men and women - not trained psychologists/psychiatrists/alienists - as to Remus's sanity were allowed in evidence. That seems so strange given the professional standards required today.."

OMalleycat wrote: "I also found it bizarre that for part of the trial the alienists sat with the judge and the judge conferred with them—apparently off the record. At least two of the alienists were paid by Remus. Wouldn’t it be terribly prejudicial for them to have the judge’s ear?

On the whole the look at our justice system during that time was enlightening. It was just a matter of weeks between the murder and the verdict. The wheels of justice ground much more quickly then! Remus’s huge privileges while on trial—his suite of rooms and parade of visitors while in “jail” —wouldn’t be tolerated by anyone these days. The jurors attending Remus’ victory celebration—unimaginable!
..."

Barbara and Jan O'Cat: I can see why Abbott suggested that explanation for Mabel Willebrandt not going after Frank Dodge, or supporting others in that oddly absent endeavor, but it seems flimsy to me too given her strong law and order reputation. I wonder if he had something on her that whether true or not, as a rumour would be devastating. (Pure speculation on my part, and similar to the theory there was more to their relationship, or related)

Barbara wrote: "Abbott suggests that Willebrandt was worried that her initial confidence in Dodge would reflect poorly on her character judgment given his subsequent over-the-top transgressions, but that doesn't work for me as an explanation.

Yes, it was another time and as a trailblazing woman in a man's world she was vulnerable to criticism, but given her commitment to the enforcement of the law, it seems unlikely that she would hold back on her involvement with establishing Remus's guilt for that reason. You really have to wonder if there wasn't more to their relationship that she didn't want exposed."

OMalleycat wrote: "Dodge’s hold over Willebrandt isn’t explained. No doubt Willebrandt was completely circumspect in her own records and Dodge doesn’t seem to have left any personal records...."

Barbara: Your summaries are great! Thanks much for doing them!
Jan O'Cat: Your thoughtful comments are always a treat to read and consider! Thank you both!
I was surprised it took so long for my turn at the library audio, but it was well worth the wait. I enjoyed listening to the book. This era is fascinating, I am intrigued by Mabel Walker Willebrandt and agree that "had Mabel worn trousers, she could have been president.", stated by future Federal Judge John J. Sirica upon her death in 1965. Of course he meant had she been male, at a time women were still not commonly wearing pants except at home.

This was a great book for engendering consideration of the changes in attitudes and customs (and criminal trials) over the decades of the 20th century. And things that haven't changed.

Barbara wrote: "The last part of the book is concerned with the circumstances of George Remus's trial for the murder of his wife Imogene. Remus freely admitted to having done it; the only question was whether he was temporarily insane at the time.."