Scan barcode
patrickhackett's review against another edition
2.0
If the book that Conan Doyle wrote about Oscar Slater whilst Oscar Slater was still alive and imprisoned was only 80 pages, whyyyyyy was this 250+ pages? 😴
directorpurry's review against another edition
3.0
A pretty easy read to get through, definitely a recommendation for those who enjoy true crime and have an interest in Jewish history. And also if you're into Sherlock Holmes.
It wasn't the deepest book and there were a few elements, especially quotes from some of the family letters, that I didn't find necessary to the plot, but it was very well researched. The epilogue was honestly so depressing though. It's not that hard to know what's going to happen if you know anything about Jewish history but it was still a sour note to end on.
It wasn't the deepest book and there were a few elements, especially quotes from some of the family letters, that I didn't find necessary to the plot, but it was very well researched. The epilogue was honestly so depressing though. It's not that hard to know what's going to happen if you know anything about Jewish history but it was still a sour note to end on.
jmanchester0's review against another edition
4.0
"Data! Data! Data!" (My new favorite Sherlock Holmes quote.)
I am not generally a huge fan of true crime stories, but I just finished reading Conan Doyle for the Defense by Margalit Fox, and it was fascinating!
Over 100 years ago, Arthur Conan Doyle, who created Sherlock Holmes, investigated a case of an innocent man sentenced to life for murder. Oscar Slater was arrested and sentenced for the murder of a woman who he never met - or even new existed.
It was most telling to see how bad corruption was 100 years ago in another modern country completely parallel to what we see today. Corrupt police, lawyers, and politicians wanting to put away someone just because of who he represents. Today it would be a person with brown skin. But back then in Britain, it was a German Jew.
It doesn't help that Oscar Slater was disreputable. He was a gambler, among other things, and may have even been a pimp (though he continually denied that). And I can hear this theme and sentiment echoed today. "It's OK that Michael Brown was killed - he may have stolen a cigar." "It's OK that Eric garner was killed - he was selling untaxed cigarettes." This whole attitude of "I don't like who you are and what group you are a part of, so I'm fine if you are murdered for a minor crime" is horrible and reprehensible.
Since Oscar Slater was also an immigrant scapegoat, we can also add to the parallels, "It's OK that children are dying in cages, they crossed the border illegally."
How can we say that just because we don't like the color of your skin or your heritage, you don't deserve justice? It's the ultimate white supremacy. And it's sanctioned by those in power.
But the more things change, the more they stay the same.
As the author notes in his introduction, "The racialization of crime has become every inch a mirror of our own age." The author doesn't spend a lot of time drawing specific parallels between our time and the time he is discussing - but they are so glaringly obvious they are almost all I can think of as I listen to this book.
And who was the likely real culprit? I'll give you a hint - it was someone who lived a life of privilege, wasn't an immigrant, wasn't a minority, and was never brought to justice. Of course.
And, wow. And do you know what the anti-Semites in Britain did at the turn-of-the-century to try to impose laws to prevent Jews from immigrating to Great Britain? They spread rumors that the Jewish immigrants were pretty much just bringing criminals over. It was the "Mexicans are rapists" of that day. And it was 100 years ago in Britain.
For me, it brought into much sharper focus the injustice we perpetrate on people just because of the color of their skin. It really made me think about how we've destroyed the lives of entire groups of people by unfairly imprisoning them.
Sometimes it feels like some people will never get justice.
Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same. But we need to be doing something about it.
I am not generally a huge fan of true crime stories, but I just finished reading Conan Doyle for the Defense by Margalit Fox, and it was fascinating!
Over 100 years ago, Arthur Conan Doyle, who created Sherlock Holmes, investigated a case of an innocent man sentenced to life for murder. Oscar Slater was arrested and sentenced for the murder of a woman who he never met - or even new existed.
It was most telling to see how bad corruption was 100 years ago in another modern country completely parallel to what we see today. Corrupt police, lawyers, and politicians wanting to put away someone just because of who he represents. Today it would be a person with brown skin. But back then in Britain, it was a German Jew.
It doesn't help that Oscar Slater was disreputable. He was a gambler, among other things, and may have even been a pimp (though he continually denied that). And I can hear this theme and sentiment echoed today. "It's OK that Michael Brown was killed - he may have stolen a cigar." "It's OK that Eric garner was killed - he was selling untaxed cigarettes." This whole attitude of "I don't like who you are and what group you are a part of, so I'm fine if you are murdered for a minor crime" is horrible and reprehensible.
Since Oscar Slater was also an immigrant scapegoat, we can also add to the parallels, "It's OK that children are dying in cages, they crossed the border illegally."
How can we say that just because we don't like the color of your skin or your heritage, you don't deserve justice? It's the ultimate white supremacy. And it's sanctioned by those in power.
But the more things change, the more they stay the same.
As the author notes in his introduction, "The racialization of crime has become every inch a mirror of our own age." The author doesn't spend a lot of time drawing specific parallels between our time and the time he is discussing - but they are so glaringly obvious they are almost all I can think of as I listen to this book.
And who was the likely real culprit? I'll give you a hint - it was someone who lived a life of privilege, wasn't an immigrant, wasn't a minority, and was never brought to justice. Of course.
And, wow. And do you know what the anti-Semites in Britain did at the turn-of-the-century to try to impose laws to prevent Jews from immigrating to Great Britain? They spread rumors that the Jewish immigrants were pretty much just bringing criminals over. It was the "Mexicans are rapists" of that day. And it was 100 years ago in Britain.
For me, it brought into much sharper focus the injustice we perpetrate on people just because of the color of their skin. It really made me think about how we've destroyed the lives of entire groups of people by unfairly imprisoning them.
Sometimes it feels like some people will never get justice.
Again, the more things change, the more they stay the same. But we need to be doing something about it.
brennadavis24's review against another edition
4.0
3.5
The book is a look into the life of Conan Doyle and how he used real life sleuthing to change the verdict in a few real life criminal cases. If you enjoy true crime, it’s worth a read. It does get a little repetitive, and the author tells you the outcome from the beginning so it’s not exactly a page turner, but I did learn some of the history or Sherlock Holmes and how xenophobia played a role in who got charged for crimes, even when they were clearly innocent, during his life.
The book is a look into the life of Conan Doyle and how he used real life sleuthing to change the verdict in a few real life criminal cases. If you enjoy true crime, it’s worth a read. It does get a little repetitive, and the author tells you the outcome from the beginning so it’s not exactly a page turner, but I did learn some of the history or Sherlock Holmes and how xenophobia played a role in who got charged for crimes, even when they were clearly innocent, during his life.
extemporalli's review against another edition
5.0
This book blew me away. If you're of a certain type and find Victorian true crime irresistably juicy, this won't be a hard sell: this is the true and incredible story of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, and how he helped vindicate Oscar Slater, a German Jew, who was wrongfully accused of murdering an eccentric, unpleasant, and wealthy old lady in Glasgow and imprisoned nearly twenty years. Fox skilfully weaves the main narrative - Oscar Slater's trial and imprisonment - with much-needed context about the Victorian age and its fascination with Lombrosan criminology, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's real-life detecting skills (I'd known about his mentor, Joseph Bell, who had served as the inspiration for Holmes, but I didn't know that A.C.D. himself was such a good detective), the nature of the demi-monde that Slater inhabited, and Glasgow itself.
The book also provides thrilling anecdata about the world of detective problem-solvers: first, that Dorothy Sayers (!), crime novelist and queen of my heart, had donated some money to raise publicity around Slater's case, and second, that 'a young person of the theatre' was a euphemism for sex workers, which as Fox points out rather underlines the Holmesian designation of Irene Adler as 'this young person'. The book is full of wonderful tidbits like this for the dedicated detective mystery fan.
Two things that I took issue with: Fox's distinction between criminology (backwards-looking, racist, othering) and criminalistics (logical, scientific, would go on to foster the development of forensic science in the twentieth century). For the most part, Fox is fairly astute in her description of police bungling and her succinct and insightful indiction of eyewitness testimony, but... she probably also underestimates the extent to which Victorian criminology was both scientific and unscientific, in the sense that "science" as it was practised by the Victorians, even at the highest level of ability, was... very much a product of its time.
The second thing was Fox's deliberate choice to hold back on key pieces of information and introduce that decision as cliffhangery ends-of-chapter. "The week before she died, she had in fact told others that she thought she would be murdered." End of chapter! Great. Then no mention of it for another good third of the book because Fox switches focus to Oscar Slater or Conan Doyle or whoever. All very fascinating, but wasn't Fox a little too pleased with herself for pulling that punch? (And relatedly: Fox's determination in being agnostic as to 'who really done it' in the afterword made me roll my eyes a little; I agree that this probably wasn't the point so much as Oscar Slater's story was, but it seemed - or at least she made it appear so - that all the contemporaries involved in that case who WEREN'T complete idiots were totally convinced that the one person did it.)
All that being said, this was compulsively readable. And that ending! Now that was a punch. Highly, highly recommend.
The book also provides thrilling anecdata about the world of detective problem-solvers: first, that Dorothy Sayers (!), crime novelist and queen of my heart, had donated some money to raise publicity around Slater's case, and second, that 'a young person of the theatre' was a euphemism for sex workers, which as Fox points out rather underlines the Holmesian designation of Irene Adler as 'this young person'. The book is full of wonderful tidbits like this for the dedicated detective mystery fan.
Two things that I took issue with: Fox's distinction between criminology (backwards-looking, racist, othering) and criminalistics (logical, scientific, would go on to foster the development of forensic science in the twentieth century). For the most part, Fox is fairly astute in her description of police bungling and her succinct and insightful indiction of eyewitness testimony, but... she probably also underestimates the extent to which Victorian criminology was both scientific and unscientific, in the sense that "science" as it was practised by the Victorians, even at the highest level of ability, was... very much a product of its time.
The second thing was Fox's deliberate choice to hold back on key pieces of information and introduce that decision as cliffhangery ends-of-chapter. "The week before she died, she had in fact told others that she thought she would be murdered." End of chapter! Great. Then no mention of it for another good third of the book because Fox switches focus to Oscar Slater or Conan Doyle or whoever. All very fascinating, but wasn't Fox a little too pleased with herself for pulling that punch? (And relatedly: Fox's determination in being agnostic as to 'who really done it' in the afterword made me roll my eyes a little; I agree that this probably wasn't the point so much as Oscar Slater's story was, but it seemed - or at least she made it appear so - that all the contemporaries involved in that case who WEREN'T complete idiots were totally convinced that the one person did it.)
All that being said, this was compulsively readable. And that ending! Now that was a punch. Highly, highly recommend.
ljackman's review against another edition
3.0
3.5 stars.
The incarceration of an innocent man because he was a Jew and a foreigner in Scotland for a murder he did not commit -- and imprisoned for 18 years! -- not the best light for the Scottish police and judicial system back in the days of Sherlock Holmes.
I liked how the narrative interspersed facts about Conan Doyle and the creation and impact of his fictional detective between the facts of Oscar Slater's trial and imprisonment.
The incarceration of an innocent man because he was a Jew and a foreigner in Scotland for a murder he did not commit -- and imprisoned for 18 years! -- not the best light for the Scottish police and judicial system back in the days of Sherlock Holmes.
I liked how the narrative interspersed facts about Conan Doyle and the creation and impact of his fictional detective between the facts of Oscar Slater's trial and imprisonment.
sietz's review against another edition
3.0
Interesting story - for keen Sherlock Holmes/Doyle fans only. Noting the true crime part of the book (while being quite interesting) is rather thin in terms of actual content.
johnnygamble's review against another edition
3.0
Wasn't crazy about the structure of the book, felt it was little jumbled. I am also thrown off by books that cite other books about the same subject - should I be reading those? Maybe would have been best as a long magazine piece.