Sebastian Junger’s last book, The Perfect Storm, was a non-fiction thriller based upon a remarkable convergence of nature. The book was mostly well received and went on to become a major movie. Junger’s new book, A Death in Belmont, sets out to explore another remarkable convergence. The story goes like this: When Junger was a small boy in Massachusetts, a neighbor was murdered. Shortly thereafter, a black man was arrested and convicted upon substantial circumstantial evidence. Later, a handyman confessed (and later recanted) to being the notorious serial killer called the Boston Strangler. Junger makes the case that the handyman/serial killer was the actual murderer of his neighbor (although he never confessed to that crime) and the black man was wrongly convicted by a racist court system and an all-white jury. Moreover, Junger knows that the handyman/serial killer was in the vicinity on the day of the neighbor’s murder, because he was working on the Junger’s house at the time. As evidence, Junger presents a picture of the handyman prominently in the background of a picture of Junger’s mother holding him (um, Junger, not the handyman). Creepy.
The convergence of people in Belmont makes for a good story. However, an unintended convergence has arisen, this one a tide of critical opinion against Junger’s police work. The Wall Street Journal’s review was written by Joshua Marquis, Vice-President of the National District Attorneys Association. Mr. Marquis went through the steps of actually talking with some of the living “characters” in the book and reviewed the case history. He notes:
The wrongful conviction of this “truly innocent” man is the core of the book, but the more I looked into the case, the more I realized that Mr. Junger had selectively chosen facts and quotes from sources that would tell the story he wanted to write. The author doesn’t use direct quotes from Smith’s long-time defense attorney, Beryl Cohen, or from the prosecutors in the case, or from other major players. (link to article not available - it lies beyond the WSJ’s pay-per-read wall).
Hmmm. The New York Times used a similar approach, with a review by noted legal guy, Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz sums up the inherent problems of the narrative like this:
For the book to work, there must be a payoff. If the man in the photograph turned out not to be the murderer of Junger’s neighbor, or not to be the Boston Strangler at all, where would the payoff be? It is not enough that the Junger family had a story that was perfect. It is important that the story be true, or at least highly likely. And it is here that Junger’s methodology raises concerns. Although he acknowledges that “often the truth simply isn’t knowable” — and that this story is “far messier” than the perfect one he has grown up with — he still tries too hard to fit the messy facts into his payoff narrative…”A Death in Belmont” must be read with the appropriate caution that should surround any work of nonfiction in which the author is seeking a literary or dramatic payoff. Read in this manner, it is a worthy sequel to “The Perfect Storm.”
Behind the NYT’s pay-per-read wall is another article about the book by Makoto Rich. Rich notes that the daughter of the murder victim has initiated a campaign to discredit Junger’s book. Rich’s article includes the following nugget:
Mr. Junger discovered that the truth — or what he could learn of it — was much more elusive, and the book is a sort of journalistic meditation on doubt. “I literally wake up every day thinking something different about all of these issues,” Mr. Junger said in a telephone interview. “Smith did it, Smith didn’t do it, DeSalvo never hurt a flea, DeSalvo is a serial murderer. There is no fixed point in my mind. I wish there were.”
I’m not sure how well Junger’s feelings of doubt have been translated into the book, I haven’t read it. The choice of image for the book’s cover may be telling, however. It features a black and white close-up of the palm of a hand. I’m not sure what that has to do with the story of a murder, but it may have everything to do with divining the truth of the past.