Paul Collins tells the story of the brutal, bloody murder of William Guldensuppe committed by his girlfriend and her lover. Narrator William Dufris gives a delightfully varied and nuanced performance. The book features the voices of a diverse cast of late-19th century New York characters, from Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst to a duck farmer in Woodside to employees of the Murray Hill bathhouse. Together, the characters tell the story of a gruesome crime that fueled a sensationalistic media juggernaut from the moment a group of young boys found a man's mutilated torso floating in the East River in New York City on a summer day in 1897. In Dufris' inventive performance, he expertly adopts the voice of the chillingly blasé murderers; then turns on a dime to describe, in a voice filled with wonder, the new forensic science that went into identifying the body. Dufris engages the listener by sounding as fascinated by the story as the author himself is.
It is vital that Dufris get the performances just right, since Collins has distinguished his book from other histories of the crime by telling the story of the investigation and trial largely through the voices of the people who were actually there. Collins carefully reconstructs their quotes into an intensely detailed narrative, and Dufris individualizes the voice of each witness, including the murder defendants themselves. Especially effective is his portrayal of one of the main defense attorneys in the story, William Howe, whom Dufris imbues with a bold, brash voice that enlivens the "Big Bill" persona that Collins describes. But Dufris is just as adept at capturing the macabre character of the women who, obsessed with the case, filled the sweltering courtroom gallery day after day to show their support for the dashing murder defendant, Martin Thorn. Maggie Frank
In Long Island, a farmer found a duck pond turned red with blood. On the Lower East Side, two boys playing at a pier discovered a floating human torso wrapped tightly in oilcloth. Blueberry pickers near Harlem stumbled upon neatly severed limbs in an overgrown ditch. Clues to a horrifying crime were turning up all over New York, but the police were baffled: There were no witnesses, no motives, no suspects.
The grisly finds that began on the afternoon of June 26, 1897, plunged detectives headlong into the era's most perplexing murder. Seized upon by battling media moguls Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, the case became a publicity circus. Re-creations of the murder were staged in Times Square, armed reporters lurked in the streets of Hell's Kitchen in pursuit of suspects, and an unlikely trio - an anxious cop, a cub reporter, and an eccentric professor - all raced to solve the crime. What emerged was a sensational love triangle and an even more sensational trial: an unprecedented capital case hinging on circumstantial evidence around a victim that the police couldn't identify with certainty - and that the defense claimed wasn't even dead.
The Murder of the Century is a rollicking tale - a rich evocation of America during the Gilded Age and a colorful re-creation of the tabloid wars that have dominated media to this day.
©2011 Paul Collins (P)2011 AudioGo
“Wonderfully rich in period detail, salacious facts about the case and infectious wonder at the chutzpah and inventiveness displayed by Pulitzer’s and Hearst’s minions. Both a gripping true-crime narrative and an astonishing portrait of fin de siecle yellow journalism.” (Kirkus Reviews)
"A dismembered corpse and rival newspapers squabbling for headlines fuel Collins’s intriguing look at the birth of 'yellow journalism' in late 19th-century New York. [A]n in-depth account of the exponential growth of lurid news and the public’s (continuing) insatiable appetite for it." (Publishers Weekly)
I am a clay sculptor and an art instructor at a community college. I mostly listen to audiobooks while I work in my home studio.
I bought this because it was the daily deal. Stupid.
I read the reviews and thought it sounded interesting. The other reviews suggested the focus was on the newspapers and not the trial. I don't think focus is a fair term for this book. Sometimes we were told about the newspapers, sometimes we were told about the trial, sometimes we were told about the events surrounding the discovery of the murder, but I never felt like there was any story here. Everything in the book sounded disjointed and random.
I never did "get into" this book, though I just about finished it. In theory I would enjoy the story. I would seriously be interested in hearing about newspaper rivalry, but apparently I didn't care about the little bits of newspaper history tacked on to the edges of a series of bits of information and misinformation about the trial.
And don't get me started on the narrator. Where did he come up with these accents? so annoying. ugh.
If you like to read about gore and unpleasantness, and if you like to be overwhelmed with all the misleading information that was available at the time, in chronological order instead of sorted in any way by the truth, then maybe you will like this book.
But probably not.
Sometimes it is good to be reminded there really never were any good old days, that crime is not worse now, and the way the press covers it is not a whit more irresponsible or sensationalized than it used to be.
This in-depth, well-researched book provides a glimpse into New York City's past, and both the murder case and the newspaper rivalry were fascinating subjects.
Interesting story of a real murder at the turn of the century. Shows how the newspapers of the day were given direct access to information, and sometimes impacted the case.Good book - but I have one big criticism. The narrator has an odd way of swallowing some of his constants, particularly "f" and "th" sounds. I don't know if this is an intentional technique - but after a while it was distracting.
I don't like the way the narrator speaks. He had an odd way of "swallowing" his "f"'s and "th" sounds.Stop trying do hard to sound professional. It would have been a more relaxed read if the narrator would just speak naturally - and less like a performance.
I wish we would have heard more about how the Police worked at the time, and less about how the Press worked.
The history was what I liked best. It was a little slow moving.
I don't think that I have listened to other book by Paul Collins.
It was a good performance.
This was interesting. It was about the murder and about the tabloid wars that this murder started. Very interesting times for sure.
Dufris is the star of the show. His reading of Howe, the defense attorney, is amazing. This is a well writing and meticulously research account of a New York City murder and the sensationalist journalism that followed. The plot takes a lot of turns and in enganging thoughout. Once the trial is wrapped up, the book drags on for a few more chapters, and they should be skipped. This was a fun read, but it doesn't educate like most non-fiction. Paul Collins has a gift, but other still master the genre better.
I thought this would be presented as a whodunit, but of course it's more of a documentary, this story has been told before. Even if you have already heard the story of the murder of William Guldensuppe, AKA The Scattered Dutchman, a masterful storyteller and rich details make this one worth a listen.
I liked the fast pace and the descriptions of the New York that was.
Read all about it!
Tangential, eclectic, avid listener... favorite book is the one currently in ear.
Quick easy read. Found the relationship between the newspapers, politics, the law and the crime very interesting. "Bones" and "CNN" in the age of no fingerprints and no limits to behavior of journalists selling papers. Did they convict the wrong person?
Business owner , philanthropist.
Very descriptive, good mix of business and murder. I have this picture of a torso stuck in my mind.
Fascinating how much of the news cycle of today draws it roots from events of the past.
Report Inappropriate Content