The author writes a clear summery of the case falling prey to repitition in places. However, I cannot be persuaded by the author's conclusions. It seems that the auther should have paid more attention to the "Iago of the Vestry" who had a previous affair with the murdered woman, was bitterly dumped by the murdered woman, just happened to be on the scene the night the murder happened and whose car mysteriously went up in flames shortly thereafter. Also, what happened to Daniel?

What was the cause of those murders? Why did it occur then, when the affair was going on for years? I have a suggested solution.

It happened a few days after the Halls came back from their New England vacation in the mountains. I think something happened there, where Mrs Hall had a narrow escape from a fatal accident while with the Reverend. She thought about it, and realized that if she had an accident, Reverend Ed would inherit her fortune, and be free to seek another rich wife. Eleanor would be dropped like yesterday's newspaper. Mrs Hall discussed this with her brothers, and they decided to confront the Reverend while he was with Eleanor, so he could not deny the affair, and would be forced to end it. The emotional interaction escalated beyond reason, and the deaths occurred. The best laid plans of mice and men still go astray.

The case was not solved so justice would triumph over the law. The Reverend Ed messed up his own marriage, and destroyed the Mills' marriage. Alive, he would break up another marriage. It was all for the best. When someone poor falls in love with a rich person, the poor person often comes to an unhappy ending. The rich have many resources to accomplish their ends. This is the moral of "Love Story", that love does not triumph over material facts. No matter how hard you wish it were different. Love conquers all? Forget about it!

This newer compilation was written after everyone involved had died. It lacks an index to its many photographs, and complements Kunstler's book. Page 71 mentions the curious phone call from Eleanor; doesn't it sound like a coded message? The posed photo on the cover lacks the letters.

Chapter 12 ridicules the "Pig Woman"; is this just class bias? He says "her story changed"; but is this unusual? I believe her story to be true since it dovetails with other known facts. Tomlinson says her story was made up because of the "Oh Henry" cry; yet this just happened to be her brother's name! (Or was it her version of "Oh Hell"?) You can test if a khaki coat (or pants) looks gray in the moonlight.

Many times the author questions statements made by the people involved, as reported in the newspapers. Then or now, how reliable are newspaper stories? Page 217 uses the word "katzenjammer". Think of a cat when it wants to go outside: frantic and nervous. Page 226 tells how fingerprints could be forged in the 1920s. On pages 236-7 Tomlinson commits the folly of trying to analyze someone from a long ago newspaper account; it doesn't convince me, and seems like a smear of the chief prosecution witness. Why use the comments of Salome Cerenner when there is no corroboration? His description of psychopaths' "grossly inflated sense of their self-worth and importance" sounds like many managers found in the corporate world. Jane Gibson's story was checked out by the detectives; Kunstler's book explains this. Does her story sound too good to be true? Is it very different from other eyewitness stories?

Chapter 23 shows Tomlinson doing a better job than Kunstler in analyzing Willie's testimony (p.253), and in the story of the examination of Reverend Hall's checkbook (p.271). His comments on Simpson (p.300) seems to be just a whitewash of the trial. On page 309 Tomlinson rules out the Stevens as not the type to murder to avenge family honor. Were they from South Carolina where that was more common? On page 313 Tomlinson mentions Jeffrey MacDonald; he needs to read "Fatal Justice".

Chapter 29 provides "One Man's Solution" which makes Willie the sole perpetrator. He talks about the failed marriage of the Mills, but says nothing about the Halls; why not? After earlier rejecting Jane Gibson's story, he adopts it as his solution! His comments as to a blood-stained Apperson and Willie's suit are very good! I believe his solution is wrong because he previously rejected Jan Gibson's testimony but adopted it for Chapter 29. The straw hat covering Reverend Hall's face says somebody wanted to keep the crows from pecking at and disfiguring the face; I think this says Mrs. Hall. The throat cutting and excision of the tongue and larynx suggests jealous hatred; I think this says a woman used to cutting up chickens. Some say the 1926 trial was bungled because of the 'not guilty' verdict. But it also succeeded in preventing the Stevens from ever being prosecuted!