Shallow Grave in Trinity County

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating and eerie documentary.
Review: "Shallow Grave" is true-crime reporting at it's best. This is a compelling and emotional story, packed with details. I was particularly impressed with the author's gift for explaining the minute details of the unfolding criminal case in a clear and interesting way. The book neither sensationalizes nor sugar-coats the horrific details of the crime. Highly recommended.

Rating:
Summary: A fascinating and eerie documentary.
Review: Mostly I picked this up because the case occurred in the Bay Area in the years I was growing up there. It is well written and and objective, but has little tension, particularly because the photo section gives away the ending of the story, thus killing any possibility of suspense. It does convey a good sense of the times and the furor this case caused.

Rating:
Summary: One of The Leading San Francisco Bay Area Murder Stories.
Review: Not only did I buy this book by Mr. Farrell, but I also bought another book on this case by Keith Walker, A Trail of Corn (Selling at Bill & Kathy's Restaurant, none the less), because the Burton Abbott case is very much like one I'm writing myself, the Theodore Durrant case of 1895.

I greatly appreciate authors who provide addresses, maps, and photos, and Mr. Farrell was generous on all counts. As I live in the Bay Area, and have written two unrelated self-guided walking tours, I like to visit all the sites associated with any story that touches me emotionally. Mr. Farrell certainly succeeded with his central task.

In fact, his narrative is so riveting that I soon drove over to Berkeley and retraced the route Stephanie Bryan walked before her kidnapping. One of the strengths of this book is that the reader gets a sense of knowing the victim, her parents, the accused kidnapper, and even a comprehension of how most of the people central to this story had their lives ruined.

Those who are familiar with this famous case may also appreciate knowing, even though this murder happened in 1955, that Willard Junior High, the library, Dream Fluff Donut shop, the suspected ambush path, tunnel road, the Bryan's former residence, the Abbott family's former residence in Alameda, the court house in Oakland, and San Quentin Prison are all still there to be seen!

Imagine seeing those sites for a moment. And if you want any help finding them just e-mail me.

Rating:
Summary: One of The Leading San Francisco Bay Area Murder Stories.
Review: Not only did I buy this book by Mr. Farrell, but I also bought another book on this case by Keith Walker, A Trail of Corn (Selling at Bill & Kathy's Restaurant, none the less), because the Burton Abbott case is very much like one I'm writing myself, the Theodore Durrant case of 1895.

I greatly appreciate authors who provide addresses, maps, and photos, and Mr. Farrell was generous on all counts. As I live in the Bay Area, and have written two unrelated self-guided walking tours, I like to visit all the sites associated with any story that touches me emotionally. Mr. Farrell certainly succeeded with his central task.

In fact, his narrative is so riveting that I soon drove over to Berkeley and retraced the route Stephanie Bryan walked before her kidnapping. One of the strengths of this book is that the reader gets a sense of knowing the victim, her parents, the accused kidnapper, and even a comprehension of how most of the people central to this story had their lives ruined.

Those who are familiar with this famous case may also appreciate knowing, even though this murder happened in 1955, that Willard Junior High, the library, Dream Fluff Donut shop, the suspected ambush path, tunnel road, the Bryan's former residence, the Abbott family's former residence in Alameda, the court house in Oakland, and San Quentin Prison are all still there to be seen!

Imagine seeing those sites for a moment. And if you want any help finding them just e-mail me.

Rating:
Summary: Shallow members of an Unholy Trinity
Review: Rule No. 1 when reading a "true crime" story where you don't already know the ending and want to be surprised is to avoid the photos and captions inset in the middle of the book, until you've already finished it.

The photos and captions will give the ending away every time if you don't wait to look at 'em. I learned that the hard way when I first read the Joe McGinness book on Jeffrey MacDonald ("Fatal Vision").

As far as this book goes, it's not quite clear what author Harry Farrell hoped to accomplish in writing it. The story is about the arrest of Burton Abbott for the brutal abduction and murder of 14-year old Stephanie Bryant in mid-1955 from an enclosed thicket of shrubbery near her home in Berkeley, California and also about Abbott's subsequent trial. Did Farrell simply mean to tell this story in a way that would intrigue his readers?

Then I'd say that he succeeded. This was a very interesting read.

But I also suspect that what Farrell really meant to do was to write a "did-he-or-didn't-he" story; that is, to create suspense as to the accused's guilt or innocence and as to the outcome of the trial. And I'd say that he got no better than mixed results there.

I faithfully AVOIDED the photo section in the middle of the book, but any sense of suspense that I might have experienced was a sham. I kept waiting in vain for the revelation that would cause me to consider the case in a new light. But the evidence as it is shown here remained quite one-sided throughout, and the outcome was inevitable.

In fact, I'm not quite sure that I trust Farrell entirely. Even if this was a capital case, his presentation of it makes one wonder what exactly the jury deliberated about for seven days. Unless, of course, Farrell left out one or more things that might have given pause to a responsible jury.

What I found particularly interesting was not how much the criminal justice system has changed over the intervening half century but how much it hasn't changed.

The same cast of characters showed up for this high-profile case that have shown up in so many others.

There is, of course, first and foremost, The State with seemingly infinite resources at its command to grind into powder any criminal defendant that comes within its maw - whether or not justice is really served thereby.

"Resources" don't just mean the money to foot expenses that only the wealthiest of defendants could assume, such as a dossier of personal information on many of the prospective jurors.

"Resources" also include The State's lengthy tentacles in the form of spies and stool-pigeons, judiciously placed in the trusting presence of the accused and his associates in order to inform. And the County of Alameda, it seems, had no shortage of talkative infantry working for it in order to ensnare Burton Abbott.

Yes, The State has a remarkable propensity for bringing out the best in human nature, and any legal beagle can tell you that if the accused is TRICKED, instead of coerced into disclosing damning information - why, his right to avoid self-incrimination isn't being compromised at all.

The cast also includes The Defense Team, which makes up in gall for what it lacks in resources and authority by utilizing what capital it has to gather dirt on all adverse witnesses and by using back-alley tactics in the courtroom that a seasoned gang-banger wouldn't be ashamed to own, in order to ensure that it is the witnesses themselves, and not the accused, who are put on trial.

But most prominent are Saint Unfortunates; that is, the members of the family of the murder victim, always haughtily assuming the Mantle of Victimhood Itself, always stoically and courageously bearing up in the presence of the press under the horrible tragedy, and ALWAYS appearing, of course, at the right hand of The State when called upon.

In the annals of true crime, has any Saint Unfortunate ever refused to ally himself or herself as a partner of The State? Has any Saint Unfortunate ever expressed disapproval of The State's tactics? Let alone express uncertainty about the case made by The State against the accused?

As far as I know, this has never happened; otherwise, the public from whom the prospective jurors are drawn might actually feel that it's sometimes necessary to draw a distinction between "Justice for the Victim's Family" and rubber-stamping The State's case against the accused.

In this story, the arrogantly-aggrieved parents of Stephanie Bryant do indeed play to the hilt their roles as martyrs and State suck-ups.

And, of course, gazing down from her perch in Heaven on this scene enacted by the Unholy Trinity, her wings still flapping and her halo perfectly adjusted - is The Victim Herself and, as tearfully invoked by The State, the legacy of what she would now never have the opportunity to become.

Indeed, Alameda County D.A. Frank Coakley piously reads an unfinished letter composed by The Victim Herself and, with presumably perfect timing, sobs into his handkerchief at its conclusion.

All cast members are present and accounted for in this saga, but setting aside my suspicions, Farrell does as good a job as any of weaving the same old story in a uniquely entertaining way.

It must be acknowledged, of course, though Farrell fails to, that the post-1955 advent of Miranda, the public defender industry, and the exclusionary rule have given criminal defense attorneys similar license to abuse authority and pervert justice.

But what of the accused in this case, Burton Abbott? If he was innocent, then he was a victim of the machinations of the Unholy Trinity. And if he was guilty, his motives, for all of their baseness, actually seem more pure than the motives of those who fought over his life. Let that be a salvageable remnant of HIS legacy.