This meticulously researched & engrossing book shares the story of Death Row inmate Edgar Smith. Smith’s story veers off in a different direction than most due to the support—& celebrity—he gained from friendships w/Nat’l Review creator & conservative thinker William Buckley & the literary establishment (including a sexually charged penpal relationship with his book editor, Sophie Wilkins). Yes. He published a best-selling book about his crime (& who he said really did it), while on Death Row. Weinman shows how this reality assisted in the release of Smith, even after his conviction.

Weinman's heavy use of research--and larger concepts derived from that research--set this book apart from most true-crime tales. There's the way-too-frequent (and infuriating) analysis about the danger to women from violent, angry men. Yet, through this story readers get to see Smith's thoughts about women from his writing. He portrays his first victim as a woman (she was 15!) who taunted men with provocative, tight clothes and the reputation of being loose with her sexual morals. In essence, Weinman shows how Smith blamed Victoria for his behavior, not himself (sadly, again, way too common). To think so many women (including Sophie Wilkins) willingly fell under his spell is both infuriating and sad.

The unusual aspects of this, at its core, too-familiar tale, make this true-crime book a true original. Smith’s saga is especially galling considering how he was able to manipulate so many people (oh, Sophie, really?!) to get his conviction overturned—giving him the opportunity to try & kill again. If you like true-crime books but are looking for one that stands apart from the rest, this is it.

This was so intriguing. Very well-written. Some parts felt like a work of fiction because I couldn’t believe what a smooth talker Edgar Smith was and how he got all these women he got to fall in love with him is beyond me.

I knew nothing about Edgar Smith before picking this up from the library.
Weinman writes clearly and the narrative is well paced. The title is a bit misleading - Weinman shows us that Smith convinced many that he didn't commit the murder he was convicted of, but she doesn't show us *how*. People were simply duped. Weinman writes this about one of his dupes: "She couldn't fathom that Edgar had actually done it when he'd written such wonderful letters to herself and to Buckley."

What's interesting to me is the reason he was released from prison. His conviction was "overturned on the grounds that his unsigned confession was coerced and was therefore uncontitutional." He was to have a new trial within 60 days or he would have to be released.
A new trial was not held - instead he accepted a plea in which he admitted to killing Zielinski. The judge sentenced him to 25-30 years, credited the 14.5 years already served, gave time off for good behavior, and suspended the rest of the sentence. This was not a case of Smith duping the courts IMO.

What IS surprising is how anyone, presented with the information Weinman presents about the initial trial, could believe him to be not guilty. Buckley states had he been on the jury he'd have had reasonable doubt and voted not guilty. Even without modern forensics I don't understand how that would be possible given the evidence (even without the confession). Except that he was a good looking white man with charm who managed to write well.

Sometimes a counterpoint reminds you to consider opposing views. I've read many exoneration books. Never have a read a false one who then goes on to reoffend. Interesting read.