About Me

My photo
Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada
I am a lawyer in Melfort, Saskatchewan, Canada who enjoys reading, especially mysteries. Since 2000 I have been writing personal book reviews. This blog includes my reviews, information on and interviews with authors and descriptions of mystery bookstores I have visited. I strive to review all Saskatchewan mysteries. Other Canadian mysteries are listed under the Rest of Canada. As a lawyer I am always interested in legal mysteries. I have a separate page for legal mysteries. Occasionally my reviews of legal mysteries comment on the legal reality of the mystery. You can follow the progression of my favourite authors with up to 15 reviews. Each year I select my favourites in "Bill's Best of ----". As well as current reviews I am posting reviews from 2000 to 2011. Below my most recent couple of posts are the posts of Saskatchewan mysteries I have reviewed alphabetically by author. If you only want a sentence or two description of the book and my recommendation when deciding whether to read the book look at the bold portion of the review. If you would like to email me the link to my email is on the profile page.

Wednesday, September 4, 2024

Exchange with Dean Jobb Concerning A Gentleman and a Thief

My last post was a review of A Gentleman and a Thief by Dean Jobb. After reading the book I wrote to the author. A copy of my letter and his reply are below. A warning before reading. There may be more information in my letter than some readers would want before reading the book.

****

Dean:

I was very glad my good friend and sister in the law, Dawna Ring, sent me a copy of A Gentleman and a Thief. I appreciate your inscripion to me. I enjoyed reading the book. I will be posting my review, a copy follows  this letter on my blog, Mysteries and More from Saskatchewan, in a few days.

As I read the book I thought there was a moment when Arthur Barry might have used his bright, agile, organized mind for a conventional life. When he returned from World War I you set out his unsuccessful efforts to find a job amidst hundreds of thousands of demobilized soldiers. Could he not have found a job again with his brother or through another of his siblings? Or was he lying about sincerely seeking employment?

While reading a true crime book I think about an alleged and/or actual criminal and their legal representation. My experience in criminal defence goes back 49 years to when I graduated from law school.

I have observed that it is a rare accused who, charged with serious offences, does well on his own (it remains to this day rare for the accused to be a she).

While it pains me to say it, Arthur did better on his own than he could have with a lawyer advocating for him. Charm and apparent candour worked well. 

I appreciate that he confessed to save his wife, Anna Blake, but he is so clever in dealing with the prosecutor and police. He provides abundant information on other thefts, on the condition he is not charged with them. He discreetly sets his accomplice, James Monahan, as the leader of the duo. Being allowed to plead guilty to one theft limited his punishment. His sentence of 25 years is severe but not the maximum.

The police and district attorney had good reason to be content with the single guilty plea. Victims, even if they talked to Arthur in darkened bedrooms, were uncertain of him being the thief. Beyond having stolen items in his possession there was little evidence against him. I am sure the district attorney hesitated about pursuing additional charges for it would have been interesting to see what a jury would have done had Arthur gone to trial and said he did not know what was in the box containing damning evidence given to him by Monahan when he was arrested. There would also have been questions over the admissibility of his confession because of the inducements made to him while being questioned.

I am sure there were many New York City lawyers ready, even eager, to defend the Gentleman Thief. Do you know if he consulted a lawyer before or after his confession?

Years later, when he was facing trial for “planning and inciting the deadly riot” in which he escaped from Auburn prison he had the wisdom to have a lawyer represent them rather than try to represent himself, though his co-accused, George Small, did well on his own.

You set out that Arthur received court appointed counsel in Max Goldman. He was well represented by Goldman. The book simply describes him as a local lawyer. Do you know anything of Goldman’s experience as a lawyer?

I was struck that Arthur did not take the witness stand. Accustomed to talking his way out of trouble I would have guessed he would have wanted to testify. Do you know why he did not go onto the stand?

I think he was wise not to expose himself to cross-examination. He would have had to admit his extensive criminal history. He would have had to admit he was not a mere bystander. He would have had to admit that he participated in the violence.

I wondered if he subsequently had legal assistance in his parole application. It was well done and dealt with legal issues more than factual matters.

I think Arthur could have been a great lawyer instead of a great criminal.

If you are able to reply and are willing I would post your response together with this letter upon my blog.

I look forward to reading more of your books.

All the best.

Bill Selnes

****

Thanks for your kind words, Bill, and for the great write-up. Much appreciated.

Everything I could find about Barry's dealings with the justice system is in the book.

Dean

****

2 comments:

  1. Thanks, Bill, for sharing both of your letters. I think you raise really interesting questions about both Arthur Barry as a person and his not having legal help. And your insights about the trial itself are interesting, too. This is certainly a book-worthy case, and I'll be interested in finding out what Dean Jobb writes next.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Margot: Thanks for the comment. Arthur was a very clever man. I wish there was some way my questions could have been answered.

      Delete