I really thought for basically this entire book that it was going to be a four star read. So keep in mind if I sound extra disappointed in this review, it's probably for that reason.

It's fascinating and I loved the historical elements. Like I get that's such an obvious thing when you're reading a book set in the early 1900s, but the details and lifestyles of the time were so visceral and present at every moment of the book. I really felt like not only did I learn about this case, but just the world as a whole (the world, in this case, being America at the turn of the 20th century). Worldbuilding is just as important in nonfiction as it is in fiction.

I thought all the research was really well done as well. There was just so much information. It reminded me a lot of Erik Larson in that way. There was so much of the story and so much Baatz was able to include that it almost read like fiction.

And beyond just the writing, the case itself was fascinating. It was essentially a rich boy gaming the system and a pretty actress being used as a pawn by everyone involved. I'm such a sucker for reading about that kind of thing and it's so funny- sad funny, I suppose- how little it's changed in a hundred years. I could see this same scenario being played out today with little difference.

My one major problem is the only reason I knocked this book down to three stars, but it's kind of a doozy. Right up through the whole book, I was ready to give it four. Read the final chapter, thought it deserved forward. Read the epilogue, same thoughts. Then I got to the afterword and the afterword in this book is kind of a lot. That was the point where Baatz decided to inform the reader that actually Evelyn Nesbit (the actress involved) later recanted her rape testimony and said her husband forced her to say that. He went on to say there's basically no proof the rape actually occurred. Which you know, is kind a big thing to learn when the whole book is predicated on the idea that Nesbit was raped.

I don't actually have a problem with him choosing to write the book with the assumption that the rape occurred. There's no actual proof either way and a whole lot of evidence could be used to support either theory. I think that's a very valid choice and made for an interesting book. My problem was that this was only brought up in the afterword, after I'd finished the book. That's something I want to know in an introduction or even just included in the book as a whole. But however it's included, I want to know that as I'm reading the book. When it's revealed at the very very end after I finished, it makes me feel like I've been lied to or misled. It makes me wonder if Baatz took other liberties with the story, which previously hadn't been something I'd considered. It makes me lose trust in him to tell me the real story. I think there was a way to include that information where this book would still have been four stars for me, but it wasn't a surprise in the afterword.

I'm struggling with my thoughts because I feel so negative and bitter towards this book now, but I enjoyed literally the whole main event. Just that afterword left such a bad taste in my mouth.

I'd still recommend picking up this book if it sounds interesting to you. It's fascinating and such a worthwhile read. But I think it's good to know going in that the rape may or may not have occurred. Baatz writes it with near absolute certainty and didn't waver on that until the end.

Overall, a fascinating bit of true crime, though. There was so much beyond that about the justice system and society at the time and Nesbit's life before and after the main events of the book. It's very well done. I just wish it hadn't left such a bitter taste in my mouth at the end.