Connect with us

Published

on

As John Mulaney said, “it was really easy to get away with murder before they knew about DNA”, and he was right. It was also ridiculously easy to commit insurance fraud. So easy that reading about it feels like watching a silly money scheme in a soap opera. Young, handsome and naive, I introduce Cecil Hambrough. A young man who died under mysterious circumstances while on a hunting trip in 1893 in what would become known as the Ardlamont Mystery.

On the afternoon of the fateful day in 1893, Cecil was in the woods with a man named Alfred Monson and a man of greater mystery going by the alias Edward Scott. Real name Edward Sweeney. Sometime during the afternoon of their trip, Cecil was shot dead and left in the woods. Monson and Scott/Sweeny returned to Ardlamont House, an estate they were renting for the season, and announced that Cecil had been shot. A terrible accident they claimed the boy caused himself when he tripped and fell. They said this only after the butler questioned them while they were having tea in the dining room. As if that didn’t look suspicious enough.

What followed was a shocking criminal investigation that went way beyond the average dog and pony show. Keep in mind that during this time, all the way over in the states, H.H. Holmes was also running amuck, displaying the disquieting influence of the criminal mind. But The Ardlamont Mystery isn’t just about Monson and Hambrough. Showing that there’s more to history than simply an event locked into the past, author Dan Smith explains the very unique connection the crime has with modern-day and the one and only Sherlock Holmes.

Cecil Hambrough

The Ardlamont Mystery

Just to clarify, neither Monson nor his crime influenced Sherlock Holmes or any of his cases directly. The first Sherlock story, A Study in Scarlet was published in 1887 and the Hambrough murder occurred in 1893, but the two share a unique connection that we’ll get to later.

The Ardlamont Mystery by Dan Smith is a very technical book that’s a mix of true crime, historical study, and trivia. Much of the book revolves around Dr. Joesph Bell and Dr. Henry Littlejohn, two of the frontiers of modern criminal investigation and forensic study. They were two very incredible men that helped jump-start the Golden Age of forensic sleuthing; “the sort of men upon whom empires are built.”

Advertisement

Even though this book is about a murder, it doesn’t spend as much time on the actual murder as it does on what comes after. The Ardlamont Mystery is about Monson’s defense against what seemed like an obvious conviction. After the murder, or accident, came the trial which involved Bell and Littlejohn, and Monson looked about as guilty as O.J. Simpson. We all know how that trial ended though and this one isn’t much different. Most of what Monson’s defense team came up with wouldn’t hold up by today’s standards but it was perfectly acceptable for the jury of then. With little to no hard evidence, everything presented at the trial was pure speculation and circumstantial evidence with the Defense doing nothing but spreading doubts about the Prosecution.

Ardlamont House

In the end, it all came down to where they found Cecil’s body. I’m not going to recap every little piece presented at the trial. Just trust me when I say that Monson was guilty. Unfortunately, it was a very much a “he said he said” situation and no one could figure out where Cecil landed when he died. The entire case against Monson fell on the assumption that Cecil died where he was found while the defense based their argument on the claim that he fell in a ditch and was carried out to where he was found.

The jury couldn’t figure out what was going on and was apparently swayed by the charm emitting from Monson. They decided he was “not proven” on the charges of murder. Monson ended up going to prison several years later for insurance fraud. By the way, the murder of Cecil was likely driven by Monson’s need for easy money. He had a $20,000 policy on Cecil’s life that he lied about and later tried to cash in.

Prejudice and gossip

Two additional interesting topics presented by Smith in The Ardlamont Mystery both involved public perception. During this time, information on criminal behavior was limited and people were as they always are, frightened of what they can’t identify with. The acceptable perception of criminals was that they were hideous with deformities, had usually large noses or ears, and lived in poverty. Monson, being a white man from a well-known family, was simply not acceptable as a criminal.

This, however, just fueled the public’s natural obsession with the macabre. Tabloids have not changed at all by the way. Monson gave his own, and fictional, version of events in The Ardlamont Mystery Solved when he thought he could make a quick buck off public interest. It’s currently out of print but if you can find a copy I’m sure it’ll be a hilarious read. From what critics of the time said, it’s just Monson lying about how nice of a guy he is.

Dr. Joseph Bell beside an illustration of Sherlock Holmes

The Sherlock Connection

The connection with the great Sherlock Holmes takes place in the form of the two men who testified at Monson’s trial. Dr. Bell and Dr. Littlejohn, the forensic sleuthing frontiers. The author of the Sherlock Holmes adventures, Arthur Conan Doyle met Bell in 1877 and served as his clerk at the Edinburgh Royal Infirmary. Bell was his mentor, teacher, and friend and was famous among students for his incredible powers of deduction. He could look at a patient and diagnosis them based on their appearance and demeanor. Bell was involved in several police investigations, usually working alongside Henry Littlejohn, who was also brought into the mix when Doyle created Holmes.

It was their presence, particularly Bell’s, that made people so interested in the trial’s outcome. When they became part of the investigation, people became very interested in their statements, wondering what the real Sherlock Holmes would say.

Advertisement

Verdict

I’m giving The Ardlamont Mystery two separate ratings because even though it details a criminal event, it’s not really a true crime novel but actually an account of how real-life influenced fictional life.

As a true crime book: 3 out of 5 stars (3 / 5)

As a nonfiction book 4.5 out of 5 stars (4.5 / 5)

Advertisement

Rachel Roth is a writer who lives in South Florida. She has a degree in Writing Studies and a Certificate in Creative Writing, her work has appeared in several literary journals and anthologies. @WinterGreenRoth

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Book Reviews

Monastery Series 7: a Book Review

Published

on

Hello again dear readers. Today we are looking at yet another instalment of Monastery. Once again, I’ll be eating my words. Every time I think the story can’t get any crazier, it does and you’ll understand why soon enough. Without further ado, let’s go!

Plot

We start with quite a tension point in the story (then again, it is always tense nowadays). Rocky’s been abducted and the gang is at a loss for words or motivation, all except Thomas, that is. At this point, all they want is to get Rocky back, even if it means abandoning the search for truth. I can appreciate how Thomas is now a foil not only to those hiding secrets but also to his cousins. Without him, there is no story as far as I’m concerned. However, there were some moments where even I thought he could’ve been a bit more tactful around others’ emotions.

We also see that at least for the time being, Rocky is safe. His POV is so well done I wanted to pull him out of the page and give him a big cuddle. Unfortunately, it looks like he’s yet another collateral damage of the family’s mess. 

Advertisement

Speaking of mess, Cassandra and Francis reach a fascinating opposing point. She’s concerned Francis is showing no remorse over killing George Turner, or over killing an innocent dog. Could Albert please ask around if there is a special circle of hell for people like him? It’s interesting how Cassandra, no matter how messed up she is, still has some sense of right or wrong. As for Francis, someone needs to take that gun off him ASAP as he’s all too happy using it.

As we all predicted, the Nicole-David-Fred love triangle finally blew up, and boy, how did it. Erica goes full-on scorned woman and drugs Nicole. She then parades her in the middle of Monastery for everyone to see in a wedding dress. Threatening to pour acid on her face is just an added touch to the terror.

Although this turns out to be just a mind game on Erica’s part, we get some insightful character revelations. Nicole’s reasoning for toying with the two guys becomes more understandable, although I still cannot excuse it (and I’m speaking as someone who actually likes Elena Gilbert). I think she could use some therapy to sort out the trauma inflicted by her dad’s affair. At this stage of her life, she shouldn’t end up with either guy. David is also at fault and I think he should work on making it up to Fred. If he and Nicole sail off into the sunset now, it would leave a bad taste in a lot of reader’s mouths. Then again, if Fred does decide to take her back, it would be his choice. Something tells me this ordeal is far from over. 

We end series seven of Monastery with Thomas receiving yet another blow when his dad betrays him and destroys all the progress of their investigation. So much for trusting family, or authorities for that matter. What is going to happen now?

Advertisement

Overall thoughts

I said a lot of my thoughts while discussing the plot of the episode. As usual, Monastery is full of of drama, mystery, and outright terrifying things to keep us on our toes. The one plot thread I am holding in my hand just waiting to see where it leads me is Madam Witch. Her very fairytale-like deal with Cassandra implies she owes her one of the grandkids. Not to mention the implication that Henry has some kind of special powers. I can’t wait to see how that ties into what happened to Albert. The next part can’t come out soon enough!  5 out of 5 stars (5 / 5)

More thoughts from the author:

1. Something I talked about before in another article about Monastery a little but something that I picked up on in this episode. Cassandra, although definitely not perfect, still seems to uphold some kind of morality within her. Such as how horrified she is when Francis doesn’t feel bad that he killed George. Was this something you considered when writing these characters, someone who’s not afraid to get their hands dirty but still has some kind of empathy vs someone who doesn’t?

Absolutely – that is my favourite type of character! Who doesn’t love an anti-hero with a grey moral compass, but a moral compass nevertheless? Cassandra is capable of the most atrocious acts, but she always has her family’s best interest at heart – or what her idea of their “best interest” should be.

Interestingly enough, we’re slowly learning how Francis is the result of Cassandra being the way she is, and he himself certainly blames her for much. Francis only has his own interest at heart… yet he killed George because of what the old creep had said about Cassandra! Again, grey area.

2. The whole Erica scene is genius on many levels. I actually got a couple of questions in regards to it. One – were you always going to pull the whole ‘none of the torture devices were real’ trick on the readers to toy with their emotions or were you thinking of doing it for real but backed out? Two – I thought the way the town’s residents acted was very fitting of the story and of modern society. What was your intention with having seemingly everyone witness the ordeal?

Funny, I cannot remember whether that mini-twist was always part of the equation, but I concluded that I didn’t want Erica to be hated or irredeemable – I wanted to make it more about the lesson being learned than the payback.

As for the townspeople witnessing the whole thing, there were three reasons I did it: a) the satire, because, has mentioned in previous Q&As, Monastery is a satire of small-town life, and we all know small-town folks love a good scandal; b) the humour, as I went all out in making an over-the-top situation even more over-the-top; and c) plot convenience because, as that all goes down, Francis is shooting up the Keane house and I didn’t actually want any neighbours to know and call the cops as it wouldn’t serve his arc… at this point.

3. The one storyline that I’m still wondering as to how it will tie into everything is Madam Witch and the whole first-born son hints that are very fairytale-like. Are we meant to take it as an allusion to the paranormal in this story (such as the seances they had in the previous episode) and that more is coming? As it is not outright stated since the murder mystery is the forefront with the town not really caring there’s a werewolf roaming around.

There will be a paranormal twist to the murder mystery and how it’s covered up, I promise – after all, one mustn’t forget that Cassandra owes Madam Witch – but we don’t know what she owes her for.

Advertisement

As for the werewolf, hmm… Been a while since he’s made an appearance, has it not? Wouldn’t it be a darn shame if one of our protagonists came face-to-face with him in the next episode?

Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Our Hideous Progeny Review: Frankenstein’s Dinosaur

Published

on

“It was a grey and foggy March day when we brought it to life at last. I had expected there to be thunder, or at the very least some rain; I had expected that on such a momentous occasion, Nature would be obliged to provide us with a fitting backdrop.” – pg 2, Our Hideous Progeny by C.E. McGill

Our Hideous Progeny is C.E. McGill’s debut 2023 novel and unofficial sequel to Frankenstein by Mary Shelley. Like certain aquatic reptiles, McGill is already making a splash with Our Hideous Progeny being named a Best in Fiction Book of 2023. It had been on my to-read list since its release, but I’d been stalling until I read the original Frankenstein. With Poor Things and Lisa Frankenstein (both absolutely bizarre movies about women containing multitudes) hitting theaters, I finally caved and did my required reading.

Our Hideous Progeny follows Mary Sutherland, a 19th century descendant of Victor Frankenstein, striving to be a scientist. However, she is stopped by social mores, her husband’s poor decisions, and her family background. When she finds Victor Frankenstein’s journal, she sets out to not just create life, but to create a dinosaur. 

As a note, reading Frankenstein isn’t a prerequisite to enjoy Our Hideous Progeny, however it enhanced the experience. Whereas Frankenstein is about the aftermath of his experiment, Our Hideous Progeny is about the lead-up. Both contain similar themes of hubris and men defying God rather than taking responsibility for their actions. However, the focus on different moments in the experimentation provides a fresh recontextualization. Additionally, motherhood is the lens through which Our Hideous Progeny views the original story, providing additional nuance to this continuation of the narrative.

Advertised as a feminist, queer, and gothic tale about an ambitious woman in science, Our Hideous Progeny hits all those marks. However, some of those descriptors are more prevalent than others. To me, the story reads as mostly historical fiction with a splash of sci-fi and a hint of queer romance. As a queer woman in science, I really liked the book! The prose had a distinct voice that made the experience more immersive. I never doubted Mary’s voice or the time period. The characters were compelling, though in a way where I couldn’t wait for some of them to get punched. 

Advertisement

I did struggle to reopen the book at times. Mostly, this was due to a fatigue of terrible people making terrible decisions. In this way, Our Hideous Progeny sometimes felt like a 19th century r/AmITheAsshole post, in which you just want to scream at the poster to leave her husband. The situations and writing were believable and entertaining, however, emotionally draining for the mental state I was in while reading. Also, I did expect a bit more dinosaur than was present, (it is finalized at the end and not the beginning) but it wasn’t a book-ruiner for me.

I would absolutely recommend Our Hideous Progeny to those who are a fan of Frankenstein, historical fiction, and science history. Additionally, if you like angry and smart female main characters it would be a good choice too. Check out McGill’s interviews, essays, and more here!

4.6 out of 5 stars (4.6 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Book Reviews

Walnut Ridge Review: Aliens, Angels, and Taco Bell

Published

on

“One of the Angels walked past the group meeting room. It was not, of course, a real angel in biblical terms. It was a visual approximation of an angel, and that’s what they liked to be called, Angels” – pg 1, Walnut ridge by Dan Scamell

Walnut Ridge is the debut weird science fiction novel by Dan Scamell. The publisher, Dead Star Press, is based out of Phoenix and committed to “unpretentious indie publishing”, with a specialization in weird speculative fiction. A press that had long been on my radar, I was excited to review an advanced reader copy of Walnut Ridge ahead of its March 20, 2024 release!

Walnut Ridge follows a group of people trying to come to terms with a world post-alien takeover. Unlike most end-of-the-world stories, these aliens have promised utopia. As long as you’re converted into goo! The residents of Walnut Ridge, a pre-goo processing facility, must accept utopia or be left on Earth alone. Will they be granted access to the promised land? Or will they become eternal outcasts? Watch Scamell’s promo trailer below!

Video promo for Walnut Ridge from Dan Scamell’s YouTube Channel

In its simplistic form and wacky story, Walnut Ridge‘s plot and prose are reminiscent of an early Vonnegut novel. Through this, Scamell showcases the difficulties of navigating the human brain and the contradictions of human belief, behavior, and intentions. Overall, I enjoyed the plot and character arcs, with the last half of the book being particularly gripping. The plot was original, refreshing, and interesting. Aliens taking the form of angels isn’t a new concept (Ancient Aliens has entered the chat), but the way it’s executed is a creative spin. Likewise, the pop culture references aren’t overdone and play a clear role in the story. Where Walnut Ridge shines in its originality, is the almost entirely internal conflict against the backdrop of a utopia.

While Walnut Ridge reminds me of Kurt Vonnegut, I didn’t consider the prose quite as witty and humorous as I would expect from a Kurt Vonnegut novel, and a touch more explicit. This is worth mentioning for those trying to determine if Walnut Ridge is the right fit for them. The plot is spot on as something that could come straight from Vonnegut or Douglas Adams, however.

Advertisement

Scamell has described Walnut Ridge as an allegory for addiction and recovery. As someone without that personal experience, I found the characters hard to relate throughout the first half of the book. The self destructive behavior of those living in Walnut Ridge was frustrating to read. At several moments I wanted to shake the main character, Leo, and tell him to grow a spine. Other characters I wanted to shake and tell them to grow up. It is not lost on me that similar frustrations can be felt by family and friends of those going through addiction. I still haven’t decided if I like the execution of the allegory or not, but Scamell certainly left me with a lot to ponder.

I would recommend Walnut Ridge to those looking for weird speculative fiction with a positive spin. Those who have previously overcome addiction may also be particularly drawn to this story. Consider preordering Scamell’s debut novel now!

3.7 out of 5 stars (3.7 / 5)

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending