Week 5: Murder in Tombstone by Steven Lubet
Western history is an odd duck. It seems to focus quite a bit of attention on single incidents that fit out collective perceptions about the west, and not to bother with anything else. We remember George Custer and the 7th’s engagement at the Little Bighorn because it’s about cowboys and Indians; and we remember gunfight at the O.K. corral, because it’s about a shootout between outlaws and lawmen. Yet the details elude the popular mind. Is this because they are unknown? Or is it because we fear that such revelations might adulate a good story and/or blur the line between good and evil?
In this week’s book, Steven Lubet seems far less concerned with such weighty subjects and far more concerned with relating how the criminal justice system worked in the west. His selection of such a high-profile case serves mostly as a mechanism for grabbing the reader’s attention…and a very effective mechanism at that.
Lubet uses the coroner’s inquest, to raise several points not in harmony with the traditional story of the gunfight: The Earps fired first, The Earps were hoping to provoke their opponents into a shootout, Tom McLaury was unarmed when the shooting started, and Doc Holliday had no business being there at all. All of this led to the trial which dominates the work.
Lubet also makes the reader aware of the backdrop against this affair was taking place. Vast amounts of money were being made in Arizona off the silver mining industry, and Tombstone was one of the state’s boomtowns. Whenever there is a great deal of money being made quickly in one place, there will always be parties jostling for their share and for control of the rest. The Earps were friendly with the local Republican machine while the Cowboys were in with the Democrats. How much competition this generated is hard to gage, but Lubet does make the case the Clantons/McLaurys and Earps were on different sides of the fence, which was bound to bring them into conflict.
The trial of Wyatt Earp set out to answer the question left for it by the coroner’s inquest: Had the Earps committed a crime when they gunned down the Cowboys? The inquest had rendered some strong evidence that they had. County Sheriff Behan had testified that the Earps sought the fight. Other witnesses had testified that Doc Holliday had fired first. During the trial though, this testimony was weakened by good cross-examination and prosecutorial miscues. The judge in the case also seemed to have an anti Cowboy attitude.
Far more interesting than he 30 second gunfight was the process by which the environment concluded that Wyatt Earp was not going to be punished for it. The inquest raised questions, but they could not stand the glare of a trial which was disposed to give the Earps the benefit of the doubt, evidence/testimony that bore the stamp of environmental rivalries, a clever defense, unstable victims, and prosecutorial missteps.
Western history is an odd duck. It seems to focus quite a bit of attention on single incidents that fit out collective perceptions about the west, and not to bother with anything else. We remember George Custer and the 7th’s engagement at the Little Bighorn because it’s about cowboys and Indians; and we remember gunfight at the O.K. corral, because it’s about a shootout between outlaws and lawmen. Yet the details elude the popular mind. Is this because they are unknown? Or is it because we fear that such revelations might adulate a good story and/or blur the line between good and evil?
In this week’s book, Steven Lubet seems far less concerned with such weighty subjects and far more concerned with relating how the criminal justice system worked in the west. His selection of such a high-profile case serves mostly as a mechanism for grabbing the reader’s attention…and a very effective mechanism at that.
Lubet uses the coroner’s inquest, to raise several points not in harmony with the traditional story of the gunfight: The Earps fired first, The Earps were hoping to provoke their opponents into a shootout, Tom McLaury was unarmed when the shooting started, and Doc Holliday had no business being there at all. All of this led to the trial which dominates the work.
Lubet also makes the reader aware of the backdrop against this affair was taking place. Vast amounts of money were being made in Arizona off the silver mining industry, and Tombstone was one of the state’s boomtowns. Whenever there is a great deal of money being made quickly in one place, there will always be parties jostling for their share and for control of the rest. The Earps were friendly with the local Republican machine while the Cowboys were in with the Democrats. How much competition this generated is hard to gage, but Lubet does make the case the Clantons/McLaurys and Earps were on different sides of the fence, which was bound to bring them into conflict.
The trial of Wyatt Earp set out to answer the question left for it by the coroner’s inquest: Had the Earps committed a crime when they gunned down the Cowboys? The inquest had rendered some strong evidence that they had. County Sheriff Behan had testified that the Earps sought the fight. Other witnesses had testified that Doc Holliday had fired first. During the trial though, this testimony was weakened by good cross-examination and prosecutorial miscues. The judge in the case also seemed to have an anti Cowboy attitude.
Far more interesting than he 30 second gunfight was the process by which the environment concluded that Wyatt Earp was not going to be punished for it. The inquest raised questions, but they could not stand the glare of a trial which was disposed to give the Earps the benefit of the doubt, evidence/testimony that bore the stamp of environmental rivalries, a clever defense, unstable victims, and prosecutorial missteps.
posted by ksturcken at 1:34 PM
3 Comments:
Grogblogs emerging from France
A number of France's leading wine producers have started blogging about this years harvest.
Find out how you can buy & sell anything, like things related to music on interest free credit and pay back whenever you want! Exchange FREE ads on any topic, like music!
Hi :)
I absolutely love your blog! I'll definitely bookmark it, keep up the great work.
Please check out my site if you get some time: The Coolest Guy On The Planet
Hi Kent. Voila!: the infamous "first blog of the class". Wanted you to know that someone read it on Saturday night---actually I am right now finishing up Murder in Tombstone and was taking a break, so the book is on my mind as I write this. That was an interesting point you made about Western history often focusing more on one incident or place--in retrospect, that does seem an accurate characterization of many "books of westerm history" for general public consumption. Maybe this is because of the preponderence of what Dr. Petrik once referred to as "history buffs" out west. It's certainly easier for buffs to focus on one incident or location than the big picture, fraught with complexity, contradiction, and ambiguity. That's one reason I like this book--it's a complex examination. I probably was a bit more trusting of Spicer's ability to be impartial and "just" than you were, but his repugnance at disorder and lawlessness (i.e., Cowboys) could not have helped but influence his decision at least a TAD.
Post a Comment
<< Home