Talk:A Great Fall

Non-neutral / lack of reliable sources

I have removed the following from the article, because the information was unreferenced and non-neutral; although I appreciate that it is an attempt to summarize the book, it is not appropriate to draw conclusions about a real-life case; see WP:NPOV and WP:OR.

A plot summary of some kind would be acceptable, if it were neutral. Please refer to Wikipedia:How to write a plot summary  Chzz  ►  20:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Text removed;

Great Fall is, on the surface, a murder mystery, a Whodunit. Beneath the surface, lies a true story of state oppression, prosecutorial overreach, a reckless and one-sided police force bent not on protecting the innocent but vilifying State’s targets, a court system heavily weighted against the defendant, suppression of evidence, and the presumption of guilt. No one could read this book and believe that justice is blind.

Plot summary

In Litchfield County, Connecticut on June 15, 1965 Arnfin Thompsen discovered his brutally murdered young wife, Dorothy, when he returned home from work. She had been stabbed multiple times with a meat fork, pummeled with a sledgehammer and a 19-pound rock, garroted with an electric cord, and hung off her balcony until the cord broke.

The mother-in-law, Agnes Thompsen, a Norwegian immigrant of strong body but weak mind, who had recently stabbed herself with a knife to try to kill the devil in her, was hauled off to an insane asylum that night, confessed, and the case was closed at the behest of Major Sam Rome, the famous detective who collared the “Boston Strangler.” Major Rome knew she was guilty but also knew that she would spend the rest of her life in the asylum, was no threat to others in the community, and was unfit to stand trial. Her first words to her son upon discovering the grizzly seen were “Is she dead yet?”

9 months later, to the day, a 19-year-old boy named Harry Solberg was accused of the murder and interrogated by police. The state’s attorney, Thomas Wall, who had a personal grudge against Major Rome, and was eager for an easy trophy in a very public murder re-opened the case without viewing any of Major Rome’s testimony, and engaged in a relentless chase to bring down the hapless minor for his office’s greater glory. The first trial ended in a hung jury. The second trial ended in reduced charges from first-degree murder to blackmail. (The scared boy had foolishly written a phony letter in an attempt to divert attention from him.) Instead of the electric chair (what the state’s attorney wanted to satisfy his urges), Solberg got 8 months in prison.

What made the story a case of failed jurisprudence instead of justice were the incredible (and luckily documented) lengths that the state’s attorney took to win at any cost. There is a forced confession; an inappropriate application of Miranda; suppression of state’s evidence by the state that proved Agnes Thompsen’s guilt; ignored or impugned testimony of Major Rome who headed the investigation; illegal interrogation techniques of Harry Solberg; and attempts by the state to suppress freedom of the press.

Ms Savage observes in her forward, “I am aware that many lawyers will take exception to some of my opinions. In private some (happily, not all) have already done so. Their position has been, “This is the Law. These are the rules of the game.” To which, the reader may reply, if rules trump outcomes then one has to question the very game we are playing. If it is not built to be fair, then it does not pass the lowest standards of gamesmanship, that is, any game found outside of Las Vegas where the advantage, by design, redounds to the house.

Ms. Savage further writes, “In many of these debates, it seemed to come down, in the end, to a question of Justice vs. Jurisprudence and my comments have been on the side of what appeared to be justice.” On page 434 Judge Douglas Wright cites: State v. Guilfoyle, “…(T)he testimony of every available witness tending to aid in ascertaining the truth (should) be laid before the trial court, irrespective of whether it be consistent with the contentions of the prosecution. It is especially…necessary where the circumstances…are attended by great excitement and confusion.” “In other words”, as Judge Wright said, “in a criminal case….our Supreme Court feels that all sides of the question should be exposed.”

The Supreme Court seems to be asking (or answering) what is the state? Is it umpire or player? Is it both? What are the responsibilities of the state to first presume innocence and then to methodically and without prejudice sort through facts in search of the truth? Can the state act as umpire and player without an inherent conflict of interest, and if it does not what are the penalties or consequences?

The book makes the reader wonder, though we know that our courts are set up as an adversarial system, a system that has a long and distinguished history, what are the obligations of the state to present its case fairly? What obligation does the state have to present evidence that is true even if it were injurious to its own case? If the state wins but society loses, because the freedom of the innocent is jeopardized, then who benefits?

Quotations from the case

I have also removed the very large quotation from the case file - this is not appropriate in an article about a novel.  Chzz  ►  20:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)