A tale of passion, jealousy, greed, ambition, and treachery. And that's just the cops!
Book blurbs tend to exaggerate. I read that Alice Parsons was the heiress to a "vast fortune" and wondered why the cover picture showed a modest farmhouse. In reality, the Parsons were struggling financially. She HAD inherited part of a Long Island estate from her uncle, but there was probate, other heirs, and the selling of the property to deal with before her inheritance was realized. Her uncle's property wasn't a "vast fortune," even during the Great Depression, although it would greatly improve their financial circumstances.
William Partons came from a family of hard-working, successful men, but he seemed content to live on his wife's small income. Their farm was purchased with a mortgage from her uncle and their home business was losing money. There were no children, which was a grief for Alice. William seemed satisfied with the company of their young Russian housekeeper and her schoolboy son.
I was interested in the account of Alice's childhood and the somewhat skimpier account of William's background. Even better was the complicated story of Anna Kupryanova, who was born in the Crimea and whose history included ex-husbands, imaginary husbands, lovers, immigration to England, and at least one deportation from Ellis Island because she lied on her U.S. immigration forms. Since Anna lied as easily as she breathed and almost as often, that's not surprising. Eventually, she got through immigration and she and her son "Roy" (whose parentage was never established) fetched up in Long Island, living with the Parsons on Long Meadow Farm.
On June 9, 1937, Alice Parsons disappeared. William claimed she'd driven him to catch a train to New York City. Roy claimed he saw Alice driving the car on his way to school. Anna claimed that a middle-aged couple came to the farm, took Alice off with them, and never returned.
Roy was the only one who stuck to his original story. Who's going to lean on a 10-year-old kid? William's stories changed daily and Anna's creativity astonished even experienced cops used to improbable tales and gross inconsistencies. Alice's brothers and aunt got involved and William's brothers and sisters chimed in with their versions and opinions.
The local police were first on the spot, then the state police arrived. The county District Attorney and his Assistant DA stuck their fingers in the pie, anxious to get their share of the publicity and credit. Kidnapping - a word coined after Charles Lindbergh's infant son was taken from his home in 1932 - was big business during the Great Depression and every one made headlines. Did people who were struggling to survive enjoy reading about the "rich" becoming victims?
The FBI was only two years old when Alice Parsons disappeared and J Edgar Hoover was fighting to establish his agency's superiority over local and state agencies. There were already power struggles between local and state police and between police and prosecutors. Now a new gang had entered the fray and the investigation of Alice Parson's disappearance became a complicated dance. Would the investigation have been more successful if the various agencies had worked together? Probably. Would it have made any difference to Alice Parsons? Not a bit.
Since all the people involved are long dead, the author bases his story on newspaper accounts and recently declassified FBI documents. You get the sense of a government agency growing rapidly, as they will if Congress finances them. Hoover comes across as a man who understands good investigative techniques, but who's hiring agents much faster than he can train them adequately. There were more newbies than there were seasoned agents to supervise them. And agents lacked the skills to deal with local and state police and wily reporters. In the case of Alice Parsons, it meant that opportunities to get vital evidence were lost.
This book suffers from repetition and indirection, but the story itself is so good it's worth over-looking them. At this distance, it's impossible to know the motivations of the people involved. Alice Parson's relatives acted exactly as one would expect them to. They wanted Alice's killer(s) punished and they didn't want them to profit from her death. They succeeded in one goal, but not the other.
William Parson's family is harder to figure out. They couldn't have been proud of their brother, who had accomplished nothing in life except marriage to a woman with prospects. They surely would have seen through his inconsistencies and it's unbelievable that they could have approved of Anna. Yet they went to extraordinary lengths to help him and their backing made all the difference.
The most interesting character of all is Anna, the quintessential enigmatic Russian. The author argues that her actions reflect an over-weaning desire to protect her son, but is that rational? She and her son had a comfortable home. The Parsons treated Roy like a son and had committed to paying for his education. Why rock the boat when it was so easy to accept Alice Parson's generosity? And if Anna WAS involved in Alice's disappearance, why didn't she wait until after the inheritance had been realized? Even for a tempestuous Slav, it seems like poor planning.
Hardest to understand of all was the government's reluctance to arrest anyone for Alice Parson's disappearance. I think most readers will have the same reaction I had - the evidence is there, make the arrest! Were laws or juries so much different then or was it a matter of the local, state, and federal agencies waiting for someone else to take responsibility and face the possibility of failure?
This book leaves a lot of questions unanswered, but it's a fascinating look at American life in the 1930's. The outcome is bizarre and puzzling. I'm not a fan of "true crime" books, but I was never tempted to stop reading this one.