What even was this book?
It's a 280 page book with over half of it being notes. Why couldn't the notes have been incorporated into the book? There was important and interesting information in the notes that I wish had been included.
I picked this book up thinking it would be about Amelia Norman and her attempted murder of Henry Ballard. But most of this book was about the people who knew Amelia, not Amelia.
I honestly had expected more from this book. There was not much of an introduction so being thrown into this book was super jarring. Once you get to the trial portion, it got easier to read. But I felt like she kept dropping names of people Amelia used to be acquainted with that I forgot what the purpose of this book was.

I absolutely loved the idea behind this book and it’s inspiration. But I just couldn’t get into it. I think it’s more for fans of historical book which I usually am but overall, I just didn’t get into it. Of course, it has its strengths and positives which made it a decent read. I just couldn’t really fall in love with the book.

I'm left a bit confused by this book. The story of Amelia Norman and her attempted murder of Henry Ballard sounded like an intriguing one to me and drew me in. I'm unsure if there were a lack of sources or what the issue was but it seems that a majority of the book wasn't as focused on this event as I would have thought. There was more focus on the entire lives of the people involved in and around the trial. I don't think that the entire life story of each person was necessary, but only the parts of their background (such as the previous work of the lawyers and the continuation of work towards changing the rights of women). The tie in with the movement for women's rights was good but felt a bit rushed or wedged into the book.

Overall the book was interesting and has a great premise, I just think it could benefit from some better organization. As an example, it seems like only half of the book is actually reading material, and the other half is all notes. Why so many notes? Could it not have been worked into the book rather than trying to explain it after the fact?

On November 1, 1843, illiterate, domestic/seamstress Amelia Norman stabbed prosperous merchant, Henry Ballard on the steps of the Astor House Hotel on Broadway in New York. Norman "did not seem to be angry nor attempt to escape". Arrested and jailed in the Tombs, she awaited trial. The trial, held in the Court of Sessions, commenced on January 15, 1844. It was conducted before three judges, a jury as well as a gallery of three hundred spectators. Was Amelia Norman's act of violence an act of revenge? Were there mitigating factors?

James Gordon Bennett, editor of the New York Herald, initially sympathized with Henry Ballard, "a man of credit and standing" but swayed by popular opinion, he began to advocate for Norman. Norman's staunchest supporter was Lydia Marie Child, author and abolitionist who wove elements of Norman's story into her fiction. People in the nineteenth century attended trials "for entertainment...expect[ing] lawyers to have oratorical and performance skills of actors...spectators who watched what amounted to a serial drama...".

In spring 1841, Amelia met Henry Ballard, a seemingly respectable gentleman. He courted her, "walked out with her publicly" and wrote her letters "containing strong feelings of love and affection". It was a false courtship. He took her to a house of prostitution where "he succeeded in accomplishing her seduction...Amelia had been cajoled, convinced, tricked and, finally, possibly, raped". "Henry Ballard no longer play[ed] the affectionate lover". He deserted Amelia, now pregnant and alone without any means of support.

The trial of Amelia Norman created a vehicle to highlight many issues of the times including abolition and woman's rights. The American Female Moral Reform Society wanted to criminalize seduction. "The seduction tort [in the nineteenth century] ...allowed the father or master of an unmarried woman to sue her seducer for damages on the basis of his loss of her services, usually because of the pregnancy and motherhood that resulted from the seduction". No damages could be awarded to the "wronged woman".

"Cry of Murder on Broadway: A Woman's Ruin and Revenge in Old New York" by Julie Miller chronicled an attempted murder, societal perceptions and calls for women's voices to be heard. The trial addressed a woman's plight, although supporters "...read into Norman's predicament a parable ready-made for their own use...the boundaries between fiction and factual reporting sometimes blended".

No diaries or court documents in Amelia's own words exist, therefore her true feelings have been rendered by supposition. A character study of Amelia Norman and her subsequent trial comprise only part of this tome. Biographical details on woman's rights crusader, Lydia Marie Child as well as many others seemed to diminish my interest. Perhaps less thorough attention to these players and a more intense procedural treatment of the trial would have been more captivating, however, I applaud the monumental research Miller completed in presenting this true crime story.

Thank you Cornell University Press, Three Hills and Net Galley for the ARC in exchange for an honest review.

Don't let the title fool you-while you will be told of the cry of murder on Broadway that is the result of a woman's ruin and revenge in old New York, what you are also getting is a meticulously researched and simply presented story of how one person's small action can contribute to huge changes. This is the butterfly effect told through the lens of the Amelia Norman case. While the crime of the story is the impetus, it's really the story of how the laws of this country are set up by men to protect men. While this story focuses on how the laws disenfranchise women specifically, it is easy to see how the same attitudes led to laws that disenfranchised other populations as well; and how even when those laws are changed, seemingly to the advantage of the disenfranchised, it is really still to the advantage of the ones making the laws. Julie Miller lays out the facts and the history in a simple straight forward manner, and it is because of this simplicity that the facts, the history and the injustices (that unfortunately are still VERY MUCH in existence today) are so effectively, powerfully and stunningly conveyed.

Thank you to NetGalley, the author and publisher for affording me the opportunity to read this book.

The concept caught my interest - I love history and a true tale of attempted murder intertwined with the rise of the women's movement sounded so interesting. I liked that this book shed some light on an otherwise little known figure - Amelia Norman - whose life experiences and struggles reflected those of many other women of her time. I definitely learned new facts and stories from this book, but found the title to be misleading - there was no actual murder. The book is extremely well-researched and the knowledge contained within is encyclopaedic, however much of the detail is overkill and did not further my insight of the subject matter. The woman Amelia Norman herself disappears in the story as others mould her tale to suit their own purposes. There appear to be few primary sources about her and the author's job was made more difficult by Amelia being illiterate and unable to leave a record of her own.

The premise was interesting to me. I wanted to love this book but it just wasn’t a good fit for me personally.

This true crime study is sub-titled “Amelia Norman: Seduction and Betrayal in the 19th Century City”. First it should be said there never was a murder. In November 1843 a desperate, stressed and unstable Norman reacted to her ex-lover, the father of her child who had lied, cheated, neglected them both and then belittled her as a prostitute. This attack in broad daylight in a public place led to her capture, imprisonment, criminal charges and trial. At this stage her life crossed from the “personal” to the “political” and she became a public figure as her trial was used as a weapon in a wider campaign around rights for women, questionable legal practices and linked political privilege/corruption. After the trial she is shielded for a while, found a job under an assumed name and then totally disappeared from the historical record.
There is no personal testimony from Amelia Norman, who was illiterate. It should be borne in mind that all we know about what she thought has been fed through the words and publications of others. Few were close or interested in her personal welfare; many words were self serving to another purpose. Miller has managed to trace her life back to her rural life on a failing farm, her move to Baltimore, her meeting with Henry Hazzard who, talking of marriage, seduced her (as he had at least one other young woman), separated her from her friends, demanded abortions and when her child (unnamed) was born finally abandoned her with no home, job or income.
At the time of the incident a strong network of campaigning families had developed to challenge the lack of human rights. From the impetus of organised abolition of slavery other campaigns had developed often using these close links and networks. While the battle for female suffrage was still very much in its infancy in the United States a range of other issues were being campaigned for. The American Female Moral Reform Society was a key group – and the sub-issue behind that was the systematic but almost casual and unchallenged seduction of young women by wealthier men. One group was looking to the change in the law to allow women themselves to seek financial restitution, others were more intent on stopping the practice.
The key person who will support Norman through this was Lydia Maria Child, herself an extraordinary woman that few will have heard of. She campaigned across a number of rights issues, but at the same time she had to support her family through her writing. This, both fiction and non-fiction, sold to a number of newspapers and magazines. Miller also looked to how the “fiction” market was used to move forward social views and values through such writers as Child. This exposition might seem over extended in a book supposedly about issues around another woman – but actually reinforces the trope of how financially vulnerable women could become and the juggling they need to keep themselves relatively secure. Plus, of course, their reliance on circles of family, friends or fellow travellers.
This is a crime book that speaks to much more than the” crime” itself. It can be dry as Miller in-beds the myriad of legislative changes that seemed to flow from this issue and its publicity. Together this means that this is not necessarily a book that will appeal to all readers – rather a specialised interest. But as it is about wider human rights issues and awareness raising it might be important to those interested in those issues too, bearing in mind that it is quite a slight book.
Depending on your perspective this book might depict how far people have come – or how far they still have to go, a profoundly depressing picture. But seeing the constant activism maybe is a positive exemplar to those still in the frontline.

I will preface this with my notes when at Page 38: "I am going to admit that I am struggling to find some connection with this story. It starts, goes back, moves forward; it is flooded with so much (unnecessary) information that my mind is failing to absorb it all ans sift through what is relevant and what is not. I shall no doubt keep persevering ... for the time being."

I will continue by saying that I skimmed through the rest of the book - unimpressed. Quite a lot of the information could easily have been curated and inserted into the trial component of the story. I was not interested in the (vast) biographical information on a number of other players - again these could easily have been significantly shortened.

As the focus of this book seemed to be on Lydia Maria Child, author and reformer, one wonders whether of not this book should have been about here with the account of Amelia Norman being given as illustrative of her actions (with others) in bringing about reform for women.

Amelia's (and Lydia's) story ends just under the halfway mark - the rest is taken up by sources, notes and bibliography. Had I realised just how this would be structured, I would have passed.

I love books that take a little known facet of history, and then retell it so well that it becomes a part of your own mental landscape of the past. This is a book that does that and then some. Captivating from the first page, with every detail brought to life, and every horror too. Loved it.

If you believe that Carrie White was in the right when she slaughtered nearly her entire graduating class at the prom, then you will in all likelihood side with Amelia Norman. Norman is the centralizing figure in Julie Miller’s chronicle of how one woman’s public attempt at murder on a bustling New York City street in 1843 changed the tide in the fight for women’s equity...

...Miller writes with an academic neutralism. This lends her a moderately journalistic reliability, as a narrator. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if this whole endeavor started out as an article or dissertation of some sort that then grew out of that, which would be cool. But, sadly, the story never really jumps off the page, because the whole account reads too much like a term paper. On the one hand, I admire how fact-based Miller’s prose is—and how she offers credence to her own hypotheses when a primary source does not exist—but… to use a dreaded word, the book repeatedly becomes dull. And given how inherently dramatic this story is, I find that disappointing and unfortunately ironic.

The first third is a little slow. Once the trial begins, it becomes interesting. The parallels between our current wave of feminism and this very old, small, step forward for women really make this book

The premise of this book was promising. But due to the lack of information about Norman and Ballard available, it felt like the author was forced to use more information about society during that time and taking a feminist viewpoint to fill a page count. Therefore, the book felt like a feminist take on society and how this could have played a part in why Norman did what she did I think instead of focusing on the surrounding society, the focus should have been more on Norman and Ballard, as well as how the jury could have easily given a not guilty verdict even though she clearly did stab Ballard. By removing focus to discuss what society was like then, the story of Norman felt a little lost at times, put on the back burner in order for historical details to be given that weren't necessarily need in the first place. This book definitely wouldn't be for everyone, but the feminine take on history surrounding Norman (someone I had never heard of) could be appealing to a modern audience.

Thank you to the publisher for an ARC of this book in exchange for an honest opinion.

The premise of this book - research into the events which led up to a woman stabbing her former lover in a public place in 1840s New York - sounded fantastic and full of potential to explore 19th century society. This was achieved to some extent, with the actions of Amelia Norman being interpreted in the light of the role of women in society at the time and the work of some of the contemporary reforming women.

However the main problem Miller seems to run into is that there just isn't a lot of information about Norman and Ballard, her victim, out there. As a probably semi-illiterate woman from a humble background, Norman did not leave any letters or record of her own feelings and views except through the notes of the trial and the words of Lydia Maria Child, the writer, who was one of her advocates. As a result, the book gets bogged down in autobiographical information about the lawyers involved in Norman's case, and at times reads like a biography of Child's life rather than being focused on Norman. Even in the epilogue Miller admits that she does not know what happened to Norman after she left Child's house, which though understandable feels a little disheartening after one has read all about the trial.

The most interesting parts were when Norman's actions were viewed in light of societal attitudes (such as the myth of the 'Fallen woman') and contemporary literature such as Mysteries of Paris by Eugene Sue. More time exploring where these attitudes came from and perhaps comparing Norman's actions to other women in similar situations (in New York or elsewhere) might have been interesting. I would also like to know how it was possible for the jury to so quickly return a verdict of Not Guilty given how clear it was that Norman did stab Ballard and the prosecution would not allow the defence to ask witnesses about Norman and Ballard's past relationship - the implication was that the media was in Norman's favour but this was not really given as a reason as to why the jury were so clearly on Norman's side.

I was thrown off initially by the way this eBook was formatted. Maybe this is something that will be fixed in final publication? The copy I received jumped right into the story, with no "prelude" or "introduction" heading. Once you get past the fact that the story behind so abruptly, the book was actually quite enjoyable. I read it, with many breaks in between, in one day.

I think the story was riveting. The main protagonist is very intriguing. And you really get a sense of why...why the story started like it did, why she did what she did, and why the author tells it like she did.

I wouldn't say it is a story for everyone. Use good readers judgement when picking this one up.

Overall, great job, Julie. It's an interesting story that I will read again.

Thank you NetGalley for letting me review this book.