Who Killed Jane Stanford?: A Gilded Age Tale of Murder, Deceit, Spirits and the Birth of a University

This is a complex and intertwined tale of the murder of an extremely wealthy but tiresome elderly lady named Jane Stanford. She was the widow of Leland Stanford, Sr., who made millions through shady business dealings in the late nineteenth century. Jane Stanford and her husband founded what was to become Stanford University as a memorial to their only child, a son who died at 15 in the 1880s. Neither of the Stanfords had much knowledge of how a university should be run, and they were constant thorns in the side for the administrators and scholars whom they hired. Jane Stanford was a particularly annoying presence in the history of the University's early years. Besides attempting to micromanage the place, she also caused problems for the school's officials by insisting on making spiritualism one of its guiding principles.Then in early 1905 Jane Stanford suddenly died, apparently of strychnine poisoning. The investigation of her death became a cause celebre for newspapers in San Francisco and throughout the United States. Richard White's account of Stanford's early history, the death of Jane Stanford, and the ensuing investigations and details is a thorough and well documented story involving deceit, racism, financial misdealings, and the enduring mystery of what actually happened. Sometimes all the detail made for slow going, but I found that sticking with it all paid off in the end because White manages to draw the multiple threads to a satisfactory hypothesis as to who killed her and why in his Epilogue.

AWESOME

My husband and I both earned graduate degrees at Stanford. I got my Ph.D. in 1977 and he received his J.D. and M.B.A. a couple of years later. Neither of us ever heard that Jane Stanford had been murdered. I remember seeing photos of Stanford University before the 1906 earthquake and thinking that Jane Stanford would have been devastated by the destruction, but that the architecture was much improved in the rebuilding.I listened to Prof. White's presentation on his book to the Stanford Historical Society and immediately ordered a copy. His deeply researched description of the differences between the goals of Jane Stanford and the University's first President, David Starr Jordan, and the board of directors was eye-opening, and very convincing.The self-serving human behaviors that drive the action in 1905 are still factors in business and politics. The book is a reminder that we should look beyond headlines to understand the political battles that are on-going around us.

The book at times was a tedious read, there were times when I felt like giving it up and stopping, b ut I simply fast-forwarded those sections which were so involved that I needed a score card to keep track of the characters. In the end, the person I suspected was the one he named as the murderer. His solution to the supposed crime makes total sense to me, amongst the corruption of the University officials as well as the San Francisco Police Department. The book ultimately becomes an interesting read, but you have to make the cuts that I think the author should have to make it so. One example of this was the chapter on the Chinese gangs. Muddling through all of the Chinese names, left me confused and bored. The "HopSing," group made me think of Hoss Cartright from Bonanza. Overall, the book was so-so hence the 3 star grade, the Mystery in Shanandoah National Park was much better titled: "Trailed".

Richard White, history professor at Stanford, gave a great presentation for his book. I wanted to love it, but it's tedious to the nth degree. The only way I could finish was to read it while waiting at the doctor's office and the auto shop, over the course of a year. It was a step above staring at blank walls for hours. I do give it 2 stars for incredible research. But really, do we need to know the "street address" of the pharmacy in San Francisco where Jane's bottle of poisoned water was taken for analysis. I wish I had skipped to the epilogue.I couldn't keep the cast of thousands straight involved in the ugly politics, racism, sexism and in-fighting within Stanford and San Francisco. I was never particularly interested in the gilded age, and this reinforces why. When I started work at Stanford in 2001, I first read a story about Jane Stanford being murdered and always wondered why. The book sums it up in excruciating detail.