One crime that I wrote about for Court TV’s Crime Library was the 1927 murder of Albert Snyder, a crime that has long fascinated me largely because of its having inspired the highly regarded classic motion pictures Double Indemnity (1944) and The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946). I am a big fan of film noir and Double Indemnity is my favorite of the genre.

If I were writing “All About Albert Snyder” today, I would definitely not pen the same ending that is currently on that story, an ending that I now recognize as blaming the victim and displaying a misandrist sexism. When I was growing up – in a traditionally religious, socially conservative, and strongly anti-feminist household – I had always heard that “when a marriage fails, it’s usually the man’s fault.”

This bias shows up in my ending of the Albert Snyder article: “Some men may recognize themselves in the offhand belittling cruelty of Albert Snyder. Other men may recall regret for mistreating a woman they loved. Some women know what it’s like to be married to uncommunicative men and identify with Ruth Snyder on that level.” All of the forgoing places blame on the case’s victim and even on men in general.

In truth, the Albert Snyder case displayed male and female failings to the world in about equal measure.

A superficial look at the Albert Snyder case could leave an observer puzzled as to why this case received so much public attention, much less why it inspired artists.

The facts of the case may appear commonplace, even banal. Albert and Ruth Snyder were unhappily married, with one child. Judd and Isabel Gray were unhappily married, with one child. Ruth and Judd had an affair. Ruth took out multiple life insurance policies on her husband. Albert Snyder was murdered. Both Ruth and Judd were convicted of the murder and both were executed.

So what was the big deal?

Perhaps part of it was that the public, both male and female, uncomfortably saw so much of themselves in the shabby story of marriages gone wrong and passion turned destructive.

Why did these marriages fail? Both Ruth Snyder and Isabel Gray appear to have over-emphasized dutifully performing domestic chores as the key to a happy marriage. Ruth kept her home neat and clean and cooked flavorful meals. Judd wrote that Isabel was a “home girl” and “a careful and exceptionally exact housekeeper.” This shared female flaw might reflect the time period. Women in contemporary America may be less likely to think keeping a clean house is the foundation for a good marriage.

Marriages to a large extent succeed or fail on the degree of emotional intimacy and intellectual companionship in them and, in these vital areas, both Snyder and Gray unions were dismal. Ruth took no interest in Albert’s favorite activities and he shunned hers. The Gray marriage was empty as Judd Gray wrote that he did not even know his wife’s “ambitions, her hopes, her fears, or her ideals.”

However lacking in true togetherness the Gray marriage was, it was not nearly as troubled as the Snyder marriage. One problem the Snyders faced was in their differing feelings about parenthood – and here again, many people may have identified with them. Ruth thought having kids was one of the main reasons for getting married. This is not foolish thinking since a child can bring a couple closer together and children are usually better off being born within a happy marriage than to a single mother. Nevertheless, despite the truth that having children is often thought of as a primary purpose of matrimony – and that the custom of marriage, pretty close to universal in human cultures, probably evolved in large part to provide a stable and secure environment for the young – having a baby can put a marriage under strain. The coming of little Lorraine Snyder did not please her father who would have preferred a childless union.

The Snyder marriage was also troubled because Albert still carried a torch for a fiancée who had died and to whom he thought Ruth compared unfavorably. Finally, Ruth never let go of her resentment against Albert for having so frequently tried to cajole her into premarital sex and possible unwed motherhood. All of these factors, which are probably not uncommon, contributed to a marriage that simply never worked.

It is interesting to consider how the story of the murder of Albert Snyder by Ruth Snyder and Judd Gray changed when it went from real life to the best artistic creations it inspired, Double Indemnity and the original version of The Postman Always Rings Twice.

Both wrenched the story out of the 1920s and into the contemporary era in which they were made of the 1940s. In neither does the couple modeled on the Snyders have a child. In both, the Judd Gray figure is a bachelor. However, this is made somewhat confusing in Double Indemnity since actor Fred MacMurray, who plays the character who makes specific reference to himself as a “bachelor,” is wearing a wedding ring all through the movie. I have read that the actor just did not feel comfortable removing his wedding ring.

In both movies, the Albert Snyder figure is bad-tempered and unsympathetic. In neither is he shown as pining for a deceased previous love interest.

Ruth Snyder’s self-consciousness about being “American” that led her to insist Albert change his name from Schneider to Snyder is also absent from both films. However, it appears in a somewhat altered form in James M. Cain’s novel, The Postman Always Rings Twice. In the book, the anti-heroine, Cora, has black hair and is married to a Greek-American named Nick Papadakis. She bristles because she is sometimes mistaken for a Mexican-American. However, in the movie version, Cora is played by blonde beauty Lana Turner and Nick Papadakis has become the WASPy Nick Smith.

It is likely that many of the changes from real life to film were made for purposes of artistic simplification. The divesting of ethnic concerns may have been to avoid offending audience sensibilities.

I have given some of the reasons I believe the Albert Snyder case is especially fascinating. I would be very interested to hear from people who agree with me or disagree with me about those reasons or who see other reasons for the case’s having garnered so much attention. I’d also be interested to know what people think of how I handled the case. I’ve already noted a major way I would write it differently if I were writing it today. All About Albert Snyder is at http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/family/albert_snyder/1.html.

Your thoughts, readers?