In Ariel Lawhon’s novel The Frozen River, Jonathan Foster is the killer. He murders Joshua Burgess after learning that Burgess assaulted his wife, Rebecca. The reveal connects the death at the center of the mystery to the violence and injustice Martha Ballard has been trying to expose.
This answer contains major spoilers for the novel. It also clears up a common mix-up: the 2008 film Frozen River is a separate story, not an adaptation of Lawhon’s book. Here’s what the ending reveals, why Jonathan kills Burgess, and how Martha’s investigation brings the truth into view.
Who was the killer in the frozen river?
Jonathan Foster killed Joshua Burgess. In Ariel Lawhon’s historical novel, Jonathan acts after learning that Burgess assaulted Rebecca, his wife. The killing is tied to the book’s central conflict: Martha Ballard seeks the truth about a dead man while confronting a community that has repeatedly failed to protect women.
The answer can be easy to confuse because the book has several plausible suspects and because another work shares a similar title. The 2008 film Frozen River is a crime drama, but it is not the same story and does not hinge on the murder of Joshua Burgess. If you mean Lawhon’s novel, Jonathan Foster is the person responsible.
Spoiler warning: The rest of this article discusses the book’s murder mystery and ending.
How Joshua Burgess’s death starts the mystery
The novel follows Martha Ballard, a midwife living in Hallowell, Maine, in the late eighteenth century. She attends births, treats injuries, and records events in a diary. That diary matters because Martha pays close attention to what people say and do, including when powerful men expect their behavior to go unchallenged.
When Joshua Burgess is found dead in the Kennebec River, the circumstances raise questions about how he died. The frozen river gives the mystery its stark setting, but the cold is not the answer to the crime. Martha’s careful observations help expose the human motives behind the death.
Burgess is not simply an unknown victim. His past conduct, his relationships, and the harm done to Rebecca make him a person with enemies. Those details expand the suspect list and give the case a deeper moral weight than a puzzle about means alone.
Martha approaches the death as both a practical matter and a question of justice. Her work has taught her to notice details others dismiss. Her diary also means that ordinary acts and conversations can become important evidence, especially when official accounts leave out women’s experiences.
Why Jonathan Foster killed Joshua Burgess
Jonathan’s motive is bound up with what Burgess did to Rebecca. Burgess had assaulted her, and Jonathan’s response is an act of vengeance. That does not make the killing a lawful or uncomplicated form of justice. It explains why Jonathan would want Burgess dead, while the novel leaves readers to consider the gulf between private revenge and a public system that has not protected Rebecca.
The motive also explains why the murder cannot be separated from the book’s account of sexual violence. Rebecca’s experience is not background detail added only to make a suspect look suspicious. It is part of the reason the community’s treatment of women, testimony, and reputation matters so much to Martha’s investigation.
Jonathan is not the only person with a reason to resent Burgess. The novel uses that wider web of suspicion to keep the investigation uncertain. A motive can point toward a suspect, but it does not prove who committed a killing. Martha has to weigh what she knows against what people are willing to admit.
How the main suspects compare
The mystery asks readers to look beyond a single obvious motive. Several characters are connected to Burgess or to the events surrounding Rebecca. The table below summarizes how the central lines of suspicion differ, without treating every rumor or accusation as proof.
| Person or group | Why suspicion falls there | What matters to the mystery | Best way to read the clue |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jonathan Foster | He has a direct personal reason to resent Burgess because of what happened to Rebecca. | His connection to Rebecca’s assault gives him a powerful motive for revenge. | The killer: Jonathan is responsible for Burgess’s death. |
| People close to Burgess | His actions have caused anger and conflict, creating more than one possible enemy. | Other characters’ grievances make the case harder to solve from motive alone. | Consider each person’s opportunity and the evidence, not just their anger. |
| Martha’s household | Martha’s family and her work bring her close to the investigation and its consequences. | Personal loyalties can make the search for truth emotionally difficult. | Proximity to the case is not the same as guilt. |
| Men with social standing | Respectability can shield people from scrutiny, even when women raise serious allegations. | The novel contrasts public reputation with private conduct. | Ask whose testimony is believed and whose is discounted. |
The useful distinction is between motive and proof. Several people may have reasons to hate Burgess. The ending identifies Jonathan as the murderer, while the broader investigation examines why the truth is difficult to establish in the first place.
What Martha Ballard contributes to the investigation
Martha’s role is central because she records details that other people might overlook or refuse to preserve. As a midwife, she visits households across the community. She sees private suffering as well as public disputes, and her diary gives her a way to keep track of events in her own words.
That perspective changes the kind of evidence the story treats as meaningful. A formal statement is not the only record that matters. Martha’s notes, her observations, and what women tell her can challenge the version of events favored by men with authority.
Her investigation is not presented as a modern police inquiry. Martha works within the limits of her time and place, relying on close attention, conversations, memory, and written records. That makes the case personal and precarious. The truth may be visible to her before it is acceptable to the people who control public judgment.
Her diary also raises an important question: what happens when a community treats women’s accounts as unreliable, but leaves little other evidence of what happened? Martha’s record becomes a counterweight to silence. It does not erase the danger she faces, but it helps keep events from disappearing into rumor.
What the ending means beyond naming the killer
The reveal that Jonathan killed Burgess answers the crime’s central question, but it does not resolve every issue the novel raises. Jonathan’s motive is understandable in light of Rebecca’s assault, yet revenge cannot undo the harm she suffered. Nor does a private killing repair the failures that allowed Burgess’s behavior to go unchecked.
That tension is a key part of the ending. Readers may feel sympathy for Jonathan’s anger and still recognize that killing Burgess is not the same as securing justice for Rebecca. The story asks why a husband’s retaliation can seem more believable or effective than a formal process that should hear and protect the person who was assaulted.
Martha’s part in the story offers another contrast. She keeps observing, writing, and insisting that facts matter, even when doing so brings risk. Her response is not the same as Jonathan’s. He answers violence with violence; Martha tries to make the truth legible in a community that has reasons to bury it.
The ending therefore works on two levels. On the mystery level, it identifies the person who killed Joshua Burgess. On the social level, it asks what justice means when women’s testimony is doubted and influential men can avoid consequences.
Why the book can leave readers unsure
It is natural to suspect more than one character before the reveal. Burgess’s conduct gives several people plausible reasons to want him gone. The novel also places Martha’s family and her work close to the case, which can make personal connections seem like evidence even when they are not.
Another source of uncertainty is the difference between a character’s motive and what the story confirms. Anger, secrecy, or a strained relationship can suggest suspicion, but none of those clues alone establishes guilt. Keep track of what Martha actually learns, rather than treating every tense exchange as a confession.
Finally, the mystery’s emotional focus can draw attention away from the straightforward answer. The book spends considerable time on Rebecca’s experience, the standing of powerful men, and Martha’s efforts to record what others would rather ignore. Those themes enrich the investigation, but the identity of the killer remains Jonathan Foster.
The novel and the 2008 film are different stories
Some searches for this answer may refer to the independent film Frozen River, released in 2008 and directed by Courtney Hunt. It follows Ray Eddy and Lila Littlewolf, two women involved in smuggling people across the U.S.-Canada border. It is not based on Lawhon’s historical novel and does not feature the same characters or the Joshua Burgess murder plot.
The film contains crime and danger, but asking who killed Joshua Burgess applies to the novel, not the movie. The best way to avoid confusion is to identify the work by its author or characters: Ariel Lawhon’s book is the story of Martha Ballard, while Courtney Hunt’s film follows Ray and Lila.
| Work | Format and focus | Does Jonathan Foster apply? | Best for |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Frozen River by Ariel Lawhon | Historical mystery centered on midwife Martha Ballard and Joshua Burgess’s death. | Yes. Jonathan Foster is the killer. | Readers asking about the novel’s ending. |
| Frozen River, directed by Courtney Hunt | 2008 crime drama about Ray Eddy, Lila Littlewolf, and people smuggling. | No. Jonathan and Joshua are not the film’s characters. | Viewers asking about the independent movie. |
Capitalization and the word “the” can vary in searches and listings, so a title match alone may not identify which work someone means. Checking for the names Martha Ballard, Ray Eddy, or Lila Littlewolf quickly clears up the distinction.
What not to confuse with the answer
- Do not confuse suspicion with the reveal. The story gives readers reasons to consider several people, but Jonathan is the killer.
- Do not treat motive as an endorsement. Jonathan’s anger explains his action; it does not make the murder a simple or complete form of justice.
- Do not mix up the book and film. The Martha Ballard mystery and the 2008 border-crossing drama are separate works.
- Do not assume the cold solves the mystery. The frozen setting frames the discovery, while the answer depends on motive and the relationships around Burgess.
A helpful reading tip is to keep a short list of confirmed facts separate from theories. For example, note who had a motive, what Martha directly observes, and what the ending actually establishes. This prevents a convincing suspicion from being mistaken for the final answer.
How to explain the reveal without spoiling more than necessary
If someone asks only for the killer’s name, the short answer is Jonathan Foster. If they want the reason, say that he kills Joshua Burgess in response to Burgess’s assault of Rebecca. That gives the essential reveal without recapping every development in Martha’s investigation.
If the person has not finished the book, add a spoiler warning before explaining the motive. The identity of the murderer is the central mystery, so naming Jonathan gives away the ending even in a short reply.
If they meant the 2008 film, ask whether they are referring to Ray and Lila’s story. That film is not the adaptation of the novel, and the answer about Jonathan Foster does not apply to it. A quick title check is more useful than trying to force one plot onto both works.
Why Martha’s diary matters to the final answer
The diary is more than a historical detail or a way to set the scene. It reflects Martha’s habit of making a record in a world where women’s accounts may be dismissed or lost. Keeping track of what happened gives her a resource when the community’s preferred version of events conflicts with what she has witnessed.
That record also shapes the reader’s experience. Martha’s observations let the mystery develop through everyday details, not only through dramatic confrontations. The book asks readers to pay attention to what people say, what they avoid saying, and whose words are treated as credible.
For that reason, the ending is not simply a last-minute name attached to a corpse. The reveal fits a story about accountability and the unequal power to define the truth. Jonathan killed Burgess, but Martha’s persistence makes the circumstances around that death harder to ignore.
Jonathan Foster killed Joshua Burgess in Ariel Lawhon’s The Frozen River, driven by what Burgess did to Rebecca. The reveal solves the murder mystery, while the novel also asks readers to think about the difference between revenge and justice.
If you are checking a spoiler or explaining the ending, name the book’s author to avoid confusion with the 2008 film Frozen River. The answer to who was the killer in the frozen river is Jonathan Foster.