Death’s Inheritance by E. & M. A. Radford

Originally published in 1961
Dr. Manson # 14
Preceded by Death on my Conscience
Followed by Death Takes the Wheel

Why did Sir John Appleby disinherit his wife and son and leave his estates and large fortune “to my daughter”? The girl has been dead for four years. What was the secret of eight mysterious years missing from his life? Had his wife, or his son, brought about his death to get his money? These were the problems confronting Doctor Manson, Scotland Yard’s scientist head, before he solved an intricate plot of murder, revenge and greed.

When I track down an out-of-print Golden Age mystery it is generally because I have read something about it from a fellow blogger or perhaps read a synopsis that had some element that appealed. Today’s selection however came about because I could find out absolutely nothing about it during some cursory internet searches. No blurb or reviews on Goodreads, nor a particularly clear image of the cover. When I realized I could get hold of a copy I decided that it would be the least I could do to finally provide some of that information as well as offer my own opinions of it.

Death’s Inheritance is going to be a difficult book to describe in detail, not because the setup is particularly complex but because the exact nature of the crimes involved are revealed quite late in the novel. I will confirm that there is murder involved – the blurb quoted above indicates that – but I do not plan on revealing who dies or the circumstances of that death. Hopefully you can forgive a little vagueness and a more generalized discussion of the plot.

The book begins with the wife and son of Sir Waldo Appleby meeting with the family’s lawyer to learn the details of his will. After getting a couple of bequests to servants out of the way, the lawyer comes to discuss the matter of the bulk of the estate – the fortune and considerable landholdings. The expectation was that the son, John, would inherit so they are shocked when they hear that everything is left “to my daughter” – particularly given that Veronica had died several years earlier. It seems certain that a lengthy legal process is about to commence when the lawyer receives a surprising letter that would appear to change matters considerably.

The first half of the novel is given up to detailed discussions of the will and the legal processes that will be at play. This detail is necessary background but it can be a little dry at times. There is an attempt to cultivate some sense of mystery as to what exactly the letter that is received means but I did not find the revelations to be particularly surprising. That is not so much a result of the nature of those reveals as it is that the authors signpost them a little too clearly and offer little in the way of alternate possibilities. I suspect that most readers will find themselves ahead of the story at this point and waiting for the authors to catch up with them.

While the mystery elements in these chapters are a little underwhelming and some of the legal discussions can feel a little slow and circular, the early part of the novel does offer some points of interest. The authors do a good job of capturing life in a rural community at a point where landowning structures were shifting and presents the local farmers and laborers quite sympathetically. It was nice to see their thoughts and opinions represented and that they are allowed to change and grow over the course of the novel.

Around the novel’s halfway point an event occurs that sends the story in a somewhat different direction. While what follows retains much of the legal focus from the first half of the novel (which was why that detail was necessary), the book benefits from providing the reader with some questions to focus on and a proper puzzle emerges. We even get some short interviews and a little research and investigation. It’s really quite welcome and I have little hesitation in saying that the second half feels significantly stronger than the first.

While Dr. Manson does make a brief appearance in the first half of the novel, he becomes significantly more involved in the story from this point onward. He interviews witnesses and suspects, performs some scientific experiments and even does a little undercover work for which he employs a frankly terrible pseudonym of the sort you might expect from the Anthony Ainley Master on Doctor Who. Perhaps more importantly, he does a really good job of explaining exactly what the problems are that he will need to resolve.

Readers should anticipate the style of this story to be more akin to a procedural than a typical puzzle plot. There certainly are some logical inferences that the detective and reader can make from the evidence but I am not convinced that the reader can really solve this for themselves. Some of the information needed is simply too technical or introduced quite late in the story for the case to feel like one the reader can solve for themselves in every detail.

I personally found the solution to be a little far-fetched conceptually, even though I think it is based upon some clever principles. I couldn’t help but feel that the killer’s plan might easily have gone awry and the reveal of their identity was a little underwhelming. That feeling is perhaps amplified a little by the speed at which the conclusion plays out as I did feel that the end was a little rushed.

It is not surprising that Death’s Inheritance is not currently in print – it is not on the level of either Who Killed Dick Whittington? or The Heel of Achilles, both of which I’d happily recommend to those curious to try the authors’ work. The case is a little too technical in nature and, as a consequence, it can feel a little dry in points. Still, it is quite readable and has a few really nice moments such as those in which Lady Appleby comes to some realizations about her position that are written quite effectively.

The Verdict: The problem here takes a little too long to come into focus. This is a shame because there are some interesting ideas here.

Who Killed Dick Whittington? by E. and M. A. Radford

Originally published in 1947
Doctor Manson #6
Preceded by It’s Murder to Live!
Followed by John Klyeing Died

Norma de Grey, the Principal in the Christmas pantomime Dick Whittington, was not popular with the rest of the Pavilion Theatre company. But was she hated enough to be killed by prussic acid, during the performance itself?

Suspicion immediately falls on the Cat, her fellow actor in the fatal scene. Until it transpires that the Cat too has been poisoned – and his understudy has a solid alibi. But someone must have donned the disguise and appeared on stage incognito. Detective-Inspector Harry Manson, analytical detective par excellence, is on the case.

Last year I read and reviewed The Heel of Achilles, an inverted mystery written by the Radfords and thoroughly enjoyed it. In fact I even ended up selecting it as one of my nominations for the Reprint of the Year Awards. There was no doubt in my mind then that I’d be back for more. The only question was which book I’d select.

Who Killed Dick Whittington? is set against the backdrop of a British festive institution – the Christmas pantomime – though this is not really a seasonal read. As the title of the novel suggests, the pantomime in question is an adaptation of the story of Dick Whittington in which a boy travels to London to seek his fortune and ends up becoming Mayor of London. The production is doing steady business in spite of lacking a star name, helped by a lack of competition. That is not to say however that there isn’t a difficult lead actor – nobody in the company seems to have anything positive to say of Norma de Grey, the young actress playing the role.

Little surprise then when she ends up dead, though the circumstances are somewhat odd. In the scene before the interval Dick and his cat, played by an actor in a fur suit, lie down for a nap while the fairies perform a ballet. When the time comes for Dick to wake and deliver the final line in the act it never comes. The curtain falls and when the crew investigate they find her unconscious. The first-aid man quickly examines her and tells the gathered crowd that he thinks she is dead.

Examination reveals that Norma was poisoned and that it must have taken place during on stage as the poison, prussic acid, would have worked in seconds. The only person who went near her was the actor playing the Cat – the problem is that both that actor and his understudy have pretty solid alibis…

This book is listed in Adey’s Locked Room Murders (an invaluable reference guide for locked room and impossible crime stories) but I cannot really understand the reason for its inclusion. After all, it seems pretty clear from early in the case exactly how the poison had been administered – the mystery really lies in the who and the reasons why. I’d suggest setting aside any expectations of an impossibility and instead enjoy what is a rather beautifully crafted piece of fair-play forensic detection.

According to Nigel Moss’ excellent introduction, which can be found in the recent Dean Street Press reprint, both Radfords had some prior professional engagement with the theater – Mona had acted and written for the stage while Edwin had been an Arts journalist. The authors clearly drew upon that experience to create a representation of a theatrical company that feels both detailed and credible. Whether it is describing the contents of a dressing room, backstage movements or capturing the professional jealousies within the company, it is easy to be drawn into the theatrical setting presented here.

In addition to this main investigation, the Radfords also provide a secondary investigation that is already underway at the start of the novel. This case, which involves trying to prove whether a series of fires at commercial properties were accidents or arson, is less colorful and lacks the color found in the theatrical setting but it is interesting enough, particularly once we learn how these two cases are connected (though it is perhaps unbelievably fortunate that Manson is assigned to both).

For those unfamiliar with Doctor Manson, he is a scientist in the manner of R. Austin Freeman’s Dr. Thorndyke. Guided entirely by evidence rather than psychology, he is observant, methodical and detailed in the way he approaches picking apart a crime. He is perhaps a shade warmer than Thorndyke, possessing a sense of humor, though he can also be quite fussy and sharp in conversation with colleagues. Crucially for us as readers, he takes the time to explain any relevant piece of science in such a way as to make it approachable and easy to understand, meaning that the reader can expect a fair challenge.

Which is exactly what we get here. In fact we get three of them as, prior to the final challenge to the reader, there are two previous challenges where the authors pose questions about the relevance of some point Doctor Manson has asked. Each of these were quite specific in the information sought and I agree with the authors that in each case the reader ought to be able to guess the relevance of each point, making for a particularly rewarding reading experience for armchair sleuths.

In addition to these logical games, the book contains a significant amount of forensic analysis explained in pretty straightforward, if occasionally somewhat dry, English. The science is easy to follow and I was surprised at how exciting I found a few of the tests that get described. Of particular interest for me was an experiment that involved weighing some ash (I will let you discover the reasons Manson engages in this activity for yourself).

While the forensics are important to the book in terms of discovering evidence, I think that it is important to stress that the solution is found through the application of logic. Each thread is connected at the end with the links between each piece of evidence clearly explained in a newspaper account of a trial.

I was not particularly surprised by the solutions – the Radfords clue the mystery well enough that I felt confident long before the final challenge was issued that I knew who had done the crimes and even why. The greater challenge for me was in figuring out exactly how Dr. Manson would prove his case. At least one aspect of the solution completed eluded me in spite of how incredibly obvious it was which is pretty much all I want from a detective story. I want to be fooled by something that is so simple I really ought to have seen it coming. As I wrote in my Kindle notes (it’s in all caps because I was clearly quite excited):

For the curious, this note is at location 3126 in the Kindle edition. Be sure not to look at it before you read the whole book as this is critically important to a solution.

Which I think speaks to why I ended up enjoying this so much. It is a clever, well clued mystery that plays fair with its readers. Though the writing style can be a little dry and awkward in a few of the technical forensic passages, I found the science fascinating and I loved following along as Manson pieced it all together and trying to beat the challenges. Highly recommended.

The Verdict: An excellent fair-play puzzle mystery, enhanced by its colorful theatrical setting.

The Heel of Achilles by E. and M. A. Radford

Originally published in 1950
Doctor Manson #8
Preceded by John Kyleing Died
Followed by Look in at Murder

The trouble began during a holiday in Paignton. When Jack met Mary, his future wife, he also met James Sprogson, a charming villain bent on destroying the couple’s happiness. Mary distrusted Sprogson but Jack regarded him as a good fellow who drank and gambled a little too much, perhaps, but was harmless and likeable. However, Jack’s association with Sprogson was to lead to robbery, blackmail and, at last, murder.

This past week I have had inverted mysteries on the brain. A big part of the reason for that was my experiencing reading R. Austin Freeman’s The Singing Bone which I found a thoroughly enjoyable experience. As it happens one of the authors of the book I am discussing today, Edwin Radford, was a fan of the Thorndyke mysteries too and this work feels like a conscious homage to those stories.

The Heel of Achilles introduces us to Jack, a young mechanic who is desperately saving so he can afford to open his own garage and get married. He befriends James Sprogson, a man his fiancée instantly recognizes as a disreputable sort but who he dismisses as being just a little fond of his drink. When Jack is invited along on a job to earn something extra he happily agrees, not realizing that he is being invited along on a robbery.

As it happens everything quickly goes wrong and Jack finds himself handed the loot while Sprogson is dragged off to prison. Implicated in the crime, Jack has to start a new life for himself under an assumed name and for a while he seems to be safe. That is until he runs into Sprogson again and receives the first in a series of blackmail demands.

Inevitably Jack comes to realize that he cannot go on making payments to Sprogson and decides that he must get rid of his tormentor. Being a reader of mystery novels, Jack recognizes some of the common mistakes made by murderers in stories and he is determined not to repeat them.

I think blackmail works well as a motivation for murder in inverted mystery stories because it can engender some sympathy for the murderer. Particularly if, as with Jack, they never intended to commit a serious crime in the first place and have no easy way out of the mess they find themselves in. We may not agree with his choice but I think readers would understand his desperation.

I also appreciated that the authors made the murder a planned action and consciously avoid some of the most obvious pitfalls. In quite some detail they cover each of the problems Jack predicts and the actions he takes to erase or alter evidence to suit the story he is trying to tell. His plan is intricate and yet the alert reader will probably detect several loose ends. The question is what will lead the detectives to Jack?

The Radfords adopt a similar structure to that used by Freeman in his inverted short stories, breaking his novel into two sections. The first thirty percent of the novel portrays the events leading up to and including the crime being committed, following the actions of the murderer. The remainder of the story, wonderfully titled ‘Cherchez l’homme’, is told exclusively from the perspective of Dr. Manson, the forensic investigator.

Once again I was put in mind of Freeman and in particular his detective Dr. Thorndyke when Manson enters the story. Most obviously, both men are forensic scientists but each also carries a small mobile laboratory in a case to the crime scenes. Their personalities are, however, a little different as Manson strikes me as a more sharp and prickly personality than Thorndyke.

One aspect of the novel and the characterization of Manson that I really appreciated is that the Radfords do not make their sleuth infallible. There are several occasions in the story where he either misses or misinterprets a piece of evidence (though his reasoning is usually correct – he just lacks a piece of information that the reader had) and each of those is marked with a endnote. It is almost like a reverse cluefinder where the authors draw attention to his various mistakes. I think that this choice makes his behavior and professional skills feel more credible while it also helps the reader feel confident that Jack is not just going to be caught because of his ineptitude as a murderer.

The choice to only give us the perspective of the investigator in this second half of the book makes a lot of sense given the nature of the crime and Jack’s plan. It does mean though that the Radfords never really explore the impact of the crime on the person committing it which feels like a missed opportunity. It certainly is fairly unusual for a work of this length to pass over the opportunity to develop a cat-and-mouse game between the criminal and detectives.

It is perhaps this aspect of the book that is most responsible for making me feel it must have been a little old-fashioned, even at the point when it was first published. It feels much more focused on the business of forensic investigation than exploring crime as an experience and when an emotional component is introduced, the tone struck is more in keeping with melodrama than an attempt at realism.

I would advise potential readers of this to ignore the original publication date and instead consider this in the context of a few other forensically-minded characters. If you enjoy Freeman’s Dr. Thorndyke stories or John Rhode’s Dr. Priestley mysteries, I suspect you will find a lot to admire and enjoy here. The presentation of the forensic techniques and applied reasoning are very good and while the storytelling style is slow and deliberate, each development in the case is clearly explained and explored.

The Verdict: A very solid inverted mystery – though it is stronger on the forensic analysis than in terms of its character development or exploration.