Murder She Wrote: Lovers and Other Killers

On the eighteenth day of November in the year of our Lord 1984, the fifth episode of Murder, She Wrote aired. Titled Lovers and Other Killers, it is set in a university in Seattle. (Last week’s episode was It’s A Dog’s Life.)

mpv-shot0001

The opening is unusual for Murder, She Wrote; it begins with a burglar dressed all in black and with a flashlight (that’s the bright spot in the opening card above) rummaging around. Then the burglar goes into a room with a large safe that he starts trying combinations on when a rich older woman walks in.

The burglar hides and the woman goes up to her nightstand where we get this shot of her telephone and some pictures next to it:

Presumably that’s her son, but the camera spends some time on it, possibly to give her backstory before she’s murdered in a minute. She tries to call someone but doesn’t get them. She then notices the rummaging (opened drawers and crumpled clothes) and investigates it. She picks up a very sentimental music box, whose song tinkles as the burglar creeps up behind her, waits for her to turn around and notice him…

…then strangles her with her pearl necklace.

When the old woman falls dead to the floor, we cut to an establishing shot of the Seattle airport. (The unusual thing about this opening was its length—it was over two minutes long. Well, that and actually having a murder within the first ten minutes.)

We then cut to the interior where Dr. Edmund Gerard (played by Peter Graves) is talking on the phone with his assistant, Amelia.

The subject is Jessica, who Edmund says was not on the plane. He asks her if there was any call about it and gives the background that Jessica said she was definitely going to be on this flight and might be coming with someone. He then spots Jessica and tells Amelia to ignore the call.

We then get to see Jessica and who she brought:

It’s then revealed that the person she was going to bring was Marylin Dean, her editor. The child is named Buddy, and Jessica then hands Buddy to two Chinese nuns.

At least, they’re dressed as nuns and Jessica speaks Mandarin Chinese to them and they respond in Chinese. When she introduces Edmund to them, in English, they greet him in Chinese. They then say goodbye and leave. Edmund calls off to them, “Sayonara” and Jessica scolds him that they’re Chinese, not Japanese.

I cannot imagine what the point of this scene is or how it was supposed to work; why on earth are there Chinese nuns in an airport in Seattle with a baby, and why did they randomly hand that baby to Jessica for a few minutes as they are getting off the airplane? Why would they show us something this strange with no explanation? When did Jessica learn to speak Mandarin? Why do the nuns understand English but not even attempt to speak it? Leaving aside all of the questions of how this is supposed to have happened, what on earth is it supposed to tell us about the characters? Are we supposed to believe that Jessica speaks most languages? Is this supposed to establish that Jessica has such a trustworthy face that random strangers will just hand babies to her and trust her with them to meet up with them later so that they can… I can’t even imagine what two nuns would have to do such that they can’t take turns holding the baby while the other one does it. This is just bizarre.

I suppose the best thing to do is to pretend that this didn’t happen. It’s still early days in Murder, She Wrote and perhaps they were just trying out wackiness. (Perhaps this was meant as a reference to the 1980 slapstick comedy Airplane! in which Peter Graves played the captain who got food poisoning.)

Jessica and Edmund leave and look for Jessica’s luggage. On the way to her luggage we get some backstory. Jessica is in town to deliver a lecture at the university and Edmund knows her from before she was famous. He’s now the Dean of Students at this (unnamed) major university in Seattle.

We then shift scenes to Edmund’s office at the university, where Jessica and Edmund talk with his secretary, Amelia. Apparently Jessica needs a secretary at her hotel, and while Amelia offers to help her, she explains that she needs a full time secretary and Amelia clearly has her hands full. According to the conversation which ensues, she handles Edmund’s personal bills as well as his school work. To prove this, she asks him if he really bought an inflatable raft, and he stammers that he might want to go camping some day. When she tells Jessica that it’s a wonder that Edmund has any money left, he remarks, “There she goes, acting like a wife again.”

Then we get this reaction shot (which will also serve to introduce her):

This distresses her, but then she notices Jessica and she starts laughing as if it didn’t sting. She covers by telling Jessica that she’ll post the secretarial job and one of the grad students will jump at it.

The scene then shifts to outdoors where Jessica and Edmund walk and talk. We learn that they used to hang out in the basement of Kappa Gamma Chi, which suggests that they went to university together. She spent most of her time with Frank, though, and Edmund jokes that she chose the wrong one. Jessica replies that Frank said the same thing—he had a morbid sense of humor. She also asks Edmund if he realizes that Amelia is in love with him, and he dismisses this as nonsense.

The scene shifts to Jessica’s hotel room at night, when there’s a knock on her door. She opens it, but with the chain still on. His name is David Tolliver and he’s here about the job as secretary.

Jessica is taken aback that he’s a young man; he asks if he can come in and she says no. Then she thinks better of this and lets him in. He is bold and presumptuous and apologizes for the late hour by saying that he wanted to beat the crowd and walks to her typewriter and gives a sample of his skills—he types very quickly, accurately, and without looking at the typewriter. He’s a smooth talker and takes the angle that people tend to be prejudiced against male typists.

Jessica humors him, but says that she would feel more comfortable with an older woman. Given that the actor who plays David was 29 at the time of the episodes and he certainly looks no younger than 24, I’m not sure how much older the woman was supposed to be than David is. This job was posted at a university. Did she expect one of the professors to take the job?

Anyway, he smooth talks her and she gives him the job. As he’s about to leave, she asks a curious question: “wouldn’t you rather attend the lectures?” He replies, “Well, actually, Mrs. Fletcher, my tastes in literature run from Vonnegut to Hesse.” Jessica looks a bit taken aback and he wishes her a good night.

Vonnegut is best known for Slaughterhouse Five, while Hesse is best known for Steppenwolf. If you’re not familiar with them (I had to look up Slaughterhouse Five on Wikipedia) they’re nothing at all like murder mysteries and generally quite dark. Which raises the question of why on earth David wanted the job.

Oh, David is also the guy in the pictures in the scene of the old woman getting murdered, so presumably that was his mother. This is our first glimmer of how that opening scene ties in with the rest of the episode.

The scene then shifts to the next day, with Jessica giving her lecture.

In fact this isn’t so much a lecture as a performance; she’s performing a dialog (with voices) between two characters.

We then get one of the most famous moments, or at least one that was included in the credits very memorably:

The crowd laughs, and we got a shot of the crowd. It’s large, as we might expect, though not quite the packed auditorium I had expected:

I guess we can chalk that up to extras being expensive.

Jessica then goes on for a bit explain some ludicrously complicated plot where Little Nell wasn’t deadly because she (Nell) was in a wheelchair and the victim was shot in the temple, the bullet coming out of the base of the skull, a downward trajectory.

This makes it slightly odd that Jessica points, not at her temple, but at her forehead:

She then asks the audience to say, all together, who the killer is, since it couldn’t have been Little Nell, and there was a confused bunch of different answers, to which Jessica answers, “by George, I think you’ve got it. At least some of you.” At which point she looks like she’s done and everyone applauds enthusiastically.

It’s a great showcase of Angela Lansbury’s acting talent, but it’s bewildering if you take it seriously as a lecture. Are we actually to believe that the university invited a guest lecturer to walk them through the plot of a murder mystery, acting it out as she went? This is really more of an act to be put on as student life entertainment, not an academic lecture. While it’s true that universities will give a lot of leeway on what counts as an academic lecture to famous people, even so, it’s not generally a straight-up theatrical performance.

I get that TV needs to be lively but they had the option of opening the scene with her closing remarks, rather than giving us part of the lecture. Realistically, they had a ton of options. And even TV audiences of the 1980s could stand a single relatively dry sentence which sounds sufficiently erudite to establish the lecturer’s status as an intellectual giant. Like the Chinese nuns at the beginning of the episode, this just doesn’t make any sense.

By the way, a downward trajectory through the skull ruling out the killer having been in a wheelchair doesn’t really work because the head is movable. You can get the same trajectory through the skull if the victim was looking down and the murderer was below him. Which you could easily get from a person standing in front of a person sitting in a wheelchair. (This could, of course, be excluded by the bullet having struck the ground shortly behind the victim, but she didn’t say that.) This is kind of just nitpicking, though I do have a point: TV writers of the 1980s were really lazy. Somehow, this worked for them, which I’m still trying to figure out.

And, of course, right after she’s done a bell sounds and the students start to leave. I’d say that the writers had never been to college—or perhaps the editor—but it was also a hallmark of 1980s TV that they thought that the average viewer was an idiot so they would get things wrong just because they thought that the idiots watching would expect it to be wrong.

Speaking of idiots, some guy by the name of Todd Lowery walks up and tells Jessica that her lecture was mind-boggling.

With that jacket, there’s nothing he can be but a professor, which he turns out to be—of English. He tells Jessica that he and his wife are both big fans—and his wife is very tough to fool. Jessica replies, “Well, I guess I’ll just have to try harder.” This is weird since he was complimenting her, implicitly saying that she managed to fool Emily.

Todd’s eye is then caught by a young woman who just came in the door waving at him.

Both Jessica and Todd notice this, and Todd excuses himself. Edmund walks up and congratulates Jessica, saying that her talk was a triumph.

This interests me more than it would most people, I think, because I was quite young when I first saw this and didn’t know to take it as exaggeration. A line from Tom Francis’ parody script for an episode of Murder, She Wrote might help to explain:

JESSICA’S LOVELY FRIEND:
It’s so lovely to see you Jessica! How is your book tour going?

JESSICA:
Very well, thank you. I am a literary titan known to over 75% of humanity and my work is to everyone’s taste.

When I was less than a decade old, I thought that this was an entirely realistic characterization of a novelist’s popularity. Further cementing this was how much the family I grew up in loved books; my mother, in particular, had a fierce love of (good) novels and so this kind of general love for an author just seemed realistic to me. It was only much later that I realized that, with incredibly rare exceptions, this isn’t even slightly realistic. J.K. Rowling may have had success like this, and maybe a few authors like Stephen King or Tom Clancy did. Jessica doesn’t seem nearly as exceptional as they are, though. For one thing, she’s in the mystery genre. It’s popular, but it’s only back in the golden age when someone might be literary-titan-popular in the mystery genre. And that was mostly just Agatha Christie.

I guess part of the problem is that we see Jessica too closely and she’s portrayed as too normal. She never has to deal with being famous, or with being popular; she only gets the benefits of it when it’s relevant. She never concerns herself with what people like in her books; she just writes whatever she likes and everyone loves it. She doesn’t even promote her books. There are no writers in this universe who are not as popular as her. None of this is really a criticism of Murder, She Wrote—Jessica’s being a writer was not really the point of the show. It’s just interesting for me to consider what led me as a child to conclude that this was normal for successful authors and thus the yardstick by which to measure one’s own success as a novelist. And to be clear, I’m not trying to blame Murder, She Wrote. It wasn’t a children’s show and children get all sorts of strange ideas when they watch stuff made for grown-ups. It’s mostly just interesting to see how sub-ten-year-old me misunderstood structures in the writing that were mostly there as excuses to get Jessica involved in the mystery or access to clues.

Anyway, I have a great deal of trouble believing that this talk was a triumph; very few lectures in the history of the world have been triumphs and I simply can’t believe that one which ends with play-acting a scene in which a character mistakenly accuses another of murder and then Jessica points out what’s wrong with the accusation and part of the class figures out who the murderer is with no analysis as to why could be a triumph of anything, whatever exactly the lecture was supposed to be about. (How to write murder mysteries, how to make money with murder mysteries, how to enjoy reading murder mysteries—we’re just never told what the basic subject of the lecture was.)

She asks Edmund about their dinner appointment but he has to beg off because of a faculty meeting. The idea of a same-day emergency faculty meeting is completely absurd. This could easily have been written as Jessica asking if they could do dinner and him saying that he couldn’t, or even explaining that he wasn’t able to get the faculty meeting moved because everyone’s schedules conflicted and they couldn’t find an alternate date. This is just sloppy because the writers were lazy. I suspect that part of this is that they expected that in a TV show no one would pay attention anyway, but at some point people should do their craft well just for the sake of doing it well. God sees a thing done well, even if 99% of the audience doesn’t.

The scene then shifts to Jessica getting home, where David is sitting on a couch reading a book. I wouldn’t normally bother with a screenshot of the book, but this one is very interesting:

Of course, this being television in the 1980s, everything has to be huge to be visible on most TVs. As I’ve discussed elsewhere, the resolution of less expensive TVs wasn’t great and a lot of people had to deal with static due to atmospheric conditions since the TV signals were all broadcast over radio waves. So details like the back cover being entirely a picture of Jessica rather than text meant to sell the book works to make sure that everyone understands that this is Jessica’s book. The fact that it saves trouble writing a back cover that most people wouldn’t have been able to read is purely secondary, I’m sure.

Anyway, it has to be said that The Corpse Danced at Midnight is one of the all-time great titles for a murder mystery. It’s richly suggestive and just sounds great to say. I do fear that it would be very hard to pay off in a book, so it’s good that we never get read selections from the novel or a plot synopsis, but man is it a great title.

Borrowing from the fact that I have actually seen this episode before, the character of David makes my skin crawl every time he’s on screen and he’s supposed to. The actor does a great job of making him both charming and impatient for reciprocation in a way that makes him seem predatory. This is particularly good at setting him up as a suspect in the murder of whoever it is who’s going to get killed, but it does make him an unpleasant character to watch and so I’m going to summarize the parts with him more briefly than usual.

He finished the work hours ago and doesn’t explain what he’s still doing around. He then invites Jessica to dinner, which she declines since she’s uninterested in college student food. He suggests something much fancier, and when Jessica asks if he can afford that he replies, “no, but you can.”

Somehow this results in Jessica taking David to dinner, where he romances her.

As they’re about to leave, and as Jessica tells David that it’s a very nice car he drives and replies that it’s a reflection of the man, Lt. Andrews of the Seattle police walks up and asks David if he would mind coming down to police headquarters because they would like to ask him some questions about the murder of Allison Brevard several nights ago. When David says that he does mind going to police headquarters, Lt. Andrews asks if he would like to come voluntarily or if he would prefer to be placed under arrest, and on that bombshell we go to commercial.

When we get back from commercial break David and Jessica are walking out of the police station. David assures her that it was routine questioning but Jessica objects that two hours is not routine questioning. David says that they are questioning everyone who knew Allison Brevard and he was number 48 on a list of 50. Apparently she surprised a burglar and was killed in a struggle; there were black wool fibers under her fingernails, presumably from the murderer’s sweater.

Here, by the way, is the car he drives:

A reflection of the man, indeed. He assures Jessica that it’s nothing to be concerned about and drives off. They’re followed by what I assume is an unmarked police car.

The next day Jessica goes to the police station and runs into Lt. Andrews, who she was looking for. He’s amused when she says that David said that it was merely routine questioning, but stops being amused when she says that of course it wasn’t, since he’d soon run out of unmarked police cars if he put surveillance on every casual suspect.

He says that she looks like a nice lady and warns her to stay away from David. She’s surprised that he thinks that she’s romantically interested in David and explains she’s only been in the city two days and hired him as a secretary. Notwithstanding, she doesn’t think that he’s a killer. There’s some arguing back and forth in which it comes out that David had been seeing Allison Brevard for several months and she’s the one who gave him the car. After some more bickering, Lt. Andrews angrily drives off, saying that he doesn’t know why David killed Allison, guys like that play by their own rules.

Jessica goes back to her hotel room, where she is surprised and disconcerted to discover David. He gets to the typewriter and asks if she’s ready to start and she says that they should skip today. He explains about Allison Brevard—he has a story where everything she gave him was innocent, largely paid back, and the extent of their relationship was that he found her company delightful, but that’s it. (Jessica doesn’t know about the photos of him on her nightstand, so she doesn’t ask and he offers no explanation about that.) Jessica is noncommittal and still wants to skip today. When asked about the next day, she says that she’s not sure. He asks if he should call first and she says yes. As he leaves, she asks him to never let himself into her room like that again. He replies, “Word of honor.” It is, of course, very doubtful that his word of honor is worth anything.

In the next scene she’s talking with Edmund. When they get back to his office David is waiting to talk to him. He says that he knows that the police have been to see him and he wants to assure the Dean that he had nothing to do with Allison Brevard’s death. Edmund says he’s relieved to hear it, but it’s a pity that he doesn’t have an alibi for the time of the murder. David protests that he was home, alone, studying all night. He asks for the benefit of the doubt and Jessica says that he has it as far as she’s concerned. Tonight, she’s going to do a ton of writing so the next day he’s going to have scads of typing to do.

I really wonder how that’s supposed to work, given that Jessica notoriously composes on a typewriter herself. I don’t think that we’re supposed to ask what she’s doing with a secretary given that she never uses one at home. Nor are we supposed to ask why David would bother to talk to assure the Dean of Students at a large university that he had nothing to do with the murder. It’s not like they’re going to have a personal relationship, or even have met before unless David had been in trouble.

Anyway, David thanks her and leaves, and Edmund says that that was a mistake. Jessica says that while David is obviously something of a con man and perhaps a liar, she doesn’t think that he’s a killer. If he had killed Allison, surely he would have set himself up with some kind of alibi?

In the next scene Jessica receives a phone call from the pretty girl who waved at Professor Lowery after Jessica’s triumphal lecture. She’s in a bar and says that she’s an anonymous friend of David Tolliver’s and she can prove he had nothing to do with the death of Allison Brevard. She is, supposedly, taking a hell of a chance just making the phone call and doesn’t want to give her name, but she will meet Jessica at 10pm tonight at an abandoned warehouse by the docks, number 33.

When she hangs up an angry looking man walks up and asks her who she was talking to, and if it was “that man” again.

It turns out that his name is Jack, her name is Lila, and they’re still married, though from the sound of it, not for long. They fight, then the scene ends.

That night, despite protesting that she had no intention of meeting anyone anywhere, Jessica shows up, alone, at the abandoned warehouse in a taxicab. As Jessica enters the dark warehouse, a car, off in the distance, starts up and drives away as very ominous music plays. We get more ominous music as Jessica walks through the abandoned warehouse filled with stacked boxes until she finds the body of Lila. Actually, I got a little head of myself. Lila is still alive when Jessica finds her, walking towards Jessica with a very surprised look on her face, but then she falls down dead and we see the bloody wound in her back.

And on that bombshell, the screen fades to black and we go to commercial break.

When we come back, after a few seconds of walking around to make sure that the viewer who stayed behind called to everyone else that the commercials are over and the show is back on, Lt. Andrews tells a detective named Lou to go pick up David and find out where he’s been for the last few hours. He then hands Jessica a cup of coffee and asks if she heard anything. Jessica thinks that Lt. Andrews isn’t making sense in thinking that David did it since this would mean killing his alibi. Lt. Andrews counters that David may not have had an alibi, got the girl to say that he did, then killed her so she couldn’t say otherwise. Jessica is impressed by this theory, but unfortunately for Lt. Andrews Lou comes back and says that the surveillance team say that David’s been home all night and never left.

The scene then shifts to the police station where David, in a magnificent sweater, is saying that he told Lila to not call Jessica because of her jealous husband.

Sweaters in the 1980s were amazing things. Anyway, David claims that he and Lila had been seeing each other off and on and it was finally turning into something, which is why the talk of him and Allison Brevard was so much nonsense. This, of course, presupposes that David was the kind of man to not string an old rich woman along for gifts while also seeing a young, attractive woman for her body. Which he clearly was.

The next day Jessica goes to see Edmund but he’s not in. Amelia is quite cold to her and she takes the opportunity to tell Amelia that she’s not competition. She and Edmund are old friends, but that’s it. Amelia tries to demur but Jessica points out it would take a blind person to not see Amelia’s feelings for Edmund. She asks Amelia to let her be an ally and thinks that all Edmund needs is a nudge, and encourages Amelia to give it. Amelia thanks her and says that she’s sorry about David Tolliver, she’s always liked him. Jessica advises her to not write him off just yet; she thinks he’s innocent.

Jessica then goes to see Lila’s husband (now widower). In the course of Jessica impolitely grilling him, it comes out that David and Lila were just friends. There’s also a great exchange where he says, “You ask a lot of questions,” and Jessica replies, “I’m nosy.” He then asks her if it isn’t time for her to be in class, she looks at her watch, and runs off. How on earth he knew when her lecture was, I have no idea, and I doubt that the writers do, either. This is especially weird because he’s the kind of guy to say, generically, “Don’t you have somewhere else to be?” which would have served just as well.

At the lecture, Jessica says that she wants to do something a bit different. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of the murderer. This is, of course, highly necessary for someone who wants to write decent murder mysteries, but in this case it’s just a ploy for her to thinly veil grilling professor Lowery. I guess this is supposed to make Jessica look clever but it really just makes her look cruel. If she had any decency, she’d have waited for a private moment to do this.

When she gets home she gets a note from David that she got a phone call saying that professor Lowery wants to meet her at 9pm—it’s urgent and confidential. That night at 9pm, as she’s going through the dark, abandoned building, taking the stairs because the elevator is out of order, a shadowy figure at the top of the stairs pushes her down.

This is another scene which shows up in the opening credits. It looks cool, which is a good way to mask the switch to a stunt double to get pushed down the stairs. At the bottom of the stairs Jessica is groggy, but hears David’s voice, then sees him, but blurry, and passes out. We cut to an ambulance, where David is with her as she’s being taken to the hospital. David heard about her thing with Lowery after he left the note and she was gone by the time he got back to the apartment, so he went to follow her. He got to the English building just as she screamed. He didn’t see who pushed Jessica—he didn’t see anyone.

In the hospital room, Edmund and Lt. Andrews show up. Edmund accuses David of having attacked Jessica and he denies it. He swears that he didn’t do it. Edmund asks if he’s telling the truth, just as he’s telling the truth when he said that he was with Lila the night that Allison Brevard was murdered. When David protests that he was, Edmund replies, “No, young man, she was not with you. Because that night she was with me.” And after a few startled reaction shots, on that bombshell we fade to black and go to commercial.

The next day Jessica is with Edmund at breakfast. He summarizes. A few months ago Lila came looking for a job and Todd Lowery needed a teaching assistant so he put her in touch. (This isn’t at all how teaching assistantships work, but whatever.) After a while Lila wanted to get out of the affair but Todd wouldn’t let her—whatever that means. In an affair with a married man, it’s not the married man who has the power in the relationship. No one considers this, though. Edmund thinks that Todd Lowery is more subtle than Lila’s husband, but just as dangerous. She came to Edmund for help and somehow this turned sexual. Eventually they met at the Lumberjack Inn, which is out of town and not exactly a campus hangout. They were there on the night Allison Brevard was killed. He remembers because they were almost run off of the road by a speeding car. It was almost as if the driver were trying to threaten them, or to warn them. When queried, he doesn’t remember the color; something dark like blue or black. He was confident that they weren’t followed. Lila was so scared of her husband she was always watching to make sure that they weren’t followed.

Incidentally, he pays the check for breakfast and the camera draws our attention to the fact that he paid by credit card.

Here in the year of our Lord 2024 this would hardly be worth mentioning, but it was far more unusual back in 1984. Incidentally, I love the generic credit card, “BankMaster”. Very similar to MasterCard at the time, but just different enough for legal reasons. Incidentally, this suggests he was very likely to put the hotel bill on his credit card, which means that Amelia would have seen it. It was established early on that she read his credit card bills very carefully. Anyway, Edmund says that his affair with Lila was foolish but that it did serve a useful purpose, which is to expose David Tolliver for the liar and the killer that he is. Jessica doesn’t question the liar part but it doesn’t escape her notice that this is hardly proof that David killed Allison Brevard.

Jessica then goes and pays a visit to professor Lowery. He asks how she’s doing and says that he had nothing to do with the phone call, which Jessica says she was already sure was the case. He thanks her for her little charade the day before because it knocked sense into him and he was up all night talking with his wife and next week they’re going to go on vacation together and try to patch things up. (This is an unusual university indeed if professors can just take vacations in the middle of a semester.) Jessica is delighted for him. She asks the color of his car by way of lying that she saw a student nick his blue sedan, but his wife dropped him off this morning and they drive a yellow station wagon.

On her way across campus she’s accosted by Lt. Andrews, who tells her that David has been released. The burglary division got some leads on the jewels that were stolen from Allison Brevard. They backtracked these through a fence to a “three-time loser who was on parole.” This tree-time loser gave a complete confession to the murder.

When Jessica gets back to her hotel room, David is there, waiting for her.

Andrew Stevens, who played David, is an impressive actor. He combines so many things, here, but more than anything looks amazingly like a shark about to eat her.

Jessica is not pleased to see him having let himself in when she wasn’t there. They fight a bit, but at one point he protests that the note really was because he got a call and the person who called asked him to take a message, said it was urgent. This catches Jessica’s attention. He said, “Person” not Lowery, or even “he”. This suggests something to Jessica.

Jessica then goes to Edmund’s office. He’s not there, only Amelia is, and Jessica tells her that she needs to speak to Edmund as soon as possible. She just got back from talking with Lt. Andrews, who is going to get a warrant for Edmund’s arrest for the murder of Lila Shroeder. He has no alibi. She tries to trick Amelia into acknowledging she knew about Edmund and Lila but Amelia feigns ignorance. She does get Amelia to admit that she drives a dark blue car but she denies knowing where the Lumberjack Inn is.

Jessica stops trying to get Lila to confess and starts presenting evidence. She tells Amelia that she’s lying. She had to know about the Lumberjack Inn because she pays Edmund’s credit card bills. When she first met Amelia she was confronting Edmund about a charge on his credit card bill. She then asks why Amelia called her hotel with a disguised voice, luring her to Lowery’s office. Was it to kill her?

Amelia says no, she just wanted to frighten her. That’s why she dressed in black, to make her think it was David. The police were satisfied but Jessica just wouldn’t let it alone. She then recounts the night of the murder—she had come to confront Lila but Lila was just leaving when she got there so she followed her, all the way into the warehouse. Lila spotted her and laughed. She knew why Amelia was there and threatened to tell Edmund. Amelia flew into a rage, grabbed a longshoreman’s hook, and lashed out at Lila, apparently after Lila turned her back to Amelia for some reason. Her story is interrupted by spotting Edmund, who had silently walked up.

Edmund quietly says, “Amelia, for God’s sake… why?” Amelia almost whispers back, “because I love you.” Edmund is stunned and says, “I had no idea.” Amelia replies, “No. None at all.”

It almost looks like they’re going to go to closing credits but instead the scene shifts to the Seattle airport. As Jessica is looking at postcards David shows up with a stuffed bear for her. There’s some back and forth where he tries to push for a relationship and Jessica turns him down. He has the wits to try to part amicably and says, “even casual acquaintances find a way to say goodbye.” So Jessica says, “Goodbye, David. And I do wish you well.” He replies, “And I, you. You know, I was enjoying the writing. Send me a copy of the book when it’s finished?” She replies, “I may do better. You may end up being a character.” He laughs at this and asks, “And what would I be? A victim? A Suspect? Killer?”

Jessica replies, solemnly, “I don’t know. I haven’t made up my mind yet.” She then turns and leaves. As she walks off David’s smile is replaced by an angry stare and we go to credits.

The actor who played David Tolliver did a masterful job making him look like a manipulative psychopath (in the clinical sense). And, structurally, it was very interesting to run two concurrent mysteries—one, the mystery of David Tolliver and whether he killed Allison Brevard; the other the mystery of who killed Lila Shroeder. The only real problem with this is that a manipulative psychopath makes my skin crawl and I can barely stand to watch the scenes with David in them. In some cases I resorted to skipping a few seconds at a time with subtitles on.

I’ve got to say, that as much as the episode did have its plot holes, it had an interesting structure which suggests answers for at least some of the plot holes. For example, how did David Tolliver hear of the job posting before everyone else? Amelia thinking of Jessica as a rival and wanting to do her harm explains this beautifully. If she knew David Tolliver would try to prey on Jessica, tipping him off about the job posting—and perhaps not even making the posting public until Jessica had time to say that it was filled—makes perfect sense. It also deepens Amelia’s character nicely.

Another example of something that the structure solves is the weird fact of Allison Brevard having pictures of David on her nightstand but him being completely unmoved by her murder. At first that helps to make it look like he’s guilty, but since he’s a psychopath who tries to seduce older women, it explains both that he was successful with her and also why he was unmoved by her death despite not being involved—psychopaths, by definition, don’t have feelings like that. Further, it makes sense why he would downplay his relationship with Allison so much rather than acting shaken up by her tragic loss—he had moved on to trying to seduce Jessica and the last thing that you want, when trying to convince someone that you’ve fallen in love with them, is another recent lover.

That said, there are things which have no obvious explanation, such as why Jessica wanted a secretary at all given that she famously composed her novels on her typewriter or why she just accepted David rather than interviewing anyone else.

I have a bunch of questions about Lila, too. For one thing, what on earth qualified her to be a teaching assistant for Todd Lowery? Teaching assistants are normally grad students who work as teaching assistants (in their field) in order to pay for grad school. We have zero indication that Lila has a degree in English, and while being young and married to an ex-olympian-hopeful doesn’t rule it out, it hardly makes it more likely, either. But that’s not an arrangement that will pay her in cash—teaching assistantships are pair for by remitting tuition for grad school. Setting that aside, how on earth did she just show up to the office of the Dean of Students, and why did he know about an opening for a teaching assistant? The Dean of Students isn’t Dean of the college. He’s Dean of students. Setting that aside, how did she start an affair with Edmund when she went to him for help in breaking off an affair with Todd Lowery? “I’m trying to get out of a sexual relationship with a controlling older man” is not exactly sexy. Setting that aside, given that she had broken off the affair with Lowery and had started an affair with Edmund, why did she show up after Jessica’s first lecture and to make eyes at Todd Lowery?

Also—and this one is not at the level of plot hole—how on earth were Lila and David friends? People can happen to be friends and in a TV murder mystery we have to be ready to accept some level of coincidence, but it would be nice to have some sort of backstory explaning how the wife of a swim jock and a grad student studying unspecified studies when he’s not romancing older women ever ran into each other.

Obviously, we’re not going to get answer to those questions, so it is what it is. Leaving those things aside, I do really like the plot construction that the manipulative psychopath turns out to be totally innocent of all of the crimes in the story. He seems sinister, of course, and is the sort of person who certainly could have committed the crimes. But he didn’t need to, and in the end, didn’t. There’s a nice kind of commentary in this on human nature, that we want evil to be perpetrated by someone easily recognized as evil, when in reality evil is often done by people who look very innocent.

Not literally by fifty year old secretaries with longshoreman’s hooks, of course. In the 1980s it would have been the extremely rare fifty year old female secretary (i.e. office worker) who had the upper body strength to kill someone with a hook. It’s a great tool for lifting things but an incredibly awkward weapon, making it require far more strength than a purpose-build weapon would need, and given that they were not, generally, needle-sharp, it would require quite a lot of force to plunge it deep into a human body through clothing. (In the 1980s, an older female office worker would almost certainly never have stepped foot in a gym with dumbbells or the kind of strength training equipment necessary to develop the upper body strength required to kill a person with a longshoreman’s hook.) This isn’t as bad as the episode where the victim was killed with a tuning fork through a sweater by a middle-aged woman whose arms weren’t much thicker than the tuning fork, but it’s still well outside the realm of the probable.

But if fifty year old female secretaries very rarely kill people in a way that a twenty five year old male dock worker would find difficult, they do sometimes hate people enough to do it if they could (and get away with it). In reality they’re far more likely to use poison, and far more likely still to use passive-aggressive techniques like reputation destruction, but nice people can wish to do great evil and sometimes go fairly far in their attempts to make it real while staying safe. This is the fundamental truth that this episode gets at. If evil were limited to obvious psychopaths like David Tolliver then we’d all be safe because people like him are pretty easy to spot. He was very smooth, but not subtle. Amelia was subtle.

Next week we’re back in Cabot Cove for Hit, Run, and Homicide.

The Two Kinds of Evidence in Murder Mysteries

In murder mysteries, there are two kinds of evidence: evidence which tells the detective what happened, and evidence which can get a practical result from society. The practical result is often a criminal conviction, but it need not be; a wedding being called off, the payment of an insurance policy, or the settling of a will all require similar sorts of evidence.

Of the two, it is the former type of evidence, not the latter type, which is of interest to the reader.

The main distinction between the two types of evidence is not really one of the strength of the evidence, that is, of the level of certainty which it conveys. In fact, one of the common features of murder mysteries is the early presence of highly convincing evidence which will convict an innocent person unless the detective uncovers the truth. No, the distinction is not in certainty. The distinction is, rather, what is required knowledge and understanding is required to apprehend the true meaning of the evidence.

Convenient names for the sorts of evidence of which we are speaking might be complex evidence and simple evidence. Complex evidence requires extensive background knowledge and understanding of human nature. Simple evidence does not; it tells its story plainly. (Using this terminology, we can say that it is common for murder mysteries to, early on, have complex evidence which appears to be simple evidence.)

In order to achieve societal action, such as convicting the murderer in a court of law or getting some other legal effect, one must have simple evidence. However, simple evidence is, in murder mysteries, hard to come by. This is, of course, a selective effect. In the case where the murderer’s fingerprints are on the murder weapon, and the murderer was seen killing the victim by multiple witnesses who know the murderer personally, and the murderer was caught immediately afterwards—these are not the stuff of murder mysteries.

Detective stories have the structure of story-within-a-story: the murder is the interior story while its detection is the outer story. Within the outer story, it is frequently the detective’s main purpose in his investigation to try to uncover simple evidence about the inner story. This makes it curious that his success or failure at achieving this goal is (almost) irrelevant to whether the story is a good story.

An excellent example of this is the Poirot story Five Little Pigs. In it, the daughter of a woman who was hanged for murdering her father, seventeen years ago, comes to Poirot asking him to uncover the truth. She just received a letter from her mother, written immediately prior to her execution but entrusted by lawyers to be delivered on her daughter’s 25th birthday, telling her that her mother was innocent.

Poirot undertakes the investigation and interviews all of the people principally concerned. At the end, he explains how all of the evidence which had pointed to the guilt of the woman’s mother actually pointed to the guilt of someone else. That person speaks alone with Poirot, afterwards, and asks him what he intends to do. Poirot says that he will give his conclusions to the authorities, but that it is unlikely that they will pursue it and very unlikely that they will get a conviction. And that’s fine. It’s a very satisfying ending to the story.

But why?

I suspect that the answer (which may be obvious) is that complex evidence is fun, while simple evidence is not fun. It takes brainwork to understand complex evidence, while simple evidence is too easy to be interesting. What matters in a murder mystery is being interesting, not achieving results. Achieving results is, really, the domain of an action story, or possibly a drama. This is why detectives tend to hand their cases off to the police at the end of the story. It’s best if the tedious work happens off-screen.

But there’s an interesting complication to this.

It is not a good story if the detective (and hence the reader) merely finds out what happens without anyone else learning it. Why this is so relates to the detective’s role within the story. As I’ve said before, the detective is Christ figure: the world has been corrupted by the misuse of reason, and the detective enters it in order to restore order to the world through the proper use of reason. So while society need not act, something must be put right. That is, someone beside the detective must learn the truth and be better off for it.

A good example of this is the Sherlock Holmes story The Blue Carbuncle*. It begins with a curious set of coincidences which place the key evidence in front of Sherlock Holmes, and with some investigation he discovers who it was who stole the gemtsone. He invites the man to his room, and he comes. After Holmes confronts him with the evidence, he falls apart and confesses, sobbing. I’ll quote just the last part:

“Get out!” said he.

“What, sir! Oh, Heaven bless you!”

“No more words. Get out!”

And no more words were needed. There was a rush, a clatter upon the stairs, the bang of a door, and the crisp rattle of running footfalls from the street.

“After all, Watson,” said Holmes, reaching up his hand for his clay pipe, “I am not retained by the police to supply their deficiencies. If Horner were in danger it would be another thing; but this fellow will not appear against him, and the case must collapse. I suppose that I am commuting a felony, but it is just possible that I am saving a soul. This fellow will not go wrong again; he is too terribly frightened. Send him to jail now, and you make him a jail-bird for life. Besides, it is the season of forgiveness. Chance has put in our way a most singular and whimsical problem, and its solution is its own reward. If you will have the goodness to touch the bell, Doctor, we will begin another investigation, in which, also a bird will be the chief feature.”

Here there are two aspects to the world which Sherlock Holmes has put right, even though he has produced no evidence for a jury. In the first, the man wrongly accused of the crime will not be convicted of it because the principle witness against him has fled. The second is less certain, but the true criminal may well repent of his crime since he’s seen what evil he’s capable of and still has a chance to make his way in society honestly.

This satisfies the role of the detective as Christ figure. In fact, it even has a curious echo (perhaps intentionally) of the story of Christ and the woman caught in adultery, and how he releases her from the punishment for her crime on the condition that she sins no more. Neither is, strictly speaking, a satisfying story, but they have something else to them—the idea that there is something better than justice. That’s a very tricky notion, because mercy should never be unjust—but at least in the story of the Blue Carbuncle, what was stolen is returned, and so justice is at least mostly satisfied in restitution.

Be that as it may, the primary point under discussion is satisfied. Holmes collects complex evidence which tells him (and thus the reader) the tale, and this is the interesting part. Achieving a practical effect from society is of minor concern.

(I suspect that part of the reason why The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle ends as it does is that, though it predates Fr. Knox’s decalogue, it violates rule #6 (“no accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right”). The Adventure of the Blue Carbuncle is predicated upon a series of accidents, all of which help the detective. If he achieved a practical societal effect, his reputation would benefit by pure chance. By letting the criminal go, he remains in anonymity and so the accidents which help him produce only an interesting set of circumstances.)


*A carbuncle is a red gemstone, most often a garnet, so a blue carbuncle is something of a contradiction in terms. The story suggests it is a blue diamond, though it could be a blue garnet or even a blue sapphire.

Acquiring Murder Weapons

Much of what drives the plot of a murder mystery are the problems with a murderer who wishes to avoid capture has to solve. In no particular order, the big ones are:

  • Finding an opportunity to commit the murder
  • Planning how to commit the murder
  • Acquiring the tools necessary for the murder
  • Committing the murder without (living) witnesses
  • If possible, having an alibi for the time of the murder
  • Disposing of the murder weapon
  • Disposing of the corpse (I’m including making it look like accident/suicide here)

(Some of these problems are really alternatives to each other; for example if one has an alibi for the time of the murder, one doesn’t need to bother with disposing of the body. If one can acquire the murder weapon in an untraceable way, one can leave it next to the corpse with a label “murder weapon” helpfully attached to it. Etc.)

In writing a murder mystery, these are the questions the writer needs to answer and—at least the way I work—before writing the actual mystery. Actually, let me back up for a second and explain by way of my theory of murder mysteries:

A murder mysteries is actually two stories: a drama told backwards, and a detective story told forwards.

I think it’s fine to write a murder mystery by the seat of one’s pants as long as it’s only the detective story one is “pantsing”. If you’ve written the drama (the murderer’s story) ahead of time, you can’t get into too much of a mess with the detective story. Where people go wrong is in not having first figured out the drama in its natural order so that they can gradually tell it backwards. (NOTE: there will be people who can successfully write murder mysteries in a completely different way. I’m not trying to lay down laws everyone must follow.)

That’s what I mean by needing to figure out the murderer’s solution to his intrinsic problems first. Once you’ve figured out how the murderer has planned his murder, you can then work out how the murder actually happened, at which point you now have a coherent story for the detective to detect. I find this order of doing things very helpful for two main reasons:

  1. This mirrors reality; it’s the order in which murders actually do happen. This means that there’s precedent for it being a workable system.
  2. One has complete freedom for the first decisions one makes. And it’s in the murder itself where plot holds are the most damaging to a murder mystery. Thus starting here gives one the fewest temptations to try to hide a plot hole in order to preserve what’s already been done.

This also lets you decide ahead of time, in a coherent way, what mistakes the murderer made (i.e. what evidence they left), so that you know where to direct your detective to look.

Types of Murder Weapons

So, the question I want to consider is how the murderer acquires the murder weapon. There are several categories which each have their advantages and their shortcomings:

  1. Ready to hand
  2. Store-bought
  3. Home-made

A ready-to-hand murder weapon, such as a kitchen knife used to murder someone in the kitchen, has the benefit of being untraceable, since there is an obvious explanation for what the kitchen knife was doing there. The downside is that such things are unreliable and so unlikely to be in a planned murder. (Of course, one can always abscond with the knife beforehand then bring it so that it looks like it was snatched up in the heat of the moment.) Ready-to-hand weapons are also very likely to be simple—knives, pokers, hammers, etc. People very rarely leave loaded guns, crossbows and bolts, etc. lying about. This means that ready-to-hand weapons will require one to get very close to the victim and use a great deal of physical force. This eliminates squeamish murderers. And most modern people are pretty squeamish.

A store-bought murder weapon is likely to be in good working order and quite possibly useful for killing at a distance and without much force. The downside is that they are—at least in theory—traceable. Guns, crossbows, etc. have serial numbers. Shop keepers have memories and many big box stores have comprehensive video surveillance. Acquiring these things in an untraceable way can be done, but it takes far more work and premeditation, since the best bet here will be to buy them on the secondary market, in cash, months or better yet years before the murder. This requires a very patient—or lucky—murderer.

Home-made murder weapons offer a good compromise between ready-to-hand and store-bought. Building supplies like plywood, hinges, rubber bands, and so on are basically untraceable. And there are a ton of very deadly weapons one could very realistically make. If you don’t believe me, just watch a few episodes of The Slingshot Channel. The downside here is that one requires a fairly competent murderer with at least a few tools. The problem this introduces is one of personality: people who are patient and good at problem solving just don’t seem like the murdering sort. However much of a problem the victim is, there’s probably also a non-lethal way around the problem they pose.

Accomplices Make Everything Easier

One practical way around most of the problems brought up in the murder weapon section is an accomplice. Even better for the problem of murder weapon acquisition is the anonymous accomplice. As long as the murder weapon isn’t directly traceable to a name (i.e. isn’t a new gun/crossbow recently bought at a gun/bow shop), this will greatly obfuscate the trail of the weapon. If the detective doesn’t know whose footsteps to retrace, he will have a very hard time retracing them.

An anonymous accomplice can also go a long way in solving the problems of personality introduced by the choice of a murder weapon. Two people can be more patient than one, an accomplice who wouldn’t murder anyone himself might still help a lover or friend to buy or make a weapon, and so on.

(In fact, the ability for two people to have two personalities is sometimes revealed in just this way—the detective is talking about the contradictions in the murderer’s behavior and someone says, “It’s like our murderer is two different people… wait a minute!”)

Of course, this introduces its own set of problems since now the relationship must be explained. I think that the most typical motivations for the assistance are:

  1. Romantic interest
  2. Financial interest

Though this makes sense since they are the two big motivations for nearly everything and especially for nearly everything which is really bad. The other big motivation in human life is religious zeal, and while you probably could come up with a story in which a radical Muslim murders a Jew out of religious zeal, it would be hard to come up with a story in which he wanted to conceal it (though you could have friends do that over his objections) and in the current environment I doubt that such a story would be well received.

There is another way in which accomplices make things easier, though: being twice as many people they make twice as many mistakes—that is, they leave twice as many clues. Worse yet from the perspective of the murderer and better yet from the perspective of the detective, they can have the motivation to double-cross each other.

As with all solutions to a problem in a murder mystery, an accomplice solves some problems and causes others. This is why it’s better in real life to always do right, of course, because then all of your problems will at least be good problems to have, but in fiction it’s what has made mystery such an enduring genre.


If you enjoy murder mysteries, please consider checking out my murder mystery, The Dean Died Over Winter Break.

tddowb

The Butler Did It Again

(This is a follow-up to a series of blog posts on the subject, the most recent being here.) As I was reading another article on the origin of the phrase, “the butler did it,” my attention was drawn to the story The Strange Case of Mr. Challoner, by Herbert Jenkins. Published in 1921, it preceded The Door by nine years. (Interestingly, Herbert Jenkins owned the publishing house which published P.G. Wodehouse’s books, most famously the stories of Jeeves and Wooster.) I tracked down a copy and read it. (There’s a free ebook version of the book Malcolm Sage, Detective on kindle, which collects all of Jenkins detective stories—if you want to read it I suggest you do it now because there will be spoilers below).

Jenkins’ detective was Malcolm Sage, who was at least vaguely in the mold of Sherlock Holmes and Hercule Poirot, by which I mean that he was both very observant of physical details and very eccentric. All of  the stories about Malcolm Sage were short stories, which is very significant to understanding the relationship of this story to the phrase, “the butler did it”.

Novels and short stories are very different things in any genre, but this is especially true of murder mysteries. Novels tend to focus on the unraveling of intertwining mysteries, which is to say the elimination of red herrings. This is somewhat necessitated by the length of a novel; each red herring forms a sort of sub-mystery, which allows one to enjoy the solving of mysteries over and over throughout the course of a novel. There are exceptions, of course. It is possible to combine a mystery with some other genre where the other genre takes up most of the page count. Adventure is the obvious example; a mystery/adventure works well where each clue is the reward at the end of an adventure. To some degree the Hardy Boys books were like this, and to a lesser extent this is often true of the Cadfael stories. The Virgin in the Ice and The Summer of the Danes are both great examples of where the adventure takes up more pages than the mystery. (Both are excellent novels.)

For related reasons—though there are notable exceptions—murder mystery novels don’t tend to focus on figuring out a single ingenious mechanism for concealing the murder(er) for which the evidence was present at the crime scene. By contrast, this is extremely common in short stories. Among other things, they don’t have the space for disentangling red herrings. Short stories which were printed in magazines tended to be extremely short, sometimes only a few thousand words. It also is simply the right size for that sort of game.

The Strange Case of Mr. Challoner is a locked-room mystery. There is one obvious suspect: a nephew of whose impending marriage the deceased disapproves and who will be disinherited on the morrow. The butler was the last to see the deceased alive, and the body was discovered in the library, with all of the doors and windows locked from within. The deceased was staged to look like suicide, and the local police take it at face value. Malcolm Sage makes numerous measurements and observations, and also directs that the photographer attached to his detective agency take a number of photographs. Malcolm Sage is so fond of photographs as evidence that he gives a lecture on their importance to the local police detective inspector. Eventually he reveals that the butler, who had only been working in his position for six months and was highly praised for the excellence of his work, is the culprit. Sage had taken supposedly exclusionary fingerprints from everyone, and used those to find out that the butler had a criminal record and was still wanted. Further, he explained that the butler had put a small metal rod through the hole in the key’s handle and using a string attached to it turned the lock by pulling on the string with the door closed. Once the key turned far enough, the metal rod fell out of the hole in the key’s handle, and he used the string to pull the rod under the door and retrieve it.

Unlike the butler in The Door, this time at least the butler was actually taking advantage of his role as butler in committing the murder. His master didn’t think anything about his coming from behind because it’s the sort of thing that butlers do, and moreover he had an excuse for being in the house after the rest of the household had gone to sleep because he lived there. So at least in this case butling was relevant to the butler’s commission of the crime.

None of the articles I’ve seen so far have cited The Strange Case of Mr. Challoner as having had any influence on the phrase, but then again none of them have cited any evidence for why The Door did have influence, either. It leaves me wondering whether any of this is actually relevant to the phrase I’ve been considering. It might well not be. With murder mysteries having been quite popular ever since Sherlock Holmes first studied scarlet, I assume that there were a great many short stories in the weekly and monthly publications of the early 1900s which have largely been lost to the sands of time. In the days before television and even before radio plays were particularly popular, theatrical plays were quite popular. Wherever there is a maw gaping for novelty, there will be people trying to fill it. Certainly this is the source that the character Broadway cited as his authority that all murders were committed by butlers in the 1933 short story, What, No Butler? I’m disinclined to think that much of the source was movies, though I don’t have any hard evidence for that. Murder mysteries don’t lend themselves well to silent films, though I have no doubt that somebody tried it at least once. The Jazz Singer was the first talkie, in 1927. Talkies took over quite quickly, as I gather, dominating film no later than the mid-1930s and probably in the early 1930s, but that’s rather close to when What, No Butler? was written to have embedded itself in the culture as a common trope by then.

I’m left where I was before, wondering where this trope came from. Perhaps I’ll be successful in tracking down contemporary reviews of The Door, which might be illuminating, but unfortunately a quick google search didn’t turn up anything. I might have to resort to going to the library!

So, The Butler Did It

I’ve been reading Mary Roberts Rinehart’s murder mystery The Door, which I talked about here and here, at five and twenty two chapters in, respectively. This was started off by my wondering about the phrase, “the butler did it”. I’ve finally finished the book, so this post will finish off my review of The Door, and also discuss the idea of the butler being the murderer. I’d warn you about spoilers, but, well, I think that you already know that the butler did it. I might spoil a few side-mysteries too, though, so caveat lector.

The book was in its entirety written in the style of the memoirs of someone who observed a very strange situation. I am used to murder mysteries and detective fiction being, roughly, synonyms, but The Door is very clearly a murder mystery while it is not at all detective fiction. There is a police detective—who does solve the case—but almost entirely outside of the narrative. Several members of the family play at a little detecting, but only occasionally. Only one of them does anything which does not simply anticipate a later discovery, and that was to effect a useful introduction, rather than any actual detection.

The story also maintains the style of foreshadowing hints until the end, abandoning it only as the police detective explains the solution, which is the last thing that happens in the book. I’ve concluded that I don’t like this style. It feels at best overwrought, and at worst like an attempt to spice up a dull narrative with chopped up bits of other parts of the same narrative. I don’t mean that all foreshadowing is bad, of course, but The Door seemed to use foreshadowing in place of a compelling plot.

There is also the very strange question of the narrator, Elizabeth Jane Bell, who narrates the story in a very personal way. Throughout the story alternately laments the tragedy, investigates it, and destroys evidence to try to protect the family. It’s that last part which is especially hard to reconcile with the narration; why on earth would she be narrating all of these scandalous details in a memoir when the character of herself within the memoirs would want all such scandal wiped out? Whether you take the inconsistency between herself in the story and herself as narrator to be a problem with the character or a problem with the narrator (I took it as the former), it is still an unsettling problem.

There is also the problem of the family which Elizabeth Jane was trying to protect. Her niece Judy was never really under any suspicion having, as I recall, an alibi from the beginning. She was the only really sympathetic member of the whole family other than Elizabeth Jane herself, and she mostly from a general pleasantness which seemed to be a combination of decent manners, comfortable circumstances, and little ambition. The rest were detestable. Towards the end I was hoping that the murder would be solved after the good-for-nothing Jim was executed, just so the wretch would be out of the story. The other characters were similarly unpleasant, which left me very unsympathetic to the family’s desire to avoid scandal, which was to a fair degree their only major motivation in anything that they did. But this brings up an interesting point in murder mysteries in general: it’s hard for likable characters to be suspects.

The mystery in a murder mystery obviously depends on there being more than one suspect. More properly, on there being more than one credible suspect. The problem is that a character can fail to be credible as a suspect by being too likable. It’s very difficult to write an enjoyable story about a good person who stoops to murder but then cheerfully covers it up. It’s that much harder to write several characters who are all credible in that way; to pull it off one must write good characters with depth, rather than the common approach of paper-thin automatons who are good merely because they’re not tempted by ordinary temptations. It’s much easier to make suspects credible by simply making there be nothing to which they won’t do for gain.

Another important distinction between suspects in a mystery is between those with an obvious motive and those without an obvious motive. Very often this does not line up well with the moral probity of the characters. In order to put an innocent person in peril (to heighten the tension) a morally upright person will get an obvious motive, while a moral degenerate will get none. This helps to spread the doubtfulness around, to be sure, but because both of these suspects have something obviously going for them as suspects, it is especially common to make the culprit someone who is not very morally offensive (apart from their murders) who has a hidden motive. Which brings us to the butler.

How much was the butler a character and therefore a potential suspect? It’s hard for me to say fairly because I already knew that he did it, of course, but doing my best to be fair, I would say somewhat, but not much. Joseph (the butler) gets progressively more tired, worn out, and on edge as the story progresses, which certainly was a clue (that he was running around doing things while everyone else was asleep). He had originally come from one of the victim’s household’s, which should have been a clue but actually wasn’t—his prior connection to the rich victim had no significance as far that was revealed in the story. Nothing was ever made of him having the opportunity for the murders, because they happened at times when everyone had opportunity, and the house was small enough that a butler’s ability to be unnoticed had no significance. In fact, all three murders happened outside of the house, so his position as butler was—if anything—a disadvantage. He had to sneak off to commit them, or commit them while he was off-duty. The one time his being a butler was an advantage was when he answered the door when one of the victims came to see Elizabeth Jane but he turned her away because Elizabeth Jane was sleeping. Any butler might have turned her away, and any murderer might have learned of her coming and consequently resolved to kill her before she could tell what she knew.

On balance, the disadvantages of Joseph’s being a butler far outweighing the advantages makes Joseph’s being a butler fairly irrelevant to his being a murderer. It’s really just his profession. Most murderers have a day-job and there’s no particular reason it shouldn’t be butling. In this case his being the butler of the narrator was something of a camouflage; it meant that she didn’t notice him. Also his many years of loyal service made her affectionate of him, and this combined with the murders happening nowhere he was supposed to be and her always thinking of him as having no existence past being her butler disguised him as a suspect. But it didn’t disguise him totally. One of the themes of the book is how little one really knows of the people one thinks one knows, and the fact that Joseph had a wife somewhere but Elizabeth Jane had no idea where does actually highlight this blindness in a way that makes it fair game for the reader to not be so blind. In fact, I would argue that line by Jane Elizabeth is a well crafted notice to the reader that Joseph is a potential suspect.

Further, if the test of victory in the contest between the reader and the writer of a murder mystery is that the writer wins if the reader doesn’t guess who the murderer is but blames himself rather than the writer for it, then I believe that The Door has the potential for victory. Reading it through while knowing what to look for, I think that Rinehart did play fair with the reader. Certainly it seems possible she knew who the murderer was from the first, and did not merely cast about for someone she hadn’t already ruled out when she came to the ending. So I don’t think that there’s any cogent criticism to be made of her choice of murderer. (Except, perhaps, that it’s a little odd for someone who engages in fraud, forgery, and conspiracy—which eventually leads to multiple murders to cover those up—to have no criminal history, but instead a long and unmarred career in positions of significant trust.)

So when we come to the question of whether it is legitimate that, as Wikipedia puts it (as of the time of this writing), “Rinehart is considered the source of the phrase “The butler did it” from her novel The Door (1930), although the novel does not use the exact phrase.” Not only does the novel not use that exact phrase, it doesn’t use any even somewhat similar phrase. I’m going to quote the reveal in the novel, but I need to mention a little context first. Joseph had been mysteriously shot in the collar bone about a week before, but he was not killed and recovered enough to come back to his duties, though with his arm in a sling. Elizabeth Jane had, therefore, given him leave to go on holiday to recover. We have not learned up to this point who Joseph’s wife is, but we can mostly guess it was a woman who figured into the plot somewhere else, who we knew to be dying of inoperable cancer. We’re picking up with the tail-end of the explanation given privately to Elizabeth Jane by the police detective. During the explanation he had been calling the murderer “James C. Norton”, which he told her was the pseudonym the murderer had used to procure a safe deposit box. So, with that said, here is the reveal in the novel:

“So we got him. We’d had his house surrounded, and he hadn’t a chance. He walked out of that house tonight in a driving storm, and got into a car, the same car he had been using all along; the car he used to visit Howard Somers and the car in which he had carried Florence Gunther to her death, under pretext of bringing her here to you.

“But he was too quick for us, Miss Bell. That’s why I say I bungled the job. He had some cyanide ready. He looked at the car, saw the men in and around it, said, “Well Gentlemen, I see I am not to have my holiday—”

“Holiday! You’re not telling me—”

“Quietly, Miss Bell! Why should you be grieved or shocked? What pity have you for this monster, whose very wife crawled out of her deathbed to end his wickedness?”

“He is dead?”

“Yes,” he said, “Joseph Holmes is dead.”

And with that I believe that I fainted. [that’s the last line in the book]

There is nothing there remotely similar to the exact phrase, “the butler did it.” As you can see, there was nothing there even related to him being a butler. There were a few things which happened in the house that his living in the house enabled, but much of the criminal activity actually in the house was not in fact Joseph’s doing. The door referred to in the title was a hotel door where a fraud was performed, and was not in the house in which Joseph was a butler. It was not even in the same city as the house in which Joseph buttled. Except possibly as a violation of the tacit convention that the butler is the one person who never, ever commits the murder(s) in a murder mystery, his being a butler is utterly irrelevant either to the murders or to whether one suspects him of those murders.

After a bit of research, I found what seems like evidence that Damon Runyon’s What, No Butler? was first published in Collier’s Weekly, August 5th, 1933. That is not so early that the joke that the butler always does it was necessarily common by the time that The Door was published, three years earlier, but I think it does suggest it. Given what the book actually is, and the timing of it relative to jokes about the butler always being the culprit, I really doubt that The Door was in any way the origin of the phrase. It’s not impossible, but I’d really like to see better evidence for it besides this being the first (and nearly only) book which anyone can find in which a butler actually did it.