THE CHARACTERS: Judge Peck once again joins forces with the District Attorney and coroner Dr. Considine of the local Wisconsin jurisdiction near Baraboo to make sense of a murder case with two confessions and a mystery of committed arson. Interestingly, though both shooters confess to having fired their revolvers at the banks neither one will admit to setting the house ablaze. Consequently, there is much discussion of forensic evidence involving arson, accelerates and what fire does to human body. Over the course of the novel the two trials are summarized with interesting testimony rendered in dialogue. One trial ends in an acquittal, the other in a conviction. But Judge Peck is not satisfied that either men are guilty of murder or arson.
The crux of the case is the identification of the body. Anyone familiar with GAD novels should instantly be alerted a timeworn gimmick when a skeleton is found in a burned building. Did the fire actually completely incinerate the body in a single night? The wily judge is certain that Henry Hornly, the despised and crooked banker, is still alive and was behind the arson.
Late in the book Derleth introduces Herbert Hornly, the victim's eccentric brother who, like most people in town, was not a fan of his relation. Herbert quickly became my favorite character in a complicated book solely because his appearance adds a level of oddball humor not often found in the Judge Peck mystery novels. He has a pet St. Bernard named Vladimir who he affectionately calls "Laddie". A dog-catcher is constantly picking up the dog that has a habit of running off Herbert's property and roaming the village streets. Herbert thinks the dog catcher has a scheme of milking him of the $1 fine for a stray dog and is basically at war with the town and the dog catcher in particular. This turns into a running gag -- something extremely unusual for Derleth, at least in the mystery novels I've read. When all is wrapped up Herbert Hornly appears one more time and there is a neat end to the dog catcher saga with a clever joke that made me laugh aloud. Loved Herbert and Laddie!
INNOVATIONS & ODDITIES: The IDing of the corpse relies heavily on dental records that almost certainly prove that the body is Hornly due to a highly unusual dental repair in an otherwise perfect set of teeth. How could that possibly be faked, think both Dr. Considine and Dr. Asten, the expert witness in dentistry. But Judge Peck, ever wary of certainties being doubtful, digs further into Hornly's past and uncovers a bizarre coincidence that will upset the entire case
Derleth has a habit of adding quirky narrative touches in his mystery novels. In Sentence Deferred he goes beyond quirky and t commits what I consider a transgression in logic. The lawyers directly address the jury during testimony! Both prosecuting and defense teams editorialize and remind the jury what the testimony means to their case. Unheard of in the actual practice of trial law. Even someone who knows law only from reading novels and watching TV shows knows those remarks are solely reserved for the attorney's closing statement at trial's conclusion. What fiction editor would allow that in any novel? Scribner's, Derleth's publisher at the time, was known for being stickler for sophisticated grammar. I guess they spent too much time modifying Derleth's stilted prose and overlooked a glaring error in jurisprudence.
Peck learns that Hornly made friends with a dentist, Dr. Asten, who allowed Hornly to watch him treat patients. He even allowed Hornly to clean the dentist's teeth as a trial run. Bizarre and outlandish! But of course this detail mentioned in passing will play a significant role in Peck finally putting allthe pieces together in a seemingly complex criminal scheme.
QUOTES: Dr. Considine: "Positive identification of the body remains unfortunately in question. And the setting of the fire so long after the killing--over an hour--is going to be a problem. This is all most unsatisfactory."
Judge Peck: "Consider, what have you? Circumstantial evidence that looks like a certainty. But is it, in fact? I think not. Admittedly it stacks up very nicely against Beckit. The question of Beckit's guilt simply does not enter in at all, as far as the legal aspect is concerned. [...] The question here, however, is whether or not the circumstantial evidence is conclusive."
Dr. Metzger, expert witness in forensic pathology: "It is [a case of positive identity]. In a case like this it is most unwise to take anything for granted. You will have observed the entirely circumstantial nature of not only the cases against the accused, but also of all evidence. In casting about for some loophole, we must naturally attack those facets which, if disproved, will afford the loophole. The identity of the remains is one --the chief one, I think."
Judge Peck: "The nature of circumstantial evidence is such that is it fundamentally always extremely untrustworthy. I have no doubt that the cases of the State versus Beckit and the State versus Alford may well become Wisconsin's classic examples of the insufficiency of even the strongest circumstantial evidence."
EASY TO FIND? Prior to selling my copy online last month I had checked for other copies for sale. There were several copies out there in this vast online shopping mall. Now there are only two! No idea who bought all of them but it seems Judge Peck is suddenly of interest to many mystery readers. Could it be these reviews? I'm not a betting man, but I'd say it's highly likely. ;^) Act now before those two are also gone.
No comments:
Post a Comment