Who Killed Robert Prentice?

Crime Dossier #3

by Dennis; Planned By J. G. Links Wheatley

12 Dec 1936 - 31 May 1937
What is the significance of the railway ticket found in the cottage where the victim met his mistress, the lovely Suzanne L'Estrange? Why was a Belgian stamp found in the hall? Why did Robert Prentice write such a vindictive letter to Miss L'Estrange, and what was the fatal outcome? What did the blackmailer see through the bedroom window, and who tore up his photograph?

Test your powers of deduction when you break the sealed section containing the
NAME OF THE MURDERER.

Genres: Mystery

96 pages, Hardcover

First published June 1, 1937

Reviews

[Thomas Gizbert]

An amazing artefact. Perhaps because it was among the first of its kind, and nobody was around to tell the creators when to stop, it's chock full of incredible, ridiculous feelies executed with such care and attention to detail. It's also unmistakably adult in content and tone, and rewards close examination and clever thinking.

That having been said, my guess at the solution was like 100% wrong in every particular.

But I don't even care because I read it like 3 times cover to cover and made cramped insane notes and diagrams, and even though it's not canonical, my answer is, in a sense, a realer reading of the text than whatever any author tells me is correct.

Here's my answer. Spoilers follow, but of course they're not real spoilers:

- After their argument, Suzanne l'Estrange and Alan Seagrave make up. They are in fact deeply in love and wish to be married, and Alan borrows l'Estrange's car to drive to the cottage and appeal to his stepfather. This is around 1230.

- When he arrives around 1400, he finds his stepfather dead with a bottle of suspicious-looking pills and jumps to the conclusion that l'Estrange murdered him because of her love for him in the time between their argument and their making up. He wipes all the surfaces that he thinks might contain fingerprints. He takes the bottle of pills and drives to Lewes. (This accounts for the fact that only Alan's footprints were found at the cottage, even though l'Estrange's tire prints are there.)

- There, he leaves the car with the pills inside, buys an Evening Standard (to establish alibi) and a replacement bottle of pills from a chemist who remembers selling the pills and the time of day (~1500) but mistakes the day (Friday for Saturday) and the customer (Sam Tunney for Alan). This accounts for the confusion between whether the pills were purchased in Liverpool or in Lewes.

- Alan returns by train to the cottage. Only then, when he phones l'Estrange at her home, does he realise that she doesn't have anything to do with Robert's death. Now understanding that he's put himself in the spotlight, he phones a couple of numbers in London in a failed attempt to give himself an alibi. Finally, he phones his mother and the police.

- In his haste he forgets to remove the letter addressed to l'Estrange, and later, when the police question her about it and she realises that it could incriminate Alan, she is forced to change her story and places suspicion on herself instead. Alan hides the stolen bottle of pills in the bathroom at Gainsborough Court, where his mother finds them months later, to dangerous effect.

- This also seems to absolve her of any hand in her husband's death, even though she might have the clearest motive: would she take pills that she herself had doctored? Further, would she appoint a detective to look into a case that might end with her execution? But if the murderer isn't Cicely Prentice, or Alan or l'Estrange, who does that leave?

- Well, to my mind, three questions still remain: first, why was the photo of l'Estrange hidden under a couch cushion? Second, why did Prentice have a note reading "FG53U9" in his pocket? And finally, what did Nathaniel Smears mean when he said at the inquest that he had proof that he wasn't responsible for the embezzlement which led to his dismissal?

- The simplest answer to the first question would be that someone came to visit Prentice that morning, causing him to quickly hide the photo he was pining over. He came downstairs to breakfast with that person, who took the opportunity to poison his coffee before cleaning up after themselves and leaving, planting the pills to make it look like suicide, or an accidental overdose.

- As for the other two questions, perhaps the answer is the same. Let's say Smears does have proof that he's not responsible for the embezzlement. Why doesn't he produce it? Why resort to blackmail instead? It must be because he doesn't have access to the proof itself, but he knows where it is: inside file ref. FG53U9. It's he who wrote that note (it doesn't look like Prentice's handwriting) and gave it to Prentice when his blackmail attempt failed.

- The motive for murder? The true embezzler learned of this meeting and decided that in order to hide the truth, Prentice needed to die. The murderer must then be someone who was close enough to Prentice, or Smears, to learn of this conversation. She would be someone who had access to the company money. She would be someone proficient enough to be able to cover her financial tracks and set her fool step-brother up as the fall guy. She would be someone who knew about Prentice's stomach complaints. And who better to prepare his coffee than his ex-secretary, Miss Hogbin?

So sure, it's a little tortured, and some of the characters are acting a little oddly here, but I think it's much better than the actual solution, which leaves so much unexplained! Which is why I think that (actual spoiler) the text is actually obscuring a darker tale of deviance and shame. Cicely Prentice, the confessed murderer, is in league with Miss Hogbin! In fact, they're lovers! How terrible to have lived at a time in history in which murder was a lesser crime than choosing who and how to love!

This book, then, is a tragedy. How apt that even the 'correct' answer, in all its unbelievability, refuses to acknowledge the awful truth, and leaves the characters - guilty and innocent - to their lies and half-lived existences.

[Katrina Whitehead]

Unique and innovative. I recommend you source the 1937 version which is more like a pamphlet.

[andrew y]

Really quite a fascinating work in the detective fiction genre. I had no idea there was any level of public appetite for publications like this in the early 20th century. Funny, as it is apropos for an update now - I’m sure it’d sell tons.
But the mystery was solid, all pieces were there for the solving to happen by the reader, and the denouement was exciting and intriguing without making me feel cheated.
Real good stuff.

Make sure you buy the folio though. The effect is completely spoiled by the hardback version.

[Márcia]

3.5 ⭐
The mystery is very well laid out and the reader is provided with every piece of evidence. The story is immersive and you sympathize with the characters. Sadly I could not guess the murderer...

[Judy]

A rather interesting detective novel in which the reader participates in solving the crime.

[Rae]

This was a really fun interactive murder mystery to solve. The book is made to look like a crime dossier and contains all the physical evidence needed by the reader to solve the murder of Robert Prentice. The evidence consists of a spoof newspaper with interviews in it, an arsenic tablet (poison removed, of course) and various photographs and clues. A most "novel" way to read a mystery.

[Jason]

This book scared the shit out of me. The crime scene photographs are terrifying.