Oh, pfui. Reading this was like watching a splendid race, only to see everyone crash right before the finish line.
I really thought I was going to be giving this one five stars. As I read, I was mentally lining up my review: "Goldsborough rings the bell on this one!" It did have its usual irritations--the stilted dialogue, and that peculiar, uncalled for enmity between Purley Stebbins and Archie that I noticed in the last book, MURDER, STAGE LEFT. But I was able to ignore the irritations in the pleasure of the story--which doesn't always happen. It started off very well, a good pace, decent mystery, imminent peril to a beloved (yes, I feel there's a case for calling him "beloved") character. Feeling impatient as Wolfe delayed at getting involved. Was it or was it not a mob hit? The only other strong motive seemed to go by the wayside in the circumstances of Wolfe's hiring. I was starting to wonder if the murder would turn out to be a gambit, with the primary target someone else--maybe even Cramer himself! A shocking incident with Saul, good characters...the book just zipped along. As they approached the finish, Wolfe and Cramer were neck and neck, an astonishing occurrence. There was the standard gathering of the suspects--with an intriguing twist....
And, with two statements by Wolfe--bing, bing--the killer shatters like glass. Minutes after they arrived, everyone packs up and leaves. They might as well have phoned it in.
Goldsborough is showing a tendency for single-clue deductions. That's fine when properly handled; Rex Stout was known for it. The N.I.A. man addressing a B.P.C. man as he would an employee (THE SILENT SPEAKER) or the senior law student who didn't know what a tort was ("Before I Die") are classic examples. However, Stout's Wolfe is wise enough to know that what satisfies him will not necessarily satisfy others--namely, D.A.s and juries--and he is careful, therefore, to gather corroborating evidence (usually, though not always, easy to do when you know who your bad guy is).
(spoilers) Goldsborough's Wolfe does not. In the previous book, he based his deduction on the fact that one suspect out of the group failed to inquire after the well-being of a would-be suicide who was in the hospital. He failed to consider that A) the suspect might have been anxious and distracted, or B) the suspect might have personally called the hospital to obtain an up-to-the-minute update on the patient's condition. In this book, he bases his deduction on the fact that one suspect out of the group clung to the notion that the killing was indeed a mob hit, whereas everyone else had conceded that it was unlikely. Wolfe (and, presumably, Cramer) fail to consider that A) the suspect might sincerely (if naively) believe that it really was a mob hit, or B) the suspect might be trying to protect someone else. In both cases, if the suspects had kept their nerve, stood fast and silent, Wolfe's cases would have fallen apart, because the DA's office would never have touched them. Relying on your villain to obligingly fall apart and bleat out a confession in front of witnesses is shoddy detective work, and using virtually the same device two books in a row is lazy writer's work.
One other note: One of the people in the book had a deep and long-held rancor (to use a Wolfe word) for another person. Wolfe managed to disperse the rancor with a couple logical sentences. Excuse me, but generally speaking, deep, years-old, senseless hate does not respond well to logic.
And again, pfui.