Richardson's First Case - SPOILER thread

[Judy]

This is the spoiler thread for our March 2019 group read of Richardson's First Case by Basil Thomson. Please feel free to post spoilers in this thread.

[Judy]

We've already had some discussion over in the general thread about whether this was easy to solve.

I thought the culprit seemed rather dodgy, but I didn't work out how it was all done.

I was very interested in some of the detective work which was included, such as where Richardson goes along to the pub and finding the details of the brown paper. I wasn't so sure about him buying boxes of chocolates for the two witnesses, however!

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

I thought Herbert Reece an unrealistic character, but no one else seemed to have both motive and opportunity to have been the culprit. And he was such a Nag!!!

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

In the other thread Jill wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Did anyone else wonder why the driver of the vehicle was never mentioned, interviewed, have anything to do with this?"

Oh wow, you’re right! That is weird, isn't it?"

Jill wrote: "I was under the impression that it was a hit and run. "

As this is veering into spoiler territory, I took the liberty of moving your comments and my response over here. I think the hit and run was by Arthur Harris. I could certainly be wrong, but I remember that Catchpool was under the bumper of the car when he was rescued.

[Jill]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "In the other thread Jill wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Did anyone else wonder why the driver of the vehicle was never mentioned, interviewed, have anything to do with this?..."

yes I worried about it being a spoiler, but thought I would answer.

Harris's hit and run was the young boy who had stolen a bike , when Harris was trying to get some money to pay Catchpool. But they did suspect it was the car that ran into Catchpool.

[Jill]

I'm about 75% through this now and I agree with Judy. It is not so much of a "who dun it " as a how. But am still finding it a good read.

[Susan in NC]

Judy wrote: "We've already had some discussion over in the general thread about whether this was easy to solve.

I thought the culprit seemed rather dodgy, but I didn't work out how it was all done.

I was ve..."
Lol, I thought that was questionable, too, and nowadays he’d get in trouble- witness tampering, witness flirting? Something along those lines!

[Susan in NC]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "In the other thread Jill wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Did anyone else wonder why the driver of the vehicle was never mentioned, interviewed, have anything to do with this?..."

Sorry about that, sometimes I forget the thread I’m commenting in - don’t want to spoil anyone’s read.

[Susan in NC]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "I thought Herbert Reece an unrealistic character, but no one else seemed to have both motive and opportunity to have been the culprit. And he was such a Nag!!!"

He was, wasn’t he? And the way he was badgering the old lawyer for money from the estate - cheeky! And way to look guilty, I thought...

[Jill]

Finished now and I thought it really interesting.

[Susan]

Herbert Reece was something of an obvious suspect, I agree.

[Judy]

The way he referred to himself as "little Herbert" reminded me of Campion calling himself "little Albert" - but on reflection I think Campion usually does that when he is trying to seem like a fool!

[Susan in NC]

Thank you, I couldn’t remember where I’d read that before, it was bugging me!

[Pamela]

I quite liked this one, but I agree the mystery was a bit weak, especially with Reece drawing attention to himself. I didn't work out he'd been bribing Cronin to change the time in his story till quite late on though.

I actually enjoyed the early police procedural aspects - the hierarchy with the higher ups dictating strategy and the junior officers doing the legwork, the checking of alibis and evidence etc. I always enjoy the way the GA police have their friends (like Kennedy) wandering in and out of the station.

[Sandy]

As Thompson was actually from Scotland Yard perhaps friends were more welcome to offer suggestions than they are today.

[Susan in NC]

Sandy wrote: "As Thompson was actually from Scotland Yard perhaps friends were more welcome to offer suggestions than they are today."

True - I was fascinated by that as well! Plus Richardson running an impromptu contest with a prize of chocolates to female witnesses.

Also simply a language difference question, I found it odd to hear the higher ups refer to “my room” and “my table” instead of “my office” and “my desk”. Is that still common language in English workplaces today? Or do workers use office and desk? I don’t think I noticed it in the modern Herron novels.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Susan in NC wrote: "Also simply a language difference question, I found it odd to hear the higher ups refer to “my room” and “my table” instead of “my office” and “my desk”. "

The "communicating door" was annoying to me.

[Susan in NC]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "Susan in NC wrote: "Also simply a language difference question, I found it odd to hear the higher ups refer to “my room” and “my table” instead of “my office” and “my desk”. "

The "communicating d..."

Yes, thank you - that was kind of unusual, wasn’t it? I would think a distraction, too, if you’re trying to read a stack of reports and think about fitting it all into a coherent whole...

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

It was the phraseology that was annoying. He walked through the communicating door rather than he went into the room (or office, whichever).

[Susan in NC]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "It was the phraseology that was annoying. He walked through the communicating door rather than he went into the room (or office, whichever)."

Yes.

[Pamela]

Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "It was the phraseology that was annoying. He walked through the communicating door rather than he went into the room (or office, whichever)."

Why is it annoying Elizabeth? Doesn't he just want to show that they use a door that connects the two rooms?

[Rosina]

In my day as an office worker, you would still distinguish between the communicating door (between the boss's office and the secretary's room, or the general office) and the door from the corridor. Using the communicating door could suggest more informality?

I think 'room' was used occasionally, and my office contained both the desk (with pedestal drawers and the telephone) and a table. Particularly those large tables around which groups would sit to discuss matters. It was a different meeting if your boss joined you at the table, rather than remained sitting behind his desk.

[Elizabeth (Alaska)]

Pamela wrote: "Elizabeth (Alaska) wrote: "It was the phraseology that was annoying. He walked through the communicating door rather than he went into the room (or office, whichever)."

Why is it annoying Elizabeth? Doesn't he just want to show that they use a door that connects the two rooms? "

Repetitive and unnecessary. Once given the layout, why belabor the point? I didn't like the author's writing style and I'm sure this contributed to my opinion.

[Judy]

I found it interesting that this novel had a more down-to-earth setting than many of the detective stories we've been reading here recently - the miserly shopkeeper is a far cry from the mansions, theatres and grand country houses in some of the other writers of this era!

Although, having said that, the shopkeeper clearly does have enough money to have lived in a far grander style if he had cared to do so.

[Susan in NC]

Rosina wrote: "In my day as an office worker, you would still distinguish between the communicating door (between the boss's office and the secretary's room, or the general office) and the door from the corridor...."

Interesting, thank you for explaining the usage, Rosina!

[Susan in NC]

Judy wrote: "I found it interesting that this novel had a more down-to-earth setting than many of the detective stories we've been reading here recently - the miserly shopkeeper is a far cry from the mansions, ..."

Very true, I hadn’t thought about it, but murder among the average folks is different than in a closed social circle in a country house (different set of headaches for the police, I would imagine, as well).

[Pamela]

What did you all make of the tale of Myrtle and her marital problems, and her encounter with Sharp on the bus? That part seemed rather unlikely to me (and to the police at first, to be fair).

[Rosina]

Pamela wrote: "What did you all make of the tale of Myrtle and her marital problems, and her encounter with Sharp on the bus? That part seemed rather unlikely to me (and to the police at first, to be fair)."

I think Myrtle was planning a bit of sauce for the goose, and wanted to let her gandering husband know that she too could find something better. Sharp was lucky to get out without being cited.

[Sandy]

That was my feeling as well. She was certainly disappointed when Sharp didn't return for his umbrella.

[Judy]

I thought this was going to turn out to be some plot to get Sharp out of the way at a key moment!

[Bicky]

I found it very enjoyable and plan to read the other books in the series. A solid police procedural, with no POVs of the suspects to muddy the waters! The way a lowly probationary PC is able to add to the investigation, though slightly unrealistic, is very enjoyable. He has insights, finds witnesses and gets information out of them. This is a form of detective work not usually emphasized in detective fiction.

By the way, is this group planning on reading other books in this series?

[Susan in NC]

Sandy wrote: "That was my feeling as well. She was certainly disappointed when Sharp didn't return for his umbrella."

Agreed.

[Judy]

Bicky wrote: "I found it very enjoyable and plan to read the other books in the series. A solid police procedural, with no POVs of the suspects to muddy the waters! The way a lowly probationary PC is able to add..."

Glad to hear you enjoyed it so much, Bicky. In answer to your question, there are no plans for further group reads from this series at the moment.

[Bicky]

Judy wrote: "...there are no plans for further group reads from this series at the moment."

Thanks.

[Jemima]

I found the book plodded along a little, but in many ways I feel that it is a far more accurate depiction of the real process of police investigation than one finds in most of the other detective novels we read from this age. I actually enjoyed the teamwork and the collective efforts of the many different policemen involved in the investigation and the way that every single end was tied up before it was presented to the prosecution. I was talking the plot over with my Mum, and she related how that she had sat in on mandatory jury duty for a number of weeks, a few years ago. She saidd it was so frustrating because all of the jury members and the prosecutors knew that the crimes had been committed and sometimes they were really terrible ones, but that there was no definite evidence, no irrefutable proof that could be presented to form a guilty verdict and in our justice system, taken from the UK, you are innocent until Proven guilty. So the jury members were forced to give not guilty verdicts. This puts a strong slant towards appreciation of a less fictionalised and sensationalised crime story, even if it makes for. less exciting reading. My greatest criticism was that there was an actual opportunity for Basil Thomson to have both his nail biting scenario both for the would be hero, Richardson, and the plot denouement. My frustration was very real when at the moment when Richardson is waiting in the cold and dark for the criminal, Reece, and has him apprehended at Croydon Aerodrome, where he breaks down, having lost his nerve, and confesses all. Instead of following this adventure in the first person, with Richardson, we are left to jitter at the end of a phone awaiting news with Foster, in the dark, and are only told the events at second hand as it were in the driest and most factual manner possible. At this point I could have screamed and thrown the book across the room. Why????? Could we not have left Foster biting his nails and had the privilege of following that coming young policeman Richardson on his adventures of discovery, as we had at other points in the story?

If I had been his editor I would have said "Excellent work, Thomson, a thoroughly plausible and enjoyable read. Now take it back home with you and rewrote the ending from the point of view of Richardson and you will have a best seller instead of a series that has to be rediscovered in nearly a hundred years and read only for the interest of posterity."

Btw is there a good biography of Basil Thomson? Now that is a book I would love to read. The biography was all to short, but the absolute best and most interesting thing I read this month. I laughed up my sleeve when my MIL saw me reading this book and as she fancies herself an authority on crime fiction she put me on the spot and said 'Who is this Basil Thomson?' Imagine my self satisfied gloat when I reeled off his biography pat to her starting with "he was a son of the archbishop of York and then giver full details of his exciting life. My lovely MIL could only blink and say "well aren't you clever. I've never even heard of him". Imagine my self satisfied gloat. She had spent the morning telling me off because I didn't know who the latest Australian Prime Minister was...a common problem here as they change every couple of months....and didn't understand Brexit.

[Bicky]

Jemima wrote: "I found ... the way that every single end was tied up before it was presented to the prosecution."

Yes, it was interesting and this is even more evident in The Case of Naomi Clynes by the same writer. The extreme level of evidentiary burden the Director of Public Prosecution is shown as requiring to bring a case to trial was astonishing and is rarely taken into account in standard police procedurals. The book is, anyway, well worth a read.

[Jan C]

i finally finished this. Only 1 1/2 years late. I enjoyed this book. Decent police procedural. Only problem seems to be Thomson's dedication to setting forth the bureaucracy of the police.

[Sandy]

Jan C wrote: "i finally finished this. Only 1 1/2 years late. I enjoyed this book. Decent police procedural. Only problem seems to be Thomson's dedication to setting forth the bureaucracy of the police."

A year and a half isn't bad. It is not like a current series where you want to finish the current entry before the next is available.