When is a "perfect case" a bit TOO perfect?
A man is murdered in Manhattan. He's a jerk, but he has money and power. He finances plays and backs businesses. He's feared by some and admired by others. And one winter morning someone sticks a steak knife in his neck. So long, Tony.
Suspicion falls on his estranged wife, a beautiful young actress. She became disillusioned with her husband and wanted out of the marriage. As payback, he sabotaged her acting career. He's dumped plenty of women - wives and girlfriends - sometimes publicly and brutally. He can dish it out, but he can't take it.
Peggy Mott is appealing and some people are reluctant to imagine her as a murderer, but witnesses place her on the scene. And her psychology professor is so disturbed by a paper she handed in that he goes to Pam and Jerry North in hopes of preventing a murder. Or did he have another reason for alerting them to the supposedly murderous intentions of the young actress/wife?
The victim was killed at a famous eatery whose owner was born into a family of French restaurateurs and brought his expertise to New York City. For years the Maillaux is noted for gourmet food, attentive service, and high prices. But times change and even the most exclusive restaurants must change, too. With new money and a high-profile new partner, the restaurant attracts a younger crowd - less interested in gourmet food than in seeing and being seen. Andre Maillaux is devastated to lose his partner and hopes the NYPD will quickly solve the crime.
Lieutenant Bill Weigand has a ready-made suspect in the victim's wife. All the evidence points to her and a second murder adds even more proof of her guilt. But Pam North says there's too much evidence, all served up a little too neatly. Is she right?
It's 1948 and psychology is a hot topic. Not surprising since the end of WWII brought home a flood of young men who'd been taught to kill and had seen friends die horribly. That part of the book is handled well and the authors show how the damaged psyches of these returning warriors has affected every aspect of life in the post-war period.
But there's WAY too much time spent focusing on the suspect's numbing fear and detailing the victim's enemies and THEIR possible emotions. Professor Leonard sounds like the genuine article, especially when he points out to Weigand that an event (such as brutal rejection) can't cause great damage to a person unless he/she has an underlying emotional weakness. That's sensible, but doesn't fit into the kind of books that these authors are known for.
The Lockridge team wrote witty, intriguing detective stories featuring a recurring cast of likable people and introducing new characters who are beautifully drawn. The description of Andre Maillaux and his meticulously contrived persona is worth the price of admission all by itself. But when these authors try to explore darker themes, their books drag. It's still a good read, but be prepared to do some skipping. And if you're new to this wonderful series, please don't start with this one