Poisoned by H2H2O*?
Review of the Felony & Mayhem Kindle eBook edition (March 7, 2020) of the Scribner’s hardcover original (1934).

“Oh, it’s far worse than that,” Vance interjected. “What I was tryin’ to say is that this case is a crime within a crime: we are supposed to commit the final horror. The ultimate chord in this macabre symphony is to be our conviction of an innocent person. The entire technique is based on a colossal deception. We are supposed to follow the specious and apparent truth—and it will not be the truth at all, but the worst and most diabolical lie of the whole subtle business.”

It is unfortunate that the Philo Vance novels become increasingly self-parodies in the long run. I'm finishing out this binge read as they are still reasonably entertaining even though very predictable. It is also wild to read them with the knowledge of present day forensics and CSI style crime investigations. Philo Vance picks up objects at crime scenes, often even pocketing them, with hardly a care and with no objection by the criminal authorities. Everyone in the books smokes constantly, cigarettes for Vance and mostly cigars for District Attorney Markham and Sergeant Heath. This is even at the crime scenes.

Anyway, The Casino Murder Case is par for the course, with the usual misdirection from the obvious suspect. There is a subplot of the possible use of heavy water as a poison, which is also a distraction from the real method of poisoning. Vance pontificates about methods of betting along with the science of heavy water extraction. In the end we have the now standard Unsatisfactory Ending Alert™ where the criminal meets an end which doesn't satisfy standard criminal justice.

See the front cover at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/36/TheCasinoMurderCase.jpg
The front cover of the original Scribner’s first edition (1934). Image sourced from Wikipedia.

There is some confusion about the chronology of the Philo Vance books, with The Casino Murder Case assigned the No. 7 in the canon. Some editions say that is No. 8 though, as can be seen on the cover of this Felony & Mayhem edition from 2020.

Footnote
* This is the formula given in the book for heavy water. It is now commonly given as D2O. Heavy water was a recent discovery in the early 1930s and its possible toxic effects were unknown.

Trivia and Links
See film poster at https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/The_Casino_Murder_Case_film.jpg
The Casino Murder Case was adapted as the same-titled film The Casino Murder Case (1935) directed by Edwin L. Marin and starring Paul Lukas as Philo Vance. You can see the original trailer for the film on YouTube here. Both the trailer and a clip from the film give the impression that it is played mostly as a comedy.

Willard Huntington Wright aka S.S. Van Dine is also the author of the Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories. ( )

Warning--although the murderer is not identified by name in this review it does spoil aspects of the book.

My short review of this book:
By this point in the Philo Vance series S. S. Van Dine’s writing and plotting has degenerated in something that resembles self-caricature. The “subtle” “diabolical” and “ingenious” murder plot is laughably and unnecessarily convoluted. Vance is allowed free rein at the crime scene and with suspects in a way that would make any defense lawyer ecstatic. Members of the police force do little other than appeal to Vance for direction and he searches crime scenes, pockets evidence and interrogates witnesses without legal or police officials present. The person who any competent police officer would have suspected as having done the crime did indeed commit it. Vance’s supposed insights and knowledge never advance to two simple questions: who had the opportunity to commit the crime and who would benefit from it. The rawest of police officers would have cut through the nonsense in the first 24 hours and actually been able to arrest the culprit. Since Vance spent most of the book interfering with any credible evidentiary chain of custody the only way to “catch” the criminal was to have him explain “what and why” like a bad Bond villain and even then Vance had to arrange that someone else could justifiably shoot the murderer to be sure he didn’t get away with it. Indeed, given the way in which Vance described his preparations for that last showdown I wonder if Vance himself could have been charged with reckless endangerment.

A longer review:
I know that one is supposed to suspend disbelief when reading books such as these but Vance’s behaviour at crime scenes is beyond ignoring. Yes, he often arrives at the scene of the crime with the DA; yes, the books are set long before the birth of modern forensic science; yet I still find it beyond belief that the police would not complain at Vance (with his writer friend) searching a crime victim’s rooms without any form of supervision and pocketing potential evidence to later present to the police. Again, I am aware that the modern concept of ‘chain of evidence’ was not yet fully developed when this book was written however I still believe that any competent defense attorney (and since the characters in these books are almost all from wealth or society they will have legal representation) would tear apart any case based on evidence supposed found by a ‘friend’ of the DA.

Neither do I find the portrait of Vance as a super detective to be convincing. Vance appears to be more competent than the police because generally the police either do nothing or behave in patently incompetent ways. For example, the police are called to the house of woman who may have been murdered or may have committed suicide. The suicide note was typewritten. The police do not get a typing sample from the machine in the house let alone secure the machine. Matters of police routine are routinely not carried out and thus obvious clues and pieces of evidence lie waiting for Vance to find them hours, and sometimes days, after the initial discovery of the crime.

As often happens in the Vance series, Van Dine begins by “instructing” the reader how she/he is to understand the nature of the story they are about to read. This case, the reader is told, “was probably the subtlest and most diabolical criminal problem of his career.” This cues the reader to interpret the inability of the police and Vance to immediately solve the crime as evidence of the ingenious nature of the murderer rather than incompetence of the investigators. Without those instructions what the reader might note is that Vance is not particularly good at his job and it is no surprise that the DA, who used his power to interject Vance into police investigations, served only one term in office. ( )