Caroline Crale was convicted of murdering her husband 16 years ago. Although there were 5 other people in the house, all the evidence pointed to her. Now, her daughter is convinced of her innocence and seeks the help of Poirot to prove it. With the murder having occurred so long ago, Poirot does not have the benefit of fresh eye witness accounts and all evidence is gone. All he has is the accounts of the five who were in the house at the time. Was Caroline Crale wrongly convicted?
This is a completely different Poirot book to most others. The book starts off with the murder having already happened, rather than the murder happening during the book after we’ve been introduced to the characters. However, I think Christie pulled it off well. We had a clear picture of the crime in our heads even though the book was set so long after it had occurred. I would have given the book five starts, because I loved the storyline and I didn’t guess the ending, but it ended so abruptly. I’m not a fan of books that leave things unanswered or end on a sudden note. Other than that, a great read!