Anatomy of a Murder, and of attitudes to women

Anatomy of a Murder by Robert Traver

published 1958

 


[excerpt] “What were you wearing that night?” I said… “Were you dressed as you are now?” Looking again, I was somehow hopeful she wasn’t. But then, hadn’t she already mentioned wearing a sweater?

“Well,” she said thoughtfully, “I had on a sweater, one very much like this” – I winced inwardly – “and a skirt and a slip and panties.”

“Any girdle?” I inquired hopefully.

“Heavens no,” she said. “I never wear the things.”

 

comments: Anatomy of a Murder – written by a judge under a pen-name, featuring a murder trial in great detail, and then turned into a highly-rated film – is notable for many things, and is beloved by many in the legal profession. I probably should sigh about the fact that what brought it into my mind right now is a mention of ‘girdles’ – ie women’s underwear. (In the days when the blog did Dress Down Sunday, I was always intending to pick this book up again. ADDED LATER: In the comments below a reader reminds me that I did mention this book and a potential post in the comments on this John Dickson Carr book: Below Suspicion)

When I posted on the remarkable Black Wings Has My Angel  recently, the btl comments discussed girdles – they feature in the book, and we discussed why a woman with a perfect figure would need one. In the case of the book, it’s because it’s a good hiding place. In real life in the 1950s, it’s because it would not be respectable NOT to wear one. I said:

There was some atavistic feeling that women must have many layers on, or they would face some unnamed danger or immorality. And then of course those layers had to be as uncomfortable as possible.

And that instantly brought this book to mind.

It is fascinating on many levels: its portrayal of a trial has been much-praised, and the author Robert Traver does a great job with the setting in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan – memorably described both in its scenery and also its feeling of disconnection from the rest of the state. The film was Oscar-nominated: directed by Otto Preminger, an amazing cast including James Stewart and Lee Remick, titles by Saul Bass and music by Duke Ellington.

The book is long and detailed but easy to read – though you suspect a good editor might have removed some of it.

It has a tremendously modern feel in some ways – perhaps like a book by Scott Turow, with its drilling down and unvarnished look at the way the justice system works. But it is very much of its time in its attitudes to women. And to rape.

First person narrator Paul Biegler is an attorney who is disappointed in life and drinks and goes fishing and doesn’t have many cases. He is called in to defend Lieutenant Manion, an Army officer who has shot and killed a man – Barney, a bar owner who, it was alleged, had beaten up and raped Manion’s wife Laura. Biegler – who is nicknamed Polly, I presume because of local pronunciation of his first name – takes on the case and puts forward a defence of temporary insanity: ‘irresistible impulse’. He is counting on a jury deciding that a man is entitled to murder someone who raped his wife.

He investigates the case, with the help of an even more hard-drinking older lawyer who is on his uppers, and his faithful secretary Maida. So far so familiar, though I think later legal thrillers, both books and films, may have learned from this one.

Now we get to the character issue. The Manions are not the most edifying pair – both have interesting pasts, and they are perhaps careless people (in the manner of Tom and Daisy Buchanan in The Great Gatsby). Biegler knows that the prosecution will try to imply that Laura led the dead man on, that sex was consensual. That she was a floozie.

And this is where the girdle is important:



·      …It was going to be hard at best, I saw, to tone down this concupiscent-looking creature, but I would have to make the try. However she might despise wearing a girdle she was damned well going to have to wear one at the trial. I’d have to remember to tell her.

·      She was wearing slacks and a tight sweater—I saw I’d have to speak to her about that.

·      I also reminded him to remind Laura to be sure and wear her glasses and her new girdle during the trial. And above all no sweaters.

[at no point in the book, btw, is a bra mentioned]

Laura has gone to a bar on her own, she has drunk whisky and played pinball, some people claim she danced with men.

So…. These are the attitudes to rape that we do hope have disappeared now.

Nothing is held back in the prosecution case. A witness says of Laura:

‘At times I thought her behaviour wasn’t quite ladylike… Like once when she took off her shoes to play pinball.’

The prosecution is on it:

‘Is it your practice to remove your shoes when you drink whisky?.. or when dancing?... and were you served drinks with your shoes off?’

I mean, really?

Biegler knows how the prosecution is thinking, and even he has his doubts about Laura. As above, he thinks glasses will help. On the day, she has taken his advice:

She was dressed in a becoming dark linen suit and wore sheer stockings and high-heeled shoes and a little straw hat with a short veil that fell over her eyes. This was the first time I had seen her dressed up and I calculated that with glasses…yes, I might risk showing her before a jury

 


You can only shake your head at some of this.

The story is a page-turner, you definitely want to know how it comes out. I read it before many years ago, and have to say that I remembered the ending completely incorrectly, I had a very strong firm memory that was completely false.

But anyway. Biegler meets a young woman along the way, and there is a prospect of romance…

…Her dark hair was piled on top of her head and she wore a ruffled peignoir over some sort of silk lounging pajamas which reached high at the throat, Mandarin fashion, along with matching wedge-soled slippers with discreet pompons on the toes.



She’ll go down a storm in his conservative small town. I mean, it doesn’t even say if she’s wearing a girdle underneath this getup.

I like books set in Michigan, not sure why. And sometimes they link up:  for example, In my post on True North by Jim Harrison I said ‘the author of Anatomy of a Murder, Robert Traver/John D Voelker is a minor character’.

Another book considering the wearing of girdles is Exit a Star by Kathleen Moore Knight, here on the blog.

Lounging pajamas/pyjamas worn by Ginger Rogers.


Comments

  1. There's the layers, and the practical difficulty of removing a girdle (girdle as chastity belt?), but also the psychological aspect - the assumption that a woman who's prepared to accept the restraint and discomfort of corsetry in order to look the way society says she should is a woman with self-respect, self control and acceptable moral standards. Whereas a woman who lets it all hang out physically is, of course, going to do the same morally ...

    Sovay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, a very good description of the thinking...

      Delete
    2. "The practical difficulty of removing a girdle" especially a panty girdle, of which I have personal and not very fond memories.

      Delete
    3. Girdles "made your figure look as anonymous as possible" (Jilly Cooper, Class). Air stewardesses were made to wear them to give them a "mono-behind" (like the mono-bosom of earlier corsets). Girdles made women stand in a peculiar scooped out fashion - see All About Eve. "You got these girdles a size smaller!" "Something maybe got a size bigger." "I ought to make you wear the girdle and act for two hours!"

      Delete
    4. That was me (Lucy)

      Delete
    5. Clothing manufacturers must have loved girdles - so much easier to size and cut if they could rely on the majority of women being basically the same shape!

      Sovay

      Delete
    6. Loving these comments - all aspects I hadn't thought of. Great catch from All About Eve. And th thought of working as an air hostess for hours and hours on your feet in heels and wearing a girdle is awful!

      Delete
    7. Shay – I’ve tried in vain to restrain my curiosity – did you have to wear a panty girdle as a serving soldier???

      Sovay

      Delete
    8. When I got my orders to report to USMC Officer Candidate School at Quantico in 1979, they came with a list of mandatory clothing items INCLUDING a girdle. My previous experience with foundation garments was limited to the corset I had worn during high school and college when costumed for my dad's American Civil War shooting group (North South Skirmish Association if you care to google it). Clearly the instrument of torture I had worn with my hoopskirt and gown was not going to fly at OCS, so I hied me off to a discount store and bought a panty girdle. I wore it exactly once, for my first inspection, and then the word was quietly passed that no, we didn't need them, and in fact the clothing list was in the process of being updated.

      Interesting fact: when my older sister (US Army 1970-1973) was on active duty, they WERE required to wear girdles. The protocol for foundation garment inspection involved a ruler and a smart smack to the butt. If you jiggled, you were obviously not wearing a girdle.

      Inspections for bras were still a thing when I got my commission, and as one of the few women officers at my base in Okinawa I was frequently seconded to other units to conduct them. Again, a ruler, which you drew down the back of the suspected miscreant. If you hit a bump, she was wearing a bra.

      Gone are the days.

      Delete
    9. Every aspect of this (including the Skirmish) awe-inspiring. And valuable social history....

      Delete
    10. I’m glad to know that common sense kicked in so early in your career, though 1979 seems very late for them still to be on the list, even if they were on their way out. Though I suppose this post does highlight a possible reason for the army to consider them a good idea – it’s clear that Biegler takes it for granted a girdle will make its wearer less, not more, attractive to the opposite sex. I trust it was a female officer doing the butt-smacking back in the day.

      Did you get to skirmish in your hoopskirt and Civil War corset?

      Sovay

      Delete
    11. For shooting I had a vivandiere outfit. Much more practical.

      Delete
    12. Ah now, I remember reading LIttle Women when I was very young, and Jo March wants to be a vivandiere, and I had no idea what that was, what she meant. Many years later I did a blogpost where the term featured. https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2014/12/under-two-flags-by-ouida.html

      Delete
    13. We weren't actually allowed to SHOOT, you know (these were the 1970's after all). But we were allowed to fetch and carry things, and bring water and shout huzzah, and hand out prizes.

      My dad let me shoot with him when he went to the range, though. I was in the Marines before I ever fired a weapon manufactured after 1865.

      Delete
    14. I do hope you are going to write your memoirs one of these days Shay.

      Delete
    15. I like the vivandiere outfit - trousers, by Heavens! Though it hardly seems worth changing out of the hoopskirt just to shout huzzah &c. Much interesting info out there about vivandieres and it seems just as well that Jo didn't get to be one - it was clearly a job for an adult with experience of dealing with the world, and the Marches seem pretty sheltered.

      I started to read "Under Two Flags" once - had read something else by Ouida and evidently enjoyed it enough to try another - but bailed within the first chapter IIRC.

      Sovay

      Delete
    16. The story of vivandieres is fascinating, and I like the whole idea of them.
      Also, as an opera lover, I like to think of the one featured in La Fille du Regiment (not a great opera, but with one truly great aria...)
      Under Two Flags is truly one of the worst books I have ever read.

      Delete
    17. I must admit that not having given the matter any serious thought, I had assumed until now that vivandieres were unofficial camp followers providing informal ‘comforts for the troops’ behind the lines - it hadn’t occurred to me that it was a proper, paid army role (though not in the British army, as far as I can tell).

      Sovay

      Delete
    18. Yes, I remember being equally surprised when I looked at it - though I suppose Jo March wouldn't have been planning to be a comfort-provider. But the fact that it was a sought-after franchise was very surprising.

      Delete
  2. I don't think this attitude has altogether disappeared, but at least there has been enough enlightenment that the attitude can be challenged. I remember an episode of US TV show "Law & Order" from the early 1990's which tackled the issue, and the prosecutors of the (gang)rapists were disappointed that the victim's life wasn't as "innocent" as they'd thought. And a decade later, on the L&O spinoff Special Victims Unit, almost the exact same plot was used with the same result. There was an expression of outrage at both verdicts, especially in SVU, but they still left a bad taste in my mouth. (The SVU victim definitely acted unwisely, but the thought came to me that if someone left his car with the key in the ignition in a "bad" neighborhood, his idiocy wouldn't be perceived as justification for car thieves.) On a brighter note, Ginger Rogers sure knew how to wear clothes!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. there's a 'young people's soap' called Hollyoaks in the UK, and they did a special storyline about a young woman who is attacked on the way home from a club - she has become separated from her friends and her phone, and has had a few drinks. The thrust of the story was that she is NOT to blame and must not think so: the attacker is wholly to blame. It was done with input from the Govt Home Office. It was hard watching, but at the same time I was so glad it had been made. (and proud of my sister-in-law, who wrote the script)

      Delete
    2. " if someone left his car with the key in the ignition in a "bad" neighborhood, his idiocy wouldn't be perceived as justification for car thieves." I used to live in Detroit. I'm not sure the Detroit PD would even have bothered to take a report under those circumstances.

      Delete
    3. Hilarious. When I worked as a reporter in Liverpool back in the day, when it was the wild wild west (it has changed somewhat now...) kind friends would occasionally ring with a tip for a story, and i would politely NOT tell them 'unless that mild theft also includes guns poison and arson, it's not going to make our news bulletin'. So I know whereof you speak.

      Delete
  3. I also remember reading one of those how-to-look-your-best books, from the 1960's I think, in which the (female) author quoted an unnamed male "expert" on the subject of girdles. He disliked girdles because they "spoiled the lines" of a woman's derriere, and this was accepted by the author as a valid reason for not wearing one! Damned if you do, damned if you don't....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely - women can't win! They have to 'make an effort' and then men claim they want someone natural, not over-fussy, but they don't even know what that is..

      Delete
    2. I'm all for comfort and practicality these days, but I do think there is a happy medium between heels and nylons, and pj bottoms and fuzzy slippers at the mall.

      Delete
    3. I still cherish a moment when I was in a restaurant in a 'nice' area of my home town with my two local cousins, evening, about 15 years ago. I looked out the window and said in stupefaction 'there's a woman walking down the road in her pyjamas'. Cousin 1, calmly: 'Does she have curlers in her hair?' Me: 'no'. Cousin 2: 'there's posh.'

      Delete
  4. I used to volunteer at a Housing Court (young lawyers were encouraged to do this to get experience in court - the paying clients at my firm only wanted us in the background) and somehow the judge wound up chatting with me about books, much to the surprise of everyone in the court room. He urged me to buy a copy of this book, which was his favorite. I did buy it but never got around to reading it, so I appreciate the reminder! I have been told the Upper Peninsula of Michigan is one of the prettiest places in the country but it is 9 hours north of Detroit so quite off the beaten trail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The New Yorker once published a map which was missing the Upper Peninsula in Michigan, which readers soon noticed. The magazine published an apology along with a cartoon that showed one Michigander (I assume) saying to another that the view was much better since the UP had been removed!

      Delete
    2. CLM: I'll be interested to know what you make of it if you do read it. For someone who lived in the US for several years, my grasp of georgraphy is pretty shaky: I would never have guessed Detroit was so far from the setting of the book!
      Marty: I think I remember hearing about this - it all makes the UP more appealing..

      Delete
    3. That's very funny about the New Yorker map. When I worked in (book) publishing, there was a joke that New Yorker fiction editors deliberately lost the first and last pages of the manuscript in the Xerox so all its fiction had the same "seems like it starts in the middle" feel. But actual New Yorker staff never found that as amusing as we did!

      My copy of the book is not where I thought it was but I will read it the next time it turns up!

      Delete
    4. Yes I'd heard that about the New Yorker stories, and wasn't convinced it was a joke! There is a certain feel to them...

      Delete
  5. John Molloy in his book Women dress for Success(1977) writes ' If your client is female, a conservative navy blue dress with a white accent says innocent' I bought my copy just before Rebekah Brooks appeared in court during the News of the World phone hacking trial and was amused to see her in a navy long sleeved dress with a demure white collar.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh great catch! I got an instant picture of her in that outfit, which I would say was not at all typical of her normal wear. Who knows what she had been reading...

      Delete
    2. Huh, just today on the teevee (American for telly) I watched Perry Mason's "The Case of the Married Moonlighter," and Frances Helm in the witness box was the very image of feminine demureness yet glamor. (She was not the defendant, but her presence near the crime, the 2 a.m. murder of a playboy gambler, definitely aroused some prurient interest.) She could've been your alternate image. See if you agree: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0673329/mediaviewer/rm819254529/. -- Your blogfriend, Trollopian

      Delete
    3. Oh yes, she's wonderful! I love the tiny pearls worn over the high collar, and hat - hair - earrings: all perfection.

      Delete
  6. As I read your post, Moira, I thought about how little has changed in some ways. It's depressing to think that, even if it's not done blatantly, people still want to know things like 'What was she wearing?' 'How much did she drink?' And the list goes on. It's a tough subject to explore, probably even more so at that time than now. I hope things evolve...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I know exactly what you mean Margot. I think it's probably small steps of improvement...

      Delete
  7. I wonder when women stopped wearing girdles. I don't remember my mother wearing one. Maybe when sexual intercourse began in 1963 ... Chrissie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I used to have a small collection of "Women's Realm" magazines from 1968 and 1969 - all had several large adverts for foundation garments of every size and style, and one had an editorial which assumed that they were the default for any woman out of her teens. So there were plenty still around at that point, though "Women's Realm" was a fairly conservative, family-orientated magazine and the picture may have been different in eg "Vogue".

      Sovay

      Delete
    2. I think Chrissie you must have been a wild bohemian family. I would say many many women were wearing them into the 1970s.
      and yes Sovay, adverts and editorial would certainly bear that out.

      Delete
    3. When I started as a trainee GP nearly 20 years ago, I would still sometimes experience older ladies (80+) wearing corselettes. (I think a girdle is just the waist and hip part, no built-in bra?) Impossible to palpate anything through the armour-plated beige nylon, and took about ten minutes to get off, and at least that to get back on again. I don't think I've seen one for at least a decade, but they are still available: Naturana Non Wired Corselette | Chums https://share.google/sziMCqL1MpbBtWGTj

      Delete
    4. Believe me, Moira, my family was very very far from being wild or bohemian! It is more likely that I never actually saw my mother in her underwear. Though, come to think of it, I don't remember seeing a girdle hanging on the washing line either. It will forever remain a mystery and that is probably how my mother would have liked it.

      Delete
    5. Susanna: I think you're right, girdle is waist down, corselette is the whole torso. I am astonished and impressed by that advert - who'd have thought?
      Chrissie: Do you think our mothers would be horrified that we are discussing it online? I'm firmly of the opinion that it was normal to wear them into the 70s, but how do I really know...?

      Delete
    6. I was in my late teens in the late 1970s and have no recollection of anyone ever mentioning girdles or other shapewear to me as a possibility, never mind suggesting that I OUGHT to wear something of the kind. Mind you I was a lissom young thing in those days ...

      Sovay

      Delete
    7. I think they had given up on the young people then, though older ladies still wore them.

      Delete
    8. Corselette-like shapewear is still an item but goes by names like bodysuit and bodybriefer. Comfort is stressed (although that's probably pretty relative) and there are "best of" articles in the NY Times, Good Housekeeping and elsewhere which make a point of saying that wearing shapewear is a personal choice: https://www.instyle.com/fashion/best-shapewear

      Delete
    9. Right, very interesting. So we hear about Spanx, is that what Spanx is?

      Delete
    10. I hadn't reallzed the extent to which there's a change of name but the tradition continues, though one does hope these items are more comfortable in the past?

      Delete
    11. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    12. I had never heard the term "corselette" (thank you, CiB commentariat, for augmenting my vocabulary!), but here in the former colonies the all-in-one foundation garment is often incongruously called a merry widow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corselette. Anyone else hearing Mrs Slocombe answering the 'phone, "Ladies' Intimate Apparel?" -- Trollopian

      Delete
    13. A bit late replying. I think my mother would have been amused rather than horrified. How I wish I could ask her! Chrissie

      Delete
    14. Oh I am loving this discussion.
      Yes, Trollopian - dear Mrs Slocombe. Molly Sugden born to play that role. I was delighted to find, in early meanderings on the blog, that there was an Australian department store called Grace Bros throughout most of the 20th C.
      Merry Widow was an item invented by the Warners lingerie company (who always had the most cheery and colourful adverts) and then became a generic term - I looked at them in this post on Sex and the City https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2012/08/dress-down-sunday-carrie-on-in-new-york.html
      Chrissie, I know just what you mean - so many things I would ask my mother.

      Delete
  8. Okay, I'd like to jump in and talk about not the girdle but -- the Panties. Because there is a courtroom scene in that movie (and I suspect in the book also) that can't be forgotten when it comes to "a certain undergarment."
    I like how the judge handles the situation.
    https://youtu.be/S2osCWox4_k?t=37

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Susan: I took a conscious decision not to pursue the panties-in-court line. The plot deviates quite a lot here: I don't think James Stewart concentrates on girdles much, but the panties assume an importance that they don't have in the book. There, they go missing but are never recovered I don't think whereas it is a key element of the trial in the film.
      That scene is brilliant, but it is not in the book at all.
      Indicative that the judge says that the item plays a key role in the death of one person and the possible incarceration of the other - but doesn't mention the key role in the alleged rape of a woman....

      Delete
  9. Silence about the bra does seem very odd - Biegler's mind is very much on Laura's sweaters, presumably because they're tight and revealing, so one would think he'd also have something to say about exactly WHAT they're revealing. Laura presumably didn't wear one on the fateful evening in the bar or she'd have included it in her list (unless the "slip" was a full length petticoat with a bra top rather than just a waist slip) but he doesn't comment on that, either to her or to himself.

    Sovay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. According to John Molloy "...for attracting men no garment tests better than a sweater if it is tight... a cashmere sweater on a woman with even a moderate build is one of the greatest seduction garments in existence" Women dress for success p 77. So clearly Laura dressed to attract men plural. This was written 20 year after Anatomy of a Murder, too. No mention of breasts or bra just 'build' talk about the construction of feminity.

      Delete
    2. Yes, I found it really surprising, I searche on the text to be certain - bra, brassiere - nothing. Especially when the lawyer keeps going on about her sweaters.
      I must say JanW, John Molloy is sounding like a piece of work. do you recommend the book...?

      Delete
    3. I don't know about Britain but over here in my (long-ago) phys-ed classes, a certain calisthenic was often accompanied by a chant "We must, we must, we must keep a bust! The bigger the better, the tighter the sweater--we must, we must!" It was kind of a joke, but kind of not a joke!

      Delete
    4. I don't remember too much about girdles, except that my mom wore one but never tried to get me to do it. I do remember that when feminists started burning bras, the reaction was quite strong. And in our films after the Hays Code, women seemed to always wear bras, even under nightgowns. Some actresses like Harlow and Lombard didn't, but I think their studios disapproved at first. Even Mae West seemed fairly "contained." (IMDB says her mother was a corset model!)

      Delete
    5. Magazines for young women always contained features about bust size - simultaneously saying 'be happy with you have and you can't change that' and also giving exercises for perkiness...
      I will start looking at old films with great care, checking on bra status!

      Delete
    6. In the UK, to be chanted whilst performing arm-waving exercises which almost certainly had no effect at all:

      I must, I must
      Improve my bust!

      I will, I will
      Make it bigger still!

      Hoorah, hoorah,
      I need a bigger bra!

      Sovay

      Delete
    7. I'd heard the opening lines of this, but never the whole thing!

      Delete
  10. The book is apparently based on extensive market research amongst men and women.

    There is a great deal about colour which I find particularly interesting.
    He covers a lot including how to dress for promotion, if you want to attract a dentist, doctor, scientist engineer... and how to dress for authority, believability, popularity etc.

    He makes some good points about women's clothes being more expensive but not as well made as men's etc But the general tone is didactic - never, always, do,don't etc. And remember if someone gives yiu a mustard colour pant suit, burn it immediately. So I would yes, definitely worth buying.

    ReplyDelete
  11. My last comment is about John Molloy's book Women - how to dress for success not Anatomy of a Murder, my apologies for being unclear.

    ReplyDelete
  12. All the talk about "Laura" is bringing The Dick Van Dyke Show to mind. Laura Petrie often wore sweater-like tops, and of course the slacks through which no panty-line was allowed to be visible! Not that she was overtly seductive, but obviously she was meant to be attractive to men. In our sit-coms about married couples, more often than not the wife is awfully good-looking even if hubby is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sticoms are fertile ground for research, on clothes and attitudes.
      When I am looking at photos I am always surprised that very respectable upmarket women are pictured in very very tight sweaters, obviously with serious underpinning, really emphasizing the breasts.

      Delete
    2. I don't know if Brits here have seen our sitcoms featuring comedian Bob Newhart? The last scene of his last sitcom had him talking to the wife from a previous sitcom about his last show (supposedly a dream sequence):
      Dr. Robert Hartley: And I was married to this beautiful blonde...
      Emily Hartley: Go back to sleep, Bob.
      Dr. Robert Hartley: Goodnight, Emily.
      [turns his light off]
      Emily Hartley: [turning her light back on and sitting up] Beautiful blonde?
      Dr. Robert Hartley: Go to sleep, Emily. You - you should wear more sweaters.

      Delete
    3. I don't think he ever really broke through in the UK - his shows were on TV, but at odd times. Thats a complex conversation!

      Delete
  13. The “irresistible impulse” defence reminded me of the discussion of “crimes passionels” on this blog fairly recently – I tracked it down to a post on John Dickson Carr’s “Below Suspicion”:

    https://clothesinbooks.blogspot.com/2024/08/below-suspicion-by-john-dickson-carr.html

    where, oddly enough, girdles also feature in the comments.

    Sovay

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sovay your memory is amazing, I had only the faintest recollection of that and there it all is! In my answers to comments on girdles I am obviously talking about this very book....

      Delete

Post a Comment