The nature versus nurture debate is at the heart of this standalone psychological mystery. Jacko Argyle died in prison after he was convicted of murdering his mother by hitting her over the head with a poker. A couple of years after the trial, a new witness appears with exculpatory evidence that proves Jacko was not in the house when his mother was murdered. But if Jacko was innocent, then someone else must be guilty. The rest of the family and the household employees will live under a cloud of suspicion until the real murderer is discovered. The witness, Dr. Calgary, feels responsible for stirring up the cloud of suspicion, and he believes he has a moral obligation to solve the crime and free the innocent from suspicion.

This novel is very similar to many of Poirot’s cases, and I think it would have worked better as a Poirot mystery. It suffers from lack of an easily identifiable protagonist/detective. Sometimes Arthur Calgary works on the puzzle. Sometimes the local police superintendent works on it. Sometimes Philip Durant, the murder victim’s disabled son-in-law, fancies he can solve the mystery. Christie excelled at revealing character through conversation, and her dialogue carries her best novels. This novel focuses more on what various characters are thinking to themselves, and there isn’t a lot of dialogue. I think that’s why the pace seems to drag. ( )

Tedious to get through, all the yakking, the two-bit psychologizing, blah blah. BUT: the ending took me by surprise. I've read it before, but still didn't know whodunnit! How can Agatha be so good at that, over and over? ( )

Good read, well constructed. Some good old anachronistic sexism & racism. Was mostly reading to compare with the BBC series. This was much more cleverly constructed — I didn't guess the murderer, but had to take my hat off to Ms Christie for having laid all the clues there (though there were a couple of incidents which really stretch credulity). All that said, I think as written it would have been a slightly dull tv show. Soooo... let's call that one a draw. ( )

Ordeal by Innocence does not follow the standard Agatha Christie format. This novel presents the psychology of the suspects in a murder of a domineering woman. Rachel Argyle, a wealthy and generous woman falls victim to death by a poker. Her adopted son, Jacko, falls prey to a conviction for her murder and dies in prison from pneumonia. He had claimed his innocence by stating a man gave him a ride. The man, Dr. Calgary, meets with obstacles and does not confirm Jacko’s plea until two years later. Dr. Calgary goes to the Argyle family to explain the situation that only opens old wounds. Each of the adopted children, the husband, the husband’s secretary, and a nurse explore their relationship with Rachel. A wonderful approach to murder and how each individual involved might be the killer. The story reminds me of the novels of Elizabeth George and her Inspector Lynley series. Too often, the why tends to be omitted. ( )

Two years ago a man was found guilty of killing his mother, sent to prison, then died while incarcerated. Now a man has come forward with solid evidence to clear the son’s name, but he doesn’t at all get the reaction from the family that he expected. Because now, of course, the case is once again wide open, and any of them could be the murderer…

I think this is likely my least favorite of Christie’s novels I’ve read so far. It’s an interesting premise, and by the end I was interested to see who’d dunnit, but the beginning and middle seemed really to drag along at a snail’s pace, and then when the killer was revealed, I was disappointed that the answer wasn’t more clever. *shrug* ( )