What do you think?
Rate this book
In Muffled Night
It was not at all a suitable house for a murder.Helen Bailey is the live-in housekeeper to the wealthy Murray family. Tall, dark-haired and beautiful, the enigmatic Helen has long ensured that life at ‘The Towers’ ran smoothly for autocratic patriarch James Murray, his widowed son John, and grandchildren Alan and Glenda. When Helen is found dead in her blood-soaked bedroom, struck down in a horrific attack, the police must consider not only the family’s relationships but everyone close to them. Helen’s jewellery is missing, suggesting a robbery gone wrong, but the clues are confusing and contradictory. Dogged policework eventually points to one person, but have the authorities identified a cold-blooded murderer or an innocent person framed by others? This classic detective novel is now back in print for the first time.Dorothy Erskine Muir (1889-1977) was one of twelve children of John Sheepshanks, Bishop of Norwich. She attended Oxford, worked as an academic tutor, and began writing professionally to supplement the family income after the unexpected death of her husband in 1932. Muir published historical biographies and local histories, as well as three accomplished detective novels, In Muffled Night (1933), Five to Five (1934) and In Memory of Charles (1941). Each is an intricate fictional account based on an unsolved true crime.
- GenresMystery
185 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1933
1 person is currently reading
22 people want to read
About the author
Dorothy Erskine Muir
12 booksDorothy Agnes Sheepshanks (1889-1977) was one of seventeen children of John Sheepshanks, Bishop of Norwich. She attended Oxford, worked as an academic tutor, and began writing professionally to supplement the family income after the unexpected death of her husband, in 1932.
Dorothy worked for Oxford University & became an outside specialist tutor to whom colleges might refer undergraduates. According to family sources, Machiavelli and His Times was written with the Political Thought and Renaissance Special Subject papers of the Oxford History School in mind.
Under the moniker, D. Erskine Muir, Dorothy wrote three accomplished detective novels: In Muffled Night. (1933), Five to Five (1934) and In Memory of Charles (1941).
Dorothy worked for Oxford University & became an outside specialist tutor to whom colleges might refer undergraduates. According to family sources, Machiavelli and His Times was written with the Political Thought and Renaissance Special Subject papers of the Oxford History School in mind.
Under the moniker, D. Erskine Muir, Dorothy wrote three accomplished detective novels: In Muffled Night. (1933), Five to Five (1934) and In Memory of Charles (1941).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
July 30, 2025
I don't normally read murder-mysteries, but I wanted to join in a group read - which focussed on the Golden-Age of Mystery writers - which is basically the 1940s - and the 50s? This one didn't win in the votes, but a few of us read it together as a Buddy Read. Strong Poison by Dorothy L. Sayers, was read as book of the month (July)- in Women's Classic Literature Enthusiasts. My reading pal, Ellen, however, read both, and she offered up some compelling comparisons between the two books.
Our discussion focussed on our shock and disgust that in both books, Strong Poison, and even more relevantly in In Muffled Night, because it is based on a real case in Glasgow, of the murder trial of Jessie McLachlan in 1862, is that both judges, condemn the women for lacking morality, because of the circumstances of their relationships with men. In Muir's book, Mary Spens is tried, and condemned, not on the basis of the evidence, or witness statements, but on her moral character based on the fact that she wants to leave her husband, Jack Spens.
Ellen said, this in relation to Harriet Vane in Strong Poison "The judge does the same thing, essentially saying that the fact she would live with a man out of wedlock makes it more likely she would commit murder."
Don't worry I'm not going to say anything further about the details of the crime, instead I want to state how much I admired the quality of Muir's writing. It was so easy to follow. Everything is narrated by Detective Inspector Woods with absolute clarity and precision, there was even a passage I remember where, in my head I'm thinking of gaps in the evidence and no sooner had I thought of them, than Woods fills the spaces, with his own doubts and questions. It was quite a marvellous feeling to follow a narrator who was so logical and methodical but also inspired in his understanding of the character of his suspects. Like Woods, I agreed with Mary's Statement - but I will not discuss anything further !
Yes, the quality of Muir's writing is outstanding; I read the book in two sittings, and I couldn't stop. I had to know if Woods' intuitive guesses would pan out. He is an admirable detective, unlike the hasty, bigoted judge.
Here's a short section, which allows the reader to see how Erskine Muir's "Murray case" (1933) is very much based on the real Sandyford Place trial, in Glasgow, 1862:
The Superintendent's forecast was actually an underestimate. The whole country appeared to go mad over the case. The "Murray party" and the "Spens party" split families, broke friendships, ruined the harmony of the clubs. The Press took sides, even the clergy, and every section of the public. Prejudice, of course, far outweighed reason, and lovers of detective methods were overwhelmed and shouted down by partisans of morality. Mary's shortcomings created a host of violent enemies; her love of bridge, her extravagance, her debts, and her avowed intention of deserting her husband, left not the slightest doubt in the minds of a vast number that she was not only a murderess but "a vindictive, lying, heartless wretch."
The above, as you will no doubt appreciate is Muir in scathing irony of how women were and still are judged for all sorts of things that would never be considered in the murder trial of a man.
On the other hand, here is a short piece to demonstrate how the detective inspector cannot rest in his own conscience. He feels there are oddities and inconsistencies that have not been explained:
Altogether, from everyone's point of view, it was an unsatisfactory case. Inspector Woods felt it to be so more keenly than most, for, apart from being the officer actually engaged upon the case, he found his subconscious self perpetually gnawing away at him. He could not forget the girl now in jail, and the old man still in that now haunted house. Finally, in despair, he decided that his work was really being affected by his constant preoccupation with the matter, and he determined to make one further effort to settle his mind, failing which he actually contemplated resignation.
Oh, if only all detective inspectors were as conscientious as Woods.
Muir started writing in 1932, following the sudden death of her husband. With two children to support she needed an income. In Muffled Night was Muir's first publication in 1933, followed by Five to Five, 1934 and In Memory of Charles, 1941. As with most of the Golden-Age writers, Muir disappeared into the abyss of no interest, however, Moonstone Press have republished this one with the other two, in a set of three, which I understand from another reviewer are even better than In Muffled Night.
Our discussion focussed on our shock and disgust that in both books, Strong Poison, and even more relevantly in In Muffled Night, because it is based on a real case in Glasgow, of the murder trial of Jessie McLachlan in 1862, is that both judges, condemn the women for lacking morality, because of the circumstances of their relationships with men. In Muir's book, Mary Spens is tried, and condemned, not on the basis of the evidence, or witness statements, but on her moral character based on the fact that she wants to leave her husband, Jack Spens.
Ellen said, this in relation to Harriet Vane in Strong Poison "The judge does the same thing, essentially saying that the fact she would live with a man out of wedlock makes it more likely she would commit murder."
Don't worry I'm not going to say anything further about the details of the crime, instead I want to state how much I admired the quality of Muir's writing. It was so easy to follow. Everything is narrated by Detective Inspector Woods with absolute clarity and precision, there was even a passage I remember where, in my head I'm thinking of gaps in the evidence and no sooner had I thought of them, than Woods fills the spaces, with his own doubts and questions. It was quite a marvellous feeling to follow a narrator who was so logical and methodical but also inspired in his understanding of the character of his suspects. Like Woods, I agreed with Mary's Statement - but I will not discuss anything further !
Yes, the quality of Muir's writing is outstanding; I read the book in two sittings, and I couldn't stop. I had to know if Woods' intuitive guesses would pan out. He is an admirable detective, unlike the hasty, bigoted judge.
Here's a short section, which allows the reader to see how Erskine Muir's "Murray case" (1933) is very much based on the real Sandyford Place trial, in Glasgow, 1862:
The Superintendent's forecast was actually an underestimate. The whole country appeared to go mad over the case. The "Murray party" and the "Spens party" split families, broke friendships, ruined the harmony of the clubs. The Press took sides, even the clergy, and every section of the public. Prejudice, of course, far outweighed reason, and lovers of detective methods were overwhelmed and shouted down by partisans of morality. Mary's shortcomings created a host of violent enemies; her love of bridge, her extravagance, her debts, and her avowed intention of deserting her husband, left not the slightest doubt in the minds of a vast number that she was not only a murderess but "a vindictive, lying, heartless wretch."
The above, as you will no doubt appreciate is Muir in scathing irony of how women were and still are judged for all sorts of things that would never be considered in the murder trial of a man.
On the other hand, here is a short piece to demonstrate how the detective inspector cannot rest in his own conscience. He feels there are oddities and inconsistencies that have not been explained:
Altogether, from everyone's point of view, it was an unsatisfactory case. Inspector Woods felt it to be so more keenly than most, for, apart from being the officer actually engaged upon the case, he found his subconscious self perpetually gnawing away at him. He could not forget the girl now in jail, and the old man still in that now haunted house. Finally, in despair, he decided that his work was really being affected by his constant preoccupation with the matter, and he determined to make one further effort to settle his mind, failing which he actually contemplated resignation.
Oh, if only all detective inspectors were as conscientious as Woods.
Muir started writing in 1932, following the sudden death of her husband. With two children to support she needed an income. In Muffled Night was Muir's first publication in 1933, followed by Five to Five, 1934 and In Memory of Charles, 1941. As with most of the Golden-Age writers, Muir disappeared into the abyss of no interest, however, Moonstone Press have republished this one with the other two, in a set of three, which I understand from another reviewer are even better than In Muffled Night.
July 2, 2025
Short but exciting GA mystery based on a notorious real murder that took place in Victorian Scotland. The introduction was very helpful, providing background on the true crime, the trial and outcome. I was unfamiliar with the case, so I appreciated the facts.
This mystery was published in the early 1930s, by an author who only wrote 3 mysteries - I’d have never guessed from the skillful adaptation of that true crime to her plot and characters. The pacing of the mystery kept me engaged and interested - I was especially interested, as a history buff, to read her account of the sensation surrounding the trial - how families and friends were obsessed and acrimoniously split over the case. I know there were several notorious cases like that in the 1930s, and public attention back then was riveted on every day in court, fueled by the breathless newspaper accounts.
I don’t want to give any spoilers away, but Muir really constructed a good mystery-a tyrannical old patriarch who keeps his live-in relatives firmly under his thumb; an attractive, rather mysterious victim; and a sweet, gentle, beautiful young female suspect with modern enough ways (sounds laughable to modern ears) to give the judge and jury a willingness to believe there was no reasonable doubt. The inspector isn’t quite satisfied, though, and can’t rest until he is - he finally gets a break, and I found the ending satisfying.
This mystery was published in the early 1930s, by an author who only wrote 3 mysteries - I’d have never guessed from the skillful adaptation of that true crime to her plot and characters. The pacing of the mystery kept me engaged and interested - I was especially interested, as a history buff, to read her account of the sensation surrounding the trial - how families and friends were obsessed and acrimoniously split over the case. I know there were several notorious cases like that in the 1930s, and public attention back then was riveted on every day in court, fueled by the breathless newspaper accounts.
I don’t want to give any spoilers away, but Muir really constructed a good mystery-a tyrannical old patriarch who keeps his live-in relatives firmly under his thumb; an attractive, rather mysterious victim; and a sweet, gentle, beautiful young female suspect with modern enough ways (sounds laughable to modern ears) to give the judge and jury a willingness to believe there was no reasonable doubt. The inspector isn’t quite satisfied, though, and can’t rest until he is - he finally gets a break, and I found the ending satisfying.
March 13, 2022
Although Dorothy Muir portrays the repressive and fossilised atmosphere of "The Towers" most effectively, and spares us none of the sensational horror of the murder committed there, I felt that in some ways this was the least successful of her three crime novels recently reprinted by Moonstone and ably introduced by Curtis Evans.
The writing is ever clear and the characterisation strong. The author displays a keen awareness of the unfair ways in which society still treated many women in the 1930s and the power which many men in positions of financial and other authority wielded over them.
DI Woods carries out a meticulous but incomplete and flawed investigation which leads to a trial and conviction, yet feelings of doubt linger in his mind. Further clues and further digging eventually produce the truth.
However what I think did not quite work was that the case on which this was based was firmly rooted in the Glasgow of the 1860s, and that atmosphere and set of values did not transfer smoothly and happily to 1930s Hampstead.
Very readable and recommendable.
The writing is ever clear and the characterisation strong. The author displays a keen awareness of the unfair ways in which society still treated many women in the 1930s and the power which many men in positions of financial and other authority wielded over them.
DI Woods carries out a meticulous but incomplete and flawed investigation which leads to a trial and conviction, yet feelings of doubt linger in his mind. Further clues and further digging eventually produce the truth.
However what I think did not quite work was that the case on which this was based was firmly rooted in the Glasgow of the 1860s, and that atmosphere and set of values did not transfer smoothly and happily to 1930s Hampstead.
Very readable and recommendable.
June 28, 2025
What a splendid book! Cleverly based on a real-life murder, which didn’t end quite like this novel.
Slightly distracted by some odd phrasing.
Slightly distracted by some odd phrasing.
July 1, 2025
A compelling read that I read in one sitting; however it loses a star for the (forced?) ending.
June 26, 2025
This is the first of three detective novels by this author, first published in 1933 and based upon a real-life murder. This is based upon 'The Sandyford Murder Case' from 1862, involving the murder of Jessie McPherson, and, although the names and places have changed, it pretty much follows what happened. It was an infamous case, mentioned by authors such as Dorothy L. Sayers and Gladys Mitchell, and Christianna Brand also wrote a non-fiction account of the crime. As such, it probably would have been well known by readers in 1933 who may well have had a particular view on what happened.
Muir sets her crime in The Towers, home to the elderly (well, 68-year-old!) patriarch, James Murray. James Murray lives with his widowed son, John and grandchildren Alan and Glenda. Alan is 18 and upset that he is being forced into the family business, rather than going to university, while John and his children do their best to spend time in their country house of Red Banks, rather than in London.
One weekend, John, Alan and Glenda head for Red Banks, along with Glenda's friend, Diana. James Murray is left in London with housekeeper Helen Bailey. When the weekend is over, and John and Alan return, James says he has been left alone all weekend, forced to eat at his club. When the men break into the housekeeper's rooms, she is found murdered.
Suspicion falls on orphaned friend of the family, Mary Spens, who is in debt and the novel uncovers the evidence against her as well as following the very exciting trial and aftermath. As a huge fan of Christianna Brand, I am now extremely keen to read her account of this crime and also to read the other books in this series. Very enjoyable and I am delighted they are back in print. This is a new Golden Age for fans of crime novels written between the wars, and I am enjoying discovering 'new' authors to me.
Muir sets her crime in The Towers, home to the elderly (well, 68-year-old!) patriarch, James Murray. James Murray lives with his widowed son, John and grandchildren Alan and Glenda. Alan is 18 and upset that he is being forced into the family business, rather than going to university, while John and his children do their best to spend time in their country house of Red Banks, rather than in London.
One weekend, John, Alan and Glenda head for Red Banks, along with Glenda's friend, Diana. James Murray is left in London with housekeeper Helen Bailey. When the weekend is over, and John and Alan return, James says he has been left alone all weekend, forced to eat at his club. When the men break into the housekeeper's rooms, she is found murdered.
Suspicion falls on orphaned friend of the family, Mary Spens, who is in debt and the novel uncovers the evidence against her as well as following the very exciting trial and aftermath. As a huge fan of Christianna Brand, I am now extremely keen to read her account of this crime and also to read the other books in this series. Very enjoyable and I am delighted they are back in print. This is a new Golden Age for fans of crime novels written between the wars, and I am enjoying discovering 'new' authors to me.
August 29, 2025
With the exception of Sherlock Homes I am something of an ingenue when it comes to crime fiction and have not read much of it. However, inspired by Caroline Crampton's excellent Shedunnit podcast I have dipped my toe into Golden Age crime novels & short stories. I was extremely impressed by this book and the diligent and determined Inspector Woods. None of the flashes of brilliance or detective wizardry but straightforward police work and credible intuition. I shall be reading Caroline's favourite Gaudy Night shortly but first I am going to try a bit of Gladys Mitchell.
March 1, 2022
For my full review click on the link below:
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
https://crossexaminingcrime.wordpress...
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews