I have put a review of this book on LibraryThing and Goodreads:

http://www.librarything.com/work/389549/details/145540729

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2109386067

The review is as follows:

This is a clever murder mystery novel presented in a unique way. It is best not to read the ending before you read the rest of the book. There is a satisfying conclusion to the story despite some moral ambiguity about the result. This provides plenty for food for thought after you finish the book.

There are four parts to the book. The first one is devoted to introducing each of the jurors who will ultimately decide the fate of the yet to be determined accused. They are a mixed bag of humanity; one of them is a murderer who “got away” with it the crime. The second part is the crime story during which readers find out who is killed and who is accused. It’s death by poison and there’s several potential accused persons, but it comes as no real surprise when the identity of the accused is revealed. The third part covers the trial and the presentation of evidence against the accused. One of the defenses raised is that there has been no crime: the victim committed suicide! When you come to the jury deliberations, your reader’s memory of the first part is tested: can you remember who is who, and what are their foibles? The author kindly includes some prompts to help with that. Lastly, after the verdict, is the “reveal”: when the reader finds out what really happened.

It’s a fascinating well-plotted read that requires close attention to the narrative. There’s actually two stories: the crime story and the jury trial one.

The Introduction by Martin Edwards is a welcome addition (as it is in other British Library Crime Classics), and puts the author and this book in context with respect to the Golden Age.

Thanks to Netgalley and the publisher for providing me with a copy to review.

First sentence: The Clerk of Assize had to have some way of relieving the tedium of administering the same oath year after year.

Premise/plot: Verdict of Twelve is a classic mystery originally published in 1940 in Britain. This mystery has four parts. In the first part, readers meet the twelve jurors. Backstories--some quite detailed--are given for all members of the jury. In the second part, the crime is laid out for readers. This isn't the trial itself. This is a behind-the-scenes glimpse just for readers. In the third part, I believe, the trial occurs and the jury deliberates. The fourth and final part is an epilogue revealing if the jury got it right or wrong.

A young boy dies of poisoning. His aunt stands accused of the crime. Is there enough reasonable doubt to rule her not guilty? That is the question. The defense will argue that four people equally had motive, means, and opportunity. The aunt, the two servants, the boy himself. (The aunt and two servants would inherit a good bit of money if he died. All of the people in the house had access to ivy dust from the ivy plants. All had opportunity to mix ivy dust into the salad dressing.) The defense targets the boy himself--the victim. They argue the boy was trying to murder his aunt, but wasn't smart enough, clever enough to pull it off successfully.

My thoughts: This one was a fascinating yet troubling read. There are scenes from this mystery that may haunt me for years to come. I definitely liked it and would recommend it. While the focus is closely on the twelve jurors, it is a very different type of read than Twelve Angry Men by Reginald Rose.

The older I get (and possibly because of the fiction I choose to read), the less I trust the jury system. Raymond Postgate’s Verdict of Twelve might have put the last nail in the coffin. This twisty, brilliant short novel (originally published in 1940) follows a group of jurors who are tasked with finding an accused murderer guilty or innocent. As readers, we know more than they do, so watching them deliberate is an absolute torment—but in a way that makes me want to get other readers to read this book just for the joy of watching them get all the way to the end and hearing them yell when they figure out what really happened.

Verdict of Twelve begins with a long series of introductions to the members of the jury. Almost a third of the book passes in a series of biographies about the ten men and two women selected to serve on the journey. Some of them are criminals themselves. Others have class and even religious prejudices that we just know will sway their decision more than any evidence the lawyers might present. The more I read about them, the more I worried about the makeup of real juries. Every member must bring their own experiences and prejudices with them. While a “jury of peers” is supposed to ensure fairness, I wonder if such a thing is even possible.

After the jury introductions, we get a short interlude that sets up the case the jurors will hear. An unpleasant woman named Rosalie van Beer is accused of poisoning her hated young nephew. The loathing in the two’s relationship certainly helped me make up my mind about what happened—which just goes to show how easily a potential juror can be persuaded by the way information is presented. After all this set up, we briefly see Rosalie’s lawyers work out a way to defend the woman. Part of their strategy is to keep her out of the dock, because she has a very hard time controlling her temper. When she gets going, it’s hard not to hate the woman.

Once the trial is over, the jury takes off to deliberate in a series of highly uncomfortable scenes. All of the jurors’ prejudices, backstories, and agendas come into play. The evidence is almost an afterthought. But then, that’s what you get when you round up a bunch of “peers” to try a case. I don’t know that experts in criminology, forensic science, etc. would do any better, because they’re not infallible either. There must be a better system, but I’m stumped about what that system might look like.

I really enjoyed Verdict of Twelve precisely because it’s given me so much food for thought. (I always love books that I can’t stop thinking about after the last page.) I also marvel at the skill in how Postgate constructed the story. Verdict of Twelve makes us an unofficial thirteenth juror. As with any mystery, the reader is left to try and work out if Rosalie is guilty or not. Like the lawyers, the novel gives us a particular version of events. We don’t have all the facts when we sit down with the jury to deliberate. We’ve also got our own backstories and prejudices to contend with. Even though it tormented me (in the best way, to be honest), I loved this brief novel and am very glad the publishers are rescuing it from obscurity.

I received a free copy of this book from the publisher via NetGalley for review consideration. It will be released 3 October 2017.

In between reading very modern crime fiction/thrillers/mystery murders et al it is very nice to slip in a British Classic Crime reading. It does have a slower pace which may not appeal to all, the characters are a bit gruff and rough round the edges but even at a slower pace the way the British criminal justice system works is good reading.

A woman is on trial for murder of the most horrendous kind - a child for whom she was the guardian. The twelve jurors are all having their own perceptions, ideas and views on this murder. How they act, react and interact during the trial is this story.

Throughout the story apart from the murderer, we get little drawings of each juror and these are as good as the main story. This is a very different crime read.

Goodreads and Amazon reviews are up on 27/8/2017. Review on my blog on 30/8/2017

Thanks Netgalley, Publisher and the Author for an early copy of this book. An enjoyable read for a non classic lover like myself.

The first part of the book dragged a bit. It was exhausting reading about 12 different people in a row. The second part, the actual case, was interesting. The end was a bit predictable.

This book unfortunately was not my cup of tea. I do not publicly post negative reviews so I will not share this.

I was really looking forward to reading this, and had high expectations, as one of my favorite movies is Twelve Angry Men. I enjoyed reading about the individual jurors though I thought it went a little bit too deeply into their lives as I was anticipating reading more about the trial. I have to say the outcome was disappointing and I felt its conclusion could have been better.

This book is a little different from the normal golden age novel, and I had mixed feeling about it, although all in all it was an enjoyable read. Whilst I found most of the book really good, there per parts which I found very tedious and long winded.
I can see how this book would have appealed to the golden age readers, as I am told that some of the character are drawn from life, things that in the 21 century will pass us by. This book wasn't really about the murder but about the process, and just in that it made the book of this era very readable.

"Verdict of Twelve" is a mystery set in England that was originally published in 1940. The first part of the story (39% of the book) told the background of the twelve jurors. This might sound boring or perhaps like too much information, but the author kept it concise, interesting, and later referred to the jurors in such a way that it was easy to remember their background and see how it influenced their view of the case.

Part two told what had happened in the case as it happened with enough information that you can guess whodunit. Except it's not a clear case. Anyone could have read that clipping, several people benefited from the death, etc. Though I was pretty sure I knew whodunit, I worried that we'd never know for sure. Part three was the court case, with any repetition of information done to show how the lawyers presented it and how the jurors reacted to it.

I was surprised by how well the story kept my interest from start to finish. We learn the outcome of the case and what actually happened as someone witnessed it but didn't admit it until the case was over. There was no sex. There was a minor amount of bad language. Overall, I'd recommend this interesting, well-written mystery.

Lots of people and their somewhat shaded pasts. Interesting life stories.

Enthralling a page turner.
Review scheduled for publication date.

“The characterization of the people in the story, as well as the teasing mystery, and the dark cynicism about human behaviour and the nature of justice, make this a crime novel to cherish.”

[ Martin Edwards : Introduction to Verdict of Twelve ]

Both in his Introduction to this work and in his The Story of Classic Crime in 100 Books, Chapter 15, Martin Edwards puts forward the case for this book as a classic of crime fiction.He is not alone in his admiration as it was rated very highly by Raymond Chandler, Julian Symons and Michael Gilbert.

There is no doubt that Postgate’s book is an innovative account of a murder trial. However, having now read it twice, I am not so sure just how good it is. It is certainly uneven.

The book is divided into four parts, The Jury,The Case ,Trial and Verdict, and a Postscript which may or may not give you a surprise: that will depend on your own verdict in the case.

The accounts of the backgrounds of some jurors are very detailed, some are very short. Given the basic premise that their personal backstories are central to shaping their views of the evidence, and provide the key to their verdicts, should not equal attention be paid to each? Given how much time is spent on Victoria Atkins and Arthur Popesgrove it is surprising that they end up having less influence than the fanatical Edward Bryan when the verdicts are given. I would have welcomed a lengthier debate by the jury.

This ARC did not have the recording dials which are found in other editions although they are referred to in the text. These are unique in detective fiction.

“The mind of each juror was like the dashboard of a motor-car or some other like machine. There was in it the equivalent of a dial with a quivering needle above it, calibrated for negative and positive— for Not Guilty and Guilty.”

To fully understand Part II The Case, readers need be aware of the Saki short story “Sredni Vashtar” in which the fate of the sickly boy’s aunt is to be killed by the eponymous polecat-ferret.

Ultimately my view is that, had this case been tried in Scotland, then a Not Proven verdict would have been returned i.e. there was insufficient evidence to prove guilt or innocence. The Trial section is probably- deliberately?- the weakest in the book.

Overall, this is a very enjoyable tour de force. The author’s other two forays into crime fiction are apparently not so distinguished. Somebody at the Door is to be republished shortly in the British Library series.

Thank you to NetGalley and Poisoned Pen Press for the ARC.