Dr. Edward Armstrong is a successful Harley Street physician, nervous, conscientious and anxious about his reputation, who travels to the island believing he has been engaged to examine the health of the host’s wife. The gramophone accuses him of the death of Louisa Mary Clees. In private he remembers the truth. Years earlier, when he was a young surgeon who drank, he operated on Mrs. Clees while drunk; his hands were not steady, and she died on the table. The theatre sister knew what had happened. Nothing came of it. Armstrong gave up drinking, his career prospered, and the death remained a private memory. On the island, as the only doctor, he becomes indispensable: he examines each body and certifies the causes of death. That is why Judge Wargrave chooses him as an accomplice. He persuades Armstrong to help him fake his own death, in order, he says, to unmask the killer; Armstrong declares the judge dead. Then Wargrave arranges a meeting with him on the cliffs at night and pushes him into the sea. His body is found later, washed up among the rocks.
// The theoryCrime in a suit
Edwin Sutherland formulated differential association to argue that criminal behavior is learned like any other behavior, in interaction with intimate groups, which teach both the techniques and the definitions—motives, rationalizations, attitudes—that make it seem acceptable. In his presidential address to the American Sociological Society in 1939, and in his book White Collar Crime (1949), he applied the theory to a population criminology had ignored: businessmen, managers and professionals. He defined white-collar crime as “a crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation”. His argument was that these crimes are learned in the workplace, from colleagues and superiors, and that they are protected by the status of those who commit them: their victims are often unaware of the harm, regulators are reluctant to treat them as criminals, and their professional communities close ranks. Later researchers extended the idea to occupational crime, including negligence and misconduct in professions such as medicine.
A culture that teaches silence
Armstrong’s crime is not intentional homicide; it is gross negligence, a doctor operating in a state that made him dangerous. What the differential association lens reveals is less the act than its context. Armstrong learned to drink and to work in a professional world that tolerated it, and he learned something else after the death: that such events are absorbed by the institution. The theatre sister kept quiet. Nobody reported him. The death was recorded as an operation that went wrong. In Sutherland’s terms, the definitions favorable to the violation were not “killing is acceptable”, but “what happens in the operating theatre stays there”, “a colleague’s reputation must be protected” and “these things happen”. Armstrong did not need to be a criminal to benefit from those definitions. He only needed to belong.
// The subjectThe man who could not afford a scandal
On the island, Armstrong is defined by his anxiety. He is not cynical like Lombard or certain like Emily Brent; he is frightened, and above all frightened of exposure. His whole life since the operation has been built on not being found out, and the gramophone threatens that more than any murderer. That fear is what makes him useful to Wargrave. A man desperate to regain control of the situation, and used to trusting the authority of a judge, accepts a plan that requires him to lie about a death. Armstrong is, in a sense, killed by the same reflex that saved his career: the willingness to certify what is convenient.
Dr. Armstrong
Get the map of theories for free
Subscribe to the criminal archive —one case a week, no spam— and I'll send you The map of theories: the great currents of criminology on a single sheet.
// The crackNegligence is not a learned crime
Differential association explains how criminal behavior is learned and how professional cultures protect misconduct. It explains much less about Armstrong’s original act. Operating drunk is the product of addiction and recklessness, not of learned definitions that favor killing patients. The theory fits better the aftermath, the silence and impunity, than the moment in the operating theatre. Critics of the white-collar concept have also argued that it mixes very different things—fraud, negligence, regulatory violations—and that calling all of them “crime” blurs important distinctions of intention and responsibility.
There is also the question of what the novel leaves out: the victim. Louisa Mary Clees appears only as a name and a memory. Armstrong chose to operate while drunk, and then chose to say nothing. What Sutherland adds is that a respectable profession can absorb a death caused by one of its members without a sound, and that the absence of consequences is itself something learned and taught.
Medical error and the culture of silence
Research on patient safety has shown that medical error is a major cause of harm, and that one of the main obstacles to reducing it has been a culture of silence and blame in which mistakes are hidden rather than reported and studied. Reforms over recent decades have tried to change that culture, promoting open reporting, learning from errors and, where there is misconduct such as impairment, intervention before harm occurs. Armstrong is a portrait of the old culture: the impaired surgeon, the nurse who knows, and a system that lets the death disappear. Sutherland’s insight still applies. The most important question is not only who did wrong, but what the institution teaches its members to do afterwards.
Three key ideas
- Sutherland’s differential association holds that crime is learned in intimate groups. His concept of white-collar crime (1939, 1949) extended it to respectable people offending in the course of their occupation, protected by their status and their professional communities.
- Dr. Edward Armstrong operated on Louisa Mary Clees while drunk and she died; the theatre sister knew and nothing happened. On the island, Wargrave persuades him to fake the judge’s death, then pushes him off the cliffs.
- The crack: negligence driven by addiction is not a learned crime; the theory explains the silence better than the act. Even so, Armstrong chose to operate drunk and to stay silent.
Sources · further reading
- Sutherland, E. H. (1940). “White-Collar Criminality”. American Sociological Review, 5(1), 1-12.
- Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White Collar Crime. Dryden Press.
- Kohn, L. T., Corrigan, J. M. and Donaldson, M. S. (eds.) (2000). To Err Is Human: Building a Safer Health System. National Academies Press.
- Christie, A. (1939). And Then There Were None. Collins Crime Club.
Case-file questionsFrequently asked questions
Who is Doctor Armstrong?
Doctor Armstrong (“Edward Armstrong”) is a villain from And Then There Were None, analysed on KRIMINIS through the lens of criminology. The nurse knew. His colleagues probably did too. The patient died on the table, and he stopped drinking, set up in Harley Street and became rich.
Why does Dr. Armstrong (Edward Armstrong) become a villain?
Dr. Armstrong and differential association: in And Then There Were None, a prestigious surgeon carries the death of a woman he operated on while drunk, and the silence of those who saw it. Sutherland invented the concept of white-collar crime to talk about men like him: crimes committed by respectable people in the course of their occupation, and learned within it.
Which criminological theory explains Doctor Armstrong?
Doctor Armstrong's case is analysed through Differential association. Edwin Sutherland explained through differential association that crime is learned in intimate groups, and in 1939 he took the idea somewhere uncomfortable: white-collar crime, committed by respectable people in the course of their profession, which is also learned—and covered up—within that profession. Edward Armstrong, the doctor of And Then There Were None (1939), operated on a patient while drunk and she died. There were no consequences. His is not the case of a murderer, but of a professional whose grave failure was protected by the culture of his trade.
