Speaking of Van Dine, that is one thing that drove me absolutely crazy when reading seacats.
Was Van Dine's 17th deliberately misinterpreted for the story, or was that actually a mistake?
It reads like this:
This doesn't mean that the murderer 'doesn't feel guilt,' it means that the guilty party is not a professional criminal.
In the end I realize that its not really a big deal, and the fact the characters discuss it as the way you interpreted it kind of absolves the error by explaining it to the reader, but I must admit it really did bother me when I was reading it
I had some beef with the way a few of the other Van Dine's were interpreted/used/...ignored, but this is the one that stood out as being incorrect more than just forgotten.