|
From the epilogue it seems indeed the murdered must have killed himself. It also exonerates Vera, as she can't have moved the chair when she died. For similar reasons Armstrong is exonerated - he can't have moved his own body. This means the murderer must have faked his own death. This seems to exclude ways of dying that are a hard to fake: Lombard (gunshot to heart by Vera), Blore (head crushed), Rogers (head split open). Despite the above theory I'd say Wargrave too. Armstrong "lifted the lifeless hand and felt for the pulse". Though if Armstrong is indeed not reliable by that point, your theory is very good. On page 188 we seem to see the thoughts of the killer though: "I must keep my head...him", which to me suggest he's setting up the trap in Vera's room and considering whom of the others to take out, settling on Wargrave. Armstrong also investigates Ethel Rogers and there is some mention of cold hands, so I'd mark her down as truly dead too. This falls apart if Armstrong is in on it and there's not just 1 killer. This leaves Marston, Brent and MacArthur. Marston and MacArthur are also investigated by Armstrong upon his death, though it's less clear how thoroughly he does it. When Armstrong investigates Brent, he does it very superficially (sniffed the lips and peered into the eyelids). The bee and the needle sting in the neck may be red herring to detract from her not being totally dead. In addition to that: - She has mutual friends with MacArthur and might know his story. - She considers herself innocent. - She's "righteous and with unyielding principles". - She would like to make an example of certain people. - She's clearly implied to be going nuts by some of thought processes. And perhaps she eventually does and starts to feel guilty. Page 152: "The murderer's name is Beatrice Taylor."..."I must be going mad." Also compare to the "I must keep my head" later on. - On page 169 "The damned fool, he believed every word..." This is after they catch her coming back from outside with a raincoat, shortly before Rogers is found dead. That's the best I can come up with. It doesn't entirely click, though.
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
I thought it was quite interesting to read the other theories, for what it's worth, though I came late to this thread and read the book in 1 go. Hobnob+Autumncomet pretty much called it perfectly. I rejected this kind of theory it because I thought the idea of 2 accomplices was a bit too complicated/far-fetched and brought too many issues of motivation for the accomplice even if it did explain some things better. "The handwriting was practically illegible but words here and there stood out with unexpected clarity". Indeed the solution is on page 1 :-) Nobody sends a letter like that. I had no problem not reading the ending because by doing so you give up your chance to form a better theory. Good thing there's more books to be read...
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2013 08:21
|
|
Ending spoilers:
|
Not much information so far to allow much conclusions it seems. From the hints in the book, it sounds the like lady and the truck driver are in a conspiracy that probably involves smuggling some brandy, and the company owner doesn't know about it. As for changing the license plates, this would seem to cause the amount of trucks to appear much larger to the outside world, which in turn could be used to stem some potential suspicion about the frequency with which the same truck is doing trips. Or they're making the company appear much bigger than it really is.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 28, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Well, I clearly misunderstood the company owner not being in on it. Not much useful information (that I can tell!) to help understand what the conspiracy really is. So apparently they have a depot in the UK and putting another one would strongly increase their profits. The boat crew is in on it. So it still looks like a smuggling operation, but how do the truck numbers factor in on that?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 1, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Why was Ms. Coburn so shocked to see Merriman? That's my big question right now. The captain had the same reaction, but the young lady we had gotten to know beforehand. She wasn't shocked the first time she met Merriman, just the second time. Quite probably the first time she saw him she wasn't alerted because he was a random passerby. Now that he has returned, it's not so random anymore and they know there's a risk he's snooping around, suspects something or might run into something accidentally. Especially if the truck driver told about him looking at the plates.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Can't say I'm any the wiser, and judging by the lack of posts here, neither are any of you. I doubt the rectification business nearby is coincidence, though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
My confusion is as follows: If I remember things correctly, their observations confirmed that no special selection or processing is happening to the pit props after unloading, making it impossible for the pit props to be loaded with something. By invoking their friend the mine owner, they also confirmed the boat doesn't stop to filter out part of the pit props after it left, which means some of the pit props also can't somehow have extra value themselves (like say of being of a more valuable exotic wood or whatever). This seems to leave only the possibility that the pit props are a total red herring. I'd want to go back and reread the earlier sections to see if some of those eliminations could be flawed. I'm not sure if I remember correctly by now, but their observation also eliminated the possibility that something else is being loaded or unloaded for the boat, right? Could the crew members carry something on them? But then why all the pit prop complication? And what's the relation to those license plates again?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 17:35
|
|
|
If they would filter on the boat, they still have to get the valuables off of it somehow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 18:17
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:I think we've been on this segment long enough to do away with spoiler tags for it. Autumncomet posted:I thought Zola was following but I guess not. For what it's worth, keeping things spoilered allows you to see how far to read without spoiling the book if you're catching up due to absence or whatever. I don't see much against keeping the spoiler tags in myself, don't know about the rest of you?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Relevant question: Did ships in 1922 use liquid fuel? The Girondin is described as having Diesel engines earlier in the book.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
At least we know that the rectifier earlier in the book wasn't a coincidence: the manager is the murderer. The book's characters are also still pushing forward both brandy smuggling and false money as possible explanations. 1) The UK end point has a distillery/rectifier as the only thing nearby, and we know the managers there are heavily involved. 2) Whatever is being smuggled is being "planted" in small quantities. The manager in the rectifier is very good at this. 3) Having another boat could substantially improve their profit. 4) "Blank" cargo can be used if they suspect they're under surveillance. The license plates may be used to signal the need for this. 5) Whatever is being smuggled can be transported essentially undetected to the rectifier. An underground pipeline does sound very reasonable, after all they had to dig to put the phone line. It was remarked earlier that even though a rectifier isn't watched as heavily as a distillery, they're still kept under an eye, and Hilliard didn't believe it was feasible because of that. Either he's naive or the processing that the rectifier does is something not straightforward. Passage of note: "rectifiers, because they don't themselves produce spirit, but merely refine what other firms have produced, are not so strictly looked after" You can distill wood alcohol (ethanol) from wood, but that's not drinkable and I don't see how that would allow them to make such profits. I went back and indeed the fueling of the boat is described several times, including the apparatus...and the barrel they observed from. They're also described as having inspected the fueling apparatus closely but not having seen anything particular. I reread the first chapter and there's something of note: when he sees the lorry of which the plates are changed, it does *not* contain wood or pitprops, but "a single heavy casting". So here's my theory: they're not smuggling brandy but alcohol. The planting refers to getting rid of the excess alcohol they have compared to their intake in the rectifier. They might even just put the ethanol in the diesel tanks: the relative density and boiling points are different so they should stay separated during the trip. (While checking this, I was alerted that ethanol-diesel mixtures are very much a thing that can actually power engines, but I'm not sure an engineer from the 1920s would have known this!) The rectifier can do the separation again. The props are a red herring to hide the true purpose of the boat trips. They already established earlier that the props couldn't' really be liquid containers because they aren't taken back, and the conspirators didn't balk when they suddenly had to give props to their mine-owner friend.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 12:11
|
|
|
Well the one mystery I figured out was fully explained before the end of the chapter :-/ The remaining mystery is how they get the brandy in in France. They can hardly have the lorries just carrying it over from the producer, given that they have signage saying they're from the Pit Prop Syndicate. That would raise exactly the sort of questions they want to avoid. I'm guessing they're stored at some intermediary that (for example) also sells fuel, and that they have two lorries with the same numbering (one fake) do the pickups. I'm a bit disappointed that the mystery we spent much time on (how are the goods transported) is handwaved away by a storage unit that all the protagonists totally missed even when specifically inspecting the boat for it, and guessing the real mystery would have required us a few chapters back to say something to the effect of: "There is an invisible tunnel containing unhearable railroad cars and an unhearable pump with a tube that's also unhearable going to an invisible hole in the warf.", without as much as a hint in that direction. At some point the protagonist is actually listening in on the boat, though I guess you could claim they didn't necessarily had to do a transfer at that time (but I'm not sure).
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:So if I followed this segment, right, the purpose of the number switching is so that the French officials would think they had inspected every lorry for illicit materials, when they were actually only inspecting the same safe few with different numbers on them? Most importantly, they didn't want to draw attention that it was always the same one that was supplying the distillery of wood.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Well that's that. Did we actually solve anything, or was this round a total wash? Looks like a total wash to me, the only thing some of us guessed was that it was indeed brandy and not false notes. I've explained above why I think it wasn't very realistic to solve much, though. I'm not sure the book set out to have the mystery solvable by the reader.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
You clarified in the first post that it's up to the *end* of Chapter 5 so I'll put that here too. So the question is: who is the letter writer? It must be someone who hold a grudge to the community as a whole, as the letters appear to be random, often faulty attempts (the story-teller does appear to be the brother of Joanna given that he tells about their youths) to stir up emotions. There's some implication on page 58 that the writer may be digging at having something come out. Page 13 basically says that the writer should be quite literate, although I'm not sure what to think of the way Owen Griffith tells it. I guess he's talking from past experiences? Maegan fits the bill (e.g. page 53), and on page 68 she calls herself a coward in a bit of a weird manner, though it may be referring to her inability to assist her "dad" at that point. Seems a bit too obvious for it to be her, too. Maybe the letter writer already knows the secret (s)he wants to bring out, but is writing the faulty letters to make it less obvious who (s)he is?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2013 13:27
|
|
|
So is anyone else besides me and ProfessorProf on the same version? Looking back I only see Meander left and he wasn't sure if he'd already read the book. Autumncomet, do you mean you'll continue when the others have caught up until your chapter 5 point? If there's no replies here in 1 week I will catch up with you. Hiowf fucked around with this message at 11:01 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 10:59
|
|
|
The linked Kindle version from the OP. I think the poster above is right that there's only one Kindle version anyway. If you prefer paper then most likely the British version indeed.
Hiowf fucked around with this message at 17:47 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 17:40
|
|
|
Looks like Krypsis is joining in, let's give him a few more days so he has a chance to catch up.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Finished chapter 7. I think it's getting to the point where a list of all suspects and a description is needed, so we can try to eliminate.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2013 13:03
|
|
|
EMILY BARTON: Lady who lets her house to protagonist. Dislikes men/sex. In financial trouble. Did not receive a letter (or so she claims). Wants to keep things like the way her mother had her. Mother was monster, treated like slave, no opportunity to meet men. PARTRIDGE: Gaunt, dour maid of Emily Barton. FAITHFUL FLORENCE: Parlourmaid of Emily Barton who has married. Tall rawboned fiercely looking. Feels sorry for Barton and would do anything for her. AIMEE GRIFFITH: Doctor' sister. Claims she enjoys life and wants everyone to be busy. Nevertheless pithied by Mrs. Calthrop. Seems to know Mr Symmington from before and says he can be very jealous. Feminist, doesn't want women to stay at home. Dislikes Joanna. May have said something to Megan that made her leave. MRS DANE CALTHROP: Vicars' wife. Olympian knowledge. Village is "afraid" of her due to that. Thinks her husband has no interest in sex. Miss Farroway Of Bellpath, very good though peculiar family. JOANNA: pretty gay, likes men and fast cars. Sister of protagonist, from London. Looks like her mother. MISS GINCH: Lady clerk of Mr. Symmington. Frizzy hair and pinze-nez. Enjoys the letters. BEATRICE: Daily helper in house of protagonist. Accused of indecency with protagonist & others. Angry boyfriend. MEGAN HUNTER: 20y, tall, awkward, daughter of Mrs Symmington and Mr Hunter. Bored with the town and the people. Sort of an excluded figure in the village, accused of being lazy and stupid. Her father doesn't care about her. Likes Goneril and Regan. Admits to hating the rest of the village. ELISE HOLLAND: Children's governess. Pretty but prattles, no S.A. MRS BAKER: Mother of Beatrice. MRS CLEAT: Village witch. Queer with sardonic sense of humour. LETTER WRITER:
So, Megan's a bit too obvious. Barton potentially fits the profile of the letter writer, and could have had help, and hasn't gotten a letter. What's going on with Aimee Griffith vs. Symmington, the second boy, and why does the woman that knows everything pithy her? She's also very happy which makes her the extremely unlikely person.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2013 15:40
|
|
|
Those sure are two dense chapters. It'll take a bit to digest and revise any theories 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
It looks like the first death was suicide/murder-by-proxy, and the second was actual murder to protect the identity of the letter writer. My main question right now is: Why does the letter writer post the letters manually? Why not use actual mail? The letter the protagonist got was first addressed to Barton, and altered to go to Burton (and it's pointed out this is important). The only thing we know about the contents is it starts with "You painted trollop" and the rest is "same old muck". Just before this is mentioned the first time, Barton disclaims (dishonestly) that she hasn't had any. What if the protagonist's impression of her is quite mistaken and it was indeed addressed to her? Given the repeated "no smoke without fire"...what if almost all the letters are true? I more or less excluded the protagonist from being dishonest wrt Joanna, but what if the letters were indeed never addressed to them and Barton just wanted to get rid of hers? "not being brother and sister" can't have been addressed to Barton, though. Various other bits: - Protagonist falls asleep and dreams of taking Mrs Callthrop as being a greyhound and taking her for a walk. WTF? - Is there something that can be inferred from the timing of various events? They're assigned great importance of the discussions. - Who often laughs for no apparent reason? - Is Joanna in danger? She's certainly going to the doctor at a dangerous time. - Elsie Holland, pretty but witout SA, has had no letter. - Need to reconsider Mr. Pye. - Remaining: Miss Ginch, Miss Griffith, Miss Barton, Mr Pye, ?, ?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2013 14:08
|
|
|
I went through the book again and now someone stands out quite firm to me: Aimee Griffith. When Mrs. Callthrop first talks about her, she says "Poor thing" without elaborating. Callthrop uses this phrase another time: when she's talking about the killer. She's not willing to speculate openly about the killer, but mentions something about "men marrying the wrong woman". We know Griffith knew Symmington up north, and it's implied she knew him quite well enough to know he was jealous. When he moved, he married a woman that already had a kid and married "the only eligible bachelor in town". There was a similar case up north when they lived there. It could have been Aimee, or it could simply have given her the idea. It also explains why the Doctor is so uneasy, he might have a feeling. (Though the fact that the book points this out makes me less, not more sure of Griffith) Griffith complains about not being given a chance to be a doctor because she is a woman. The body was hidden to make framing the time of death harder. Who questions protagonist about being to the scene so "early"? Griffith. The letter to Barton who was sent to Burton? Well, the writer must type the envelopes on that typewriter in the institute whenever there ain't no onlookers around. Conceivably, the killer must have written an envelope for Barton, only to change her mind and send one to Burton instead. What happens just before Joanna gets an envelope calling her a "painted trollop"? We discover Aimee Griffith deeply dislikes her. Who clearly hears which maid calls exceptionally to Partridge? Aimee Griffith. Who insists the allegation vs Mrs Symmington was true? Griffith. She may have known her mental condition and that it would push her over the edge. If she was unfaithful, it would also just have made Griffith angrier on missing out on Symmington. Who sends Meagan home so there won't be gossip about Elise Holland & Symmington? Aimee Griffith. Why doesn't Holland get a letter? Griffith may realize she has zero SA and the letters have already scared away quite some servants. She may want Holland to stay there so Symmington has time for her. Maybe that's also why she wants Maegon to be more busy?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2013 14:51
|
|
|
There's some hints that Mr. Pye could be a suspect, but in general the character development on the males is so lacking that there's just not much to go on. Symmington could have reasons to want to get rid of his wife as well (maybe he likes Aimee more, she had 1 or 2 kids that aren't his). But given the total lack of text-time they get, that just seems unlikely to me. Aimee perhaps feels not threatened by Elise, which fits the description we're given of Elise, but also Aimees concern he shouldn't be alone too much with her.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2013 10:25
|
|
|
This last section didn't seem to add much, except to emphasize some points. And maybe explain why Megan is in the story if she's not the killer to begin with :-) The murder was due to a man marrying the wrong woman, and someone wanted to bring a halt to that. It seems this can only be Mr. Symmington, which means that the death of his wife was very much an intended act and not a side affect of letter writing. This points to the letter writing actually being a diversion. The letter writer might have picked up the idea from something that happened up north. The killer knew something of the state of Mrs. Symmington, the jealousy of Mr. Symmington. Also note how methodical the maid was killed. Not blunt trauma, a precise piece of wood. A murder like that would, IMHO, require someone with medical knowledge. Like, the sister or a doctor, or someone who wanted to be a doctor at a time. The killer access the typewriter after hours. This is consistent with the Barton/Burton letter being a spur of the moment thing. (I would normally say this could also mean the killer is a male, but the last section actually hints against it). Joanna Burton is also after Dr. Owen, which might have been another reason to dislike her. All in all, this is consistent with my belief Aimee Griffith is culpable. There's two problems remaining: - Why did Elise Holland not get a letter? The last section even hints that she's now in prime position to become the new Mrs Symmington. I explained this before by the killer possibly not wanting Mr. Symmington to be stuck with the kids by himself, which makes sense if she cares for him. But another explanation would be that the killer actually wanted to give Elise a shot at Dirk. I don't know how to link that with Aimee, though. Maybe there's a hint in the description she gives of people she likes? - The hint regarding Wednesday or Thursday, but not Tuesday. We know the timing of the two murders was Wednesday, when the maids at the Symmingtons had a day off. But I can't find the clue here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2013 10:52
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Okay, go ahead and finish the book. drat it was looking so good for me for a few pages! We got most of the key elements though, just missed the relevance of the suicide note. Automncomet got the killer, so we can mark it as a success.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2013 13:31
|
|
|
Hopeford posted:I'm all up for running the next book, if you guys are up for some Carr. The Problem of the Green Capsule would be a good fit for the thread, I think. If you're looking at the Kindle edition, do not scroll down. There may be spoilers in the reviews.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2013 10:28
|
|
|
No, we were waiting for you
|
|
#
¿
Feb 13, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Not all that much info so far. I guess we should discard everything coming from an eye-witness. For that reason, we can't discount Marjorie despite the shopkeepers assertion. How could Marcus' assailant have known what show to put on? If he was totally off from what had been agreed, Marcus surely would've smelled a rat? Wilburt wasn't killed, so it can't have been someone who he knew and chatted up with him about it. Given Marcus' assertion that eyewitnesses are unreliable, and the bet from the Professor that he would recall everything perfectly, they'd had to have agreed beforehand on what performance to put up or it would've been impossible to verify. Unless they expressly relied on George recording everything. But the book made it sound like that was his own initiative.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 10:29
|
|
|
It's very early in the book but I have this seed of an idea as to who's culpable so I'll spit it out. First, there is a problem in that we're lead to believe the murderer of Marcus, which can only be very few people, also has to be the murderer of the kids. Why would he or she kill the kids? Remember the previous murder Marjorie was associated with? This is the same, but in reverse: the killer first takes out some innocents to make it look like a killer is on the loose, and then takes out Marcus, who was his original target. Knowing Marcus well, as his family members ought to do, might have brought ideas as to what he was likely to do. Marucs was rich and cranky. Early in the book, he calls Doctor Joe incompetent, which angers the latter. He's a doctor, he has access to the chemicals. The clock is a critical point. We're told the time was accurate, Marjorie swears it is, all witnesses agree on this, but the policeman points out that this makes it likely wrong anyway ("that's probably the most thoroughly wrong of the lot"). On page 46 it's pointed out there has to be something in the plan that offers the murderer protection, and provide him with an alibi. The clock provides exactly the alibi to Dr. Joe. Marcus wanted to know the exact size of the box of chocolates and demonstrate how they were swapped. What is "Emmet" carrying when he does the swap? A bag marked as if from a doctor. So I find all of this pointing to Dr. Joe. But it's still very early. What happened to the "dart" Marcus was writing with? Where did it disappear?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2014 12:26
|
|
|
- The non-changeability of the clock, and therefor the doctors alibi, is reinforced, although it's still strongly hinted there is something suspicious there. - The change in the candy shop could be done by anyone, but they'd probably have to carry a bag. Like a doctors' bag. - Marjorie can get pretty bad temper outbursts. Her visit to the drugstore seems irrelevant, as she bought the same stuff her photographer fiancee claimed he used, and it's different from the murder poison? - Still unclear what the second pencil/dart was. Something to adjust the clock with, hmm? - The unnecessary question: I'm going to assume it perhaps wasn't supposed to be Wilbur giving the show after all, and his declaration afterwards was to mislead them into misreporting the height. Note that two of them (Marjorie, Harding) reported it as 6 feet, Wilburs' height. Five feet nine is the height of Harding and Ingram (but not doctor Joe, so this is a strike against my theory). - One (and no more) of the witnesses may be lying. The footnote also seems to forbid a collusion between for example Marjorie and Harding.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 13, 2014 14:10
|
|
|
The last few chapters seem to reinforce what I said. Which makes me doubt it's correct. Need to think a bit about the Wilbur situation. Hiowf fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Of course, the only hints of conspiracy so far, unless I'm misremembering, have been between Marjorie and Harding, so. Didn't the footnote forbid that? At some point I'll have to reread the book with all the fresh info, but not now.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2014 08:19
|
|
|
The last few chapters just confuse me more. Good time to reread everything. Some thoughts: * The height of the killer. ** Introduction in the book: "Professor Ingram, a better observer than Marcus Chesney would have guessed". ** Marjorie and Harding: 6 feet (Wilbur, Dr. Joe). Ingram: 5 feet 9 (Harding, Prof. Ingram) or taller and bending knees. ** The unnecessary question suggests Wilbur's height, so it is probably the opposite. ** Movie shows 6 feet. (Strange hat?) Walk is consistent with Emmett (can be emulated?) * Harding ** "Harding is a red herring if I ever saw one" * Emmett ** Is in love with Marjorie. ** Scapegoat? * Fell ** Seems to exonerate Marjorie and Harding. ** Chesney wrote him a letter. Why? * Marjorie ** Can read lips. ** Has her reasons to get married. * Random ** Why is the cardboard box for the photoflood lamp that ended up containing the capsule a clue? * Motive ** http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_White_Ship_%28Dante_Gabriel_Rossetti%29 ** What's the point of the original chocolate shop murder? Could it have been aimed at Marjorie instead? Was Chesney murdered because he figured it out, or was he murdered because someone needed him out of the way?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
* Why is the cardboard box for the photoflood lamp that ended up containing the capsule a clue? There are several references throughout the book about these lamps. Too many, for my taste. After the crime, Dr. Joe sends them away to the other room because the lamp may burn out, Fell is inquiring how long the lamps usually last, Marjorie is buying spare ones. There's a notable scene around page 82 were Ingram says nobody can have left the room during the scene, but Elliot says they can't check it because the lamp burned out. Here Marjorie wants to say something. Either that it's strange it burned out, or that she has a spare? Page 113 again hints it was strange the bulb burned out so fast. * Page 106 points to Emmett being a scapegoat. There's several paragraphs where the author hints it's important, but I can't put it together yet. * Marjorie and Joe Chesney will inherit Marcus' fortune. * The significance of the final murder attempt seems to be that someone still wants Marjorie or Harding out of the way? Or did they bet that Joe would accidentally shoot himself? * The list of characters says: Police, Victims and Poisoners. PoisonerS, not poisoner.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
After a bit of thinking, here's a totally different sort of theory. We've been assuming the initial candy store murder was a distraction. But what if, in fact, it wasn't? The story of the other murderer is about an unanswered love where the object of love is murdered. The candies were originally meant for Marjorie. She sent them back, asked for other ones, and the kid who got the candies that Marjorie originally asked for got poisoned. Maybe the murderer knew about Marjories candy habits? Maybe he got it wrong exactly the same way the little kid did? What if Emmett was the killer? He likes Marjorie, but she isn't interested in him. And, further, what if he was spurred on by Joe Chesney, who stands to be the only heir if she dies? When Marcus is then onto the method of killing, and wants to prove his theory, it's a golden opportunity. Emmett just alters the play slightly and gives the poisoned capsule, Joe knocks him out. Later on, Joe kills Emmett (hence a second poisoner) and hence the only witness. Some things against this theory: the unanswered question only makes sense if the person who did the act was not Emmett. Secondly: What about the gun that goes off near the end? If Joe wanted Marjorie gone, he could have accidentally shot her. Instead, he fails to kill Harding. His joke would have involved him being in a situation where only Harding was likely to get shot. So this doesn't mix with the above theory. In fact, that last incident only seems to make sense if neither Joe, Harding or Marjorie were killers. Which leaves only Ingram? Doing the perfect murder? Was the candy store murder supposed to be this perfect murder? I'll run through that theory next, I think.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
I should've said "the unnecessary question." I think I got the trick: Marcus rehearsed and recorded the thing. That's why he needed the Photoflood shortly before, and that's why it burned out quicker than expected. That's why the murderer didn't remove the film, and that's why the unnecessary question persists after they've seen the movie which did really show the height as 6 feet. They did not see the movie of the actual murder. When they play it back, it stops before Marcus dies.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2014 18:18
|
|
|
The last chapter makes Marjorie or Harding very unlikely. Fell says they will live happily after he already knows the murderer, can't really be them then. I think the last chapter was not an accident but an attempt on Harding. The police has said they will show the film to the family in due time. Harding recorded it and knows better than anyone else what is supposed to be on there. So he has to go before he can point out the police film doesn't match what he recorded. I think the mastermind is Ingram. He said to Marcus he would do the perfect murder if he could. That's the motive for the chocolates. Marcus found out, motive for Marcus. Motive for the last murder above. He was also complaining he didn't get to see the police film. There's a few other loose ends I want to try to tie together.
|
|
#
¿
May 4, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Ingram is a little too suspicious for my taste. That is true. But so is almost everyone else. quote:
He's not really implicating himself. He knows the movie will show him to be a bad witness, and agreeing with all others would be suspicious (see: clock). To recap: quote:
Ingram wasn't there. It was an accident from their POV, but that doesn't mean the bullet wasn't planed there to cause the accident - on purpose. They passed by Ingram's place earlier. I had to look up the honest woman thing too, but as far as I can tell it doesn't necessarily refer to pregnancy, but simply that they had relation before. quote:
After rereading I'm not 100% positive. He stops just short of calling Harding innocent. quote:
She's 5 feet 2.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 14:13 |
|
|
I reread the references to the "Windows" because there's many hints they are a clue (like p162), but I don't get it. The best I found is that Emmett's room has a window right above the French windows where the murderers' attire was found. So someone could have dumped it (and Emmett himself?) from up there. I'm totally clueless what the deaf waiter has to do with it, let alone how he's going to help with proving the murderer. In the same scene where Joe puts his head out of the above window, he asks if all the people downstairs are deaf because they don't hear the bell. The waiter is described exactly as "too deaf to hear a bell but has lip-reading down to a fine art". So is one of the characters deaf? That would then be another reason for having the last question: if something was not actually said but "lipped", the deaf person would've heard it, the other one not, and whoever wasn't in the room would fall through. I could wager a guess that she lipped "don't", Ingram lipread it, and Harding then says he heard it too (but didn't, because he was busy being a murderer). But I find it difficult to conclude much because the testimony is unreliable anyway (though p139 revisits the point). Also I'd be rather weird for one of the main characters to be deaf and this not known by his friends. I dunno. I would love to figure out the windows or deaf clue and see if it narrows down the murderer, but I'm running out of ideas.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 15:29
|
|