|
Yeah, let's go ahead and finish 
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
I'm sorry Miss Waynflete, you're not killing anyone today because the Something Awful Book Barn Investigation Squad is busting you for murder! Some of us even got the motive right. Which is a miracle, considering it was pretty much a shot in the dark. Many clues turned out to be dead ends. Bridget only deducted the murderer from something we couldn't have known. Some important information about the way Waynflete killed her victims only came to us during or after the reveal (for example that she used arsenic on Horton and that she locked Amy's door from the outside). Honestly, the whole "framing Whitfield" motive seemed like so much of a long shot, I had a hard time believing that as well. But Waynflete seems to like taking chances, which didn't make this puzzle any easier. Ah, it matters not. I had a lot of fun discussing our theories and most of us actually figured out the culprit. With that said, apologies to all the people we wrongly arrested. I will close this debriefing with a quote from Autumncomet: quote:I swear if this book ends with Bridget and Luke ending up together. What book are we doing next? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 16:48
|
|
|
I WIN edit: Looks like Guy was right with his theory that Waynflete was trying to frame Whitfeld for murder. Interesting, too, that none of us considered the possibility that Pinkerton was shoved in front of a car, rather than the driver being the killer. A bit bummed that my theory that Waynflete mistook Rivers for Luke was off, but the other explanation provided makes plenty of sense. All things considered, I agree with Entenzahn that this book wasn't quite as fair as some of Christie's other works. I'm not convinced it was possible to logically deduce beyond any doubt that it wasn't Bridget or Rose. Props to Bridget for remembering her villain cliches and getting Waynflete monologuing. Quinn2win fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Feb 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 18:09
|
|
|
We were all on the ballpark. I've already said my piece on Luke and Bridget, but I feel like Christie tried to add "story" and took away bits of the mystery and for me at least, this one isn't as satisfying. Entertaining, but I don't know, maybe Luke soured me on the concept. In conclusion: 
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
I'm definitely ready
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
That was probably the Phoenix Wright-est villain breakdown I've seen in a Christie novel. Kinda got the killer right, and I think we picked up on all the clues between us (well done, whoever it was that drew attention to Wonky-Pooh's ear problems), but I don't know that I would have suspected Mrs Waynflete if it hadn't been for everyone else's speculation. Wisp posted:Mrs Pinkerton: This was supposedly done with Whitfield's car, of course, suggesting Bridget. But the numberplate was seen by just one witness, who mentioned it to another lady who then mentioned it to the police. Was one of these women one of the villagers, also in London and trying to mislead the police by giving Whitfield's numberplate instead? I'm going to give myself this one, at least! I kind of feel a little unsatisfied too, actually, and I don't know why. I feel a little disappointed that the killer was insane, but I know that's silly of me, because madness has been a theme in this book from the beginning, and a recurring theme through Ellsworthy and Whitfield. Oh well, I still enjoyed it a lot. Hopefully I won't lag as much next book!
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 22:42
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:
Hey glad I got one thing right ! Yeah I can't believe nobody considered her having been shoved in front of the car, Wisp does get credit because he at least he realized that someone could have simply lied about the license plate number, I assumed the car was used and Rivers knew something leading to his death. I kinda figured it would be Waynflete by the time we got to the last section but I was really attached to my motive for Rose and even though I was sure it was a frame job I still couldn't figure out the why of it. The idea that Whitfeld actually jilted her was a good twist, and with his personality we probably should have caught it since he blustered on at great length for every other minor insult - if he was the one who got dumped he probably would have carried it around as a great personal insult.I still had a ton of fun, and it was cool that we all had different theories and it was a little more debated. The first one we all were in agreement but went a little overboard, this one we were split on, maybe next time we will get it all sewn up together! Zola, just let us know when we are ready to start the next one.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Incidentally, if nobody else steps forward with new ideas between now and the end of Zola and Guy's rounds, I'm nominating The Moving Finger, another Christie book, for a future challenge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
So it's The Ponson Case up next?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:22
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:Incidentally, if nobody else steps forward with new ideas between now and the end of Zola and Guy's rounds, I'm nominating The Moving Finger, another Christie book, for a future challenge. I'd like to nominate Christie's Crooked House for later down the line as well, if we aren't fed up of Christie novels by then.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
This was the first Christie book I ever read, so by all means, let's do more of these. I'll be back for Body on the Beach. Amazon didn't have the Ponson Case and I didn't want to do both anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
Is it not available in your country? 
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:37
|
|
|
I'm ready to go on the Ponson Case. It seemed to me that the chapters were longer than the Christie ones, so what I would like everyone to do is start with 1-3 and let me know if that's too big a chunk, in which case we'll do two chapters at a time. And we were all right--it was a woman! We did really well on that one, I think we can definitely say we solved it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 01:54
|
|
|
Congrats everyone! I think we can call this one definitely solved. Between you all you hit pretty much every point - including speculating that it was actually Miss Waynflete who wrung her bird's neck. I've enjoyed this immensely, watching you all stumble towards the correct conclusions. I'm sorry you didn't all find the answer that satisfying. I've got a soft spot for Christie stories with atmosphere and the last chapters of this deliver that in spades. I was at home for the weekend and raided my mum's paperback collection for some of my other favourites, so after we've taken care of all these other books people are suggesting I can step in with: By The Pricking Of My Thumbs, Elephants Can Remember, And Then There Were None, Appointment With Death, Five Little Pigs or Three Act Tragedy. I'll get hold of the Ponson Case tonight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 09:30
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Is it not available in your country? Oh I'm sure it's available somewhere, but there's so many books and so little time. I wanted to skip one and Amazon made the decision for me, is all. P.S. I don't own a Kindle. Paper all the way, baby.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 10:21
|
|
|
Zola posted:I'm ready to go on the Ponson Case. I just took a half-hour-ish break and was able to knock out two chapters, it is a pretty quick read. I don't know what length we are usually going for, I might vote to cut it down to 2 just because that would put it well within the time-frame of my commute. But that is my own personal preference so I am fine with whatever anyone else decides, I also like the idea of having more stuff to discuss, so either way I will be happy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
On the topic of next books, I'll do whatever's after Crooked House; either The Moving Finger if Prof wants to participate in the thread or Pit Prop Syndicate, mentioned earlier. Anyway, here's the map of the areas described at the end of chapter two, it might help later. I'm fairly certain Old Ferry is north of the crossroad, but the dialogue doesn't really specify.  I don't care about update length but since 2 chapters is more convenient for Guy, maybe we should go with that? Entenzahn posted:Oh I'm sure it's available somewhere, but there's so many books and so little time. I wanted to skip one and Amazon made the decision for me, is all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:21
|
|
|
I've already read The Moving Finger (it's fantastic), but if you want to run it then by all means.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Since this book doesn't have as many chapters until the big reveal, two chapters at a time would probably give everyone more chance for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:11
|
|
|
So are we doing The Ponson Case now and The Body on the Beach afterwards? Either way I think I'll grab The Body on the Beach from my library now, since it's apparently available.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Yes, you should read the first three chapters of The Ponson Case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 05:02
|
|
|
Caught up to the first 3 chapters: So it seems to have cleared Austin Ponson although he was a big red herring from the start with his odd behavior. I am also wondering what the deal is with this love triangle between him, Lois Drew and "Lady Evelyn". Clearly Austin is in love with and marrying Lois, but I a wonder if this Evelyn was a match that the elder Ponson was making for his son, or else another ex-girlfriend; it seems odd that they would drop a name like that early on, so I think we might hear more about her. I am wondering if this Evelyn had something to do at least with the prank on Austin on Wednesday night, or maybe if we are dealing with another full-on "woman scorned" type plot, and Evelyn is trying to frame Austin for the murder of his father. Obviously this is early speculation since it's only the first 3 chapters, but right now things seem to be focused on Austin and his relationship with his father. Good call with the map Autumncomet. Sometime's I have trouble getting a mental picture of these crime scenes, so this should come in handy. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
In that case sign me up for Pit Prop Syndicate. YESSS there's a map of the boathouse area so I don't have to draw it. Note to self, location 583. I agree, Andrew is too suspicious at this point and I'm inclined to throw him out as a suspect; it seems to me someone might have tried to frame him with the letter though but wasn't anticipating the rain for whatever reason. Mecca-Benghazi fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
Alright, finally caught up. This book is a bit too descriptive for me so far and I'm having trouble keeping the relative location of everything straight in my head (thanks for the map, Autumncomet!). So if I've got this straight, Austin's alibi is verified as far as confirming that he recently visited the Abbey and Mrs Franklyn's house. So if he's telling the complete truth, then the "housemaid" was left alone with Austin's boat for a little while, meaning that she had the use of the boat for about an hour (around 10pm) - assuming that the hoax on Austn was so that a boat which Austin was seen hiring could be used in the murder. That's what I got from that section. The idea with the fifth set of footprints is that they don't seem to match up in sole print or stride length with any of the four people who found the body (Austin, Parkes the butler, Innes the valet, Smith the boatman), right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
Spot on about the Austin info in chapter 3, and good catch about the use of the rented boat. I thought this was just to take away his alibi, I didn't even think of the angle that the killers could have used the same boat in the time he was gone. You are also correct about the footprints of the 5th person. I can't remember if there was anything else about them, but the sole did not match the other 4, the stride was shorter (so we will have to keep a lookout for people with leg injuries maybe? Or possibly it could indicated a shorter person), and followed a different path. Like you I am having trouble picturing the exact position of everything (I had the same problem with the first Christie book to be honest) so I might have to go back over that section with Autumncomet's map later to figure out the path of the footprints. I do explicitly remember that the 5th person crossed right through the stream at one point. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2013 23:03
|
|
|
Is everyone ready to move on?
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:06
|
|
|
I'm still on chapter 1, being sick is really killing my ability to brain the text. Might be best to just move on without me and I'll catch up. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:10
|
|
|
Let's see where everyone is at first, there's no big rush.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
So it seems like myself, Autumncomet, and Wisp are caught up, with the Prof a little behind due to illness, Entenzahn is skipping this one, and Maud and Duke of Avon haven't said anything just yet. I'm in no big rush either, especially with the weekend coming up.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2013 22:33
|
|
|
Let's move on to the next two chapters.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
Caught up through Chapter 5: So first I want to make a list of some of the characters and clues so far so I can keep things straight: Key Players Sir William Ponson - The victim, murdered by a blow to the back of the head and then set up to look like he had an accident on the Cranshaw River Austin Ponson - Ponson's son and so far the prime suspect. Is seen as a disappointment by his father, recently got engaged to Lois Drew, who Sir William dissaproves of. On the Sunday before the murder, had an argument where he was heard to shout "My God sir, she isn't" before leaving upset. Seems to have been cleared. Studies insects. Stands to inherit 150,000. Lois Drew - Austin's fiance, a bookseller's daughter, corroborates his alibi. Lady Edith Ponson (formerly Edith Dale) - Sir William's wife, was away with their daughter when the murder happened. Stands to inherit 200,000. Enid Ponson - Sir William's daughter. Away with her mother at the time of the murder. Very good relationship with her father. Stands to inherit 75,000. Cosgrove Ponson - Nephew of Sir William, son of his late brother John. Spends money frivolously but has a good relationship with his uncle. Stands to inherit 75,000. Others Parkes and Innes - The Butler and Chaufer who helped find Sir William's body. Related the above argument, but may be holding more back since they are both apprehensive when talking about Austin's visit. Smith - Gardener and boatman. Discovered the missing boat that Sir William was later found in, as well as finding the boat house unlocked. Has the only other key to the boat house. Dr. Graham - friend of Sir William. He was speculated to be the person Sir William was travelling up the river to visit that night. Mr. Arbuthnot - Sir William's legal adviser. Relates the inheritance values and some info about the Ponson's family history. Evelyn Franklyn - Was mentioned by Parkes and Innes in the first chapter as a more appropriate match for Austin (in Sir William's eyes). Possibly a friend of Lois Drew as Austin's alibi-prank involved Lois inviting Austin to meet the two of them as well as her brother Tom. "Mrs. Franklyn's housemaid" - The unknown lady who delivered a second letter to Austin which led him on a wild goose chase to the Franklyn home. Was left alone with Austin's boat for some time and was gone when he returned. Tom Dale - Lady Ponson's first husband, died on the shipwreck of the Numidian Other details -Sir William's oars washed up on the opposite bank that his wrecked boat did, completely undamaged. It was speculated that this was because they slipped down a different channel, but this seems unlikely. -There were tracks from a fifth man leading to the crime scene to the boat house. These tracks were closer together, indicating a shorter person (or possibly a woman? Maybe the unknown 'housemaid'?) -Sir William was found with an unloaded gun on his body. -Sir William wrote two checks to himself with an 'X' for the purpose. The first was for 100 and was cashed, the second for 3,000 apparently wasn't (at least at the local bank). ---- So I got a couple things out of these two chapters. It still seems obvious that Austin is a red herring, but at the same time they have done such a thorough job clearing him that I am almost starting to come back around again. At this point I still don't think he was involved directly but they have spent so much time on him it seems there is definitely more going on there. I also am getting an inkling that we may see more of the Ponsons murdered based on the detail about the inheritance being further split. This could also benefit Cosgrove or Enid in the event that Austin is executed. The fact that they of course completely left Enid out of any suspicion, as well as the last two books having "unsuspected" women murderers is starting to make me a little suspicious of her as well. Finally, I kept Tom Dale up there even though he is listed as dead. He was on the list of the deceased of the Numidian, but of course that is not definitive. Of course, if he is involved then it is a supremely long con, since it is over 30 years later. Still seems superfluous to put him as part of the Ponson's backstory otherwise, and the method of death could be a little less suspicious (it also involves a boat ironically). Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Good write-up. I'm starting to feel the same way about the women, especially in light of the fact that the Inspector doesn't like pressing the women as hard as he is the men when asking questions. I suppose there is the possibility that some of the servants are lying (possibly to get money later?) to protect Austin, especially since it's the servants' testimony we're mostly relying on for his alibi. Mecca-Benghazi fucked around with this message at 17:42 on Mar 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Alright. I got this one and can get these chapters done fast. I think I can get caught up and jump in on this thing now. I'm aiming to get to chapter five in a day or so.
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 05:59
|
|
|
I keep trying and I just can't get into the prose style for this book. I think I'm gonna sit this round out. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 25, 2013 08:05
|
|
|
I just had to post this passage for everyone's enjoyment, it's from "To Say Nothing Of The Dog" by Connie Willis, where one of the characters is talking about mystery novels:quote:... which was rather racy stuff for Victorian times, and the crime was always unbelievably complicated. In mystery novels. I mean, nobody ever just grabs the vase and runs, or shoots somebody in a fit of temper, and at the very end, when you think you've got it all figured out, there's one last plot twist, and the crime's always very carefully thought out, with disguises and alibis and railway timetables and they have to include a diagram of the house in the frontispiece, showing everyone's bedroom and the library, which is where the body always is, and all the connecting doors, and even then you don't have a prayer of figuring it out, which is why they have to bring in a world-famous detective--" It made me immediately think of the diagram and the lists and all the things we do to try to figure out whodunit. The novel is really great fun, I'm enjoying it very much so far. It also references Three Men in a Boat, which I finally got around to reading just a few months ago.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 03:39
|
|
|
Just got caught up. The main thing that stuck out to me was the checks--maybe Sir William was being blackmailed? Why and by whom I haven't the least idea, though. The £3000 could have been an attempt to put the matter to bed once and for all. Not sure how this could tie into his getting murdered...he might have decided to come clean about whatever it was, but I can't think what would have prompted him to do so. Austin's engagement seemed to be the only recent change in his life. Also since reading Guy A. Person's post mentioning Tom Dale I kind of want to tie him into this, but the timeframe seems way too long for that to make sense. Probably he wasn't getting blackmailed at all and this is just nonsense! The Duke of Avon fucked around with this message at 03:03 on Mar 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 06:27
|
|
|
Yeah, I am probably reaching with the Tom Dale thing, and probably with the Evelyn Franklyn thing. Both are just details that jumped out to me as things that didn't really have to be mentioned if they weren't clues. Like, if Tom Dale had died of Tuberculosis or something I wouldn't have given it a second thought; the fact that he died at sea on a shipwreck, and was said to be a bad guy makes me a little suspicious of why they included his whole backstory. Just like, why would the butler and valet casually mention Evelyn as a better match for Austin out of nowhere? Was she an ex-girlfriend? Or the match that Sir William wanted to make for Austin perhaps? Both of these things might just be minor details that I am blowing out of proportion though, so we will have to wait and see! Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Caught up. Thanks for the clue list, Guy - I keep losing track of what's been happening. I also think that the X cheques are some form of blackmail but I'm not sure we know enough about Ponson's life to say what yet. I had been thinking that Cosgrove was a likely suspect, so I'm a bit galled that Tanner's sizing him up this early in the book because it means I'm probably wrong. Though maybe Croft doesn't operate on the same wavelength as Christie, and the killer isn't necessarily going to be an unlikely suspect. By the way... did Ponson's boathouse key ever turn up? (I know Ponson's body had a bunch of keys but I think his boathouse key was on its own.) I'm wondering if the fifth set of footprints might belong to Ponson, since he's apparently from working-class roots and might have been fond of "working-class" shoes. I don't think that quite fits the fifth person's movements, though - I like the idea of Ponson waiting in the boathouse (for his blackmailer? Or someone using Austin's boat?) but I think he probably knew his own grounds well enough to know where the stepping stones were rather than wandering through the stream in the dark.
|
|
#
?
Feb 26, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
Okay, I think everyone is caught up (or so close as to make no nevermind), so let's go on to the next two chapters (6 and 7)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Speculation from 6 & 7 (and I guess the title from 8): So two more chapters where one of the key suspects is thoroughly and exhaustively ruled out. I am starting to think the case hinges less on "whodunit" and more on: how can one (or both) of these two guys have so thorough an alibi and still be the murderer. Especially since the title of Chapter 8 is (SPOILERS IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW CHAPTER TITLES -->)Tanner finds himself duped(/SPOILERS). Because the chapters focused so much around proving Cosgrove's alibi, I am not sure what speculation I can find there. Perhaps in another reversal of expectations Cosgrove's whole story was meant as an alibi for Miss Blecher and not himself, and she in fact was the mysterious housemaid that tricked Austin (she is an actress after all). Or perhaps Cosgrove had other business in Montrose which is why he was so upset about arriving late, other than just pissing off the guy he was meeting? Maybe he wanted to cash that missing L3,000 check at a bank that wouldn't be followed up with? Sir William was fond of him, so maybe he agreed to give Cosgrove the 3,000 but Cosgrove needed more? That's the best I can come up with at this point. Like I said, based on the title of the next chapter, it looks like we will be getting some kind of twist or important clue. But right now I would definitely keep in mind all of these various alibis because I am definitely thinking that either Cosgrove or Austin (or both) are either the murderers or in on it, and we will have to unravel these seemingly airtight alibis at a later point in the story. Guy A. Person fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 00:27
|
|