|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
I think those chapters broke my brain.  I suspect that motive probably isn't important compared to the means and we should concern ourselves with the 'major trick' and the differing testimonies. That said, the motives seem to be straightforward: Dr. Joe and Marjorie stand to inherit, Harding would inherit since he's Marjorie's husband, and for Emmet see above. I don't know about Ingram but really he's the weirdest character in the book. But there's still no reason to poison the chocolates.Is there any way the film could have been doctored? We went over the unreliability of witnesses, that is pretty much the next step and seems like a thing Carr would do. I guess that would only be possible if Harding was our guy, which given how our protagonist fawns over Marjorie is maybe likely but I'm not sure I like that. And I don't even think that's possible with the technology of the time anyway. Skuto posted:
quote:* 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? quote:* The list of characters says: Police, Victims and Poisoners. PoisonerS, not poisoner. In your theory above, what do you mean by "unanswered question"?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ah okay. I think you figured it out! Not doctored, just a completely different film! Emmet is 6 feet, and both Marjorie and Harding said Mr. Nemo was six feet, because one is the murderer and the other was distracted by Marcus saying that Emmet was the helper. Ingram said 5'9" so he's either playing the long con or it's not him. So either Marjorie did it or her husband planted the evidence. Can't think of anything that would implicate one over the other though. Both had an equal opportunity to get the ingredients to kill Marcus and Emmet. edit: If it weren't for the footnote ruling out conspiracy, I'd say they were working together. The motive is perfect; kill Marcus, get married, get rich together. Mecca-Benghazi fucked around with this message at 03:18 on May 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Ingram is a little too suspicious for my taste.  When you put it together like that it sounds pretty convincing, but 1) it's pretty easy to explain away Harding being suspicious of the film as him not being a good witness, especially considering that was the point of the exercise 2) Ingram said 5'9" when answering the "unnecessary question." He himself is 5'9"; why would he implicate himself? If he's trying to implicate Harding since they are the same height why then would he try to kill his scapegoat?  To recap: The murder with the chocolates was done by somebody with some kind of handbag that could have a false bottom. The film the police saw was of the rehearsal, where 6 foot tall Emmet played Mr. Nemo. During the actual thing, a 5'9" person played Mr. Nemo. The combination of the time (after midnight) and the circumstances of the recording (so bright that you couldn't see if the other observers were missing) mean that any of Marjorie, Harding, Ingram, and Dr. Joe could have done it. Emmet was knocked out and killed later, and conspiracy has been ruled out. Anyone could have killed Emmet in his sleep. The recording that Harding made of the actual performance hasn't turned up, either stolen and replaced with the rehearsal recording or Harding didn't record it (and is guilty). Marjorie and Harding both had the knowledge and opportunity to get the ingredients that killed Marcus and Emmet. Ingram is by the far the best at observation and the kind of person that would like to pull off the perfect murder. The police found a ton of things in Marjorie's room, including the needle that killed Emmet, that appear to implicate her. She claims it was all planted. The day after the murder, Marjorie and Harding get married with Dr. Joe as witness (Ingram didn't go? That part isn't clear to me). When they're driving back, there's a really ambiguous scene where Joe appears to try to shoot Harding, but it ends up being an accident, at least according to all three of them. Marjorie says there's a reason she got married and it's not to make an honest woman of her. (forgive me, I'm not a native speaker--that means then she is NOT pregnant and there's some other thing?) Fell implies that it was neither Marjorie nor Harding. He is also acting a little odd in that scene. Harding and Ingram are 5'9". Emmet and Joe are 6'. Marjorie's height I don't think is given. I think it's either Harding or Ingram. There must be something I'm missing though.
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Regarding the marriage the thing that jumped out for me is the old law (no longer in force in most countries) that married couples cannot give evidence or testify against each other in a criminal court case. I don't know whether that was the law in England at the time the book was set but that's what sprung to mind for me. So I think it was either Majorie or Harding, and that the other knows about it and wants to protect them.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 11:43
|
|
|
It still seems to be true to an extent in England. That would explain why "she had her reasons". And potentially allows Fell to say they will live happily even if he knows one of them is the killer. IIRC, he does explicitly say Marjorie is innocent, but only says Harding didn't obtain the poison somewhere. So that would eliminate one reason why I ruled out Harding. On the other hand, they'd planned the wedding as early as the first chapter in the book. Something I don't really like about the Ingram theory is that they could have left the entire Elliot/Marjorie/Harding thing out of the book without consequence. But I don't really see much "hard evidence" against Harding either. Random: ** Fell calls Harding a "red herring if he's ever seen one" then exclaims later on that they've been "misread by the largest and most shimmering red herring". ** The last sentence of this chapter  ** Why is the cardboard box a clue? Marcus got Marjorie to retrieve it shortly before the show started. There was nothing out of the ordinary then (though, one could interpret the maid as saying it was empty). Ingram was present when that exchange took place. They did not find the box in the Dr. Nemo belongings, but found it in Emmett's jacket in his room (above the window where Nemo's stuff was found). The original non-poisoned capsule was not found. They also found one in Marjories room. That just seems the confirm the two films theory. Unless someone finds one of the other tricks and sheds another light on it, I'm going to do a final call on Ingram. He has more motive than Harding for the candy murders, he fits the size if the duplicate film theory is right, and he could have engineered the wedding shooting. I can find no motive for Harding for the first and last murder.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2014 14:01
|
|
|
I think you guys theorized as much as you possibly could, so I'm gonna go ahead and say read to the end of the book!
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Not bad, the major trick was right, and the murderer sat at the intersection of our guesses. Too bad we didn't get the Harding/Emmett swap, it would've made it clear Harding had to be the murderer. I didn't attach much significance to Harding handing in the film, the murderer could've swapped the film during some confusion for all I know. I noticed the windows thing but would never have put it together, and the "sshh" thing also didn't stand out to me. Good call on the married couples testimony, Meander! I blame Dr. Fell for intentionally misleading us during the shooting At least it wasn't Mr. Stevenson. The book says it could be anyone, including him, at some point, and when he walked in in the solution chapter I went "you've got to be kidding me..."
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Dickson Carr has a bad habit of deliberately misleading the reader. I've never forgiven him for one book in which Sir Henry Merrivale swears to the honesty and reliability of a character who then turns out to be the murderer, which is a serious violation of the "rules," at least to me.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Skuto posted:
It was really hard keeping my mouth shut while you guys were discussing this book because holy crap, you guys did really well. Way better than I did when I first read this, if I recall. The film swap totally blindsinded me when it happened, I think. It was the "then that film constituted Harding’s eyesight." line that made me go "Oh...OOHHHHHHH" when I got to it. Rand Brittain posted:Dickson Carr has a bad habit of deliberately misleading the reader. I've never forgiven him for one book in which Sir Henry Merrivale swears to the honesty and reliability of a character who then turns out to be the murderer, which is a serious violation of the "rules," at least to me. I wouldn't say that's a habit of his. I'm going to go ahead and guess that the book you are referring to is[book title spoiler]And so to Murderwhich yeah, was pretty bad. Frankly that book barely counts as a mystery, it's just him having fun with the setting. For the most part though, I'd say he sticks pretty close to being fair. I mean, he DOES mislead the reader like crazy--but it's usually pretty fair. That book aside. Plus that one book technically didn't have a murder, I would say it literally doesn't qualify as a murder mystery. Hopeford fucked around with this message at 15:53 on May 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
I'll volunteer to run the next book. There's two proposed in the OP, one is from Carr, which we just had, and the other is: Crooked House, by Agatha Christie I liked Christie so far, so I'll start reading this (Kindle version). I hope most of you haven't read it yet and we can get some more people on board.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
I'm between books and I like Christie, so I'll get back on board for this one.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Skuto posted:
 "We got it mostly so good job all around. One thing that still confuses me: so the gunshot really was an accident after all? Then what did Dr. Fell's line about "if I had said it wasn't an accident he'd be happy beyond his wildest dreams" (or something like that) mean?Hopeford, you said back when we started this you had some comments about the book; I think it'd be cool to hear those now. Also, down with more Christie.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:One thing that still confuses me: so the gunshot really was an accident after all? Then what did Dr. Fell's line about "if I had said it wasn't an accident he'd be happy beyond his wildest dreams" (or something like that) mean? It was indeed an accident. If it hadn't been an accident, then it's an attempted murder, and from the description of what Joe did with the gun it follows that Harding was almost certainly the intended victim. That eliminates him as a possibility for the killer. You were right to say "he's acting a little odd in that scene" and not take it into account too much.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
I've been meaning to volunteer to run you through Thus Was Adonis Murdered by Sarah Caudwell, so I'll put that up for consideration as a future title.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
Hopeford posted:I wouldn't say that's a habit of his. I'm going to go ahead and guess that the book you are referring to is[book title spoiler]And so to Murderwhich yeah, was pretty bad. Frankly that book barely counts as a mystery, it's just him having fun with the setting. For the most part though, I'd say he sticks pretty close to being fair. I mean, he DOES mislead the reader like crazy--but it's usually pretty fair. That book aside. Plus that one book technically didn't have a murder, I would say it literally doesn't qualify as a murder mystery. He does something pretty similar in Death-Watch as well, where Dr. Fell tells a man that he respects him and would like to shake his hand, and then admits that it was a total lie when he reveals that the guy was the killer and a total creepo murderzoid all along.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 19:18
|
|
|
Mecca-Benghazi posted:Hopeford, you said back when we started this you had some comments about the book; I think it'd be cool to hear those now. Sure! I've been dying to make a few comments. Green Capsule is a pretty strange Carr book in a way. Despite being a Fell story, it features none of his usual "creepy, supernatural atmosphere" deal. I think that's a very interesting stylistic change from his norm, especially toward the end. The prose is a bit on the dull side, but the plot is(to me at least) unusually, almost mechanically tight. It felt almost early Ellery Queen-ish in the sense that once you arrive at the main deduction("But how in blazes did Harding come to use those remarkable words, or any words at all? For up to that time we couldn’t see the Invisible Man; and neither could he.") it's pretty easy to unravel the whole plot. Most of all, what really impressed me about this book is that despite the slow first half, it has a really...convincing ending. One thing that I think Carr struggled with at times was the plausibility of his tricks. He even complained about this bit during his famous 'Locked Room Lecture' when he said that people took plausibility a bit too far when it came to impossible crimes. "Since apparently he has violated the laws of nature for our entertainment, then heaven knows he is entitled to violate the laws of Probable Behaviour!" were his exact words, and for the most part, I can understand his claim. For example, She Died a Lady(which we read here in the thread some time ago) the ultimate murder does have a plausible explanation, but even I have to admit that the circumstances around it were a bit fantastic, even if that didn't bother me too much. Now here, his ultimate trick was convincing enough. I was pretty skeptic on the "psychological murder" bit because I thought it would be some sort of trick that could potentially apply to some people, but not to all. Then when the trick came out my immediate reaction was "Ah, yeah. That would definitely fool most people because of the way memory works." Basically, it was just a novel with a bold claim and it managed the infinitely hard trick of backing it up. Which is why I have a really fond spot for the novel. That's not to say I think the novel is flawless--Carr had a nasty, nasty habit of overkilling the reader. He would not only prepare a devilishly clever trick, but also go for a cheap shot on top of the trick for what I can only suppose is the idea that there is no better victory than the kind where you go for your opponent while he's still down. I'm not saying he cheats, but he's kind of mean sometimes. For example, here, I think the gunshot was completely unnecessary. I think that comes back to what G.K Chesterton once said about detective stories. quote:What the writer has to remember, in this sort of game, is that the reader will not say, as he sometimes might of a serious or realistic study: “Why <did> the surveyor in green spectacles climb the tree to look into the lady doctor’s back garden?” He will insensibly and inevitably say, “Why did the author <make> the surveyor climb a tree, or introduce any surveyor at all?” The reader may admit that the town would in any case need a surveyor, without admitting that the tale would in any case need one. It is necessary to explain his presence in the tale (and the tree) not only by suggesting why the town council put him there, but why the author put him there. Over and above any little crimes he may intend to indulge in, in the inner chamber of the story, he must have already some other justification as a character in a story and not only as a mere miserable material person in real life. The instinct of the reader, playing hide-and-seek with the writer, who is his real enemy, is always to say with suspicion, Yes, I know a surveyor might climb a tree; I am quite aware that there are trees and that there are surveyors, but what are you doing with them? Why did you make this particular surveyor climb this particular tree in this particular tale, you cunning and evil-minded man?” And here, Carr openly made a surveyor climb a tree, for no reason other than the fact he knew the reader would ask "Why did you make this particular surveyor climb this particular tree in this particular tale, you cunning and evil-minded man?" Now, being fair here--it is not technically cheating to make a plot point that goes nowhere. I can almost admire the fact that Carr so blatantly created that point with an almost sort of giddy joy about it, like he was completely self-aware about how evil he was being with that. ALMOST. He was especially bad about that kind of thing with his early novels, like The Burning Court where he keeps adding on twists and cheap shots long after his clever trick has already succeeded, which leaves me wanting to scream "Bah gawd, somebody stop the drat match! He's already dead!" in an accent that I do not have. Carr really loved his overkills. That's not to say I don't love his books--I really do, and the man is my favorite author. But man that guy knew how to be petty in allowing the reader to win. He would not break any rules out of some twisted sense of sportsmanship, but he would bend do anything to make sure the reader didn't solve the mystery while still allowing him a fair shot at solving it, which I think is kind of endearing. Rand Brittain posted:He does something pretty similar in Death-Watch as well, where Dr. Fell tells a man that he respects him and would like to shake his hand, and then admits that it was a total lie when he reveals that the guy was the killer and a total creepo murderzoid all along. That one I didn't have much of a problem with, because I felt it kind of fit with Fell's character. It was kind on the iffy side of things, but I personally didn't mind it. I can see why that one would have bothered you though, yeah. It was definitely a borderline case. And So to Murder however...thaaaat was pretty bad, though again, that was more of a thriller than a murder mystery.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
One thing I liked about the book was that once you figure the trick, a whole lot of things just go "click", "click", "click" and you're pretty confident you at least solved that part because a lot of the little misteries disappear. I miss this in some of the Christie novels; you can have solved the mystery but still feel like you're guessing at the murderer because the solution isn't as tight. Said otherwise I like to go :facepalm: after the reveal, not "hmmm". Misleading the reader is lame. You can see our confusion in the comments! I can see the surveyor argument, but solving that by laying booby traps feels like a bid of weakness. That said had we identified one more trick it indeed wouldn't have mattered. I enjoyed the book even if I'll shake my fist at Carr for that scene. Hiowf fucked around with this message at 20:48 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 13, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Alright, let's get started with Crooked House. You can read up to the end of Chapter 4, which is around 13% into the book and ends with "I felt suddenly rather sorry for Brenda Leonides". The book starts rather slow but picks up the pace rapidly, so consider this a warmup. Put a note here with your thoughts if you finish reading this part, so we have an idea how many people are following along.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Wow, the foreword from Christie in this one is comically smug. So first things first: Suspects! "One brother, one sister, a mother, a father, an uncle, an aunt by marriage, a grandfather, a great-aunt, and a step-grandmother." Brenda Leonides: The step-grandmother. Aristide's young new wife. Chief suspect. Probably too obvious. Miss de Haviland: The great aunt. Don't know much about her. Philip Leonides: The father. Never shows any emotion. Sophia's mother: I didn't catch a name. Vicious egoist. Roger Leonides: The uncle. Kind, but with a temper. Clemency Leonides: The aunt. Roger's wife, a ruthless scientist. Sophia Leonides: The sister. Charles's one true love, but that doesn't rule her out. Sophia's brother: I didn't catch a name for sure, or any character traits. It was glossed over quickly at the start of chapter 2, but I just know that the dual obituary is important. The first one is definitely our man - beloved husband of Brenda Leonides, eighty-eighth year. But what about the second one? Why was he listed twice? Are there two people with the same name? But both have the same address... Quinn2win fucked around with this message at 01:17 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Her brother is named Eustace and she has another sister named Josephine, on page 18/location 295. Also of note, de Haviland apparently hated Aristide but came to look after the kids anyway. That's all the suspects not including Brown the tutor but he and Brenda are too obvious anyway. We don't have enough information to do any real sleuthing but I think you're right about the obituaries; maybe the second is for some other male relative? Her father, if one of Sophia's siblings had kids? No first name is given, reading it over again. Mecca-Benghazi fucked around with this message at 06:37 on May 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
Let's move on: You can read up to the end of Chapter 9, 33% into the book and ending on the phrase "I slept...". This introduces you to most of the cast. It's still an excellent time to join in! I'll leave a bit more time now because there's more to digest and I have a holiday coming up.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
I already read this book so I'm sitting out on the discussion, but I'm re-reading it along the thread just for fun. Will save any comments on the book until the thread is done with it, for obvious reasons. Have fun with it!
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
Goodness, what a family this is. No killer clues yet, obviously, but I suspect that Philip not being a smoker will become relevant. I'm still coming back to the double obituary at the beginning. Either there's an extra dead Leonides family member, or it has some other meaning I haven't thought of. We've met Brenda, Haviland, Philip, Roger... who else? Which family members have we not met? Quinn2win fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
We've met all the male family members and all the female ones except Josephine, who seems to be really young anyway given Eustace's age so I doubt either of them did it. It's kinda odd, they keep hammering in that everyone had the means and opportunity, we're just looking for the motive. And since I'm now broken from reading all of the mysteries in this thread, obviously this means that the proposed method of murder is wrong and there'll be some gotcha. I hope it's Sophia. 
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Read up to the end of Chapter 14, 57% into the book and ending on "I had the feeling that she had meant something by her last remark that I did not quite understand".
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
I just finished Dashiel Hammett's The Glass Key. The title refers to a dream that Janet has where her and Ned, lost and starving in the woods, come across a cabin. Through the windows they can see a table full of food, but the door is locked. They find a glass key under the doormat, but when they try to open it they discover the floor is full of snakes that attempt to rush out the door. Janet tells Ned that they were able to get onto the roof, open the door, and let all the snakes out so they could feast, but she later tells him that she lied and that when they opened the door the key shattered and that they snakes killed them. I'm assuming that the "pit of snakes" are the politicians and gangsters that inhabit the city, leading to Ned deciding that they both need to leave the city behind, but that's about all I have. What else am I missing from this dream?
|
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2014 01:37
|
|
|
Think you posted in the wrong thread Professor Shark.  On the latest section: Josephine is older than I thought and really weird. Or maybe she actually is pretty young and just weird regardless, I dunno. I guess we're doing the Christie thing of going through every person and eliminating them as a possibility except not really. I'd probably have to reread that section (meant to post during the Great Downtime), but now we know for sure they all had the knowledge and the means to kill Aristide.[/s Am I stupid and missing clues? 
Mecca-Benghazi fucked around with this message at 19:01 on Jul 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
I didn't see any real clues in this section, either - although some of the information in it may become important in retrospect once we know more about the case. Right now we're learning about the family, not the murder. e: Mecca-Benghazi posted:We don't have enough information to do any real sleuthing but I think you're right about the obituaries; maybe the second is for some other male relative? Her father, if one of Sophia's siblings had kids? No first name is given, reading it over again. Coming back to this, both definitely do list the first name: Chapter 2 posted:On Sept. 19th, at Three Gables, Swinly Dean, Aristide Leonides, beloved husband of Brenda Leonides, in his eighty-eighth year. Deeply regretted. Chapter 2 posted:Leonides—Suddenly, at his residence, Three Gables, Swinly Dean, Aristide Leonides. Deeply mourned by his loving children and grandchildren. Flowers to St. Eldred’s Church, Swinly Dean. So both are definitely about the same person. Same name, same address. Quinn2win fucked around with this message at 14:32 on Jul 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 14:29
|
|
|
No clues eh? Let's read on then. Read up to the end of Chapter 17, 69% into the book and ending on "I told you to keep an eye on that child...".
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Well that's not suspicious at all.  Our protagonist has sat down and talked to everyone relevant, right, except for Philip? Everyone's got a motive aside from the kids, they all had the means and opportunity, and aside from Josephine and Laurence they all seemed to have been deeply affected by Leonides to the point of worship. I can't help but think that Josephine snooping around near the cistern is somehow important. Maybe she found something?
|
|
#
?
Jul 4, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Catching up. Chapter 15: The twig-snapping thing is relevant. The narrator talks about the twig-snapping from people skulking about out his window, when earlier Josephine was debating whether or not to tell him about the letters, but suddenly decides against it when she hears a snapping twig. Someone was listening in on them. Then Magda goes and tries to send her off to Switzerland ASAP. Josephine knows something, and Magda knows it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
And read up through 17. This is all very interesting, but I'd love to hear more about the actual crime itself. So far, I can't even begin to form a theory.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
Whatever went on, Josephine is probably in the middle of it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Ha, you guys are really careful at taking guesses at the killer Read up to the end of Chapter 21, 80% into the book and ending on "...if so, she had added, it must be for something really worth while".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2014 08:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 03:09 |
|
|
Well okay, love letters. I still don't think Laurence and Brenda did it. And while they're on my mind, the talk from the men about how the killer used a woman's method of murder but that still could implicate Laurence is getting to be annoying on several levels. It does remind me a bit of one of the earlier books we read in the thread, where the detectives kept hammering on the women and it turned out to be a man so I dunno. We're 80% in now and everyone has the means, motive, and opportunity still. I can't help but think that Laurence or Brenda did try to kill Josephine for the letters, but neither of them did in Aristide. I don't think there's anything to prove this, but it seems like a Christie thing to do, getting us to assume the two killings are related when they're not. Personally, I hope it's Sophia, even though that'll never happen and we still have room for one last swerve.  I want to say we can rule out Roger and Clemency at this point; sure there's a motive but it's a really weak one when you consider their personalities. I'm throwing out Laurence and Brenda, at least for Aristide's murder. The nanny I don't think is really a character, and neither is Eustace, although I'm not prepared to toss him out entirely. That leaves Sophia, Philip (her dad), Magda (her mom), Edith (Aristide's sister, Sophia's great-aunt), Josephine, and Eustace. Philip finally just snapped in this section and he's definitely got issues. Josephine and Eustace are kids and I'm not sure what the sensibilities of the time period were (I have this nagging feeling about Josephine). I'm not entirely sure what Edith's deal is; now that Josephine is headed off to Switzerland, Sophia is grown up, and Eustace has other plans (going back to his fancy private school?), she doesn't have much left to do does she? And she still gets a separate settlement from the rest of them? Hmm. As for Magda, I'm not sure we even got a glimpse of her real personality.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:12
|
|