|
The victim seemed like a man of means and status; maybe there is some useful gossip about him at the society club?
|
#
¿
Nov 13, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
I had a theory about the note but it didn't seem to work. The relevant facts are that there is at most one capital letter in every column, and there's an oddly mispelled word `spiript'. What I figured was that the positions of the capital letters were supposed to encode which letters to choose from the words in the note. So perhaps the person writing the note wanted to encode the letter p with the word spirit, (or script), but then realized they couldn't put a capital letter in the right position, so they substituted the letter. Unfortunately this theory didn't actually match up with the actual message in a nice way. There are also more words in the note than there are columns, but not that many more. The other thing I'm wondering about the note is, who wrote it? It seems reasonable that the mistress with a jealous boyfriend would communicate in code, but the partially deciphered note is kind of macabre and threatening, which is not what I'd expect. My hunch is that it's not her who wrote it, but then who?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 29, 2015 06:26
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Goddammit. Wow, nice find. That's a devious bit of steganography right there. I think we should now assume that the decrypted message is a red herring. In this case the reason there was the typo `spirpt' is that it was the encoded message that mattered, and so it went unnoticed. Can we get lookups for the London mint, and Cox? So, here's a theory: The victim and Roger were part of a conspiracy to rob the London mint. There's a third conspirator who might be Minnie (the note refers to Roger in the third person). They were digging a tunnel a little bit each day, hence the victim's regular departures from the cigar shop and the stains on Roger's clothes. Presumably the plan went wrong when Roger discovered that Minnie and the victim were romantically involved (and possibly going to cut him out of the loot?). This seems to fit the facts we have, granted there's a lot of conjecture here. And finally, a little bit of metagame evidence: (should I spoiler tag things from the original stories?) The conspiracy is similar to the conspiracy in the red-headed league, and the victim had red hair. Edit: Actually, the victim didn't seem like the kind of person who was used to manual labor, so he probably wasn't doing any digging. Edit2: The Merry Marauder posted:I don't quite see how you can turn "left" onto Borough High St from the Bridge House Hotel, as the entrance must be on Montague, so it could be directions from his other lodgings. It would be singular if his need for cigars and chess were so strong he would cross the Thames for them immediately from the train station. I imagine it's a lot to ask for, but can we get a lookup for Boardinghouses, Hotels, and Inns (in SE London)? Perhaps one will leap out that would fit a left onto Borough High better. Looking at the map, the only building that seems to fit besides London Bridge Station is 7 SE. Pf. Hikikomoriarty fucked around with this message at 06:31 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 06:10
|
|
|
The Merry Marauder posted:Wow, yeah, that certainly invites a visit to the bank. I agree that both look promising. My personal preference is for 7 SE because I'm still very curious about the victim himself, and we might find a clue about him there. If we're really lucky we might find another note in his effects.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
Hyper Crab Tank posted:That's... not what I expected, I have to admit. This is my feeling as well. I'd be down to see what Porlock has to say but I fear he wouldn't tell us anything we don't already know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 05:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Hyper Crab Tank posted:Actually, sorry for overlooking this - it's been a busy week, what with it almost being the holidays and all. But the game is afoot once more! I had similar thoughts. Can we get a lookup on the curator, Brady Norris? He was the one who first learned about the auction.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 03:04
|
|
I have no basis for suggesting it at this point, but I'd like to at least keep in mind the possibility that the discovered paintings are not genuine, and that the theft is a cover-up in order to prevent embarrassment or to commit insurance fraud. I'm also reminded of Moriarty's taste for expensive artwork... he had some hanging around in his office at the university that he couldn't possibly afford if he wasn't secretly a criminal mastermind, for example.