|
Whee, new thread. I'm in.
|
#
¿
Aug 20, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
For me notable at this point is that the victims seem random, yet obviously must fit some criteria that requires some knowledge of them. So how does the killer find and select them?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 21, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
I found little info here asides from the fact that the lack of in-depth covered characters reinforces what was already said about it possibly being someone who was introduced already. The Prometheus section was a nice reflection on modern society.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2014 08:13
|
|
|
Canalis is too obvious at 66% in the book. Who else has access to the necessary files? His wife? Who cannot understand why he successfully birthed so many children but could not get their own? Did he feel something is wrong with her and try to fix it by becoming a good psychiatrist?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
Just read the last part, and well I guess it's time to re-read from the start again. Give us some time. If you feel you're late to the book let me assure you haven't missed anything yet!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2014 22:24
|
|
|
The limited number of characters and clear elimination indeed made it easy. Between this, the Christies and the Croft we did I still liked Carr best for the combination of being hard but actually giving solid enough clues that the solution clicked when you find it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Huh, the book is from the 1980's, much more recent than the others. Should be interesting.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Although that's ancient enough in its way! The third book is a sequence of something called a "telex" instead of letters. I remember those and I'm not "ancient"!  So is the killer one of the other characters already introduced, i.e. one of the others she observed on the plane? As for "frame", in the sense of being a convenient scapegoat, yes, but not in the sense of her being the indirect target. The description so far doesn't sound like she'd have a lot of enemies. On the other hand, she *is* very much a lawyer that might have won some cases...
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Same here, I caught up but have no useful insights to share.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 7, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
So according to chapter 12 we already know all that is needed to solve the mystery at the end of chapter 11 - though I'm not clear whether the letter in chapter 12 counts as part of that or not. I wouldn't move much further now until we can at least try to come up with a consistent theory! There's also only 2 suspects remaining, which might have cooperated. The Major ends up with Ned's holdall and apparently didn't steal it, which is suspicious. That seems to imply Kenneth gave it to him? I made notes earlier that Eleanor's "oversight" regarding the tax and marriage might be false (page 87), and that Kenneth was planning to marry her for tax purposes, but Ned knows about it and might have evidence of it (and has to be eliminated - he's in the Revenue, after all). But where does that leave the Major and Bruce? Hiowf fucked around with this message at 13:42 on Oct 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2014 13:35
|
|
|
Ned killed himself. Here's what I reconstructed: - aunt Tiverton died, leaving art collection - Richard Tiverton lives in Cyprus, has to leave for inheritance tax reasons, was in Venice - Eleanor interested in aunts art collection, has to marry for tax reasons, knows about it how? - Bob the Major interested in art for cheap & stealing, knows about it how? - Kenneth in charge of sorting through collection, refused to do so on the cheap (page 84) Had to abandon sculpture because of Tiverton leaving Cyprus, might have money problems, Eleanor taking all his profits. Strong statement that none of this is reason or contributing for the murder! What other motives are there that we know about? Taxes! The book doesn't stop talking about them. - Eleanor told something to (Ned? Major?) she shouldn't have. Kenneth has to keep something locked up now. Bruce makes Kenneth angry at Elanor wrt selling on the cheap. Eleanor doesn't know a guy named Bruce, but Julia heard her say she had some stuff stolen by him. I'm thinking Julia misheard this conversation (she was listening in), and that Bruce isn't a person. Maybe it's the UK's IRS, and Eleanor was complaining about how much she'd been taxed? I mentioned before that I suspected Kenneth was going to marry Eleanor for tax reasons. Now, going back: - Eleanor told Ned she puts her holidays down as business expenses for tax. This is the thing she told Ned she shouldn't have. The moments before the murder Ned is very nervous, I'm going to guess he's found out that Kenneth is going to marry Eleanor for reasons of tax avoidance. So he says, screw it, sleeps with Julia, then kills himself. Marylou is asked to investigate and will confirm it was impossible for someone else to have crossed the bridge unnoticed. (It's the only way I can explain the strong suggestion on p262) How will they prove it was a suicide, though?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2014 10:20
|
|
|
Who identified the body as being Ned? Your analysis seems correct, which leaves only 2 possibilities: a) Someone got to the annexe unnoticed anyway. I suspect that may be the reason why Tamar wants to send someone to investigate. There's also a statement early in the book that there's a place on the terrace where you can hide and observe who crosses the bridge that may be related. b) The maids are right and no one got in or out. Given the characterization of Julia, I wouldn't have put sleeping besides a corpse behind her, but when it is brought up her friends dismiss it outright as something that wouldn't happen even to her, so I think we can scratch that. So what other theories are there? She slept with someone pretending to be Ned, in the "wrong" room, who slipped away while she was sleeping, killed the real Ned, went back, then used the confusion after the discovery of the corpse to get away. The problem is that this requires assuming she didn't notice she had the wrong person. If Ned had a twin brother it wasn't even hinted at, so this is quite the stretch. An alternative: observe that Ned is always referred to as Ned and the victim as Edward Watson. What if those aren't the same person? IIRC Kenneth/Eleanor discovered him (with Eleanor remarking something about not being the first to see it) and they're pretty suspect. I haven't fully ran through the relevant parts with this theory, but with the suicide thing shot down I don't see a ton of other options. Maybe the Major is in on it, and that's how he knew about the exhibition in Venice? He'd have known it safe to grab the tags then. And if "Ned" is in on the fraud he may have been nervous not because of feeling in danger but because he knew the thing was going down that day. The narrator mentions that after chapter 12 the investigation is just there to confirm hypothesises, and mentions Kenneth being in charge of the collection as relevant. I can't really piece those together, though. I'm sure the taxes thing is relevant. Death and taxes. Hiowf fucked around with this message at 10:04 on Oct 25, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Oct 25, 2014 08:17
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:According to Marylou: "I kind of remember thinking, 'he doesn't look too comfortable lying that way, I don't know how he can breathe with his face in the pillow like that'. And then I saw the blood." Given that he was lying face down, it'd be hard to recognize the face. Still the problem remains: either she slept with someone pretending to be Ned and he needs a twin brother, or Ned was in on it from the beginning, but then who is the corpse and how did they get it there?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2014 08:31
|
|
|
Page 175, 222: Kenneth only one close to the body, "With a sheet over him, thank god" Page 202: Additional motive for Kenneth. Page 174: Police searched annexe but it's mentioned the murderer could have slipped away. (Didn't they say the opposite earlier/later? Or was that only for *getting in*.) Page 170: Of course Kenneth is worried :-) Page 159: They have coffee on the terrace overlooking the bridge when "Ned" agrees to sleep with her. Page 171: "wasn't too much light in the room" Page 158: Plaster to cover up a difference? Maybe this is what was referred to as "curious passage of people over the bridge": Page 154: "Ned" is on the terrace alone. Page 156: Kenneth and "Ned" are crossing the bridge away from the annexe. Too bad Marylou took her on a shopping expedition so that's not as solid as it should be. Kenneth has good motives (several ways he could make money illegitimately that Ned might have found out about - selling art work under price, cheating taxes) and given the impossibilities we've found no better explanation than that he intentionally misidentified the victim. Something that nags me a bit is that the "Ned" Julia first flirts with does seem to be well versed in tax law which does seem to suggest that was Edward Watson of inland revenue. We're more certain of who was the killer rather than who was the victim?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2014 10:48
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:My only problem with the final explanation, admittedly my own fault rather than Caudwell's, was that I have no recollection of who the hell Richard Triverton is. It's covered in several places in the book, though I do agree you need an almost - and I'm going to be mean - Agatha Christiesque leap to make that connection. At least the murderer was solvable through basic logic reasoning. Good job on eliminating the impossibilities. quote:So! What's next, thread? I haven't read any of the books in the todo list so I could lead either one you decide on.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
Rand Brittain posted:Well, once you figure out the murderer it's not such a huge leap to guess Well, yes, you can guess, but no more. That's my complaint about the Christie novels and the leaps they make. There's generally no firm evidence for them so you're always guessing and not solving :-) The book never answers how the Major found out about the estate.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Dykes is Archie. The manuscript contains something that can't be seen, or someone wants to take credit for it and needs to eliminate people who might know he's not the real author. Joan was not killed by Archie obviously due to timing but also due to the question being asked before the meeting if she'd shown it to anyone else.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2014 22:28
|
|
|
Looks like we'll have to wait until chapter 9 or 10 to see some dirty laundry get spilled. I didn't find anything helpful here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
I caught up but now I'm confused. Didn't the last chapter solve the mystery? I see there's still 40ish more pages so I guess not. Was the letter a fake? Was it not suicide?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
ProfessorProf posted:If nobody else has any ideas, I'll offer to run Murder on the Orient Express for our next round. I think that one has been spoilered for me in various meta-articles about the genre. There isn't a single murderer but all suspects cooperated together.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2014 01:56
|
|
|
I caught up. The book narrows it down to 1 or 2 suspects but I'm sure that will evolve soon.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2014 20:44
|
|
|
I caught up but I don't even really have an idea what's going on. (No spoiler tags needed for that huh)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
I caught up. We're now more certain a murder was committed, but the details are vague. The lady was there in the radio hut, which means she could either be an accomplice that was gotten rid of, or a witness. Was the murder a distraction or a conscious act that happened at the right, lucky time? What happened to the elephant? It's still hard to make much sense of this. I have a feeling we'll have to go back a lot as soon as it's clearer what we're actually looking for.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2014 12:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:55 |
|
|
Yes. You could do me a favor by pointing out the last chapter before the solution of The Blind Barber, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2015 19:41
|
|