First, Comte Pierre de Cavaignac’s desk in his office where he was murdered unusually clean for his reputation, with pens on the table aligned as if for some ceremony that a piece is missing of.
Dryunya wrote:Ok, I've read through it all. I'm sad to admit that I didn't have a single thought until I read the thread as well. Being stupid is frustrating.I'll try to write all the pieces in some neat format, it's usually easier for me to think on paper.
In the meantime, could anybody explain this sentence for me? I'm not even sure it's grammatically correct, and the meaning eludes me. And, well, that part is important.First, Comte Pierre de Cavaignac’s desk in his office where he was murdered unusually clean for his reputation, with pens on the table aligned as if for some ceremony that a piece is missing of.
YankeeWhite wrote:My thoughts on the shallow stab wounds: control. That sort of wound doesn't happen by chance alone, someone has to deliberately control the amount of force used, six times to be exact. Calm nerves and a steady hand IMO.
And I posted on Hercules blog about Jacqueline, her white dress and the possibility of blood transfer, which puts her low on my suspect list. Conversely Valérie du Bois' red dress places her high on my list because blood transfer could easily be missed. (Yeah I went all CSI with that one)
Also good job everyone with combing through this latest development. I don't think one single person could have come up with so much on their own. Lets all keep it up!
Flitterbie wrote:Dryunya wrote:Ok, I've read through it all. I'm sad to admit that I didn't have a single thought until I read the thread as well. Being stupid is frustrating.I'll try to write all the pieces in some neat format, it's usually easier for me to think on paper.
In the meantime, could anybody explain this sentence for me? I'm not even sure it's grammatically correct, and the meaning eludes me. And, well, that part is important.First, Comte Pierre de Cavaignac’s desk in his office where he was murdered unusually clean for his reputation, with pens on the table aligned as if for some ceremony that a piece is missing of.
It is grammatically incorrect, but he's saying that the desk was unusually clean.YankeeWhite wrote:My thoughts on the shallow stab wounds: control. That sort of wound doesn't happen by chance alone, someone has to deliberately control the amount of force used, six times to be exact. Calm nerves and a steady hand IMO.
And I posted on Hercules blog about Jacqueline, her white dress and the possibility of blood transfer, which puts her low on my suspect list. Conversely Valérie du Bois' red dress places her high on my list because blood transfer could easily be missed. (Yeah I went all CSI with that one)
Also good job everyone with combing through this latest development. I don't think one single person could have come up with so much on their own. Lets all keep it up!
Except the bleeding was mostly internal, remember? Plus, trust me on this one: Even on a red dress, blood stains would be noticeable.
Sicon112 wrote:POIROT HAS RESPONDED. Our theory that the unaccounted for guest was the benefactor has been efficiently and completely Jossed, as there WAS no unaccounted for guest. Just an issue with the phrasing. Well, that narrows our options just about as effectively ans Beatrice using the red truth to state the exact number of people on Rokkenjima...
YankeeWhite wrote:Yeah, that's why I underlined possibility, no matter how remote, it is there. Much, but not all, was internal bleeding, leaving blood transfer still viable regardless of how little blood, even if it was a single drop. I believe Poirot would have noticed it on the white dress, but clearly not the red one. I watch way to much CSI to believe in a perfectly clean crime. We'll just have to wait for the next update I guess.
NeverSlender wrote:And? If she didn't want her husband to find out, the best place to send him is another country.
Flitterbie wrote:NeverSlender wrote:And? If she didn't want her husband to find out, the best place to send him is another country.
The school to which the money was being sent is in Paris.
Sicon112 wrote:We are looking at this wrong. It's not a question of who is guilty anymore, it's "of what?". Basically, almost everyone is doing something illegal, including the victim, and we have multiple people who were plotting a murder, some with each other, some separate. At least, that's what the caffeine is telling me. I've seen this happen very often as well. It really screws with your head when you are only looking for one person, and I'm seeing a lot of similarities between this and other cases I recall.
Flitterbie wrote:We don't know Pierre did anything wrong yet.
Return to [REFIC'D] Hercule Poirot
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest