Watch the Footage archive

Hmmmm

Aha!

I just had this vision of the aristocrat and Valerie kissing in the aristocrats room, then, Valerie stabbing him very quickly, cleaning the knife via her red gown, and going back in.

It's improbable, but it could help.... remember, I'm 13 and I like Poirot, so I'm trying to help him.

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.

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.

Just thinking aloud: if we consider the brown gloves an important detail (that is, no guests could have gloves in their pocket, or something), women's gloves probably wouldn't fit men's arms. That should leave women as the murderers.

Now listing the remaining women:

• The wife, as was pointed out, may be involved, but isn't the murderer (alibi). Besides calling the butlers off, she may have aided the murderer in some other way.
• The asocial pair's wife is ruled out by alibi.
• The grandma is ruled out on the same grounds as Joseph (that smoking guy): she was outside, and would have to climb to the second floor. Unless some Badass Grandma is invoked, I'd say it's unlikely.
• Jacqueline (assistant) - doesn't have her alibi listed (maybe we should ask Poirot). Has a clear motive. Way too obvious to be the murderer.
• Valerie (victim's old flame) - hates the guy's guts, her alibi is not mentioned, either. She was popular at the party, but she may have left it at some point. Mind you, she is listed in that category without an alibi.

And so we are left with 3 out of 5 women. Better than nothing.
And now that I've spent all this time ranting, it didn't occur to me that one doesn't have to wear gloves in order not to leave any fingerprints.

Oh, and one more: for some reason, Poirot didn't tell us what pose the body was found in. Was it lying on the floor, sitting behind the desk (is that word even applicable to the dead?), or what? It's an important detail.

Aaand one more thing: It would be nice to consider all the possible combinations of the guests that were not always present, and the wife. The other guests simply couldn't contribute to the murder in any way, except for orchestrating it. There are 6 guests without a definite alibi, + wife. That makes 128 combinations. Maybe we should limit the conspiracy to 2-3 people, for brevity?

That would still leave us with 63 combinations.

I think the best option would be to look at each person individually, see what motive/means/opportunity they had, see what everyone's missing, and see what the smallest combination of people that has motive/means/opportunity is. Just as a suggestion on how to start.

I'm not the biggest mystery reader, so I checked Poirot's Tropes page. It seems that Poirot- much like Holmes- is notorious for not giving out all of the evidence that he notices. This would make it difficult for us to solve the mystery.

We can't discount men, either. I have big hands, and it would be difficult for me to put on women's gloves. I COULD do it, but it would hamper my ability to use a knife- potentially creating the shallow stab wounds.

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.

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.

I think once we get a reply on the discrepancy with the guest numbers, we'll have a better idea. If the last guest is the "benefactor", I'm guessing another set up.

Greetings everyone, I HAVE RETURNED! Actually, that test was surprisingly easy content wise. Time wise it was a pain in the ass though. I was there for roughly 4 hours 45 minutes and I spent almost an hour and a half of that staring at a wall because I had completed the section early.

Ah well. Grats on the work you guys have done while I was gone. If you give me just a second, I will add the highlights to the OP.

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...

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...

This makes me think the wife was responsible even more. More of a conspiracy than she committed the crime.

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.

Again, even on red clothing, blood shows. It almost certainly would've been noticeable.

Okay, now sure how important this is, but I just noticed from his comments today: He now know when he's from. He says he had just solved the murder of Jacqueline de Bellfort in Egypt, which means this is right after Death on the Nile for him.

http://belgianamongtheenglish.wordpress.com/2012/10/06/the-business-development/ New Post, the plot thickens.

OK, now I KNOW something is fishy. I'm only halfway through my soda for the day, so let me ruminate on things for a while...

I asked Poirot if Pierre whether or not the first time Pascal and Pierre had spoken was the strange request. Figure if all communication prior to then had been writing, someone else set up the account.

I'm guessing it's an illegitimate child. Les Okogwu? Our victim found out and stopped the transactions meaning Les turned to crime. The wife (whos child it was) found out and took revenge because he was going to announce her treachery at the dinner.


Just a thought.

Les was going to school in London, though.

And? If she didn't want her husband to find out, the best place to send him is another country.

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.

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.

Good lord I'm not getting enough sleep these days. Okay you got me there. The rest of my theory stands.

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.

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.

We don't know Pierre did anything wrong yet.

Flitterbie wrote:We don't know Pierre did anything wrong yet.

Two words: Genre Savvy.

Basically, he got himself caught up in SOMETHING, intentionally or not. It's almost a guarantee.

Refined theory:

The portfilio Pierre was working on was for one of the guests. I think that much is obvious. I don't think it was the wife as surely he would have many easier methods of sending her money. I think it was Valerie. He was having an affair with her and wanted to support her. However she had a child and didn't tell him. Now one of two things may have happened. Either he found out and told her he was discontinuing the payments, she flew into a rage an killed him, or he was arguing with her and the wife discovered them, and she took revenge on her husband. At any rate the investment bankers decond name is Casanova which leads me to believe there's an affair in there somewhere.