Prof. Arthur Moore

"It is the brain, the little gray cells on which one must rely. One must seek the truth within--not without."

[Refictionalized 20 Dec 2012]

Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:51 am

This paragraph from Reynald's blog is strange:

"He told me that he had taken particular interest in one of his young students named Leslie Okogwu who he described as brilliant but very troubled. You see, this young man ‘Les’, as he was known, was struggling in his finances and especially in his schooling, despite the offers of help provided by the client who I shall not name. A few days ago it was revealed to the assistant professor that the Monsieur Okogwu resorted to illegal activities in order to pay his tuition, and when rebuked he stormed away. Since then he has not been seen or heard of, and has gone missing. Arthur therefore requests that I try to find the location of this young man Monsieur Okogwu."

He says he won't name the client, but he says his name at the end, and in the previous paragraph.

Also, Sicon 112 raised a concern about the client on the TV Tropes thread and I agree. Les Okogwu was terrified of him.

Thoughts?
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 11:52 am

Reading that passage again, my thoughts are as follows: Oh hell yes Moore is involved in something nasty. A tad bit more info and I could probably give you guys a guarantee that the plot will follow one of about five possibilities. This one is a classic. I have no doubt that they have a twist in here somewhere though, which is why I need that info.

EDIT: Hah! I just passed Dryu again in total post count! I take back my first place status that means absolutely nothing! 8-)
Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."
User avatar
Sicon112
Meta-Witch Hunter
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Dryunya on Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:55 pm

Sicon112 wrote:EDIT: Hah! I just passed Dryu again in total post count! I take back my first place status that means absolutely nothing! 8-)

Well, dammit. Not only you've confirmed my suspicions about me being the biggest loudmouth in the forums, but you've also taken that title away from me. :cry: :)
UPD: Oh wait. I still have more posts. :gurt:
I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.
User avatar
Dryunya
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 2:57 pm

Curses, foiled again!
Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."
User avatar
Sicon112
Meta-Witch Hunter
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Dryunya on Mon Oct 01, 2012 3:55 pm

Ok. I'll try to piece the whole case together. It may not even be for you, it's just easier for me to think this way.
1. "By chance", a flier about Pieter Verhaeren's lecture gets delivered to Widdecombe's residence, to Poirot. That's 2 days later about his flaming political post.
2. At the lecture, he met Arthur Moore, who put him onto a case of Les Okogwu. Poirot also had an argument with Verhaeren.
3. Meanwhile, "jmartysknight2e4" pointed Hefner to Les Okogwu for "stuff he needs". On 27th (the day Poirot met Moore), he posted about this having lead him to a "vile opium den". Presumably, that's when he got mad at Les.
4. 29th - Verhaeren himself (or is he?) calls Widdecombe's residence and asks to meet Poirot personally. That day, Verhaeren gets murdered in the same hotel where Poirot was going to meet him.
5. 30th Hefner is assigned to Verhaeren's case (the client is only known as "a man of the Netherlands"). He examines the crime scene and suspects Poirot. He also notes that he was "so insulted by that West African man" - IIRC, Les was described as having African origin.
6. Oct. 1: Poirot sees Hefner threatening to kill Les. Afterwards, he tries to bring Les back, but he runs away, having heard his client's name (Moore). He is later found dead. Moore points to Hefner as to a possible murderer, and says that he is dangerous.

In other words, Poirot's case seems to be more of a Contrived Coincidence. The flier was delivered by Moore, he met him at the lecture, gave him both the case and the motive, and later pointed at Hefner.
Hefner's case is not so clear. A commenter pointed him to Les, but Poirot encountering both Les and Hefner at the same time does look like a coincidence. Yet, it was that encounter that made Hefner a suspect in Les's case. That's not clicking. :?
I have attempted to suppress my inner hyperspace future gardener crying out against all the injustice I am committing.
User avatar
Dryunya
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:23 am

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 4:00 pm

Not sure if it means anything, but the location of Holmes and Moriarty's final battle with killed them both (Not) was Sweden. The Netherlands. Also, Poirot is OBVIOUSLY being manipulated by Moore, as you just covered, though that one chance meeting seems just a tad too good to be true. Let me consider how I would plan that if I were Moriarty...
Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."
User avatar
Sicon112
Meta-Witch Hunter
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby JackAlsworth on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:09 pm

...I thought Sweden was in Scandanavia, and the Netherlands were right next to Germany.

I think the "Moore is playing them both" theory is the best one we have at this point, although it's hard to imagine why he's doing it. If I'm correct (not a Holmes buff like Sicon, just passing knowledge), Moriarty is the kind of adversary who has multiple motives for all his schemes, so we must ask why he needs both detectives out of the way.
User avatar
JackAlsworth
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:40 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:18 pm

*facepalm* That's what I get for writing while holding a three way conversation, reading a dissertation on the constitution for a school report, and drinking 42oz. of CocaCola.
Normal people are the easiest to manipulate. Too smart and they have an annoying tendency to catch wind of your plans, too dumb and, in the words of a certain pirate, "You can never tell when they are about to do something incredibly...stupid."
User avatar
Sicon112
Meta-Witch Hunter
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 10:07 pm

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby narrativedilettante on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:47 pm

Obviously Moriarty would be worried about Holmes discovering him. Using Holmes and Poirot against one another, though, seems like it probably won't work in the long run. I'd expect them to eventually figure one another out, and realize that they were being manipulated by the same person, and turn against him. Therefore, I have to assume that Moriarty has another step in his plan, that he'll implement before this can happen. (Holmes going on the run is probably a part of it.)

I'm also wondering about the letter that led us to Holmes' blog. If Moriarty sent it (and it seems likely), then why? Merely hinting that the blogger is dangerous wouldn't be enough to convince us, and he must realize that most of us would want to help the author of the blog. So why point him out to us? It seems like a bad move, since what he's done is given us the ability to help Holmes, and also given us tools to help Poirot.

Again, I'm assuming Moriarty has something else up his sleeve. If any of these characters are going to be Dangerously Genre Savvy, it's him. (And possibly Mr. A, but I'm not thinking about him right at the moment.)
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after.
User avatar
narrativedilettante
Meta-Robin
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:07 am

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 5:50 pm

narrativedilettante wrote:Obviously Moriarty would be worried about Holmes discovering him. Using Holmes and Poirot against one another, though, seems like it probably won't work in the long run. I'd expect them to eventually figure one another out, and realize that they were being manipulated by the same person, and turn against him. Therefore, I have to assume that Moriarty has another step in his plan, that he'll implement before this can happen. (Holmes going on the run is probably a part of it.)

I'm also wondering about the letter that led us to Holmes' blog. If Moriarty sent it (and it seems likely), then why? Merely hinting that the blogger is dangerous wouldn't be enough to convince us, and he must realize that most of us would want to help the author of the blog. So why point him out to us? It seems like a bad move, since what he's done is given us the ability to help Holmes, and also given us tools to help Poirot.

Again, I'm assuming Moriarty has something else up his sleeve. If any of these characters are going to be Dangerously Genre Savvy, it's him. (And possibly Mr. A, but I'm not thinking about him right at the moment.)


The reason I think Moriarty sent it is because who else would think Holmes is dangerous? Poirot might but he didn't send it because he's now asking what's in the letter.

Miss Widdecombe? Tech savvy enough to discover a blog and Poirot may have talked about Hefner to her. Although I don't know how she'd know about Joe. She could have found his youtube. I'm thinking out loud again...
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby Victin on Mon Oct 01, 2012 6:09 pm

narrativedilettante wrote:Obviously Moriarty would be worried about Holmes discovering him. Using Holmes and Poirot against one another, though, seems like it probably won't work in the long run. I'd expect them to eventually figure one another out, and realize that they were being manipulated by the same person, and turn against him. Therefore, I have to assume that Moriarty has another step in his plan, that he'll implement before this can happen. (Holmes going on the run is probably a part of it.)

I'm also wondering about the letter that led us to Holmes' blog. If Moriarty sent it (and it seems likely), then why? Merely hinting that the blogger is dangerous wouldn't be enough to convince us, and he must realize that most of us would want to help the author of the blog. So why point him out to us? It seems like a bad move, since what he's done is given us the ability to help Holmes, and also given us tools to help Poirot.

Again, I'm assuming Moriarty has something else up his sleeve. If any of these characters are going to be Dangerously Genre Savvy, it's him. (And possibly Mr. A, but I'm not thinking about him right at the moment.)

Meet this
Victin wrote:
Sicon112 wrote:
Victin wrote:WAIT
Didn't Moore sent us the letter (presumably)? That means that if we try to warn Poirot and Hefner about each other, he will get what he wants. And he is EVIL :twisted:
DAMN YOU XANATOS GAMBIT


Fix'd. If it was a Thanatos Gambit, Moriarty would have to be dead. Unfortunately, he isn't. Also, I'm not too sure about him sending the letter. Just like with the artist before I realized he messed with the clock, I've got this nagging feeling in the back of my head...

My mistake. It's a Xanatos Gambit (already fixed). But, in the timeline, the most probable sender of the letter was Moore, and IF it was him, and he is GUILTY of this conspiracy, we are screwed. I suggest we start to counter-plan it. Just in case. (I'm sure there is a trope for that, but I can't remember the name) (found it, Gambit Pileup, or even Xanatos Speed Chess, I don't know now)
"Well an idiot pokes the thing with his fingers. A scientist gets someone else's fingers."
User avatar
Victin
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 12:17 pm
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Re: Prof. Arthur Moore

Postby narrativedilettante on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:41 pm

It seems we've played right into his hand, dammit.
Never put off until tomorrow what you can put off until the day after.
User avatar
narrativedilettante
Meta-Robin
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 11:07 am


Return to [REFIC'D] Hercule Poirot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest