The first thing that has shown up is within this paragraph, emphasis added to point out points of interest.
I do not believe it is necessarily good policy, but I wish to inform you all about a most interesting case that was brought to my doorstep by a concerned Englishman called Arthur Moore. Strangely enough I met the men at the lecture today at King’s College London. He is an Assistant Professor of Mathematics and a most brilliant mind, and he had come to hear this awful man Pieter Verhaeren speak. We sat next to each other and had a wonderful little chat – but when he heard my name he announced to me that he was on the lookout for just the sort of man that provided my services.
First, he does not specify right away that it was Moore who gave him the case. True it is probably a case of the way he talks leaving some vagueness, but it becomes more suspicious when two more oddities enter the equation. The second oddity is his use of the plural 'men' instead of the singular 'man'. Does this mean that there was one or more other men with Moore? But then why does he return to talking about only Moore in the next sentence? Typo? But then, what, pray tell, is this?
(Les) was struggling in his finances and especially in his schooling, despite the offers of help provided by the client who I shall not name.
Why does he say that he will not name the client if he already introduced Arthur Moore? The two most likely options are these:
1: In an early draft of his post, Poirot did not intend to release info about Arthur Moore, but changed his mind for some reason (Meta: Perhaps because it gave us too little info?) and edited the draft. The first point is just linguistic vagueness, the second a typo, and the third an accidental holdover from another draft. (Though perhaps he could have been intending to have multiple people in the first draft as well, making the 'men' usage another accident. I can't be sure.) I have found other typos in Poirot's writing in less crucial spots, so the typo theory does have some precedent behind it.
2: Either all or some combination of these things was intentional. Perhaps there really were multiple men, and the actual client was someone else. Further evidence for this has manifested as I read further into the more recent articles, in which Poirot never actually connects any references to his client with references to Moore.
Example:
Leslie Okogwu has been found dead! Quel dommage! And just when it seemed that I was on the verge of finding him and discovering what he was doing. I finally managed to locate his hub where he held his ‘business’. When I caught up with him he was having an argument with a tallish snappily dressed man, with whom he was apparently having apparent disagreement. I couldn’t make out the whole disagreement, but I heard this mysterious man threaten to kill Monsieur Okogwu and told him to “go back to the bush where he came from” before storming off. After the man stormed off I approached Monsieur Okogwu seeking to ask him home, so I introduced myself and I told him the name of my client, but he ran off as if he had heard the devil’s name.
But that morning I got a call from my client on the phone with the terrible news. His head sustained a blow by some blunt force object and was cracked, and his body was found in a waste receptacle on Middle Temple Lane. But there is more; for Professor Moore seemed to know of this tall man and indicated that this Monsieur Hefner (for that is his name) was very dangerous and possibly violent! I suspect that had something to do with the man’s death, especially since he carried around an instrument of blunt force in the form of a decorative cane. Yet we must assume innocence without all the facts; more evidence must be collected!
Reynald
While the reference to Professor Moore comes immediately after the mention of his client calling him, the English language is such that this could mean everything or nothing.
I'm not to sure myself which, if either of these theories is right, but as nothing else is going on, and I had to do something for you guys after Vic gave me the best compliment ever (That I was good at Xanatos Gambits) I decided to post this analysis for your thoughts. While you peruse this, I'm going back for more analysis.
Have fun.
