Discrepancies Among the Posts

"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]

Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:15 pm

On my hunt for details in our current detective situation, I began reading some of the older posts, and a few oddities have come to my attention.

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.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:20 pm

You missed this:

"Arthur therefore requests that I try to find the location of this young man Monsieur Okogwu."

This would indicate Moore is the client as no other investigation is given by someone else.

The "men" is interesting. I reckon it's the assistant Professor he mentions. Again, I'm unfamiliar with Holmes, but does Moriarty have an assistant like Holmes has Watson?
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:30 pm

NeverSlender wrote:You missed this:

"Arthur therefore requests that I try to find the location of this young man Monsieur Okogwu."

This would indicate Moore is the client as no other investigation is given by someone else.

The "men" is interesting. I reckon it's the assistant Professor he mentions. Again, I'm unfamiliar with Holmes, but does Moriarty have an assistant like Holmes has Watson?


Again, I give you the weirdness of my mother tongue. That quote weighs on the side of option one, and yes, I did consider it, however, it is not in any way conclusive due to the fact that obviously, if there is another man, the "client", Poirot is taking this case because he and Moore hit it off, and Moore asked it of him. That line could be saying that Moore directly hired him, or that More asked him to take someone's case on his behalf.

Again, I state that even I'm not sure whether to take this theory seriously. On the one hand, it seems like grasping at straws. On the other, I have fallen for this trick before in books, which is why I caught this.

As to the second half of your post, the Assistant Professor is Moore, which actually brings up some issues with the Moriarty theory: Unless he is just impersonating a Professor, (Which is entirely possible) how would he get a job at a college the bloody fast? That characters have only had about two weeks.

Also, he didn't have one Watson type assistant as much as he ran a freaking criminal empire.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:37 pm

The more I read that blog the less sense it makes. Why does Poirot trust Moore so easily and so completely?

Also this intrigues me:

" 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."

What if Moore gave Poirot the name Moriarty as the clients name? Who wouldn't run away if they were told he was looking for them? He probably thought Poirot was mad.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:40 pm

Similar thoughts occurred to me, though I'm not to sure anymore if A: it is Moriarty and B: if he is using his real name.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:43 pm

I'm certain it's Moriarty but I agree he's probably not using his real name.

"I… hadn’t thought that Okogwu was scared of Moore but was scared of me! After all, he was just addled by a man who called him an illicit dealer and to hear I was a detective surely could have scared him as well. And… I do recall that the receptionist was quite unusually dreary eyed when I entered and had completely fallen asleep by the time I left. And yes, there was some remodeling going on in the building. How have you come about these details?"

First line appears to confirm he gave Moores name and that would make him the client.

I'm still being bugged immensely by "men." Doesn't help I'm barely keeping awake.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:49 pm

NeverSlender wrote:I'm certain it's Moriarty but I agree he's probably not using his real name.

"I… hadn’t thought that Okogwu was scared of Moore but was scared of me! After all, he was just addled by a man who called him an illicit dealer and to hear I was a detective surely could have scared him as well. And… I do recall that the receptionist was quite unusually dreary eyed when I entered and had completely fallen asleep by the time I left. And yes, there was some remodeling going on in the building. How have you come about these details?"

First line appears to confirm he gave Moores name and that would make him the client.

I'm still being bugged immensely by "men." Doesn't help I'm barely keeping awake.


Ah. I missed that comment. Good catch. Seems like this was a dud theory like I suspected. That's fine though. We can keep using this thread if anyone finds more. And yea, it is still bugging me a tad.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:52 pm

Could be a typo or a language thing. He is belgian after all. Although he gets everything else right.
(Meta) And who ever writes him probably isn't belgian.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby IslaKariese on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:54 pm

NeverSlender wrote:I'm unfamiliar with Holmes, but does Moriarty have an assistant like Holmes has Watson?


Well, he's not an assistant professor, but the partner in crime that serves as Moriarty's Watson would be Sebastian Moran, who is described by Holmes himself to be the second most dangerous man in London - the first, of course, being James Moriarty.
The voices in my head tell me that we saved the world. However, they also told me that George Clooney's face is on the dollar bill, so... meh. The voices are more fun, anyway.
User avatar
IslaKariese
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 10:53 am
Location: Maryland/Virginia

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 7:57 pm

The more I think the less I think his assistant would be here. Too many characters from one canon.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:01 pm

IslaKariese wrote:
NeverSlender wrote:I'm unfamiliar with Holmes, but does Moriarty have an assistant like Holmes has Watson?


Well, he's not an assistant professor, but the partner in crime that serves as Moriarty's Watson would be Sebastian Moran, who is described by Holmes himself to be the second most dangerous man in London - the first, of course, being James Moriarty.


Indeed, but he is dangerous more for his Improbable Aiming Skills that his absolute chessmastery, so I don't think he is involved. Yet. When someone gets sniped, let me know.

NeverSlender wrote:The more I think the less I think his assistant would be here. Too many characters from one canon.


This.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Victin on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:24 pm

NeverSlender wrote:The more I think the less I think his assistant would be here. Too many characters from one canon.

Maybe we are overthinking and grasping at straws. Maybe what we think that is one character isn't. Do we debate over that?
"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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Endless Sea on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:36 pm

Assuming you mean you're wondering how we're sure Moore is Moriarty, well, evidently we have a few Sherlock Holmes fans among our number, and they're familiar enough with the original Doyle stories to be reasonably certain who we're dealing with. You might want to check the Hugh Hefner section; they've got quite a bit of proof compiled over there.
So, apparently I'm the sanest madman this side of the international date line. Seems legit.

RP news: Power Play and Sunset Drift are open for business! Bound by Faith may need a while to finish, though.
User avatar
Endless Sea
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 2:36 pm

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:42 pm

Endless Sea wrote:Assuming you mean you're wondering how we're sure Moore is Moriarty, well, evidently we have a few Sherlock Holmes fans among our number, and they're familiar enough with the original Doyle stories to be reasonably certain who we're dealing with. You might want to check the Hugh Hefner section; they've got quite a bit of proof compiled over there.


I'm one of the people who knows Holmes lore, but even I'm not too sure about Moriarty. I am sure that Hefner is Holmes; there is just too much of a correlation to be coincidence in my opinion, but hey, I'm fallible too. Moriarty on the other hand... well we just have circumstantial evidence for him so far, and he is from the same work as Holmes, making him, if it is him the second character from that verse, something that has yet to happen.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:45 pm

Who needs sleep anyway?

The reason I think it's Moriarty is because he's a keen mathematician. Moore is a maths professor.
And there's his obvious agenda against Holmes.

(I'm so tired, that took so many rewrites to get correct.)
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:49 pm

NeverSlender wrote:Who needs sleep anyway?

The reason I think it's Moriarty is because he's a keen mathematician. Moore is a maths professor.
And there's his obvious agenda against Holmes.

(I'm so tired, that took so many rewrites to get correct.)


I know, but like I said, that is only circumstantial evidence. For now, I'm operating under the assumption that it is Moriarty, because that would be cool. However, I am not going to be surprised if someone reveals that something else entirely is going on, and I have been doing what I can to think of measures to compensate for that eventuality.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:53 pm

Law Of Conservation Of Detail. It said he's a maths professor therefore it's important.

(Seriously, for someone who prides himself on his grammar this is so painful.)
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:57 pm

NeverSlender wrote:Law Of Conservation Of Detail. It said he's a maths professor therefore it's important.

(Seriously, for someone who prides himself on his grammar this is so painful.)


But it already is important, in a minor sort of way. The whole professor thing can be explained as setting the background for the Les case. After all it is the reason he (ostensibly) cares what happens to Les, and therefore gets Poirot on the job.

Also, how the hell did Moriarty get a job as a Prof in two weeks? I knew he was good, but if it really is him... Damn.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 8:59 pm

He only said he was a professor. Anyone could get into the lecture, proved by the fact Poirot was there. Maybe he overheard about Les. Or maybe I'm reaching insomnia induced psychosis.

EDIT: Just saying he was a professor would have been enough for backstory. Mathematics is a further detail.
Last edited by NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby JackAlsworth on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:00 pm

Sicon112 wrote:]Also, how the hell did Moriarty get a job as a Prof in two weeks? I knew he was good, but if it really is him... Damn.


The other option is, there've been cracks for longer than that, and people didn't start noticing them until recently.
User avatar
JackAlsworth
 
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:40 pm
Location: Western Washington State

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:01 pm

NeverSlender wrote:He only said he was a professor. Anyone could get into the lecture, proved by the fact Poirot was there. Maybe he overheard about Les. Or maybe I'm reaching insomnia induced psychosis.


His involvement with Les is more than that, but if you look at my second post, I already presented the option that he merely lied to Poirot.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:08 pm

I think someone already mentioned this but what the hell. Moriarty probably commented on Hefs blog telling him to go to Les for drugs. He then put Poirot on the case to investigate, and took Les out when Poirot bacame aware of Holmes.

By the way Jack Mason (the butler, if i've remembered his name right) probably merits some discussion.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:09 pm

NeverSlender wrote:I think someone already mentioned this but what the hell. Moriarty probably commented on Hefs blog telling him to go to Les for drugs. He then put Poirot on the case to investigate, and took Les out when Poirot bacame aware of Holmes.

By the way Jack Mason (the butler, if i've remembered his name right) probably merits some discussion.


He probably merits a quiet, mysterious death in prison before anyone can get any more info out of him. That is, if we are dealing with Moriarty here.
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: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby NeverSlender on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:12 pm

Poirot never said why he went to visit him. Bit of an odd thing to visit a prison on a whim. And rather coincidental that he happened to know Les.
Marching on together.
User avatar
NeverSlender
 
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2012 5:30 am
Location: Yorkshire, England

Re: Discrepancies Among the Posts

Postby Sicon112 on Mon Oct 01, 2012 9:18 pm

NeverSlender wrote:Poirot never said why he went to visit him. Bit of an odd thing to visit a prison on a whim. And rather coincidental that he happened to know Les.


Well, Poirot was aware that Mason was in the drug trade, and Moore was stated to have discovered that Les was as well, and shortly after, told Poirot when he hired him. Since they are in the same area of the same city, it was actually a pretty reasonable assumption, especially because it wasn't really going to lose him anything even if it did not pan out.
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

Next

Return to [REFIC'D] Hercule Poirot

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron