![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOK, here's the version with minor nitpicks and comments that won't make sense if you've read the book.
My comment on probabilities was something like, we never found out exactly what Saitana planned for the end of the party. Even if he'd intended to announce "here are four murderers", he didn't really have any proof, so killing him might have drawn as much attention as just letting events unfold. If so, then the murderer had to be someone who was likely to panic. Which would point to maybe the doctor (although he more often tended to act over-boldly than panicy) or the young woman (although she didn't normally act directly).
On the other hand, if he'd said he had proof, it might have sounded sufficiently convincing that killing him seemed like a reasonable gamble. In which case, I think either the old woman or the major might well have acted. I agree the old woman was much more likely to act on a premeditated plan, but she was obviously good at calculating odds, and she might have had time to work herself up to it during the game, or have pre-planned under what circumstances she might have been found out and what she'd do if it ever happened. And I agree the major was unlikely to kill someone gratuitously, but if his previous murder had been damning but he was innocent, or if he thought the details coming out would be damaging to the country or to someone innocent, I could well see him acting in that case.
So I agree with the psychology, but I wasn't sure about Poirot's assumption that Saitana had let something slip, but somewhere between those extremes, I kept re-evaluating it. Whereas if I'd taken it on faith, the rest would have fallen into place more naturally.
I did agree with the description of the people's psychologies: the young woman did keep acting in semi-deniable ways, and the doctor kept taking bold gambles, and the major workmanlike only necessary risks, etc.
But I thought there was too much chance for something to be missed: for instance, even if the major hadn't fallen in love with the woman whose husband he was accused of killing, he was very quick to jump to the young woman's defence -- if she'd had a moment alone with him and cried "oh, woe, I'm am so innocent, but Saitana will denounce me", I can imagine him plugging the host post haste...
The alternative history
The book ruled out "he committed suicide in an elaborate way", which was one of the first "gotchas" I thought of. And I assumed it wasn't Poirot :)
But there's another classic subversion of the detective story that occurred to me, in this case, something like:
Saitana: (low voiced) Ah, my friends, little do you know, you are not the only one. All four of you have got away with murder. Dangled under the noses of the detectives in the other room to taunt them.
Doctor: All four of us? Pah!
Old Woman: No, it is so. See, M. Poirot entering the room behind him.
Saitana: What? Where?
Old Woman: Quick, Major! The knife!
Major: *stab* *stab* *stab* *stab*
Young woman: *sob*
Old Woman: We were playing bridge all evening. No-one saw who killed him. Right?
All: Right.
Doctor: Your deal?
My comment on probabilities was something like, we never found out exactly what Saitana planned for the end of the party. Even if he'd intended to announce "here are four murderers", he didn't really have any proof, so killing him might have drawn as much attention as just letting events unfold. If so, then the murderer had to be someone who was likely to panic. Which would point to maybe the doctor (although he more often tended to act over-boldly than panicy) or the young woman (although she didn't normally act directly).
On the other hand, if he'd said he had proof, it might have sounded sufficiently convincing that killing him seemed like a reasonable gamble. In which case, I think either the old woman or the major might well have acted. I agree the old woman was much more likely to act on a premeditated plan, but she was obviously good at calculating odds, and she might have had time to work herself up to it during the game, or have pre-planned under what circumstances she might have been found out and what she'd do if it ever happened. And I agree the major was unlikely to kill someone gratuitously, but if his previous murder had been damning but he was innocent, or if he thought the details coming out would be damaging to the country or to someone innocent, I could well see him acting in that case.
So I agree with the psychology, but I wasn't sure about Poirot's assumption that Saitana had let something slip, but somewhere between those extremes, I kept re-evaluating it. Whereas if I'd taken it on faith, the rest would have fallen into place more naturally.
I did agree with the description of the people's psychologies: the young woman did keep acting in semi-deniable ways, and the doctor kept taking bold gambles, and the major workmanlike only necessary risks, etc.
But I thought there was too much chance for something to be missed: for instance, even if the major hadn't fallen in love with the woman whose husband he was accused of killing, he was very quick to jump to the young woman's defence -- if she'd had a moment alone with him and cried "oh, woe, I'm am so innocent, but Saitana will denounce me", I can imagine him plugging the host post haste...
The alternative history
The book ruled out "he committed suicide in an elaborate way", which was one of the first "gotchas" I thought of. And I assumed it wasn't Poirot :)
But there's another classic subversion of the detective story that occurred to me, in this case, something like:
Saitana: (low voiced) Ah, my friends, little do you know, you are not the only one. All four of you have got away with murder. Dangled under the noses of the detectives in the other room to taunt them.
Doctor: All four of us? Pah!
Old Woman: No, it is so. See, M. Poirot entering the room behind him.
Saitana: What? Where?
Old Woman: Quick, Major! The knife!
Major: *stab* *stab* *stab* *stab*
Young woman: *sob*
Old Woman: We were playing bridge all evening. No-one saw who killed him. Right?
All: Right.
Doctor: Your deal?