Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59,60 (click to see context) from:
*** Thereis actually no reason for the police to mention how detailed the diaries were unless those details actually led them somewhere. It's that world-famous Dame Agatha's little detail that doesn't get mentioned not because it isn't there or isn't remembered but because nobody can see a deeper meaning behind.
to:
*** Thereis There is actually no reason for the police to mention how detailed the diaries were unless those details actually led them somewhere. It's that world-famous Dame Agatha's little detail that doesn't get mentioned not because it isn't there or isn't remembered but because nobody can see a deeper meaning behind. And given the above-quoted passage about Vera's mood at the time of the writing of the diary, one could argue that, on the contrary, she might have been trying to calm herself down by recalling everything that happened asmeticuolusly as possible, as if looking at the whole thing from a distance, as if she were an uninvolved observer.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 59 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Thereis actually no reason for the police to mention how detailed the diaries were unless those details actually led them somewhere. It's that world-famous Dame Agatha's little detail that doesn't get mentioned not because it isn't there or isn't remembered but because nobody can see a deeper meaning behind.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already ''knows'' he's innocent of this crime, and if he continues not killing people unnecessarily, he continues to be innocent and therefore legally untouchable. Whereas this plan would require him to actually ''commit'' at least four murders and thus risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the actual murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem and possesses no impulse control whatsoever.
to:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? Where's the safest and nearest place for him to dock the boat without risking being seen by anyone, and what if he runs out of fuel before he gets there? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already ''knows'' he's innocent of this crime, and if he continues not killing people unnecessarily, he continues to be innocent and therefore legally untouchable. Whereas this plan would require him to actually ''commit'' at least four murders and thus risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the actual murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem and possesses no impulse control whatsoever.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 233 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** He'd probably have to figure in the kick of the pistol as it fires, though. A loaded gun that's been fired is going to react differently than an empty gun that isn't.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 181 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Remember also the nature of the crimes these people committed; they were crimes that, on the surface, didn't really look like crimes or were easily overlooked. A possibly suspicious drowning, perhaps they'd take an interest in that, but why look into, say, the death of one soldier among millions on the Western Front? Or some old lady dying of a pre-existing illness? Or some natives being butchered in Africa? Most of their crimes wouldn't really register as crimes to begin with.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
On reflection, no need for the snideness.
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already ''knows'' he's innocent of this crime, and if he continues not killing people unnecessarily, he continues to be innocent and therefore legally untouchable. Whereas this brilliant plan would require him to actually ''commit'' at least four murders and thus risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the actual murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem and possesses no impulse control whatsoever.
to:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already ''knows'' he's innocent of this crime, and if he continues not killing people unnecessarily, he continues to be innocent and therefore legally untouchable. Whereas this brilliant plan would require him to actually ''commit'' at least four murders and thus risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the actual murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem and possesses no impulse control whatsoever.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
to:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows ''knows'' he's innocent, whereas innocent of this crime, and if he continues not killing people unnecessarily, he continues to be innocent and therefore legally untouchable. Whereas this brilliant plan would require him to actually be on the hook ''commit'' at least four murders and thus risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the actual murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.problem and possesses no impulse control whatsoever.
Changed line(s) 111 (click to see context) from:
** Calling it an 'accident' is a bit disingenuous. Armstrong made the choice to drink prior to operating -- even if it were an unexpected emergency, which the book implies isn't the case, he would still have deliberately indulged knowing he might be called in to the hospital at any time. And he then deliberately made the choice to operate while drunk, which, I'd suggest, a person still sober enough to be able to operate at all might also be capable of considering a bad idea. I think U.N. Owen's ranking here was motivated by degree of self-indulgence. Rogers gave in to obvious opportunity, Macarthur to blind rage and jealousy; not great excuses certainly, but Armstrong's excuse was even weaker.
to:
** Calling it an 'accident' is a bit disingenuous. Armstrong made the choice to drink prior to operating -- even if it were an unexpected emergency, which the book implies isn't the case, he would still have deliberately indulged knowing he might be called in to into the hospital at any time. And he then deliberately made the choice to operate while drunk, which, I'd suggest, a person still sober enough to be able to operate at all might also be capable of considering a bad idea. I think U.N. Owen's ranking here was motivated by degree of self-indulgence. Rogers gave in to obvious opportunity, Macarthur to blind rage and jealousy; not great excuses certainly, but Armstrong's excuse was even weaker.
Changed line(s) 121,122 (click to see context) from:
** this is also sealed up a ''bit'' during the 2015 miniseries; Vera and Phillip run to the kitchen for supplies, then out of the house. When Blore doesn't join them, Phillip tells Vera 'stay there' and runs to the house to find Blore dead in the main hall. Vera can't stand waiting behind more than a few minutes, and finds him standing over Blore's body. While it reinforces Phillip's conviction that UN Owen is still somewhere on the island and killed Blore, it plays into the Hostile Suspicion chain mentioned above on Vera's part. Mind you, it also means that Vera doesn't notice that Phillip doesn't have any fresh blood on him, even though Blore has been stabbed to death (the way Blore's fallen, you can't tell that the killer used the bearskin to shield himself from the blood). So it still overly relies on the 'fear and panic' bit, at least on Vera's part.
to:
** this This is also sealed up a ''bit'' during the 2015 miniseries; Vera and Phillip run to the kitchen for supplies, then out of the house. When Blore doesn't join them, Phillip tells Vera 'stay there' and runs to the house to find Blore dead in the main hall. Vera can't stand waiting behind more than a few minutes, and finds him standing over Blore's body. While it reinforces Phillip's conviction that UN Owen is still somewhere on the island and killed Blore, it plays into the Hostile Suspicion chain mentioned above on Vera's part. Mind you, it also means that Vera doesn't notice that Phillip doesn't have any fresh blood on him, even though Blore has been stabbed to death (the way Blore's fallen, you can't tell that the killer used the bearskin to shield himself from the blood). So it still overly relies on the 'fear and panic' bit, at least on Vera's part.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot a boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
to:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot a the boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 77 (click to see context) from:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot a boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
to:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot a boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. In short, Lombard potentially has less to lose and more to gain by simply finding the murderer than he does by murdering every other occupant of the island, plus the guy who owns the boat, in a fit of paranoia. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** And what if Narracott brings along a friend? What if someone sees him in Narracott's boat? What if Isaac Morris has a paper trail linking him to the island? What if Lombard doesn't know how to pilot a boat? There's a lot of possible variables there, any one of which could, with a bit of bad luck, see him end up at the gallows. Lombard already knows he's innocent, whereas this plan would require him to actually be on the hook at least four murders and risk the possibility of being caught for them. Whereas if he exposes the murderer with sufficient proof to convict him or her (including, ideally, a witness), then he's in the clear. Lombard's ruthless, but that doesn't mean he's a homicidal psycho who believes MurderIsTheBestSolution to every problem.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** So Wargrave plans ahead. Why would that give anything away to Armstrong? The judge has never concealed that he's the smartest person on the island, and he openly "analyzes" Owen's likely intentions many times. We never see Wargrave and Armstrong planning the deception, because the narrative is structured to conceal it; Wargrave could easily tell Armstrong that he'd come up with the idea right after Mrs. Rogers was murdered, and just hadn't decided whether he could trust Armstrong to go along with it until the fourth death.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Not if he followed up on killing Blore and Vera by killing ''Narracott'' when he came back to pick everyone up, got rid of all the evidence that he, Lombard, had ever been on the island, stole Narracott's boat and left.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 32 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Also, while this may mean that Vera did not murder Wargrave, it does not prove that she wasn't involved in the other murders. There's one murderer on the island, but it doesn't follow that there is ''only'' one murderer, or that the murderer definitely doesn't have an accomplice.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 57,58 (click to see context) from:
*** As said above, though; "Now Judge Wargrave has been shot. Whoever is doing this is picking us off one by one. I don't think I can take much more of this." That's all they need to coherently explain what happened, and they might not have felt up to writing much more. At that stage in proceedings, the people may have been less concerned with soberly providing every detail they could in a clear-headed and rational fashion in order to provide a complete chain of evidence for any future investigator, and more concerned with barely restraining their panic and worry about whether they'd live through the night. In any case, it doesn't change the fundamental point that there are plenty of valid reasons why any diaries present might not have had a lot of details for the police to work from, especially from a point in events where the bodies had started piling up.
to:
*** As said above, though; "Now Judge Wargrave has been shot. Whoever is doing this is picking us off one by one. I don't think I can take much more of this." That's all they need to coherently explain what happened, and they might not have felt up to writing much more. At that stage in proceedings, the people may have been less concerned with soberly providing every detail they could in a clear-headed and rational fashion in order to provide a complete chain of evidence for any future investigator, and more concerned with barely restraining their panic and worry about whether they'd live through the night. In any case, it doesn't change the fundamental point that there are plenty of valid reasons why any diaries present might not have had a lot of details for the police to work from, especially from a point in events where the bodies had started piling up. If they had, the police would have mentioned it, so for whatever reason, they didn't. QED.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*** Also; Blore's currently the one in the situation where someone might bump him off at any given moment. Even the best and most observant police officer might find it difficult to maintain peak meticulousness under such, let's be entirely fair, psychologically trying circumstances.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 56 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** As said above, though; "Now Judge Wargrave has been shot. Whoever is doing this is picking us off one by one. I don't think I can take much more of this." That's all they need to coherently explain what happened, and they might not have felt up to writing much more. At that stage in proceedings, the people may have been less concerned with soberly providing every detail they could in a clear-headed and rational fashion in order to provide a complete chain of evidence for any future investigator, and more concerned with barely restraining their panic and worry about whether they'd live through the night. In any case, it doesn't change the fundamental point that there are plenty of valid reasons why any diaries present might not have had a lot of details for the police to work from, especially from a point in events where the bodies had started piling up.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 31 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** That doesn't change the fact that they're all ''still incredibly paranoid''. Sure, if they cooled down, had a bit of time and space to rationalise things and weren't in a position where one of them was almost certainly a murderer, they'd probably come to this conclusion themselves. But they don't have this particular luxury. You're demanding cool-headed rational thought from people in a high-stress situation where they're dominated by fear and anxiety and aren't in the headspace for cool-headed rational thought in the slightest.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 224 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Or, y'know, just didn't load the pistol and simply let it go to see what the elastic band itself would do.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 30 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Except the men go rushing up the stairs to Vera's room ''immediately'' upon hearing the screams, which doesn't give Vera enough time to get from Wargrave's location into her own room before they arrive even if she ''did'' use a recording as a decoy. She couldn't use the balconies and service stairs to elude their notice either, because those stairs are on the opposite corner of the upper floor from her bedroom, and her balcony doesn't connect to the balcony on that side.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 53 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Even if they weren't inclined to describe Wargrave's ''death'' in detail, you'd think they'd be inclined to say something about its ''location''. The fact that he'd apparently been murdered ''downstairs'' while the other men were all rushing ''upstairs'' to Vera's room is pivotal to any theories about the killer's identity that might've been jotted down at the time: they'd know that it would have to be the last person up the stairs, and presumably at least ''one'' of them would speculate about who that was in their diary ponderings.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 159 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Exactly. In the ''Series/{{Monk}} episode "[[Recap/MonkS4E2MrMonkGoesHomeAgain Mr. Monk Goes Home Again]]", the killer shoots an armored car guard hoping that this would keep the police from discovering he'd been poisoned before being shot. The police might not have thought to look for another cause of death in light of the "obvious" one.
Changed line(s) 162 (click to see context) from:
** Considering the thoroughness of U.N. Owen's planning, he may have had a second set of figurines concealed on the island somewhere, just in case. Certainly it'd help ramp up the paranoia if the figurines mysteriously reappeared after being locked up.
to:
** Considering [[CrazyPrepared the thoroughness of U.N. Owen's planning, planning]], he may have had a second set of figurines concealed on the island somewhere, just in case. Certainly it'd help ramp up the paranoia if the figurines [[ClingyMacGuffin mysteriously reappeared after being locked up.]]
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 52,53 (click to see context) from:
*** In any case, whatever the reason ultimately the point is simply that it's not entirely implausible that the people who kept a diary, for whatever reason, simply didn't go into a lot of specific detail about the details of the murder scene. Maybe personal reserve or squeamishness. Maybe they were a bit freaked out. Maybe they simply couldn't bring themselves to describe the murder scene of someone they'd gotten to know in intricate detail. Or any number of other reasons.
to:
*** In any case, whatever the reason ultimately the point is simply that it's not entirely implausible that the people who kept a diary, for whatever reason, simply didn't go into a lot of specific detail about the details of the murder scene. Maybe personal reserve or squeamishness. Maybe they were a bit freaked out. Maybe they didn't consider it 'proper' to be writing about such things. Maybe they simply couldn't bring themselves to intricately describe the murder scene of someone they'd gotten to know in intricate detail. Or any number of other reasons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 51,52 (click to see context) from:
*** Yes, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate an individual's ''personal inclinations'' towards discretion, which is what I was getting at. Social pressures can easily translate into individual behaviour even when private, and some people don't pour everything out onto the page.
to:
*** Yes, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate an individual's ''personal inclinations'' towards discretion, which is what I was getting at. Social pressures can easily translate into individual behaviour even when private, and some people don't pour everything out onto the page.
page. Perhaps she simply didn't feel like going into too much detail for whatever reason; for all we know since we don't see it, Vera's diary entry for that event simply read something along the lines of "Now Judge Wargrave has been shot. Whoever is doing this is picking us off one by one. I don't think I can take much more of this."
*** In any case, whatever the reason ultimately the point is simply that it's not entirely implausible that the people who kept a diary, for whatever reason, simply didn't go into a lot of specific detail about the details of the murder scene. Maybe personal reserve or squeamishness. Maybe they were a bit freaked out. Maybe they simply couldn't bring themselves to describe the murder scene of someone they'd gotten to know in intricate detail. Or any number of other reasons.
*** In any case, whatever the reason ultimately the point is simply that it's not entirely implausible that the people who kept a diary, for whatever reason, simply didn't go into a lot of specific detail about the details of the murder scene. Maybe personal reserve or squeamishness. Maybe they were a bit freaked out. Maybe they simply couldn't bring themselves to describe the murder scene of someone they'd gotten to know in intricate detail. Or any number of other reasons.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 51 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Yes, but it doesn't necessarily eliminate an individual's ''personal inclinations'' towards discretion, which is what I was getting at. Social pressures can easily translate into individual behaviour even when private, and some people don't pour everything out onto the page.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 50 (click to see context) from:
to:
****Whether 1930s Britain was that different from our time in this regard could be a matter of debate, but it would actually be pointless: these diaries were obviously kept for private use only, thus eliminating any possible social pressure for discreetness.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** By that point, there's an element of SheKnowsTooMuch involved, and I'd imagine that an innocent woman is probably going to be less inclined to just passively accept suicide as the best way to get out of that particular jam than a woman whose conscience has clearly been tormenting her for some time.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
*** He might have written the letter first, then checked the diaries and just left it at that. He doesn't mind revealing what he did, but he probably doesn't mind making it difficult for the police either.
Changed line(s) 48 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** To be pedantic, Blore was a ''former'' professional police detective, and implicitly not a sterling example of the profession to begin with. He might have fallen out of or not been in the habit of keeping a meticulously detailed diary. And while Vera did keep a clear diary, she might have steered clear of going into too much detail about Wargrave's death; she was still a woman in 1930s Britain, after all.
Changed line(s) 74 (click to see context) from:
to:
** To be fair, I'm not entire sure Wargrave predicted anything about who ended up being last to die. He ''personally'' thinks Vera was the worst and deserved it more, but ultimately there's not exactly a yawning moral chasm between what Vera and Lombard did, so he probably wouldn't have been ''too'' bothered if it ended up being Lombard. He just personally thought it would have been more appropriate to be Vera.
Changed line(s) 164 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** They might not have initially discovered the connections between the victims -- especially as there isn't really one beyond the fact that they all have a murky secret in their past. The only thing that really connects them is the record which outlines their various undiscovered crimes (which could easily have been thrown over a cliff at some point), and the whole point of Wargrave's scheme is that he's targeting people who committed murders that were either unpunished or no one originally picked up on, so the police at the time might not think it worth digging into them too deeply. They might not have initially seen the point in, say, interviewing the people connected to a drowning that appeared to be completely accidental, or a young woman who killed herself just on the off-chance that there was some connection between them. Finding Wargrave's diary would prompt a rethink, however.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* At the end of the stage adaptation, why does Wargrave, whose whole scheme involves murder victims who were actually guilty of the murder(s) they're accused of, try to strangle Vera after it's clear that [[AdaptationalHeroism she wasn't the one who killed her charge]]? And if Vera simply ''had'' to die to fulfill the last verse of the rhyme, couldn't Wargrave have just done what he does in other adaptations and tried to persuade her to [[BetterToDieThanBeKilled hang herself now to avoid being blamed for the murders and hanged later]]?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 163 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** That's a good answer to the original question, although it does raise the question of why the police didn't think for themselves of seeking out people connected to the various cases and asking them if they remembered ever meeting any of UN Owen's other victims. If Hugo Hamilton, some ordinary undistinguished GP, a violently teetotal nurse and an indignant mehm saib from Majorca all remembered speaking to Wargrave, they'd have a very promising lead. It might not work, but it looks like they didn't even try.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 212 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Blank round shot in the head will still kill you. He probably used a dummy.
