Death on the Nile - Agatha Christie [67]
Rosalie Otterbourne. Are we to accept Miss Van Schuyler’s evidence or Rosalie’s denial? Something was thrown overboard at the time and that something was presumably the pistol wrapped up in the velvet stole.
Points to be noted. Had Rosalie any motive? She may have disliked Linnet Doyle and even been envious of her—but as a motive for murder that seems grossly inadequate. The evidence against her can be convincing only if we discover an adequate motive. As far as we know, there is no previous knowledge or link between Rosalie Otterbourne and Linnet Doyle.
Miss Van Schuyler. The velvet stole in which pistol was wrapped belonged to Miss Van Schuyler. According to her own statement she last saw it in the observation saloon. She drew attention to its loss during the evening, and a search was made for it without success.
How did the stole come into the possession of X? Did X purloin it some time early in the evening? But if so, why? Nobody could tell, in advance, that there was going to be a scene between Jacqueline and Simon. Did X find the stole in the saloon when he went to get the pistol from under the settee? But if so, why was it not found when the search for it was made? Did it never leave Miss Van Schuyler’s possession? That is to say: Did Miss Van Schuyler murder Linnet Doyle? Is her accusation of Rosalie Otterbourne a deliberate lie? If she did murder her, what was her motive?
Other possibilities:
Robbery as a motive. Possible, since the pearls have disappeared, and Linnet Doyle was certainly wearing them last night.
Someone with a grudge against the Ridgeway family. Possible—again no evidence.
We know that there is a dangerous man on board—a killer. Here we have a killer and a death. May not the two be connected? But we should have to show that Linnet Doyle possessed dangerous knowledge concerning this man.
Conclusions: We can group the persons on board into two classes—those who had a possible motive or against whom there is definite evidence, and those who, as far as we know, are free of suspicion.
Group I: Andrew Pennington
Group II: Mrs. Allerton
Group I: Fleetwood
Group II: Tim Allerton
Group I: Rosalie Otterbourne
Group II: Cornelia Robson
Group I: Miss Van Schuyler
Group II: Miss Bowers
Group I: Louise Bourget (Robbery?)
Group II: Dr. Bessner
Group I: Ferguson (Political?)
Group II: Signor Richetti
Group II: Mrs. Otterbourne
Group II: James Fanthorp
Poirot pushed the paper back.
“It is very just, very exact, what you have written there.”
“You agree with it?”
“Yes.”
“And now what is your contribution?”
Poirot drew himself up in an important manner.
“Me, I pose myself one question: ‘Why was the pistol thrown overboard?’”
“That’s all?”
“At the moment, yes. Until I can arrive at a satisfactory answer to that question, there is not sense anywhere. That is—that must be the starting point. You will notice, my friend, that, in your summary of where we stand, you have not attempted to answer that point.”
Race shrugged his shoulders.
“Panic.”
Poirot shook his head perplexedly. He picked up the sodden velvet wrap and smoothed it out, wet and limp, on the table. His fingers traced the scorched marks and the burnt holes.
“Tell me, my friend,” he said suddenly. “You are more conversant with firearms than I am. Would such a thing as this, wrapped round a pistol, make much difference in muffling the sound?”
“No, it wouldn’t. Not like a silencer, for instance.”
Poirot nodded. He went on: “A man—certainly a man who had had much handling of firearms—would know that. But a woman—a woman would not know.”
Race looked at him curiously. “Probably not.”
“No. She would have read the detective stories where they are not always very exact as to details.”
Race flicked the little pearl-handled pistol with his finger.
“This little fellow wouldn’t make much noise anyway,” he said. “Just a pop, that’s all. With any other noise around, ten to one you wouldn’t notice it.”
“Yes, I have reflected as to that.