Lord Edgware Dies - Agatha Christie [25]
‘Did a third person enter that house and kill Lord Edgware? If so, did the person enter before or after the supposed visit of Lady Edgware? If after, what did the woman say to Lord Edgware? How did she explain her presence? She might deceive the butler who did not know her, and the secretary who did not see her at close quarters. But she could not hope to deceive her husband. Or was there only a dead body in the room? Was Lord Edgware killed before she entered the house – sometime between nine and ten?’
‘Stop, Poirot!’ I cried. ‘You are making my head spin.’
‘No, no, my friend. We are only considering possibilities. It is like trying on the clothes. Does this fit! No, it wrinkles on the shoulder? This one? Yes, that is better – but not quite large enough. This other one is too small. So on and so on – until we reach the perfect fit – the truth.’
‘Who do you suspect of such a fiendish plot?’ I asked.
‘Ah! that is too early to say. One must go into the question of who has a motive for wishing Lord Edgware dead. There is, of course, the nephew who inherits. A little obvious that, perhaps. And then in spite of Miss Carroll’s dogmatic pronouncement, there is the question of enemies. Lord Edgware struck me as a man who very easily might make enemies.’
‘Yes,’ I agreed. ‘That is so.’
‘Whoever it was must have fancied himself pretty safe. Remember, Hastings, but for her change of mind at the last minute, Jane Wilkinson would have had no alibi. She might have been in her room at the Savoy, and it would have been difficult to prove it. She would have been arrested, tried – probably hanged.’
I shivered.
‘But there is one thing that puzzles me,’ went on Poirot. ‘The desire to incriminate her is clear – but what then of the telephone call? Why did someone ring her up at Chiswick and, once satisfied of her presence there, immediately ring off. It looks, does it not, as if someone wanted to be sure of her presence there before proceeding to – what? That was at nine-thirty, almost certainly before the murder. The intention then seems – there is no other word for it – beneficent. It cannot be the murderer who rings up – the murderer has laid all his plans to incriminate Jane. Who, then, was it? It looks as though we have here two entirely different sets of circumstances.’
I shook my head, utterly fogged.
‘It might be just a coincidence,’ I suggested.
‘No, no, everything cannot be a coincidence. Six months ago, a letter was suppressed. Why? There are too many things here unexplained. There must be some reason linking them together.’
He sighed. Presently he went on:
‘That story that Bryan Martin came to tell us –’
‘Surely, Poirot, that has got no connection with this business.’
‘You are blind, Hastings, blind and wilfully obtuse. Do you not see that the whole thing makes a pattern? A pattern confused at present but which will gradually become clear . . .’
I felt Poirot was being over-optimistic. I did not feel that anything would ever become clear. My brain was frankly reeling.
‘It’s no good,’ I said suddenly. ‘I can’t believe it of Carlotta Adams. She seemed such a – well, such a thoroughly nice girl.’
Yet, even as I spoke, I remembered Poirot’s words about love of money. Love of money – was that at the root of the seemingly incomprehensible? I felt that Poirot had been inspired that night. He had seen Jane in danger – the result of the strange egotistical temperament. He had seen Carlotta led astray by avarice.
‘I do not think she committed the murder, Hastings. She is too cool and level-headed for that. Possibly she was not even told that murder would be done. She may have been used innocently. But then –’
He broke off, frowning.
‘Even so, she’s an accessory after the fact now. I mean, she will see the news today. She will realize –’
A hoarse sound broke from Poirot.
‘Quick, Hastings. Quick! I have been blind – imbecile. A taxi. At once.’
I stared at him.
He waved his arms.
‘A taxi – at once.’
One was passing. He hailed it and we jumped in.
‘Do you