The Floating Admiral - Agatha Christie [62]
12. If it was the Admiral, did he travel by road or by river? According to the Vicar’s evidence, which must be genuine since it could be checked, the Admiral had a game leg, and did not walk if he could help it. It seemed unlikely that he could have taken out the car without waking some of the household. The boat remained as a possibility; and if the Admiral went secretly down the river in a boat, where was he going to put it when he took the London train? Abandoned, it would invite theft; moored among other boats it would bear testimony to his movements. It was hardly to be supposed that he meant to leave Whynmouth for ever. The suggestion seemed to be that all this talk about the train was a blind. Once again, for what purpose? The only thing which seemed certain was that the Admiral’s boat had been taken from its moorings that night, and had been restored to the boat-house by somebody who was not the Admiral.
13. Why did the visitor, whoever it was, ask for Holland and then refuse to see him? If it was a bogus Admiral, the answer was not in doubt; the man had asked for Holland so as to get an excuse for mentioning the Admiral’s name; possibly also to implicate Holland in the trouble which was to follow. He did not actually meet Holland, for fear of detection. If it was the real Admiral, a motive was harder to assign. His behaviour seemed that of a man who wants to make sure that a hotel guest has really arrived, or that he is really in the hotel, and yet does not trouble to conceal those inquisitorial methods from the person against whom they are directed. If Holland’s story were true, the Admiral might have contemplated a real visit, so as to reassure him about the consent. But why, after taking so much trouble, should he go away without leaving any significant message?
14. Did Holland really see anybody in the street? Answer: Yes, and it means that Holland’s story is true up to a point; he really was in the Lord Marshall, or near it, as late as closing time. But there was that hesitation about the great-coat; was that genuine? Or was the ignorance affected, to avoid possible traps? Answer: No, and it means that Holland still possesses knowledge which he is concealing. Either he knew that the Admiral intended to make that visit, or he was privy to the plans of the fellow who impersonated the Admiral. In either case, his mention of the visitor would be an attempt to prove that he was really in the hotel at closing time; this smelt of an alibi.
15. Did Holland really go to Rundel Croft that night? Against the story was its extreme vagueness; the absence of clear motive, the care he took to explain why no witnesses of his journey were likely to be forthcoming, his selection of a fresh pair of shoes, the alleged secrecy of his exits and entrances. On the other hand, if Holland was lying, it was hard to suppose that he was lying to screen himself; bed was his best alibi. The evidence of the Boots and Mrs. Davis would be a difficult defence for the police to get over, without some positive clue to implicate Holland—and no such clue existed. Instead of sticking to his first story, that he had slept soundly in his bed, he had gone out of his way to confess himself a liar, had told a story, fantastic in many points, about a visit to Rundel Croft which no witness could attest, and in doing so had deliberately claimed the position of the last man who had seen Penistone alive. He seemed to be running his head deliberately into a noose; why should he do that, unless to divert suspicion from the real criminal? And that meant … yes, it would hang together. He had told the truth this morning; since then, fresh knowledge had come to him which induced him to put a halter round his own neck. But then, was Holland lying? Would he not, by now, have contrived to make up a more plausible story, accounting for his presence at Rundel Croft?
16. If he went, did he go by appointment? Such an appointment might have been made either with