The Murders of Richard III - Elizabeth Peters [84]
“Even more significant was the change in the chronological sequence. It is impossible that the young princes should have been murdered before Lord Hastings was beheaded; the younger boy did not leave sanctuary until after Hastings was dead. Now a monomaniac is usually consistent in his aberration. He will take the most appalling risks in order to stick to his self-determined rules. But our joker attacked Percy before he struck at Philip, who ought to have been the next victim. To me, these deviations suggested expediency rather than madness. It was much easier to slip some substance into the doctor’s special food than to lure him away to a spot where he could be safely ‘stabbed.’ Philip is young and strong—a dangerous man to attack. By appearing to skip him, the comedian put him off guard.
“It was clear that the comedian was a member of the house party. The mysterious figure who lured Frank into the cellar—”
“That’s when you began to suspect Frank,” Thomas interrupted.
“I didn’t suspect him then; I didn’t suspect anyone until the pattern of the tricks made it evident that there was need for suspicion. But when I looked back on Frank’s ‘accident,’ I found some grounds for doubt. Anyone in the house could have put on a raincoat and hat. And blows on the head often do induce mild amnesia. But it was singularly convenient for the attacker that Frank should suffer such amnesia. Remember, there were marks on his face. At some point he must have confronted his attacker. His injuries could have been self-inflicted; as he himself insisted, they were superficial. Any schoolboy who is lucky enough to suffer from a propensity to nosebleed soon learns how to induce that phenomenon at will. It’s useful for getting out of exams and other embarrassing situations.
“The attack on Philip and the appearance of the plaster heads confirmed my suspicions of Frank, but I still didn’t know what the point of the whole business could be. It was the reverse of the normal detective-novel situation, where the sleuth must deduce the identity of the criminal after he has committed a crime. I knew the criminal; but I didn’t know what crime he planned to commit, or the identity of the victim, if any. So I went at the problem from another angle.
“The jokes were not the only unusual factors in this meeting of the society. There was also the famous letter. It was possible that the letter and the jokes were not connected; but I felt justified in assuming, as a working hypothesis, that one had led to the other.
“Whether the letter was false or genuine, it was valuable. We discussed that angle before.” She looked at Strangways, who nodded. “The motive of the criminal joker, in that case, was profit. He meant to steal the letter and hold it for ransom.
“But surely, if that was the case, the jokes defeated the thief’s aim. It would have been comparatively simple to sneak up on an unsuspecting Sir Richard while he was gloating over the letter, bang him on the head, and take the prize. The preliminary jokes made all of us, especially Sir Richard, wary and suspicious.
“The letter might have instigated the jokes in another way. If the criminal was a fanatical anti-Ricardian, he might wish to destroy evidence favorable to Richard. I know it seems incredible that anyone would go to such lengths for such a trivial purpose, but believe me, scholars are capable of insanities much more peculiar than that one. However, it was virtually certain that the joker was a member of the house party, and the only guest who opposed Richard was Mr. Strangways.”
“Well?” Thomas said belligerently. “Why not Strangways?”
The maligned American grinned broadly. Jacqueline shook her head.
“Mr. Strangways is perfectly capable of playing nasty tricks,” she said sweetly. “But he is not stupid. If he had wanted to