Originally posted by Mayerling
View Post
Hi Elamarna,
I just looked at the last three entries on the "I Think I Have Him" thread. I do like the forward approach of your question and see again his parrying reaction. Always the same with Pierre.
I am reminded of a figure in criminal history of the 19th Century who had the same irritating habit. And (unfortunately) to this day some people (including criminal historians) believe him.
Jean Troppmann murdered the entire Kinck family in a series of planned steps in order to acquire their wealth to allow him to emigrate to America in 1869. Troppman slaughtered Madame Kinck and her younger four or five children in a clover field near the Pantin section of Paris, and hastily buried them - but the graves were discovered too early, and when confronted at a seaport by a suspicious gendarme Troppman panicked and tried to flee but was captured. At his trial the fact that he and the Kincks all came from the "Alsace" region got bandied about, so that many believed Troppman and the older Monsieur Kinck may have been involved in espionage for either the Prussians under Bismarck or the French under Napoleon III. Troppman noticed this and played the romantic tragic villain to the hilt. Were there accomplices to his murders, and what was the real motive. "I can't say", Troppman would begin, "Worthy motives must prevent my revealing anything that endangers others!" (or words to that effect). While some still argue he may have had help killing Madame Kinck and her children, the nature of the wounds on their bodies suggested that one individual killed them quickly and violently by blindly striking out on them.
Pierre has certainly not killed anyone but his refusal to say a word until he is perfectly sure his theoretical ideas are solid fact does resemble Troppman's similar wrapping of enobled secrecy around his actions.
Jeff
I just looked at the last three entries on the "I Think I Have Him" thread. I do like the forward approach of your question and see again his parrying reaction. Always the same with Pierre.
I am reminded of a figure in criminal history of the 19th Century who had the same irritating habit. And (unfortunately) to this day some people (including criminal historians) believe him.
Jean Troppmann murdered the entire Kinck family in a series of planned steps in order to acquire their wealth to allow him to emigrate to America in 1869. Troppman slaughtered Madame Kinck and her younger four or five children in a clover field near the Pantin section of Paris, and hastily buried them - but the graves were discovered too early, and when confronted at a seaport by a suspicious gendarme Troppman panicked and tried to flee but was captured. At his trial the fact that he and the Kincks all came from the "Alsace" region got bandied about, so that many believed Troppman and the older Monsieur Kinck may have been involved in espionage for either the Prussians under Bismarck or the French under Napoleon III. Troppman noticed this and played the romantic tragic villain to the hilt. Were there accomplices to his murders, and what was the real motive. "I can't say", Troppman would begin, "Worthy motives must prevent my revealing anything that endangers others!" (or words to that effect). While some still argue he may have had help killing Madame Kinck and her children, the nature of the wounds on their bodies suggested that one individual killed them quickly and violently by blindly striking out on them.
Pierre has certainly not killed anyone but his refusal to say a word until he is perfectly sure his theoretical ideas are solid fact does resemble Troppman's similar wrapping of enobled secrecy around his actions.
Jeff
Steve
Leave a comment: