George Hutchinson appears to have given an excellent description of the little Belgian sleuth. Could he have been secretly brought in by a desperate Scotland Yard?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Poirot in Whitechapel?
Collapse
X
-
Well of course Poirot was in the City. He was covering up the fact that Abraham Lincoln was suffering from Brain Fever and killing girls for some reason that I have yet to decipher (or make up). Or maybe it was Miss Marple. Hang on I should have thought about this before typing...There Will Be Trouble! http://www.amazon.co.uk/A-Little-Tro...s=T.+E.+Hodden
Comment
-
You can't trust a man who has a beard without a 'tache. That's what you yanks fail to see. You didn't see Winston Churchill buggering about with a beard and no 'tache, did you? No! I realise that no yanks have posted here after looking, but well...Last edited by Steven Russell; 03-25-2010, 09:02 PM.
Comment
-
MARY : I've lost my handkerchief.
POIROT : Can you describe the handkerchief? When did you last see it? Was it a valuable handkerchief? How many people knew where you kept it? Has anything else gone missing?....Mon Dieu! I cannot cut off these breasts - they are of unequal sizes.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Steven Russell View PostYou can't trust a man who has a beard without a 'tache. That's what you yanks fail to see. You didn't see Winston Churchill buggering about with a beard and no 'tache, did you? No! I realise that no yanks have posted here after looking, but well...Last edited by Hunter; 03-26-2010, 03:21 AM.Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment
-
Originally posted by Steven Russell View PostBelinda,
By no means impossible. And Watson could have borrowed Holmes' deerstalker and been the Ripper. We may be onto something here. Do you know a good publisher?
But I still prefer Poirot as Hutch's man.
Best wishes,
Steve.
Comment
-
Dear Belinda,
I like it! Holmes had a motive too. He was often highly disparaging when speaking of the police and even brother amateurs. He told Watson he thought Dupin a "very inferior fellow". By committing The Crimes of the Century and remaining at liberty, he was proving his superiority to himself while having a good, cocaine fuelled, laugh at the officials.
We also know that he had little regard for women although he could be charming enough when it suited him. The murders were thus his own personal vanity project complete with silly red herrings like the Goulston Street Graffito and Dear Boss letter.
Watson's friendship meant that he could not inform on Holmes but that did not stop him from trying to shadow the great man to prevent further crimes. This also explains why Watson made no mention whatsoever in his writings of the highest profile case of the age.
It is inconceivable that Holmes was not contacted by Lestrade or even Abberline over the case. His refusal to help meant that they had to turn to Poirot who was seen by Hutchinson. It all fits!
Dear Hunter,
I would never dream of calling you a yank, dear fellow. Incidentally, I went to Tennessee (Memphis) a few years back and y'all were real nice. Not like us starchy Brits.
Best wishes,
Steve.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Steven Russell View PostDear Hunter,
I would never dream of calling you a yank, dear fellow. Incidentally, I went to Tennessee (Memphis) a few years back and y'all were real nice. Not like us starchy Brits.
By the way... did you try the Bar-be-que ?Best Wishes,
Hunter
____________________________________________
When evidence is not to be had, theories abound. Even the most plausible of them do not carry conviction- London Times Nov. 10.1888
Comment
-
Originally posted by Hunter View PostWell, maybe so, but the Brits have character.
By the way... did you try the Bar-be-que ?
"Let's give old Tennessee credit for music" : Carl Perkins.
Best wishes,
Steve.
Comment
Comment