ones I remember best of all.
“All three cufflinks were in the mouths of the
victims,” I repeated with determined obstinacy.
“That’s good enough for me.”
“This I see,” said Poirot with an air of dejection.
“Good enough for you, and good enough also for your
hundred people that you might ask, and also, I have no
doubt, for your bosses at Scotland Yard. But not good
enough for Hercule Poirot!”
I had to remind myself that he was talking about
definitions of similarity and difference, and not about
me personally.
“What about the open window, when all the
windows in the other two rooms are closed?” he
asked. “Is that a difference worth noting?”
“It’s unlikely to be relevant,” I said. “Richard
Negus might have opened the window himself. There
would be no reason for the murderer to close it.
You’ve said it often yourself, Poirot—we Englishmen
open windows in the dead of winter because we
believe it’s good for our character.”
“ Mon ami, ” said Poirot patiently. “Consider: these
three people did not drink poison, fall out of their
armchairs and quite naturally land flat on their backs
with their arms at their sides and their feet pointing
toward the door. It is impossible. Why would one not
stagger across the room? Why would one not fall out
of the chair on the other side? The killer, he arranged
the bodies so that each one was in the same position,
at an equal distance from the chair and from the little
table. Eh bien, if he cares so much to arrange his
three murder scenes to look exactly the same, why
does he not wish to close the window that, yes,
perhaps Mr. Richard Negus has opened—but why
does the murderer not close it in order to make it
conform with the appearance of the windows in the
other two rooms?”
I had to think about this. Poirot was right: the
bodies had been laid out in this way deliberately. The
killer must have wanted them all to look the same.
Laying out the dead . . .
“I suppose it depends where you choose to draw
your frame around the scene of the crime,” I said
hurriedly, as my mind tried to drag me back to my
childhood’s darkest room. “Depends whether you
want to extend it as far as the window.”
“Frame?”
“Yes. Not a real frame, a theoretical one. Perhaps
our murderer’s frame for his creations was no larger
than a square like this.” I walked around Richard
Negus’s body, turning corners when necessary. “You
see? I’ve just walked a small frame around Negus,
and the window is outside the frame.”
Poirot was smiling and trying to hide it beneath his
mustache. “A theoretical frame around the murder.
Yes, I see. Where does the scene of a crime begin and
where does it end? This is the question. Can it be
smaller than the room that contains it? This is a
fascinating matter for the philosophers.”
“Thank you.”
“ Pas du tout. Catchpool, will you please tell me
what you believe happened here at the Bloxham Hotel
yesterday evening? Let us leave motive to one side
for the moment. Tell me what you think the killer did.
First, and next, and next, and so on.”
“I have no idea.”
“Try to have an idea, Catchpool.”
“Well . . . I suppose he came to the hotel, cufflinks
in pocket, and went to each of the three rooms in turn.
He probably started where we did, with Ida
Gransbury in Room 317, and worked his way down
so that he would be able to leave the hotel fairly
quickly after killing his final victim—Harriet Sippel
in Room 121, on the first floor. Only one floor down
and he can escape.”
“And what does he do in the three rooms?”
I sighed. “You know the answer to that. He
commits a murder and arranges the body in a straight
line. He places a cufflink in the person’s mouth. Then
he closes and locks the door and leaves.”
“And to each room he is admitted without
question? In each room, he finds his victim waiting
with a most convenient drink for