Read Online Elephants Can Remember by Agatha Christie - Free Book Online Page A
Authors: Agatha Christie
Ads: Link
coming to you with my demands about an affair which is over and done with.’
‘What interests me,’ said Spence, ‘is what has interested you. I thought first that it was unlike you to have this wish to delve in the past. It is connected with something that has occurred nowadays, or is it sudden curiosity about a rather inexplicable, perhaps, case? Do you agree with that?’
He looked across the table. ‘Inspector Garroway,’ he said, ‘as he was at that time, was the officer in charge of the investigations into the Ravenscroft shooting. He was an old friend of mine and so I had no difficulty in getting in touch with him.’
‘And he was kind enough to come here today,’ said Poirot, ‘simply because I must admit to a curiosity which I am sure I have no right to feel about an affair that is past and done with.’
‘Well, I wouldn’t say that,’ said Garroway. ‘We all have interests in certain cases that are past. Did Lizzie Borden really kill her father and mother with an axe? There are people who still do not think so. Who killed Charles Bravo and why? There are several different ideas, mostly not very well founded. But still people try to find alternative explanations.’
His keen, shrewd eyes looked across at Poirot.
‘And Monsieur Poirot, if I am not mistaken, has occasionally shown a leaning towards looking into cases, going back, shall we say, for murder, back into the past, twice, perhaps three times.’
‘Three times, certainly,’ said Superintendent Spence.
‘Once, I think I am right, by request of a Canadian girl.’
‘That is so,’ said Poirot. ‘A Canadian girl, very vehement, very passionate, very forceful, who had come here to investigate a murder for which her mother had been condemned to death, although she died before sentence was carried out. Her daughter was convinced that her mother had been innocent.’
‘And you agreed?’ said Garroway.
‘I did not agree,’ said Poirot, ‘when she first told me of the matter. But she was very vehement and very sure.’
‘It was natural for a daughter to wish her mother to have been innocent and to try and prove against all appearances that she was innocent,’ said Spence.
‘It was just a little more than that,’ said Poirot. ‘She convinced me of the type of woman her mother was.’
‘A woman incapable of murder?’
‘No,’ said Poirot, ‘it would be very difficult, and I am sure both of you agree with me, to think there is anyone quite incapable of murder if one knows what kind of person they are, what led up to it. But in that particular case, the mother never protested her innocence. She appeared to be quite content to be sentenced. That was curious to begin with. Was she a defeatist? It did not seem so. When I began to enquire, it became clear that she was not a defeatist. She was, one would say, almost the opposite of it.’
Garroway looked interested. He leaned across thetable, twisting a bit of bread off the roll on his plate.
‘And was she innocent?’
‘Yes,’ said Poirot. ‘She was innocent.’
‘And that surprised you?’
‘Not by the time I realized it,’ said Poirot. ‘There were one or two things – one thing in particular – that showed she could not have been guilty. One fact that nobody had appreciated at the time. Knowing that one had only to look at what there was, shall we say, on the menu in the way of looking elsewhere.’ 1
Grilled trout was put in front of them at this point.
‘There was another case, too, where you looked into the past, not quite in the same way,’ continued Spence. ‘A girl who said at a party that she had once seen a murder committed.’ 2
‘There again one had to – how shall I put it? – step backwards instead of forward,’ said Poirot. ‘Yes, that is very true.’
‘And had the girl seen the murder committed?’
‘No,’ said Poirot, ‘because it was the wrong girl. This trout is delicious,’ he added, with appreciation.
‘They do all fish
‘What interests me,’ said Spence, ‘is what has interested you. I thought first that it was unlike you to have this wish to delve in the past. It is connected with something that has occurred nowadays, or is it sudden curiosity about a rather inexplicable, perhaps, case? Do you agree with that?’
He looked across the table. ‘Inspector Garroway,’ he said, ‘as he was at that time, was the officer in charge of the investigations into the Ravenscroft shooting. He was an old friend of mine and so I had no difficulty in getting in touch with him.’
‘And he was kind enough to come here today,’ said Poirot, ‘simply because I must admit to a curiosity which I am sure I have no right to feel about an affair that is past and done with.’
‘Well, I wouldn’t say that,’ said Garroway. ‘We all have interests in certain cases that are past. Did Lizzie Borden really kill her father and mother with an axe? There are people who still do not think so. Who killed Charles Bravo and why? There are several different ideas, mostly not very well founded. But still people try to find alternative explanations.’
His keen, shrewd eyes looked across at Poirot.
‘And Monsieur Poirot, if I am not mistaken, has occasionally shown a leaning towards looking into cases, going back, shall we say, for murder, back into the past, twice, perhaps three times.’
‘Three times, certainly,’ said Superintendent Spence.
‘Once, I think I am right, by request of a Canadian girl.’
‘That is so,’ said Poirot. ‘A Canadian girl, very vehement, very passionate, very forceful, who had come here to investigate a murder for which her mother had been condemned to death, although she died before sentence was carried out. Her daughter was convinced that her mother had been innocent.’
‘And you agreed?’ said Garroway.
‘I did not agree,’ said Poirot, ‘when she first told me of the matter. But she was very vehement and very sure.’
‘It was natural for a daughter to wish her mother to have been innocent and to try and prove against all appearances that she was innocent,’ said Spence.
‘It was just a little more than that,’ said Poirot. ‘She convinced me of the type of woman her mother was.’
‘A woman incapable of murder?’
‘No,’ said Poirot, ‘it would be very difficult, and I am sure both of you agree with me, to think there is anyone quite incapable of murder if one knows what kind of person they are, what led up to it. But in that particular case, the mother never protested her innocence. She appeared to be quite content to be sentenced. That was curious to begin with. Was she a defeatist? It did not seem so. When I began to enquire, it became clear that she was not a defeatist. She was, one would say, almost the opposite of it.’
Garroway looked interested. He leaned across thetable, twisting a bit of bread off the roll on his plate.
‘And was she innocent?’
‘Yes,’ said Poirot. ‘She was innocent.’
‘And that surprised you?’
‘Not by the time I realized it,’ said Poirot. ‘There were one or two things – one thing in particular – that showed she could not have been guilty. One fact that nobody had appreciated at the time. Knowing that one had only to look at what there was, shall we say, on the menu in the way of looking elsewhere.’ 1
Grilled trout was put in front of them at this point.
‘There was another case, too, where you looked into the past, not quite in the same way,’ continued Spence. ‘A girl who said at a party that she had once seen a murder committed.’ 2
‘There again one had to – how shall I put it? – step backwards instead of forward,’ said Poirot. ‘Yes, that is very true.’
‘And had the girl seen the murder committed?’
‘No,’ said Poirot, ‘because it was the wrong girl. This trout is delicious,’ he added, with appreciation.
‘They do all fish
Similar Books
