Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Introduction

Agatha Christie belongs to the most famous British writers. She is an author of plays and novels but she gained her popularity thanks to her detective stories for which she is called Queen of detective stories. Her first novel was The Mysterious Affair at Styles (1921), in which she introduced her most famous character, a Belgian detective Hercule Poirot, who is able to figure out even the most complicated cases and finds out who a murderer is with an aid of his little grey cells. However, Agatha Christie became famous after the publication of her masterpiece Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926). The work changed the whole concept of detective stories because of a surprising ending when a narrator is shown to be a murderer.

The aim of the thesis is to explore murderers and their ways of committing murders in selected detective stories by Agatha Christie - Lord Edgware Dies (1933), The ABC Murders (1936), Death on the Nile (1937), And Then There Were None (1939) and Curtain: Poirot’s Last Case (1975) - and compare them from the different aspects. The thesis also suggests that various murderers are connected with an element that is typical of Agatha Christie’s novels. A murderer is usually someone who is either the least suspect or has solid alibi. As many authors such as Alexander and Singer point out, Christie manipulates presented facts and together with many false traces makes readers think that a murderer is someone else. However, other authors, such as Delamater and Prigozy, think that her detective stories and murderers are often similar to one another and Christie just modifies them, which is evidence of her lack of creativity.

The thesis is divided into five chapters. Each chapter examines one of the chosen murderers and their methods of committing murders. Each chapter starts with a description of murderer’s personality and their motive. Another part of the chapter explores their ways of committing murders, mistakes they make and other circumstances that help reveal their plan. The last part of each chapter focuses on Christie’s way of manipulating readers and diverting attention from a real murderer. The conclusion compares the murderers from different aspects and shows their distinctions and similarities.

1A Murderer in Lord Edgware Dies

The novel is about a murder of Lord Edgware, a rich man, whose wife, Jane Wilkinson, is suspected of killing him but only until it is revealed that she has a solid alibi for the night of murder. Moreover, there seems to be no reason why she wanted to kill her husband. As investigation continues, it seems to be more and more likely that the murder was committed by a man.

Jane Wilkinson is a young and beautiful woman, who thinks only of herself. As Zemboy emphasizes, “it doesn’t occur to her that anyone else’s needs or wishes even exist when she wants something.” (Zemboy 76) She is very cruel, selfish and is used to having everything she wants. Poirot estimates her character in the very beginning: “ ‘She appears to me of the type of women who are interested only in themselves.’ ” (8) Her marriage with Lord Edgware is unhappy and Jane wants a divorce. She falls in love with The Duke of Merton, who is, however, an Anglo-Catholic, which means that he must not marry a divorced woman. The fact that Lord Edgware changes his mind and finally agrees with a divorce is thus pointless for her. Therefore, Jane devises a clever plan how to get rid of her husband before their divorce. Her ruthless character enables her to achieve her goal even though she knows in advance that she will have to murder two people. In the end, she kills three persons but shows no remorse at all. When Jane’s plan is revealed, she just feels sorry for herself but does not regret her actions at all. Moreover, Mrs. Wilkinson is proud of herself and her clever ideas. Before her disclosure, Jane is very confident, since she does not believe that anybody could find out the truth, but when she starts to realize that Poirot detects her plan, she loses her head and confesses everything.

The plan is daring and clever. Jane is so self-confident that she is not afraid of involving Poirot in her plan. She takes advantage of him and asks the detective to persuade her husband to give permission to the divorce. It is necessary because she is believed to be informed by Poirot about her husband’s agreement to the divorce. Jane thus ensures that nobody will suspect her of killing her husband, since if Lord Edgware also wants a divorce, there seems to be no reason why she would kill him. Therefore, it seems that a murderer must be someone else. The idea is strengthened by the lost letter addressed to Jane, in which her husband agrees with a divorce, which at first deceives even Poirot: “ ‘So we come to the fourth solution-that someone suppressed that letter.’ … ‘Whoever suppressed it was someone who did not want that marriage dissolved.’ ” (36) Apart from that, she ensures her alibi when she has said many times she would like to kill her husband to be free again: “ ‘She said that if he didn’t give her her freedom she’d have to ‘bump him off’.’ ” (46) Her intention is to persuade the police that someone who hates Lord Edgware and Mrs. Wilkinson takes advantage of her statements and murders him exactly in the same way as Jane said.

The key to her murder plan is Jane’s hidden cleverness. She is an actress and her acting skills play an important role in her plan. Jane manages to persuade everyone of her pretended stupidity, which leads to the fact that nobody believes that she is able to devise anything clever. This is well shown after confirmation that Mrs. Wilkinson was at the party at the time of murder. Before that, everybody was willing to believe that she really came to her husband’s place and killed him. However, when it is revealed that Jane has alibi, she gets out of suspicion. Mrs. Wilkinson thus manages to persuade the others to think that she is stupider than she really is, which is supported by Bryan Martin’s claim: “ ‘She hasn’t any brains. Her idea of a murder would be to drive up in a taxi, sail in under her own name and shoot.’ ” (16)

The plan is full of deceptions. The first deceit is Mrs. Wilkinson’s announcement that she will not go to the party but then she pretends to change her mind and goes there. In effect, Jane asks another actress, Carlotta Adams, to go to the party instead of her and pretend to be Jane Wilkinson, who meanwhile, with ensured alibi, goes to her husband’s house and stabs him in the neck. Before that, Jane calls Carlotta to make sure that nobody finds out that she impersonates her at the party. That fraud gives the impression that somebody who was convinced that Jane did not go to the party and therefore had no alibi dressed as Jane Wilkinson and killed Lord Edgware. Jane thus seems more as a victim rather than as a murderer. Jane ensures her alibi giving the impression of her being in two places at the time of murder. The police have two groups of witnesses, each group was in different place but each group claims that they saw Jane Wilkinson at night of murder. A butler and a secretary, Miss Carroll, were in Lord Edgware’s house. Nevertheless, the butler has only been there for a few months, since he might have been wrong, but Miss Carroll has been working for Lord Edgware for years and she is absolutely sure that it was Jane Wilkinson, whom she saw that night: “ ‘Back of her head, her voice, her walk! It’s all the same thing. Absolutely unmistakable!’ ” (62) However, her testimony is in contradiction to another group of fourteen people who were with Jane Wilkinson at the party. Moreover, Poirot rebuts Miss Carroll’s statement that she could see Jane’s face. Agatha Christie thus manipulates readers with misinterpreted facts presented by characters in the novel. Everyone thinks that Jane was at the party and the woman who came to Lord Edgware’s house was Carlotta. If readers believe that the facts as they are presented by the characters are all true, they are led to the wrong solution from the very beginning.

Another deceit is Jane’s decision to modify her plan when she reveals Carlotta’s letter to her sister. Mrs. Wilkinson is still not safe, since she needs to get rid of her accomplice, Carlotta Adams, who could put two and two together and find out the truth. Therefore, Jane asks Carlotta to come to the hotel room pretending that she wants to celebrate their success in deceiving the guests at the party. Before Miss Adams comes, Jane, fortunately for her, finds Carlotta’s letter to her sister, in which she writes about the hoax, for which she received ten thousand dollars from Mrs. Wilkinson. As Wu emphasizes, “a normal reaction would be to destroy the incriminating letter, but Jane Wilkinson sees a better way.” (Wu 191) She takes advantage of it, removes one of the pages and tears a letter s in a word “she” (201) on another page so that it would seem that it was Captain Marsch, who offered Carlotta money and is therefore the murderer. And if he is not suspect, there will be a suspicion that a man committed the murder, as Wu also says: “With this simple device, Jane Wilkinson forfeits the identity of the male and hides her capacity as the murderer behind ‘he’ that is left over on the page.” (Wu 191) It is another piece of evidence of her hidden cleverness. It is also a red herring because if Jane is among suspects at the beginning of the novel, she is gradually less and less conspicuous. Moreover, when the letter is discovered, attention is turned to male characters. The idea is supported by Captain Marsch’s testimony that he saw a man leaving Lord Edgware’s house at the time of murder. Captain Marsch, Lord Edgware’s nephew, had many disagreements with his uncle and was forced to leave the house. Moreover, it is he, who inherited money from Lord Edgware, which could be a motive for the murder. Apart from that, his alibi for the night of murder is later on rebutted and Carlotta’s letter points at him. Bryan Martin is even more suspect and five questions of Poirot, at least three of them, point at him.

Mrs. Wilkinson arranges the second murder of Carlotta so that it would look like a suicide. Miss Adams was known to take something for a headache all the time and Jane takes advantage of it. She made an order of the box as Constance Ackerley and her maid picked up the package without knowing what is in it. Jane gives Carlotta a glass of wine in which she put Veronal. Carlotta is found dead in her bed the next morning. A golden box with Veronal and with the initials C.A. found in her bedroom leads the police into the conclusion that Carlotta was addicted to Veronal and accidentally overdosed herself. Moreover, when Poirot discovers a suitcase with a wig of golden hair, which is exactly in the same shade as Jane’s, he thinks that it was Carlotta, who impersonated Jane Wilkinson and came to Lord Edgware’s house to blame Jane for her husband’s murder, while someone else meanwhile killed him and after that he or she got rid of Carlotta. Agatha Christie again manipulates facts presented by characters to divert attention from an actual murderer. The facts are interpreted in such a way that they point at anyone but not at Jane. Moreover, Poirot is known to be right in his assumptions and thus readers tend to believe that everything he thinks is true. However, even Poirot is wrong in this case.

Jane makes two mistakes which are fatal for her. The first one is a pair of pince-nez, which is found in Carlotta Adams’ bag. Jane borrowed the glasses from her maid so that she could have booked the hotel room as Mrs. Van Dusen. However, she forgot them in Carlotta’s handbag. Poirot finds out that a pair of pince-nez belongs to Jane’s maid and realizes the truth because Mrs. Wilkinson is the only one to have an opportunity to get her maid’s pince-nez. The second mistake is her awkward comment on judgment of Paris: “ ‘Paris?’ she said. ‘Why, Paris doesn’t cut any ice nowadays. It’s London and New York that count.’ ” (174) Donald Ross overhears these words and realizes that Mrs. Wilkinson and the woman, whom he spoke at the party, is not the same person, since Carlotta, as opposed to Jane, is well-read in culture. Mrs. Wilkinson has to act quickly, since Donald Ross is about to tell Poirot about it. Jane comes to Donald’s place and stabs him in the same way as her husband. This murder is not intended and thus Jane has no time to ensure alibi. Those two mistakes, the second one in particular, are also the most important clues for readers. If they link it to the box with Veronal, where is also the name Paris, they can get to the right solution of the case. Apart from that, readers are given another clue at the very beginning of the novel. The telephone call to Jane while she was at the party does not make sense, since: “ ‘Why did someone ring her up at Chiswick and, once satisfied of her presence there, immediately ring off. It looks, does it not, as if someone wanted to be sure of her presence there before proceeding to-what?’ ” (65) It could not have been a murderer because it would have been illogical. If the murderer had found out that Jane had finally decided to go to the party, they would not have killed Lord Edgware because Mrs. Wilkinson could not have been suspected. The key to the solution is to realize that it is the opposite of what it seems and of what Christie tries to lead readers to.

Lord Edgware Dies is a novel, in which Agatha Christie manipulates facts and events which are presented by characters and thus divert attention from a real murderer. Christie creates an idea that the murderer is a man and therefore Jane Wilkinson, who is believed to be at the party, did not kill her husband. At first, the novel seems to belong to the group of novels in which a murderer is the most obvious suspect. However, in the end, Jane, whom has already been eliminated from the potential suspects, really turns out to be the murderer. Jane is therefore an example of the unlikeliest person who is shown to be a murderer. As far as the method is concerned, Mrs. Wilkinson ensures her alibi giving the impression that she was in two places at the time of her husband’s murder. Later on, Jane even modifies her plan and hides herself behind male identity.

2A Murderer in The ABC Murders

The ABC Murders is a novel about a serial murderer who kills his victims in an alphabetical order. What seems as actions of a murderous maniac is, however, a carefully elaborate murder plan whose motive is completely different from alleged motive. The ABC Murders is an atypical story of Agatha Christie. Murders in her novels are usually committed in private places where readers soon know everybody who could be a murderer. However, Franklin Clarke, a murderer in this novel, appears for the first time in the middle of the story. Murders are done in public places and victims seem to have nothing in common except for the fact that they are killed in an alphabetical order. Moreover, as Delamater and Prigozy say, “the murderer is not so much the least likely suspect as never suspected at all.” (Delamater and Prigozy 92)

Franklin Clarke has a rich brother and he would like to inherit his money. However, there is Miss Grey, for whom his brother has feelings. A possibility of their marriage would totally ruin Franklin’s chances to inherit his brother’s money. That is a reason why he decides to murder his brother. Nevertheless, if he did it, he would be immediately the most suspicious person because of inherited money. Therefore, he devises a clever and cold-blooded murder plan in which he takes advantage of a suggestible and shy personality of Mr. Alexander Bonaparte Cust, who suffers from epilepsy. Cust’s initials and the facts that his brother’s name and surname begin with a letter C and that he lives in Churston inspire Franklin and lead him to devise an insane murderer, A.B.C., who kills in an alphabetical order. Cust has always been bullied at school and then at work. His mother treated him badly too. Therefore, when a great job offer appears, he thinks that someone finally respects him. Cust has no suspicions at all. He just fulfils tasks assigned by Franklin Clarke, who wrote all instructions and all letters addressed to Poirot in advance by the same typewriter which was then sent to Cust. Cust is required to go to certain places to sell stockings at the specified time so that he could be linked to the murders. Because of his personality, he considers the task to be his duty and therefore he has to do them regardless of his awareness of being related to the murders: “ ‘It is necessary, Mrs. Marbury. I have always been punctual in my-engagements. People must have-must have confidence in you! When I have undertaken to do a thing, I carry it through. It is the only way to get on in-in business.’ ” (151) Franklin Clarke is thus safe, while each piece of evidence indicates that Cust is A.B.C.

Franklin Clarke is very cruel and ruthless because he has no remorse regarding the fact that he kills three innocent people just to inherit his brother’s fortune. According to Kawana, “Franklin is willing to kill innocent people in order to hide his real murder and make the entire sequence of killings appear to be the acts of a madman driven by his own perverse logic.” (Kawana 121) Clarke’s only concern is to find any person whose name and surname begin with a desirable letter and who lives in a town whose name starts with the same letter. Clarke is also very careful, since he always commits a murder at the time when it is impossible that somebody could see him. Clarke also needs to link all murders to his invented murderer. That is one of the reasons why he addresses threatening letters to Poirot in which he reports when and where the next murder will be committed. Were it not for the letters, the police would suspect relatives of victims including Franklin Clarke. The second reason is to make the police think that the murders are done by a madman whose motive is to kill people in an alphabetical order regardless of who they are. He succeeds as far as the police are concerned but he does not deceive Poirot, who is interested in human psychology and very soon reveals inconsistency in murderer’s thinking: “… ‘A homicidal maniac who desires to kill usually desires to kill as many victims as possible. It is a recurring craving. The great idea of such a killer is to hide his tracks-not to advertise them.’ … ‘Why, then, did the murderer feel it necessary to call attention to himself?’ ” (219) Maida emphasizes that the letters are also the key to the right solution because their “writer is vindicative, calculating and highly intelligent. The image of the letter writer leads Poirot to reconsider the other suspects in order to discover who would have had the most gain from a single murder, and who would have been capable of constructing this elaborate cover-up.” (Maida 78) The letters, which are supposed to ensure that Clarke will not be among suspects, thus finally help Poirot reveal Franklin’s evil plan. Even though Clarke considers his plan very carefully, he forgets to take Cust’s personality into consideration and does not write the letters in the way Cust would write them, which is his first mistake.

The first victim is Mrs. Ascher, who is struck into her head when she is turned back to the customer. It is an easy murder, since Franklin Clarke just says that he is here to buy cigarettes, waits until Mrs. Ascher turns back and then kills her. Moreover, the murder is done at “a busy time” (35) and thus nobody can see anything suspicious. To make sure that the murder will be connected to A.B.C., Clarke leaves a railway guide A.B.C. at the scene of crime. The second murder which is done at Bexhill is perfect again. Franklin Clarke is aware of the fact that women in shops might have been warned by the police and therefore he changes his method. The murder is committed around midnight, maybe even the day before the stated day. Therefore, despite of the fact that Clarke sends another warning letter to Poirot informing him about the planned murder, the police is not able to prevent Franklin from committing it. Clarke wants to be absolutely sure that the police fail to stop him but his exaggerated precaution is finally shown to be another reason of his failure. The second victim, a young girl Elizabeth Barnard is completely different from an old woman, Mrs. Ascher. The way of committing both murders is also different. Elizabeth was strangled, while Mrs. Ascher was struck into her head. Clarke uses Elizabeth’s interest in male attention, persuades her to take her belt off and then strangles her with it. The fact that the murderer does not select a particular type of person attracts Poirot’s attention and is one of the clues that lead him to the murderer: “ ‘If a man kills indiscriminately it is usually because he removes any one who stands in his way or annoys him. But the alphabetical progression showed that such was not the case here.’ … ‘There was something haphazard about the procedure of A.B.C. that seemed to me to be at war with the alphabetical selection.’ ” (220) Poirot’s knowledge of human psychology is Clarke’s bad luck but it also shows another weakness of his plan. Franklin’s invented murderer does not have a mind of a madman because as Poirot emphasizes an insane murderer would never choose his victim in such a random way.

The third murder of Sir Carmichael Clarke is a reason for all murders. It is again an easy one. Sir Clarke takes a stroll alone in the evening as usual and thus it is not difficult for his brother, who knows his habits, to ambush him and bash him into his head. Franklin Clarke does not want to leave anything to chance. The murder must be committed otherwise all that has already been done would come to nothing. That is a reason why Poirot’s address on the third letter is wrong. Therefore, Poirot receives the letter after the murder and the police have no time to prevent it. It is also a reason why the letters are sent to Poirot and not to the police because Clarke “ ‘cannot arrange for a letter addressed to the Criminal Investigation Department of Scotland Yard to go astray! It is necessary to have a private address.’ ” (228) The last murder that is done takes place in Doncaster during the St. Leger, a famous horse race. It is again carefully planned, since it is impossible to find a murderer among so many people. Clarke has already achieved his goal and thus he does not need to kill anyone else. The fourth murder is committed because he wants Cust to be caught and accused of being A.B.C. Franklin does not proceed in alphabetical order because a victim’s surname starts with a letter E. Clarke just wants to kill anyone, since it is highly probable that someone whose name begins with a letter D sits near the victim and thus it will be considered to be a mistake. Cust is not aware of being Clarke’s accomplice due to his illness and simplicity. When Franklin kills the fourth victim with a knife in the cinema pretending to stumble, he stealthily wipes the knife on Cust’s sleeve and puts it into his pocket. Cust does not remember several events in his life because of his illness and thus when he discovers the knife in his pocket, he thinks that he is A.B.C. Alexander points out to the way Christie makes readers believe that Cust is the murderer: “The sequence of events-he notices a bloodstain and then reaches for his pocket, where the knife is to be found-implies he knows the knife is there (although this is presumably in fact coincidental). A reader is clearly meant to be suspicious of Cust, if they do not already believe he is the murderer.” (Alexander 81) According to Alexander, even though Cust is actually innocent, he begins to believe that he is guilty and thus he himself can become a false trace if his thoughts are interpreted in the way Agatha Christie intends. (Alexander 77) The novel is also interesting because of the way it is narrated. Apart from a usual third-person narrative, there are several chapters with first person narrative, which are written from Cust’s point of view. These chapters are written in such a way that Cust looks like a murderer. Panek points out to the fact that Christie uses first person narrative in Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926), where a narrator surprisingly turns out to be a murderer, however, “she reversed the process in The ABC Murders, in which the narrative of Cust seems to be that of the criminal, but turns out to be Christie’s ruse to cover the straight criminal-as-detective plot.” (Panek 52) Cust is the most suspect and the most prominent character in the novel and essentially all traces point at him. Despite of the fact that Cust has a solid alibi for Bexhill murder thanks to his friend’s testimony, the police as well as people around him are persuaded that he is the murderer and thus it is natural that readers tend to believe it too. Agatha Christie’s intention is to persuade readers that murders are done by a madman and Cust perfectly fits the description that Poirot creates at the beginning:

I see him as a child possibly ignored and passed over-I see him growing up with an inward sense of inferiority-warring with a sense of injustice… I see that inner urge-to assert himself-to focus attention on himself ever becoming stronger, and events, circumstances-crushing it down-heaping, perhaps, more humiliations on him. And inwardly the match is set to the powder train… (47)

There is no hint that the murderer is someone related to one of the victims and that a motive for all the murders is different.

However, there are several clues that might help reveal that Cust is not A.B.C. Bargainnier considers Cust to be “one of Christie’s most obvious red herrings” (Bargainnier 181) and he is right, since there are several unnatural facts. Agatha Christie never reveals a murderer at the beginning of a novel and it is typical of her that a murderer is either inconspicuous or he or she seems to have solid alibi. Cust is suspect from the beginning and the fact that everything points at him is atypical, since it would be too easy to find out who the murderer is. Moreover, Cust’s personality and behavior imply that it is unlikely that Cust could have devised such a clever plan and committed all murders without leaving any traces. He might have done them during one of his seizures and did not know about it. Nevertheless, it is not again very probable, which is confirmed by Dr. Thompson’s statement: “ ‘You might put that theory forward if it weren’t for the letters. The letters knock the theory on the head. They show premeditation and a careful planning of the crime.’ ” (197)

Clarke starts to be active immediately after his first appearance. He pretends a desire for capture of the murderer and takes a lead in investigation. He thus ensures that he will be in Doncaster and at the same time it will not be suspicious, since his intention is supposed to be the capture of A.B.C. It is also another deception of readers because as Delamater says “the murderer is indeed the least likely suspect, not because he or she is an unnoticed servant or a distant relative but because he or she appears to be the intended victim or is a member of the investigating team.” (Delamater 91-92) Agatha Christie uses the last fact in this novel to distract attention from the real murderer, since if Franklin helps with an investigation, readers tend to eliminate him from suspects. Clarke also gives the police a hint that links all the murders to enable the police to get to Cust. When it is revealed that Cust is the stockings salesman, he seems to sell stockings to gain opportunity to look around and prepare for a murder. Nevertheless, when Clarke pretends to help investigate, he makes another mistake. He gives Poirot a letter where Franklin’s brother writes about Miss Grey and which reveals his brother’s feelings to her and Franklin’s motive for the murder.

The ABC Murders is a novel, in which a murderer hides his identity behind an insane murderer. Franklin Clarke is a type of an inconspicuous murderer because he is never mentioned as a potential suspect. If he had not feared of being revealed and had run more risk, it would have been much more difficult for Poirot to reveal his plan. Agatha Christie tries to make readers think that the insane murderer is Cust, to whom attention is paid. She uses his personality and describes his behavior in such a way that it forces readers to think, or at least suspect, that he is the murderer.