Chapter 5 five old sins with long shadows

Hercule.Poirot held on to the revolving door with one hand and walked into a small restaurant. There were not many people in the restaurant because it was not the time when the crowds were the most crowded.Hercule.Poirot caught sight of the man he was about to meet, the burly Chief Detective Spence.He stood up at the corner table. Great, Spence said: here you come.It's not hard to find here, is it? It's not difficult, the route you indicated is correct. Let me introduce, this is Chief Criminal Officer Glover, and this is Hercule.Mr. Poirot. Gloway is tall and thin, with thin cheeks and thin cheeks, and his gray hair is bald in the middle like a monk's bald head. At first glance, he looks a bit like a priest.

Very good.said Poirot. I have retired, Gloway said: but my memory is not bad, although some things have passed away for a long time, most people forget them, but I still remember them. Hercule.Poirot almost blurted out: The elephant has a good memory, but fortunately it stopped in time.Recently, he always associated this sentence with the matter of Mrs. Olivia, so that he almost blurted it out on extremely inappropriate occasions. Hope you don't feel impatient.Spence said. Spence pulled out a chair, and when all three were seated, the waiter brought menus.Spence, obviously a frequent visitor, offered some advice, and after ordering, Glowell and Poirot silently examined each other as they leaned back and sipped their sherry.

Poirot said: I have to apologize in advance, I came to you to inquire about an old story that has been closed. Spence said: What I'm curious about is what made you so curious. Digging up old cases is not your style. It must be related to something that happened recently, or are you suddenly interested in cases with unknown reasons?What do you say?He looked at Poirot across the way and continued, "Gloway was the police officer in charge of investigating Ravenk's shooting at the time. He and I are old friends, and it's very convenient to find him. Thank you very much for taking the time to come, just to satisfy my personal curiosity, Poirot said: I know I have no right to inquire about the closed case.

I don't think so, Glowell said: We're all interested in certain cases that have been closed.Lizzie.Did Burton really hack her parents to death with an axe?Now some people think she is wronged.who killed charlesBrar?And why?There are different opinions, most of which are unfounded, but some people still want to find out different reasons. Glover fixed Poirot with sharp and shrewd eyes and said: Mr. Poirot, if I remember correctly, you have investigated two or three closed murders. Spence said: Three times, you should be right, and once at the request of a Canadian girl. Yes, Poirot said: the strong and persuasive Canadian girl had come to investigate the murder of her mother, who was condemned to death.Although her mother died before the execution, the daughter firmly believed that her mother was innocent.

Do you believe?Glowell asked. Poirot said: I didn't believe it at first when she told me about it, but she was firm and sure. It is also natural for a daughter to want her mother to be innocent and to try to prove her innocence.Spence said. Poirot said: And that's not all!She convinced me of the kind of person her mother was. A man who couldn't commit a murder? No, said Poirot: I think you will all agree that, once we get into the depths of personal character and the cause of events, it is hard for us to believe that there are people in the world who cannot kill.But in this case, the mother never pleaded, and she seemed to accept the punishment.Things start off weird, is she a resigned person?It does not seem.As I began to investigate, it became more and more clear that she was not a submissive person, quite the opposite, so to speak.

Groway listened with interest, leaned forward, tore a loaf of bread and set it on a plate. Is she innocent? Yes, she is really innocent.said Poirot. Are you surprised? I wasn't surprised until I found out the truth.Poirot said: One or two incidents, one in particular, proved the impossibility of her crime, but no one noticed it at the time.Put it this way, you just have to look at this matter the way you look at other things.At this moment the waiter brought in grilled trout. There was another time when you investigated an old case, but in a different way.Spence continued: "There was a girl at the party who said she had witnessed a murder.

How to say the same thing, looking at the past instead of looking for the future.Poirot said: Yes, there is such a thing. Did she really see someone being murdered? No, because she lied.This trout tastes good.Poirot praised. The fish here are all well done.Spence poured some dip onto his plate and said: The sauce is great!For the next three minutes, the three of them enjoyed the delicious food wholeheartedly. When Spence asked me if I remembered the Ravenk case, Glowell said: "I'm curious, I'm intrigued." Do you remember the content?asked Poirot. Well, the Ravenk case was not so easily forgotten.

Is there any flaw in this case?Lack of evidence or unclear explanation?asked Poirot. Not these questions.Glowe said: "All the evidence is consistent with the findings, there have been similar cases in the past, everything is normal, it's just What?said Poirot. It's just not right.Gloway said. ah!Spence listened with interest. You have felt this way too, right?Poirot turned to Spence. Yes, Mrs. McGinty's case. You are very dissatisfied that the cranky young man has been arrested.Poirot said: He has sufficient motives to commit the crime, he looks like a murderer, and everyone believes that he did it, but you know that the murderer is not him, and you are very sure, so you come to me and ask me to let go of the investigation.

I needed help, and it turned out you really helped, didn't you?Spence said. Poirot sighed and said: Yes, it was lucky that time.But that young man was really annoying.If he was sentenced to death, it was not because he killed someone, but because he refused to let others prove his innocence.Let's get back to the topic.Director Glowell, you say something is wrong? Well, it's a strong feeling, if you know what I mean. I understand, said Poirot: Spence understands too.We have all encountered this kind of thing, there is evidence, there is a motive for committing a crime, there is time for committing a crime, there are clues, there is a crime scene, everything should be there, and it can be called sufficient criminal evidence.But anyway, those in the know know something is wrong, just as an art critic can tell what's wrong with a painting and can tell a fake from a real one.

But I couldn't do anything about this case, Gloway said: I looked left and right, looked up and down, investigated deeply, looked around, but found nothing.It looked like suicide, and all the signs indicated it was suicide.Of course, it could be that the husband shoots the wife first and then kills himself, or it could be that the wife shoots the husband first and then kills herself.We've all been in these three situations, and you'll know which one it is when you encounter it.But in most cases, everyone can more or less guess why. Poirot asked: There's no reason why in this case, is there?

That's right, that's it.Once you take on a case and start poking around, you can usually get a sense of how their lives are going.This is a middle-aged couple. The husband is well-behaved, the wife is lively and enthusiastic, and the relationship between the two is harmonious. All these can be found out quickly.They lived happily, walking together during the day and playing cards at night. The children didn't need anyone to worry about. The son went to school in England and the daughter studied in Switzerland. No one felt that there was anything abnormal about their life.Judging from the medical records of the two, there were no serious health problems.The husband occasionally has high blood pressure, but after taking blood pressure-lowering drugs, the situation is well controlled; the wife is slightly hard of hearing and has a mild heart disease, but there is nothing to worry about.Of course, sometimes he or she also panics about health problems. Many people are obviously in good health, but insist on believing that they have cancer and can't live for a few years. Sometimes they even end their lives just because of this.But the Ravenkers were not like that. They were normal and stable. So what do you think about this case?asked Poirot. The problem is that I can't see anything.Looking back, I believe it was a suicide, and it could only be a suicide, that they felt they couldn't live for some reason, but it wasn't a financial problem, it wasn't a health problem, it wasn't because life wasn't going well.Maybe I'll stop here.There are all kinds of signs of suicide in this case, and I can't think of any other possibility except suicide.They went for a walk, and they took a revolver with them.The pistol, with their faint fingerprints on it, fell between the bodies of the two men who had held it, but there was no way to determine who fired it last.People tend to assume that a husband kills his wife and then shoots himself because it sounds more reasonable.But why?Over the years, whenever I came across a newspaper report somewhere in which a couple had been found dead, apparently by suicide, I would think of the Ravenk case and feel suspicious again.Twelve or fourteen years have passed, and I still remember this case. After thinking about it, I still remember those three words why, why, why?Is it the wife who hates her husband and wants to get rid of him?Have they hated each other to the point where it's unbearable? Glowell tore off another piece of bread and chewed. Mr. Poirot, do you have any ideas?Did someone approach you and say something that piqued your interest in the case?Do you have any data that would explain why? No.However, Poirot said: You must have your own opinions, talk about it, and you must have your own opinions. Yes, we all have our own opinions and expect at least one or two to unravel the mystery, but that usually doesn't happen.My reasoning must stop because too little is known to find the cause.How much do I really know about them?General Ravenk was then in his late sixties and his wife was thirty-five.Strictly speaking, all I know is the five or six years before their death.The general retired and lived on a pension, and the two returned to England from abroad.The evidence and information I have collected are limited to this short period of time.During this time, they bought a house in Bournemouth before moving to the site of the tragedy.They lived in peace and happiness when they lived there, and the children came back to live there when they were on vacation.Life is uneventful, so you presume they live in harmony.I know how he's been living in England since he retired, no money disputes, no grudges, no third party issues, nothing.But before that time, how much did I know?I only know that they spend most of their time abroad, and occasionally return to China once or twice.The husband was well-behaved, and the wife's friends had a good impression of her, and no one heard of any apparent quarrel or quarrel between them.But maybe it’s just that I don’t know that’s all, because no one knows what happened to them from childhood to marriage, and later living in the Malay Peninsula and other places for 20 to 30 years. Perhaps the root of the tragedy occurred at this time.My grandma used to say: Old sins always cast a long shadow.Was the cause of death buried long ago, was the cause in the past?It's not easy to find out.You may hear a word or two from friends or acquaintances of the husband, but no further details can be found.If I want to pursue it further, I should start here. This idea has been slowly brewing in my mind.During that period, some things may have happened to them, they may have happened abroad, and they may have been forgotten long ago without leaving any traces, but the sequelae are still there.Past grudges happened elsewhere, not when they got back to England, so no one knew about them, but the grudges have been left unresolved, if only we knew where to dig. Poirot said: You mean, nobody remembers anything like that happening?I mean things that their friends in England cannot possibly know. Although old friends would come to visit occasionally, most of their friends in England were met after he retired. No one heard about their past, and everyone would forget it. Yes, Poirot mused, people forget. Unlike elephants, Glowell says with a laugh: Elephants, they say, can remember everything. Poirot said: You even said that. Do you mean the shadow of old sins? It's not that, it's because you mentioned elephants just now, which makes me feel very interesting. Glowell looked at Poirot in surprise, as if waiting for him to speak, and Spence also glanced at his old friend. Spence said: Probably referring to what happened in the East, I mean, um, isn't that where elephants come from?Or Africa?Who the hell ever talked to you about elephants? A friend just mentioned it, and you also know it. Poirot turned to Spence and said: It is Mrs. Olivier. Spence called out: Oh, it's Aridan.Mrs Olivier! how?asked Poirot. Does she know something?Spence asked. I don't think she knows yet, said Poirot: but she will soon.He added thoughtfully: She's the kind of person who goes around prowling, you know what I mean. Yes, Spence said: I understand.Does she have any ideas? You mean Aridan.Mrs. Olivier, the writer?Glover asked with great interest. Spence said: yes. Does she know crime well?I know she writes detective stories, but where does she get the ideas or story material? Those are all her own thoughts, as to whether it is a true story, well, it is more difficult to say.Poirot paused for a moment. what's on your mind?Poirot, do you think of anything in particular? Yes, said Poirot: I once spoiled one of her stories, she said so.She had just come up with a brilliant crime scene, something to do with jumpsuits and tank tops, and I was calling to ask her what was going on, and she forgot all about it, so she blamed me for interrupting her thoughts. Gosh, said Spence: Sounds like parsley sinking into cream on a hot day, you know Sherlock.Sherlock Holmes and the dog who did nothing during the night? do they have dogsasked Poirot. What did you say? I asked if they had a dog?Did the Ravenkers take their dog for a walk the day they killed themselves? Yes, they have a dog.Glowe said: "I guess they usually take the dog for a walk. If this had been Mrs Olivier's story, Spence said, she would have arranged for the dog to howl over their bodies.But that's not the case. Glowell shook his head. Don't know where that dog is now?asked Poirot. Buried in someone's garden, I think, said Glowell: It's been fourteen years. So we can't ask the dog anymore?Poirot said thoughtfully: What a pity.You will be amazed at how many things dogs know!Who else lived in that house?I mean the day it happened. I can give you a list, Gloway said, so you can look it up.Mrs. Whitaker, who was the cook and housekeeper, was out that day, so there was no way to get results from her.There was also a guest who had been the children's governess.Mrs. Whitaker was deaf and had poor eyesight. One of the more noteworthy clues she provided was that Mrs. Ravenk had been in a hospital or a nursing home not long ago, not in pain but because of nervous tension.There is also a gardener. Maybe there are strangers from other places, friends from the past.Director Glowell, is that your opinion? It's more of a guess than an opinion. Poirot was silent.He remembered that there was an old case where five people were investigated.These five people remind him of the nursery rhyme of the five little pigs (see "The Song of the Five Little Pigs" in this series).It was an interesting case, and well worth it in the end, because he brought the truth to light.