“It was Bernard Finn,” said Sherlock.
“The driver?” gasped Northrop, “But surely that’s impossible.”
“Nothing is impossible, my friend.”
“But how could he operate the train and murder someone at the same
time?”
“Ah, you are jumping too far ahead, Northrop. Before we get into such
technicalities, let us first examine the evidence. A young woman is sitting in
the first carriage of a train, facing forward. She is the only one in the compartment and is a mere few metres away
from the driver’s cabin. The victim is stabbed from the front. If she were
approached by one of the passengers in the second carriage, wouldn’t it be more
likely that she be stabbed in the back?”
Northrop pondered this but remained sceptical.
“And given that the murder took place within a four minute interval, it
would have been easiest for the driver to commit the crime given his close
proximity to the victim. The other passengers, on the other hand, would need to
hurry up and down the aisles being careful not to arouse suspicion from the
other commuters. So, in terms of temporal and locational convenience, the driver is the most likely suspect.
“Next, let us think of the means. The victim was stabbed with a paring
knife. Who would carry a knife around with them? Immediately, we think of
Genevieve Huxley – the apprentice chef. But as she says, anyone could carry
around such an ordinary, kitchen knife. But let us look at the evidence. Where do we see proof of such
a knife being used by one of the suspects? Why, we see the remains of a
carefully peeled apple in the waste receptacle of the driver’s cabin. As no other
knife or peeler was found in Bernard’s backpack or in the driver’s cabin, we
can assume the discarded paring knife was used by Bernard to peel his apple. Thus
Bernard had the means.
“Next, let us consider the motive for the crime. Our passengers in the
second carriage appear to have some rather personal motives for murder, including
unrequited love and revenge for a troubled past. But what if we strip away
these distractions and look at the evidence.
Upon examining the contents of the victim’s handbag, we see there are some items
that have been stolen. And thus we have a motive: the theft of the victim’s
keys and staff ID card.
“But why would the driver or anyone want to steal those?” asked
Northrop, “As Damien said, the keys and staff ID card do not provide access to
the pharmacy.”
“Exactly, but our killer does not know that – they assume they do. And why do they assume so?” asked Sherlock.
Northrop shrugged his shoulders.
“Let us look at Genevieve Huxley. She is dressed in chef’s whites. Why
is that so?”
“Er, because she’s an apprentice chef.”
“Exactly, but if someone didn’t know she was a trainee and saw her
dressed in her uniform, what would they say about her?”
Northrop looked dubiously at his friend.
“Why, they would say she is a chef,”
explained Sherlock, “And so when someone who doesn’t know Elizabeth sees her
dressed in a white pharmacy jacket, they do not assume she is a pharmacy
technician – “
“They think she’s a pharmacist,”
finished Northrop.
“Exactly! Bernard Finn could see clearly in the side mirror of the
train that Elizabeth was wearing a white pharmacy jacket. In fact, if you
recall, he referred to it as a pharmacist
jacket. Thus, Bernard assumed Elizabeth was a pharmacist and possessed keys to
the pharmacy. As was confirmed by the police physician’s toxicology report,
Bernard was a drug addict. Thus we have established a motive – Bernard killed
Elizabeth in order to gain access to the pharmacy so he could satiate his drug
habit.
“And lastly, we come to opportunity – perhaps one of the trickiest to
answer. How could Bernard, whilst operating a train, commit a murder? As the
stationmaster mentioned, the train has a dead man’s switch which becomes
activated when the driver fails to apply pressure to the pedal, instantly
cutting power and applying the emergency brakes. Thus, our carefully constructed
case against Bernard seems to be flawed. Examining the driver’s cabin reveals
there is no item or combination of items heavy enough to depress the dead man’s
pedal. So how did he do it? Again, we must look at the evidence. How can we press something down without using a heavy
weight? Why, we use a different kind of force. And thus we notice the
signalling flag in the cupboard of the driver’s cabin, and we notice some
slight marks near the pedal and the adjacent wall and come to a conclusion: the
driver wedged the signalling flag in such a way to defeat the dead man’s pedal,
thus allowing the train to remain in motion whilst he committed the crime.”
---
Bernard Finn later confessed to the murder of Elizabeth Arbour, revealing that although it
was rather cleverly done, it was executed on the spur of the moment. The victim’s
missing keys and ID card were found hidden in one of the end carriages of the
train where the culprit had intended to retrieve them later on.
“My word, Sherlock,” said Northrop as they left the police station, “an
innocent girl murdered in the hope of obtaining a drug addict’s fix.”
Sherlock nodded his head grimly. “And all because of the jacket she
wore.”
No comments:
Post a Comment