Solution: 4:50 to Pakenham

“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.”

Solution: Death at the Dinner Table

“So who did it?” asked Northrop rather bluntly. His friend smiled at him.

“First we must ask, how they did it,” said Sherlock.

“Well, it was cyanide poisoning – so the cake must have been laced with cyanide,” said Northrop.

“Yet, you admit that you ate the cake and were unaffected.”

“Well, yes.”

“And this cake was brought to the table, and cut into slices and placed onto plates and passed to the guests right in front of us.”

“Perhaps the slice of cake for Father Bishop was tainted with the stuff. Someone could have discreetly added the poison – ”

Sherlock shook his head.

“That would be far too risky,” said Sherlock. “No, it was much simpler than that.”

Northrop frowned.

“I wonder,” said Northrop, “the slice of cake Father Bishop ate was originally intended for Dr Patel. Do you suppose she was meant to be the victim?”

“My friend, you are changing the subject. You must first work out how the poison reached the victim.”

“Well, if it wasn’t by the cake, then it must…oh, it was the spoon that was poisoned!” exclaimed Northop.

“Yes, exactly. And how did the spoon come to be tainted with the poison?”

“Whoever laid out the table must have done so. So that must mean – ”

“Jeannie Goodwin. She laid the table before the guests arrived, and nobody accessed the dining room until dinner was served.”

“But why would she want to murder Father Bishop? Did she know something about the woman in India – Cedric’s fiancée? Perhaps the woman was actually a relative of Dr Patel – a sister perhaps? I feel as if the answer to this mystery lies in India.”

“My word, Northrop,” laughed Sherlock, “You do enjoy mystery novels don’t you. Such interesting tales you spin. What has India to do with this case at all? Just because Cedric’s fiancée was in India and Father Bishop was responsible for her death, and Dr Patel herself is Indian, does not mean that Jeannie Goodwin is connected to India. She herself has never even been to the country. No, for this mystery we must think more locally.”

“Let us review the suspects we have tonight and their respective occupations,” said Sherlock, “The hairdresser – he hears all about the love affairs and the gossip of his clients; the psychiatrist – she has patients who disclose their anxieties, fears and other stresses of the mind; and the priest,” said Sherlock looking intently at his friend, “he has people confess their darkest sins to him.

“Our suspects subsist on the secrets of others. People are willing to confide in them. But what about Jeannie Goodwin?” continued Sherlock, “She is a humble English teacher, teaching now at a local primary school in Melbourne. Who confides in her? Why, the students of course. The children. And what does she do when a child comes to her and tells her he has been wronged? That he has been taken advantage of?”

“You don’t mean – ”

“Father Bishop took advantage of one of her students,” explained Northrop, “She treated her students as if they were her own children – it could be seen by the way she described her class this evening. And her strong reaction to the rumours surrounding Father Bishop’s unsavoury behaviour merely highlighted that something was amiss.

“Jeannie Goodwin sought justice this evening. She knew that even if Father Bishop were found guilty and arrested for his crime, he would merely be jailed and rereleased into the community at a later date – yet that poor boy would remain scarred for the rest of his life. Your cousin had good intentions, Northrop. But unfortunately, such things pave the road to hell.”

Solution: Murder of a Mathematician

“It’s rather simple,” continued Sherlock. “The door to Desmond Clark’s office was confirmed locked by both Stephen and Lee. The key was found in the pocket of the late professor’s jacket. The only way that key could be there is if it was placed in there after the door had been broken down. There is no way the door could have been locked from the inside.

But who then placed the key in the professor’s jacket pocket? It must be the criminal! Who had the opportunity to do so? Both Stephen and Geraldine had spent time alone in the room¸ whilst Lee had not entered the room at all after discovering the body. Thus, we can eliminate her from suspicion.

Now remember, Geraldine entered the room later, holding in her hands a cup of tea and a snack (later confirmed to be a toasted cheese sandwich) which she had taken directly from the tea room. It would be incredibly difficult for her to swiftly and discreetly retrieve the key hidden on her person and then place it in the deceased’s pocket, when both her hands were occupied. Thus we come to the person who had the opportunity to do so – Stephen! The person who was kneeling by the body and would not draw any added attention.

Here is what I believe happened. Stephen was rifling through the desk of Desmond Clark, hoping to find some evidence that would incriminate him for plagiarism – a serious crime that could end his academic career. Perhaps it was a letter Desmond had written to the Dean? I do not know. Anyway, whilst Stephen is searching for this, Desmond returns early and sees his colleague. There may have been an argument, a plea from Stephen, but there is no fight. Desmond calmly reaches for the phone to call security. Stephen, in a moment of panic, grabs the letter opener from the desk and stabs Desmond in the back. The professor falls to the floor, the wound is fatal. Stephen quickly grabs the incriminating documents, and in his haste, knocks over a pile of papers to the floor. He locks the door of the office behind him, hoping it will buy him some more time.

Unfortunately, he hears footsteps coming up the corridor. He quickly makes it to his office door just as Lee turns the corner. When Lee tells Stephen she has heard some noises coming from Desmond’s office, Stephen quickly agrees and pretends that he had just come out of his office to also investigate. And the rest, you know.”