OJ Simpson trial was the most famous crime that divided people whether he was innocent or not

OJ Simpson trial was the most famous crime that divided people whether he was innocent or not. Prosecutors had to look at the different evidence and present them to the court. The prosecutor had to unlock the evidence to determine if Simpson had committed the crime. A good sleuth helps us determine who committed the crime. In the mystery novel, Murder on the Orient Express, by Agatha Christie, readers admire the main character Poirot as the quintessential sleuth for his deductive reasoning skills and his ability to help the reader to reveal the crime.
Poirot is the quintessential sleuth because of his deductive reasons skills; he is astonishingly clever with a heavenly reputation for solving crimes.The deductions made during the murder investigation aboard the Orient Express are not ones that could have been made by someone of lesser intelligence. Poirot is an expert at observing beyond appearances to determine people’s true personalities. Hercule is one of the popular characters in Agatha Christie’s most famous novel. When Hercule and M. Bouc meet in the restaurant, the Christie describes Bouc and casually mention he has known the “former start of the Belgian Police Force”(Christie 15) for many years. This provides valuable information about Poirot. He is a former law enforcement officer, is retired from the police force, and in a high-level position, and has earned a good reputation.

In the main conflict in the novel, the whole murder scene is so complicated and seemingly impossible to solve even though Poirot does it. It is such a complicated murder case because there are so many people involved which means a lot of suspects. It takes a very special and intelligent person that pays a lot of attention to detail like Poirot to solve a murder case like this.
In the first of 12 chapters in which Hercule Poirot questions the passengers and the conductors. He gathers basic information about the interviewee before meeting with them. Next, he asks questions about the night of the murderer. He wants to find out what the interviewee was doing and when so he can remove the person or classify them as a suspect. He needs to obtain information regarding what they viewed and heard, to see if there is anything helpful that could be a new evidence. Lastly, he wants to collect information regarding his own and other passengers movements and action to build a timeline of events linked to the murder. At the first investigation, when Poirot first finished an interview with Hector, M. Bouc said ” You believe what he says, this young man?’ (Christie 55) Poirot replied, ” Me, I suspect everybody till the last minute” (Christie 56) in the quote M. Bouc thinks that Poirot has dropped MacQueen from his list of suspects, but this does not work with Poirot. Everyone is a possible suspect until all evidence is in and examined. Only then can the truth be known.
After Poirot finishes his interview with Hector, he went to the Ratchett coach and finds clues, “Perfectly,” said Poirot. “The matter begins to clear itself up wonderfully! The murderer was a man of great strength- he was feeble- it was a woman it was a right-handed person-it was a left-handed person. Ah! C’est rigolo, tout ça!”(Christie 61) in this statement, Poirot has discussed with Dr. Constantine to examine the size and type of Mr. Ratchett twelve wounds, all of which

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

have been caused by a knife. Poirot concluded that some delivered by a left-handed person and other by a right-handed person.
Throughout the early stages of the investigation, Poirot has been strangely negative of the physical evidence. In this passage, he lays out an explanation for his theory of detective work” It is the psychology I seek not the fingerprint or the cigarette ash. But in this case, I would welcome a little scientific assistance. This is full of clues, but can I be sure that those clues are really what they seem to be?”, “Well, to give you an example—we find a woman’s handkerchief. Did a woman drop it? Or did a man, committing the crime, say to himself ‘I will make this look like a woman’s crime’ (Christie 65) Poirot seeks “psychology” not “the fingerprint or the cigarette ash,” meaning he seeks to understand the motives that drive someone to want someone else dead. Besides, physical evidence can lie in many false ways that people do. Every crime is possibly created, arranged in such a way that can mislead the investigation. In Poirot’s example, a man could have planted the handkerchief to accuse a woman just as easily as a woman could have dropped it accidentally. This proves what readers have already seen of Poirot’s method, focus on people rather than tangible clues. In the search of the cabin, Poirot also found a piece of burnt paper. He collects the paper to reveal the words imprinted on the scrap. A scrap of paper reveals the words ” member little Daisy Armstrong” ( Christie 66) Poirot remembers the Armstrong case, in which a three years old girl was kidnapped and murdered. The story is a parade of horrors and destroying the whole family. This section verified the truth of Ratchett or his alias name Casetti the murder of the little Daisy. In a mystery, the lead detective is the primary source of truth, and Poirot is known to be careful and talented. He is certain that

Cassetti was guilty, and that his escape was a failure of justice. Now he thinks his death is no great tragedy but in the position of investigating a victim whose murder may have been justified.
At every interview, each of the passengers seems surprised that Mr. Ratchett was actually the criminal Cassetti, and each has an alibi for the time when he was killed. The American Mrs. Hubbard insists that the murderer was in her cabin last night, although she claims the door between her room and Ratchett’s was barred the previous night. Mrs. Hubbard produces a button from a conductor’s uniform that she found near her window and seems quieted when Poirot accepts it as evidence.
Before interviewing the next person on the list, Princess Dragomiroff, Poirot confronts the conductor Pierre Michel with the button Mrs. Hubbard found. Pierre insists that he didn’t lose a button and he calls a conductor from another train car to confirm his alibi. In an interview with Princess Dragomiroff, it’s revealed that she did know the Armstrong family and was, in fact, Sonia Armstrong’s godmother. She vaguely mentions the actress Linda Arden, who was Sonia’s mother, as well as a younger sister of Sonia’s who moved to England.
Poirot discovers a few significant revelations while talking to the passengers. Cyrus Hardman reveals that he’s not a typewriter salesman but a private detective hired by Mr. Ratchett to protect him. Further, Ratchet told hardman to expect a “small man, with dark skin and a womanish voice” (Christie 138). A few passengers claim to have seen this small dark man in a conductor’s uniform the previous night, as well as a tall woman in a scarlet kimono. After interviewing all the passengers, Poirot sums up the evidence, much of it different. Poirot proposes to search each

passenger’s luggage. Suddenly, Mrs. Hubbard bursts in to say she’s discovered a knife in her bag. Poirot identifies the knife as the murder weapon but provides few other clues. Poirot begins to confront passengers with the results of his deductions. The Countess’s first name is not Elena but Helena. The Count had altered her passport after the handkerchief with an “H” was found in Ratchett’s cabin, but the handkerchief isn’t hers, and they profess their innocence. However, Helena does admit that she’s actually Helena Goldenberg, Sonia Armstrong’s sister, which explains her fear to escape suspicion for Ratchett’s murder. Later, Princess Dragomiroff steps forward to claim the handkerchief.
Next, Poirot rounds on Ms. Debenham, who he has identified as Daisy Armstrong’s governess, which she admits, while Colonel Arbuthnot leaps to her defense. Then follows a series of admissions from passengers that have not been forthright: Antonio Foscarelli admits that he was Armstrong’s chauffeur, Greta Ohlsson admits that she was Daisy’s nurse, and Masterman, Mr. Ratchett’s valet, admits he was Colonel Armstrong’s assistant in World War I. This is enough for Poirot to call all the passengers to assemble in the dining car so he can propose the solution to the crime.
Poirot actually has two solutions. The first is that the small, dark man Hardman mentioned boarded the train at a stop in Belgrade or Vincovci, changed into a conductor uniform, stabbed Ratchett twelve times, and stepped off the train. The passengers accept this tentatively, but M. Bouc and Dr. Constantine are unsatisfied, so Poirot offers another one.

At last, he summarizes the differences of the case and then concludes that each one of the twelve passengers, including the conductor, Pierre Michel, murdered Ratchett, as each one had a personal connection to Daisy Armstrong or the Armstrong household. This gives everyone a reason to want to murder Ratchett. This explains why the stab wounds appear to have been made by different people. In addition, the twelve passengers planned to make irrelevant evidence in Poirot’s way, including the stopped watch, the handkerchief, and the scarlet kimono itself Poirot finds holes in the crime made up stories that everyone has and finds that almost everyone lied about something or has some connection to the Armstrong family that wasn’t revealed before which makes them all look very guilty. The reason they all hid their true identities is that they didn’t want Poirot to know that they all were connected to Daisy because then they would look very guilty. This is a very obvious conflict. It’s a murder case, of course solving the murder is going to be the conflict, but this one is special because of how big, complex, and evolved the murder plot was. Poirot uses his special skills to solve the murder but then he decides not to tell the authorities that everyone on the train did it to revenge Daisy’s murder. At last Poirot said ” having placed my solution before you, I have the honor to retire from the case…” (Christie 256)This is the last line of the book. It is said by Poirot to the dining room with all of the train passengers gathered in it. He is announcing that his part is done and that they will not be guilty of their crime that they have committed to revenge Daisy’s murder.


I'm Sarah!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out