![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Poirot vs Holmes: Cases of Derivation
Jan. 13th, 2019 12:25 pmPart 2: The Disappearance of Mr. Davenheim (1924)
Or the case of a husband who disappeared without trace. No, Hastings doesn’t meet Poirot at an opium den, but instead Inspector Japp brings this case to Poirot and makes a bet that Poirot won’t be able to solve it without leaving his flat. Poirot takes on the challenge, calling himself ‘a consulting specialist’.
The case was as follows: Mr. Davenheim, a banker, went out to post some letters and wasn’t seen after. The police suspected his business rival who came into his house while Davenheim was out because Davenheim had made an appointment with him. Later it is discovered that the safe in Davenheim’s study was forced and jewellery stolen from it.
Unlike the perceptive Mrs. St. Clair, Mrs. Davenheim is described in rather unflattering terms: “a pleasant, rather unintelligent woman. Quite a nonentity”. It’s somewhat disappointing, especially from a female author. In comparison, ACD, in spite of his prejudices towards women, created an image of a spirited, strong-willed woman who doesn’t despair but takes effective measures to find her husband.
Next, while the investigation continues, Mr. Davenheim’s clothes are found in the lake not far from his house, just like Mr. St. Clair’s clothes were found in the den and later on the bank of the Thames. Then a crook pawns Davenheim’s ring in a London pawnshop and gets arrested. He claims that Davenheim’s business rival threw out the ring, strengthening the evidence against that rival.
Eventually Poirot comes to a conclusion that Davenheim and the crook are one and the same person, that Davenheim wore a disguise and hid himself in prison intentionally to frame his business rival. Again, the denouement is not as dramatic as in The Man with a Twisted Lip (1891): no arriving into the cell at the crack of dawn and washing away the culprit’s make up with a huge sponge. Poirot just tells Japp to ask Davenheim’s wife to identify him. Underwhelming, to say the least.
Or the case of a husband who disappeared without trace. No, Hastings doesn’t meet Poirot at an opium den, but instead Inspector Japp brings this case to Poirot and makes a bet that Poirot won’t be able to solve it without leaving his flat. Poirot takes on the challenge, calling himself ‘a consulting specialist’.
The case was as follows: Mr. Davenheim, a banker, went out to post some letters and wasn’t seen after. The police suspected his business rival who came into his house while Davenheim was out because Davenheim had made an appointment with him. Later it is discovered that the safe in Davenheim’s study was forced and jewellery stolen from it.
Unlike the perceptive Mrs. St. Clair, Mrs. Davenheim is described in rather unflattering terms: “a pleasant, rather unintelligent woman. Quite a nonentity”. It’s somewhat disappointing, especially from a female author. In comparison, ACD, in spite of his prejudices towards women, created an image of a spirited, strong-willed woman who doesn’t despair but takes effective measures to find her husband.
Next, while the investigation continues, Mr. Davenheim’s clothes are found in the lake not far from his house, just like Mr. St. Clair’s clothes were found in the den and later on the bank of the Thames. Then a crook pawns Davenheim’s ring in a London pawnshop and gets arrested. He claims that Davenheim’s business rival threw out the ring, strengthening the evidence against that rival.
Eventually Poirot comes to a conclusion that Davenheim and the crook are one and the same person, that Davenheim wore a disguise and hid himself in prison intentionally to frame his business rival. Again, the denouement is not as dramatic as in The Man with a Twisted Lip (1891): no arriving into the cell at the crack of dawn and washing away the culprit’s make up with a huge sponge. Poirot just tells Japp to ask Davenheim’s wife to identify him. Underwhelming, to say the least.
