Worst Mistakes Made by Agatha Christie Killers

[@jedidiah4647]

I really love your agatha christie videos man keep them coming

[@summationgathering]

Glad you like them!

[@lefuetthebaron1483]

Jane and the ’Paris’ situation was absolutely unpredictable (and as a clue it's just brilliant), though very much in character for Jane.

[@summationgathering]

It is an excellent clue for sure.

[@konpulsiv]

Agree with your number 1 technically, but I always chalked that one up to Christie just running out of ideas for this case or that she wasn't top of her game when she wrote it. Same with Nurse Hopkins. I mean, I enjoy a dumb mistake a killer makes, if it's plausible to me and fits the character. For example, I found Miss Gilchris' blooper in After the funeral to be in character. She just couldn't help herself, because decor and stuff like that was part of what she enjoyed in managing her tea shop. I don't enjoy it when I recognize the authoress' carelessness though😅 Love the video!

[@summationgathering]

I did struggle a lot over how high to include mistakes I think were more from Christie's writing when compared to intentional mistakes.

[@timmorrell5591]

I enjoy your videos but I'm afraid in this one you owe an apology to Evelyn Howard. Evelyn never writes a letter to Alfred detailing their plans. Mrs Inglethorp forgot to take her medicine the night before, so Alfred writes a letter to Evelyn reassuring her that "It will be tonight, not last night". Mrs Inglethorp comes in unexpectedly while he is writing it so he shoves it into his desk, locks it, then leaves the room. Unfortunately for him Mrs Inglethorp discovers it when she forces the lock of his desk while looking for stamps. That's the letter that gets torn up, rolled into spills and hidden in the spills vase on the mantlepiece. Alfred deserves your nomination for writing the letter to allay any anxieties Evelyn might have had. But Evelyn is far too cold blooded and calculating to make any mistakes!

[@summationgathering]

Yes I do owe Evie Howard an apology. Thanks for pointing this out. It has been a while since I read Styles and I guess I don't remember it as well as I thought.

[@lukacunningham342]

I think the reason they kept the paper in “Affair at Styles” was because it was during war so no papers couldn’t be sent or thrown away, it is the reason why Emily burnt the will because it was the only way to dispose of it, so Alfred and Evelyn had no other choice

[@summationgathering]

That makes sense actually.

[@margaretalbrecht4650]

Okay. You blew it with The Mysterious Affair at Style. First, the letter wasn't from Evelyn to Alfred. It was from Alfred to Evelyn. He didn't keep the letter for months. He had just written the letter the day after Mrs. Inglethorpe forgot to take her usual dose of medicine. So he wrote it on the day Mrs. Inglethorpe died. As for why he didn't destroy it, the text tells us... “But now a fresh dilemma arises: he dare not keep that piece of paper on him. He may be seen leaving the room-he may be searched. If the paper is found on him, it is certain doom. Probably, at this minute, too, he hears the sounds below of Mr. Wells and John leaving the boudoir. He must act quickly. Where can he hide this terrible slip of paper? The contents of the waste-paper-basket are kept and in any case, are sure to be examined. There are no means of destroying it;" I also think you missed the big mistake in Death in the Clouds. That was the whole dart and blowpipe set up. He should have just jabbed her and pulled the dart out. (He could have gotten rid of the dart through the ventilator.) No one would have immediately jumped to the idea that she'd been poisoned. The mark on her neck would have been put down to the wasp sting which was the whole point of bringing the wasp on the plane. The passengers wouldn't have been searched. The empty matchbox wouldn't have been found. Maybe the coroner finds out she was poisoned. Maybe the coroner doesn't. But instead he commits a murder in a way to immediately draw attention to the fact that it's a murder. Should have just stuck with the wasp misdirection. But he bolluxes up a perfectly good cover by deciding to use a poisoned dart with blowpipe as another misdirection.

[@summationgathering]

Oh I know. I completely botched the Styles mistake with a mistake of my own! Oh the irony! That would be #1 on a ranking of all the incorrect things I've said on this channel. Now with Norman Gale, I don't think his plan is that bad of an error. While it's certainly better to try and pass it off as a suicide or accident, he does plan to frame Lady Horbury. You also have to take into consideration Christie's own glaring, infamous error in thinking a blowpipe was a footlong.

[@DaleRibbons]

The one that immediately comes to mind is from 'The ABC Murders', and that's 'Don't deliberately involve the world's greatest detective in your crime'. I'm too lazy to go into the whole plot here, but as part of his elaborate plan, the killer sends Poirot letters daring him to stop his supposed serial murders. Poirot must have a reputation as a great detective, solving a variety of crimes. The killer must have heard or known about this. Did he not consider the idea Poirot might figure out his scheme as well? Did he think he was somehow smarter than Poirot and all the other killers and criminals he has brought to justice? If he had thought it over, maybe he would realize how convoluted and flawed his plan was.

[@summationgathering]

I did consider a few of the times the culprit brought Poirot or Marple into the case, including this one, but I decided against it because this ploy typically worked for a little bit and is rarely the thing that ultimately gets them caught.

[@seto749]

Some really well-chosen ones here. Charlotte and Bunny hadn't seen each other in so many years that that error could almost be chalked up to bad luck. Gerda just could never be relied upon in adversity (The Hollow is tricky; Poirot works out soon enough that Henrietta is his antagonist and he always had the right instinct about John's dying declaration, but the fingerprints on the gun may have been insurmountable). I'll admit I would have had The Moving Finger with two entries because I like the way the errors tie in together. Paris also was hard to evaluate - Jane didn't really know Carlotta, but the foreshadowing was handled so well - we really needed Hastings in the novel just to have the idea that Jane's "highly intelligent comments about Greek art" consisted of her saying Yes or No to Sir Montague with sufficient apparent interest. But it was Alfred who was writing to Evie when he was interrupted.

[@summationgathering]

Leave it to Hastings to misinterpret everything.

[@AmarisFrede]

I'm sure the mistake of forgetting about the maid Louise is one that reoccurs in many Agatha Christie stories: domestics just don't exist. At least to those who employ them. They aren't real people to them, just tools and accessories. So why would they think about them? I kinda remember Poirot solving a mystery about a woman who seriously thought she was stalked by her ex through magic, because written notes would appear "just like that"... turns out, it was the post man. In another case, the killer came in a butcher's vehicle, and thus "went unnoticed". And Poirot (or whatever detective it was) explained, that when you ask a (rich) lady: "Do you live alone?", she'll usually answer yes to her friends or potential lovers, but if a doctor asked her during an epidemic, she'd suddenly remember: "Well, the cook and the maid live in the same house..." 🤦💷

[@summationgathering]

Yes, it's a very common mistake made in Christie novels where people just forget about the servants.

[@cayreet5992]

I think it's a very common mistake of the time, because a lot of people really didn't consider their servants someone to mention. They were just there and existed to do their jobs, they weren't considered anyone important.

[@summationgathering]

@@cayreet5992 Servants were rarely the culprits but typically did play an important role somewhere.

[@nanamitoamata2406]

the story with the postman and the question of who lives in your house are actually from a father brown story (The Invisible Man found in the Innocence of Father Brown) but it just shows how common it just was to not think about domestic and other service fulfilling workers.

[@lukacunningham342]

Y’know, I find it a bit humorous on the Pale Horse version for dark comedic reasons, Osborne looks at this guy, goes like “Hmm, he has scars and had a disfigured face like he’s been in the war, he probably still has good working legs, I’ll frame him for murder!” 😂

[@summationgathering]

I always wondered how he didn't notice he was in a wheelchair. Did he just see him for a second at a glance and decide on him in an instant?

[@lukacunningham342]

@@summationgathering Well, according to the adaptation in Agatha Christie’s Marple, Osborne could’ve seen Venables from the window of a car, when Venables had to be sitting down

[@glennscott9693]

Not sure about #14. I always assumed that Bunny was invited to live at Little Paddocks long before Rudi Scherz happened to show up in Chipping Cleghorn; what are the odds of that happening.

[@summationgathering]

Yeah, I debated over this one a lot because it did happen well in advance of anything that sparked the murder plot.

[@puirYorick]

@@summationgathering She still brought Bunny into her secret identity fraud scheme for the inheritance. The murder plot did not come until later. However, Bunny was already trusted to keep a secret that would have landed Letty in jail. Letty invited one of the only- or few- persons she absolutely knew could detect and expose her fraud attempt. Belle would have been the other known risk. It was a massively stupid (out-of-character) thing for a selfish money-grubber to have done.

[@improvetheword9691]

Great video! Can you put in the link to the first part of this video?

[@summationgathering]

I'm not sure which link you mean. If you're talking about the 'How Every Murderer could have gotten away with it", that's a video I haven't made yet.

[@improvetheword9691]

@@summationgathering ohhhh!!! I see! Can't wait to see it

[@jedidiah4647]

I think Jane Wilkinson's mistake was entirely within her control. She should have conferred with Carlotta after the fact to discuss what they talked about at dinner. It may not me an obvious thing to do, but if you're planning TWO murders then you really should have details like this worked out. I don't think Jane made this mistake out of stupidity, but out of arrogance.

[@summationgathering]

One would think impersonating someone would also include more than simply looking like that person. Carlotta would have needed to speak like Jane and say the things Jane would say.

[@coffemuse]

I think Norman Gale's mistake is the result of the constant buildup of strain, whereas the wax flowers in #4 is sheer carelessness and overconfidence. So I think I would have swapped numbers 1 and 4. A great lineup of mistakes here, and I look forward to being introduced to Allingham next week! I think I've read the first Allingham and wasn't impressed so didn't continue... but that's a conversation for the next two weeks.

[@summationgathering]

I wasn't impressed with Allingham either when I first read her and I am more into her now but I'm still not wowed off my feet.

[@jedidiah4647]

Last thing: yeah Bella Tanios is almost Gerda Christow levels of bad at her job.

[@Sebastian-lw5qb]

Except that Bella planned it, while Gerda acted out of an impulse. So really, Bella is dumber.