What would be told by Hercule Poirot about events in Deptford?
A few years ago publisher of the electronic newspaper “ Marlo is living! “ David Moore carried out a teleconference with participation of two police officers. He invited them to arrange something like investigation of incident, the incident in Deptford on May 20, 1593.
Having stated facts of the case, he asked them to express the professional opinion. After long discussions both officers came to a conclusion that the official version, most likely, was a forgery.
Give we too we will try to make own investigation. Certainly, our means are limited - we cannot interrogate witnesses, gather evidence or make investigative experiment. Instead to us it is necessary to resort, like Hercule Poirot, to the help of small gray sections and to apply his favourite psychological method.
So: or the protocol is truthful, or is not present.
Let`s say that the protocol is truthful, and Marlo`s death really was accident .
Then there are following questions:
1. Why Marlo went to this meeting while he was obliged to be every day on interrogation in London?
2. How there could be Robert Pauly who was as obliges obliged to be in the Hague?
3. Why Marlo participated in a wine party with the servant of the friend Thomas Uolsingema and why it was impossible to make it in his estate which was nearby?
4. For what reason in general was to start quarrel from - for several pence moreover at the moment of danger of death? And why the Milling cutter just did not agree to pay for a dinner, having asked the owner to refund it expenses later?
5. Why other two participants did not stop a fight?
6. How Marlo could die of a wound which, according to the conclusion of physicians, could not be deadly in any case?
7. Why the uncle Marlo sailed to time after his death, without having waited for results of a consequence and a funeral and without having reported to the brother about death of the son?
8. Why Marlo was hastily buried in a common grave?
9. Why neither the family, nor friends put on a grave nor plates with a name, nor a cross?
10. Why the queen ordered to the investigator to find the Milling cutter not guilty, and Uolsingem raised in a rank and generously awarded the servant who killed in a drunk fight of his close friend instead of turning out him?
11. Why the queen appropriated business for the jurisdiction and buried?
All these questions were raised at historians suspicion that the protocol - no more, than the legend urged to hide what really happened. One historians consider that it was deliberate murder, others - that it was not the real murder, but a performance.
It is more of first, than the second, and it can be understood: in our cruel world political murders are much more habitual, than attempts to rescue got to disgrace.
If it is murder , then under whose order murderers acted? The answer is obvious: by order of the misters of Barli and Uolsingem.
Then again there is a number of questions:
1. Why Barli ordered to kill the agent whom he in ten days rescued from tortures and execution before? If Marlo could tell on interrogation something dangerous to Barli - especially it was impossible to release him from prison and to allow to walk on freedom of the whole ten days instead of putting in a solitary confinement and to dramatize suicide. And if arrest was for some reason undesirable - there were always in a stock a knife of the killer or the poisoned wine. So why to arrange a performance with participation of the coroner and the queen?
2. How Uolsingem was involved in this business? In ten days before he was the best friend Marlo. Why he took part in murder of the friend to which tortures and death already threatened? From where Barli could learn about this sudden hostility and why to him was to involve in general Uolsingem if was to give the order to couple of killers enough? To what excess participants?
3. Why to arrange this dirty matter in the house of respectable Mrs. Bull?
4. Why to kill the nephew nearly in the face of the uncle?
5. Why to cause Roberta Pauly from the Hague for the sake of blow a knife with which any mercenary could cope?
6. Why participants in general remained with a body? The Thames proceeded in several tens meters from the house of Mrs. Bull. Why they did not take out a body under the screen of night and did not throw it into the river? Nobody knew that they gathered there, and nobody would learn about it if not the protocol of m - ra Denbi.
7. And, at last, same question: why Marlo went to this meeting if it was obliged to be every day on interrogation in London? It is unlikely he foreknew that he will be killed.
Besides both Barli, and Uolsingem were the liberals hating the archbishop. Why they suddenly decided to help it and to kill the person whom so perfectly treated? Why they became allies of the enemy?
So, murder also badly explains the facts, as well as accident known to us.
Therefore we will reject bias and scepticism and we will consider the version about performance . Let`s assume, Barli decided to save Marlo from the archbishop`s paws. He releases it from - under arrest and bails.
Perhaps, at that moment “ murders “ it was not planned yet. But after Bains`s denunciation the situation sharply changed. Barli perfectly understood that to risk the situation, trying to rescue Marlo after such denunciation moreover while he conducted behind the back of the queen negotiations with Jacob on a succession to the throne - a sheer madness. Therefore he made the unique decision - to rescue the agent and the playwright (whose plays he considered as very valuable means of a political propaganda), having declared him the dead. Perhaps, even with the consent of Elizabeth who demanded that the name of the heretic and trouble-maker was forgotten and he - is sent from England. Thereby it reconciled interests of policy, religion and art.
So, the performance requires the suitable place. It has to be within jurisdiction of the royal coroner, from there it has to be easy to sail on the continent, there has to be a house with reliable owners, and Marlo should not know by sight there.
Deptford answered all these conditions.
Mrs. Bull was a relative and the business partner of lord Barli, and he could be confident in her silence.
Marlo seldom was in Deptford, and risk that substitution will be noticed, was not too great.
Anthony Marlo was the owner of a shipyard in Deptford.
Royal (and at the same time local) the coroner Edward Denbi was an old friend Barli.
A milling cutter, Skerz and Pauly perfectly were suitable for a role of the inveterate deceivers ready to lie under the oath. The milling cutter and Skerz very succeeded in art of fraud and extortion and were devoted to Uolsingem. Pauly was a skilled and cynical agent. He said that he will swear one hundred perjuries, but will not show for anything against himself.
His call from the Hague is natural if it kept further in contact with Marlo. He had to transfer new documents and coordinate “ passwords, appearances, addresses “.
The wound in an eye helped to disfigure a face to unrecognizability. As the hero of the play " noticed in a similar situation; The Measure for a measure “: “ Death - a great maskirovshchitsa, and we can still which - what to add to it “.
Three participants remained near a body to confirm under the oath that this body of Marlo.
A hasty funeral in a common grave of victims of plague has the reason too: sometimes the archbishop did not leave enemies alone even in a grave, having ordered to dig out a corpse, to behead it and to expose it on Londonsky Bridge. A funeral could draw its attention, and in rage that the victim got off so light, it could demand to give the criminal`s body. But to dig out a grave of the dead from plague - it would be already too. The fear of plague was stronger than thirst of revenge. Besides Vitzhift was quite satisfied that his enemy, the dead sudden and shameful death, lies in the earth without plate and without cross.
So, small gray sections led us to a conclusion that sometimes the most improbable appears the most plausible.