SHOP PRODUCTS
Houzz Logo Print
mashamcl

A rose as evidence for the defence

mashamcl
10 years ago

I have to admit, with embarrassment, that although I read most of Agatha Christie's mystery stories in my younger days, I have by now forgotten all but the most famous ones, such as "The Murder on the Orient Express" and "And Then There Were None". I thought it was time I got reacquainted with them, and today I came across an Hercule Poirot mystery called "Sad Cypress". The protagonist, Elinor Carlisle, is accused of poisoning a young girl, Mary Gerrard. The case against Elinor is strong, based largely on evidence supplied by apparently well-meaning and gossipy Nurse Hopkins. The nurse's account seems airtight, but there is one little detail that does not satisfy Hercule Poirot. The nurse said she had pricked her finger on a thorn of a rose tree. Poirot finds a witness who proves that she could not have done it, and therefore that the story is a lie and that Nurse Hopkins herself is the real murderer.

Here is the questioning of that witness:

"-You are a rose grower and live at Emsworth, Berks?
- Yes.
- Did you go to Maidensford and examine a rose tree growing at the Lodge at Hunterbury Hall?
- I did.
- Will you describe this tree?
- It was a climbing rose - Zephyrine Drouhin. It bears a sweetly scented pink flower. It has no thorns.
- It would be impossible to prick oneself on a rose tree of this description?
- -It would be quite impossible. It is a thornless tree."

And so Elinor Carlisle is free to enjoy life and marry the man she loves, and Nurse Hopkins goes to the gallows. Because, as we all know, Zephirine Drouhin has no thorns.

After finishing the book, I had to go out into the garden and look at my own Zephirine. Not a "sweetly scented pink flower" in sight, but plenty of long, mildewy and indeed thornless canes, ready to bloom next year. But here it is this spring, the rose that gave away the murderer.

{{gwi:325415}}

{{gwi:325416}}

Comments (14)