The ABC Murders

The investigators visit the bereaved family in their home. The Barnards are a retired couple whose older daughter works in London as a typist. The weeping parents report that Betty frequently came home late in the evenings after they had retired. They speak warmly of Betty’s romantic interest, Donald Fraser, and are baffled as to why their daughter died. On the way upstairs, a woman stops in front of the house. Hastings notices her instantly, describing her appearance: “Her hair was black and cut in a straight bob and a bang across the forehead. Her cheek-bones were high and her whole figure had a queer modern angularity that was not, somehow, unattractive” (76). She introduces herself as Megan Barnard, Betty’s older sister and informs Hastings that “my sister was a nice bright girl with no men friends” as though giving a statement to a journalist—which she assumes he is.

Hastings and Megan go to the kitchen together. Poirot finds them and introduces himself. She recognizes Poirot by name and reputation and expresses surprise that a famous detective is involved in this matter. Poirot tells her that her testimony is of great importance to him, as people are increasingly reluctant to tell the truth about the dead. Megan responds immediately, declaring that her sister was really “an unmitigated little ass!” (78).

The conversation continues. Megan explains that she continually tried to tell her sister her behavior with men was foolish. She produces Betty’s photograph. Betty is more conventionally pretty, and Megan declares she has always known this. Betty was flirtatious and enjoyed casual attention, despite knowing how much this bothered her boyfriend, Donald Fraser, whom she intended to marry. Megan hesitates in describing more about their relationship, until Poirot explains the presence of the railway guides. Megan can answer without incriminating Donald.

Megan does explains that Betty still enjoyed flirtations with other men and accepted their invitations to dinner. The couple quarreled bitterly over it, especially when Fraser discovered that Betty was not always telling the truth about where she went. Fraser was so angry when Betty lied about visiting the neighboring town of Eastbourne with a man that he threatened to kill her. Poirot notes that this would typically make him a suspect, except for the presence of the letter and the railway guide. The doorbell rings then, and Megan announces it is Fraser. Poirot tells her to bring him in.

Fraser is pale and shocked, and Poirot pours him whisky before asking him questions. He flushes with anger when Poirot asks if Betty may have lied to him about being out with friends the previous evening. Megan tells him that Poirot must have the absolute truth, no matter how painful. Fraser recounts fruitless efforts at following Betty around the area, and Hasting notes, “Precise as his tone had remained, I caught an undertone of that blind, bewildering misery and anger that had possessed him at the time he described” (89). Fraser reports returning home around midnight. Finally, they are interrupted by the police inspectors, and Poirot retreats. When Hastings asks his friend for his impressions, he says that he is preoccupied with “‘the amazing magnanimity of the murderer” (90). Hastings does not know what this means.

Due to the age of the victim and the location, the Barnard case becomes a public spectacle. The police and Poirot find themselves wondering whether to publicize the connection between the Barnard and Ascher cases. Poirot and the psychiatrist Dr. Thompson agree that either denying attention or affirming it will provoke more attacks. Crome assures Thompson there is no way the killer will make it far in the alphabet. Poirot is unimpressed, and Hastings believes Crome is equally unhappy when Thompson asks Poirot’s opinion about whether the killer will eventually grow careless and be apprehended.

Poirot remains preoccupied with the killer’s motivations, declaring that animus is usually personal. This does not, however, explain the current predicament, as he declares, “But consider now this case—if the victims are alphabetically selected, then they are not being removed because they are a source of annoyance to the murderer personally” (96). Thompson agrees, asserting that all killers either remove those who are obstacles to them or who represent a particular type of person they hate or resent. Poirot suggests that the hatred may be directed at him or all non-English people—or at some characteristic of the victims the murderer resents.

Crome dismisses these issues as irrelevant, insisting there is no logic to the victim selection, but Poirot is undeterred. He points out that the killer could have escaped detection, framing either Donald Fraser or Franz Ascher but did not do so, making him a “magnanimous murderer” (98). Returning to the initial debate, Crome urges publicizing the next letter from the killer, insisting that this will result in overconfidence and successful apprehension. Hastings, hinting at his knowledge of the plot’s resolution, announces, “how little we knew what the future held” (98).