In the short story “The Witness for the Prosecution”, author Agatha Christie enjoys teasing her readers by not revealing the solution until the end. The story is about a man named Leonard Vole that kills a wealthy old lady when he finds out that the will of the old woman was put under his name. Christie shows how she can confuse the readers easily by including red herrings, a type of writing that purposely misleads the reader. At the end, the jury sets Leonard free and Romaine, Leonard’s wife, confesses to Mr. Mayherne that she knew Leonard was guilty. This story shows how the author can accomplish her goal of covering the solution until the final moment.
The five basic rules of amateur detective fiction were first established by Edgar Allan …show more content…
Christie insists “The maid, Janet Mackenzie, declares that her mistress was a good woman of business and transacted all her own affairs, and this is borne out by the testimony of her bankers” (105) This may be true; however the lawyer doesn’t believe …show more content…
Rule number four remarks that “clues” must be given to be able to solve the crime if the “clues” are properly interpreted. Clues such as “Why did you, a young man of thirty-three, good-looking, fond of sport, popular with your friends, devote so much of your time to an elderly woman with whom you could hardly have anything in common?” (Christie, 105) are given throughout the story. One could argue that this might make sense because Leonard Vole is a handsome man that doesn’t have anything to do with Miss Emily French and the only reason that he could be paying attention to her could be because of her money. On the other hand, this story involves red herrings such as “He found the cinema in Lion Road easily enough, and, shown a photograph of Romaine Heilger, the commissionaire recognized her at once. She had arrived at the cinema with a man some time after ten o’clock on the evening in question.” (Christie,115) that tries to confuse us with the actual clues. The idea of Christie is to mislead us from knowing who is the criminal. The last rule pronounces that the detective must explain who the criminal is and cover the motive, means, and opportunity by the conclusion of the story. Throughout the story,
The five basic rules of amateur detective fiction were first established by Edgar Allan …show more content…
Christie insists “The maid, Janet Mackenzie, declares that her mistress was a good woman of business and transacted all her own affairs, and this is borne out by the testimony of her bankers” (105) This may be true; however the lawyer doesn’t believe …show more content…
Rule number four remarks that “clues” must be given to be able to solve the crime if the “clues” are properly interpreted. Clues such as “Why did you, a young man of thirty-three, good-looking, fond of sport, popular with your friends, devote so much of your time to an elderly woman with whom you could hardly have anything in common?” (Christie, 105) are given throughout the story. One could argue that this might make sense because Leonard Vole is a handsome man that doesn’t have anything to do with Miss Emily French and the only reason that he could be paying attention to her could be because of her money. On the other hand, this story involves red herrings such as “He found the cinema in Lion Road easily enough, and, shown a photograph of Romaine Heilger, the commissionaire recognized her at once. She had arrived at the cinema with a man some time after ten o’clock on the evening in question.” (Christie,115) that tries to confuse us with the actual clues. The idea of Christie is to mislead us from knowing who is the criminal. The last rule pronounces that the detective must explain who the criminal is and cover the motive, means, and opportunity by the conclusion of the story. Throughout the story,