Father Brown "The Great Train Robbery" series 7 episode 1 (spoilers)

[Adam H. Kerman]

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

Nancy Carroll appears as Lady Felicia, and another actor that I assume
is her son is on the episode.

Fairly standard Father Brown, in which the father perverts the course of
human justice, letting the murderers go free. There is the occasional
episode in which Father Brown insists that the murderers confess to the
police to demonstrate penitence, but not here.

That being said, the scenes with Lady Felicia and Mrs. McCarthy with the
would-be robbers who kidnap them are hysterical. Also, there's some
legitimate police work performed by both Bunty and Inspector Mallory,
who actually gets one of the guilty party into custody but fails to pursue.
aargh. It's truly unfortunate that the usual weak ending was tacked on to
a strong story. This could have been entertaining television from start
to finish.

Tonight's murder victim is an opera diva with a huge following,
travelling with her family in a private Pullman coach from concert hall to
concert hall. There were Pullman coaches on British Railways?

Returning from a murder mystery play (that Felicia blurts out the
resolution to very early) and bickering over nonsense the whole way, Lady
Felicia and Mrs. McCarthy find that first class compartments are full.
This is beyond stupid, as they both had tickets and trains are never
supposed to be oversold, certainly not in First Class. The unsympathetic
conductor (after she tries to bribe him) seats the two women in second
class; Lady Felicia is most unhappy. The diva and her entourage are
passing through second class on the way to their carriage (there's no
explanation) and invite the two women to join.

The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.

A robbery ensues. For some reason, the robber shoot out two overhead
lights. There's also a third shot that's killed the diva.

At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.

The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
up with. In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki
Syndrome; Mrs. McCarthy insists that the two men prove they didn't
commit the murder. Well, they're both able to pull out their weapons to
prove that the only shots fired were to kill the lights. Yeah, yeah,
they could have reloaded but Mrs. McCarthy ignores that.

Meanwhile, because this is a "heater" case, Mallory pulls out all stops
in his investigation and, for once, we think he might be on to something
and solve the case!

The two women have the kidnappers write a threatening letter to Father
Brown (with Mrs. McCarthy correcting their spelling and grammar) that
they'll kill the two hostages if the Father doesn't find the actual
murderer.

The two men turn out to be brothers barely able to run the family farm
after the parents died and want to send their younger brother to law
school so he can study to become a barrister. The irony that they would
pay law school tuition with the proceeds of a robbery escapes them; the
third brother had no part of the scheme.

The two brothers claim they were hired by an unknown third party to pull
off the robbery, so they were, in truth, patsies for the murder.

Recreating the crime, Bunty quickly notices that the bullet that killed
the diva couldn't have come from the robbers but from a seated person,
so that confirms what the audience already suspected, that the murderer
is one of the two adopted children as that's where they were seated. And
a police officer finds a discarded gun in the field.

Doing actual police work--Mallory is reviewing a long list of fired
railway workers and encounters one with a criminal background and a farm
not too far from the location AND who owns a van meeting the
description-- figures out the location of the women. They talk armed
officers; Father Brown and Bunty interfere, of course. At the farm, the
two civilians are in the way of a potential shootout; it's just not the
amusing situation the writers believe it is.

The two women claim they were never kidnapped and that the two brothers
rescued them. This is absolutely absurd, given that Mallory knows that
they used their own vehicle! But kidnapping and robbery charges are not
pursued.

Furthermore, after realizing the Bunty is correct, Mallory gets the
adopted daughter to admit that she took the gun from her brother's coat
and accidentally shot her mother in the dark!

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Mallory lets her go. Father
Brown doesn't believe it and decides she's covering for her brother.
There's some stupid evidence with a match and a pointless lie the
brother told about it (except to laugh at the television audience that
missed the stupid clue), so Father Brown believes the brother is the one
who shot and killed their mother.

Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.

The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
only.

This is a really terrible crime. The two of them might have stopped
their mother by talking to the press or writing a tell-all book.

Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
with irreligious Catholic malarkey.

Lady Felicia presents a large some of money to the two kidnappers (proceeds
of the reward offered by her husband) as part of covering up their crime;
Father Brown encourages them to use it to pay for the younger brother's
tuition, sweeping away all sin. The youngest brother isn't going to make
much of a lawyer, failing to understand the ethical violation here.

As I said, typical episode.

[anim8rfsk]

Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:21:38 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> s
> p
> o
> i
> l
> e
> r
>
> s
> p
> a
> c
> e

Okay, so this was my first episode, and I had no idea what the Hell was going
on, let's see if I can follow along.

> Nancy Carroll appears as Lady Felicia, and another actor that I assume
> is her son is on the episode.
>
> Fairly standard Father Brown, in which the father perverts the course of
> human justice, letting the murderers go free. There is the occasional
> episode in which Father Brown insists that the murderers confess to the
> police to demonstrate penitence, but not here.
>
> That being said, the scenes with Lady Felicia and Mrs. McCarthy with the
> would-be robbers who kidnap them are hysterical. Also, there's some
> legitimate police work performed by both Bunty and Inspector Mallory,
> who actually gets one of the guilty party into custody but fails to pursue.
> aargh. It's truly unfortunate that the usual weak ending was tacked on to
> a strong story. This could have been entertaining television from start
> to finish.
>
> Tonight's murder victim is an opera diva with a huge following,
> travelling with her family in a private Pullman coach from concert hall to
> concert hall. There were Pullman coaches on British Railways?
>
> Returning from a murder mystery play (that Felicia blurts out the
> resolution to very early) and bickering over nonsense the whole way, Lady
> Felicia and Mrs. McCarthy find that first class compartments are full.
> This is beyond stupid, as they both had tickets and trains are never
> supposed to be oversold, certainly not in First Class.

Yeah, I wondered about that.

> The unsympathetic
> conductor (after she tries to bribe him) seats the two women in second
> class; Lady Felicia is most unhappy. The diva and her entourage are
> passing through second class on the way to their carriage (there's no
> explanation) and invite the two women to join.

I wondered about that too. She's walking back along the train to her private
caboose (which seems to only have one room) because why now?

> The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
> signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
> conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
> in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
> have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
> brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.

You would think there'd be a last car conductor.

> A robbery ensues. For some reason, the robber shoot out two overhead
> lights. There's also a third shot that's killed the diva.

This was where they began to lose me. First we see all the shots from the
outside; then we get witness accounts, which I assume might not be accurate.
But by all accounts, the robbers shoot out the lights. After they've left,
and they say this twice, the passengers turn the lights back on. What the
Hell lighting system do they have that you can turn back on after it's been
shot out!? And how good a marksman is this guy? Nobody seems amazed that he
shot out the two lights with two shots. Also, they say the the robbers
panicked because somebody pulled the communications cord. Um, the what now?
The car is sitting there all by itself, the train having driven away. What
would a communications cord possibly do?

> At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
> husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
> adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
> see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
> child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.
>
> The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
> but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
> the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
> up with.

A poor man's Ruthless People.

> In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki

Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.

> Syndrome; Mrs. McCarthy insists that the two men prove they didn't
> commit the murder. Well, they're both able to pull out their weapons to
> prove that the only shots fired were to kill the lights. Yeah, yeah,
> they could have reloaded but Mrs. McCarthy ignores that.

I gave them that because they both fired and both had partially full guns. It
wasn't "I didn't fire at all" it was "see? I only fired twice"

> Meanwhile, because this is a "heater" case, Mallory pulls out all stops
> in his investigation and, for once, we think he might be on to something
> and solve the case!
>
> The two women have the kidnappers write a threatening letter to Father
> Brown (with Mrs. McCarthy correcting their spelling and grammar) that
> they'll kill the two hostages if the Father doesn't find the actual
> murderer.

"I'm not cutting off any fingers!"

I wondered why they didn't just have the women write the letter for them,
given that they were wondering how to prove they had the women in the first
place.

> The two men turn out to be brothers barely able to run the family farm
> after the parents died and want to send their younger brother to law
> school so he can study to become a barrister. The irony that they would
> pay law school tuition with the proceeds of a robbery escapes them; the
> third brother had no part of the scheme.
>
> The two brothers claim they were hired by an unknown third party to pull
> off the robbery, so they were, in truth, patsies for the murder.
>
> Recreating the crime, Bunty quickly notices that the bullet that killed
> the diva couldn't have come from the robbers but from a seated person,
> so that confirms what the audience already suspected, that the murderer
> is one of the two adopted children as that's where they were seated. And
> a police officer finds a discarded gun in the field.

She could have just stuck it back in her purse ...

> Doing actual police work--Mallory is reviewing a long list of fired
> railway workers and encounters one with a criminal background and a farm
> not too far from the location AND who owns a van meeting the
> description-- figures out the location of the women. They talk armed
> officers; Father Brown and Bunty interfere, of course. At the farm, the
> two civilians are in the way of a potential shootout; it's just not the
> amusing situation the writers believe it is.

No. And the Father deserved to get shot; he had no idea he wasn't walking
into an actual hostage standoff - he just assumed nobody will shoot a Father.

> The two women claim they were never kidnapped and that the two brothers
> rescued them. This is absolutely absurd, given that Mallory knows that
> they used their own vehicle! But kidnapping and robbery charges are not
> pursued.
>
> Furthermore, after realizing the Bunty is correct, Mallory gets the
> adopted daughter to admit that she took the gun from her brother's coat
> and accidentally shot her mother in the dark!

Her mother who was in the exact opposite direction from the robbers.

This entire plan revolves around the two kids being ready for the robbers to
shoot out the lights. Did they give the robbers instructions to shoot out the
lights?

> Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Mallory lets her go. Father
> Brown doesn't believe it and decides she's covering for her brother.
> There's some stupid evidence with a match and a pointless lie the
> brother told about it (except to laugh at the television audience that
> missed the stupid clue), so Father Brown believes the brother is the one
> who shot and killed their mother.

The match had to be lit by the brother to provide enough light for the sister
to shoot the mother.

> Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
> intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.
>
> The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
> that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
> only.

Giving them nothing but a life of luxury in return.

> This is a really terrible crime. The two of them might have stopped
> their mother by talking to the press or writing a tell-all book.

And for God's sakes they're adults. It's not like they're 12 and about to be
not cuddly any more and are going to be sent to the workhouse in favor of the
new baby.

And the new baby is better off in it's current circumstances? Really?

> Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
> with irreligious Catholic malarkey.

And that was the point at which I decided not to watch this again.

> Lady Felicia presents a large some of money to the two kidnappers (proceeds
> of the reward offered by her husband) as part of covering up their crime;
> Father Brown encourages them to use it to pay for the younger brother's
> tuition, sweeping away all sin. The youngest brother isn't going to make
> much of a lawyer, failing to understand the ethical violation here.

Well, he hasn't been to law school *yet* :)

> As I said, typical episode.

Honestly, it would have worked better without Father Brown ...

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:21:38 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>> s
>> p
>> o
>> i
>> l
>> e
>> r
>>
>> s
>> p
>> a
>> c
>> e

>Okay, so this was my first episode, and I had no idea what the Hell was going
>on, let's see if I can follow along.

Father Brown was a famous character created by G.K. Chesterton, who
wrote about him in a series of short stories starting in 1910. Over 50
were published before Chesteron's death in 1936. Brown had great insight
into human evil and solved crimes intuitively. Chesterton used the
character to explore moral and philosophical dilemna and to expound on
his own Catholicism. He was raised Anglican, then converted as an adult.

In the tv series, the setting has been changed to half a dozen years or
so after WWII. Brown is sometimes haunted by memories of war.

I'm sure there would have been a private bedroom and bathroom. Not sure
about a galley, though.

>>The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
>>signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
>>conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
>>in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
>>have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
>>brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.

>You would think there'd be a last car conductor.

Yeah, I just don't see how neither the train nor engine crew notices a
car cut from the consist. That's pretty damn serious and both the
conductor and engineer would have been fired.

Not to mention: If a car was cut from the consist, then its own brakes
have to be set, else it rolls away. We didn't see anyone bothering to do
that as it takes some time.

>>A robbery ensues. For some reason, the robber shoot out two overhead
>>lights. There's also a third shot that's killed the diva.

>This was where they began to lose me. First we see all the shots from the
>outside; then we get witness accounts, which I assume might not be accurate.
>But by all accounts, the robbers shoot out the lights. After they've left,
>and they say this twice, the passengers turn the lights back on. What the
>Hell lighting system do they have that you can turn back on after it's been
>shot out!? And how good a marksman is this guy? Nobody seems amazed that he
>shot out the two lights with two shots. Also, they say the the robbers
>panicked because somebody pulled the communications cord. Um, the what now?
>The car is sitting there all by itself, the train having driven away. What
>would a communications cord possibly do?

Those are all excellent points, especially questioning how the lighting
was restonred, although I think they said the communications cord was
pulled by a soldier in second class. Someone finally noticed that the
train was short a car.

>>At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
>>husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
>>adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
>>see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
>>child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.

>>The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
>>but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
>>the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
>>up with.

>A poor man's Ruthless People.

This was the really good part of the episode, the bickering women and
their interactions with the kidnappers. If this wasn't to your taste,
you're not going to get anything out of the series. I just watch it to
be regularly appalled.

>>In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki

>Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.

I always make the Die Hard reference! What movie is Copenhagen from?

>>Syndrome; Mrs. McCarthy insists that the two men prove they didn't
>>commit the murder. Well, they're both able to pull out their weapons to
>>prove that the only shots fired were to kill the lights. Yeah, yeah,
>>they could have reloaded but Mrs. McCarthy ignores that.

>I gave them that because they both fired and both had partially full guns. It
>wasn't "I didn't fire at all" it was "see? I only fired twice"

One brother fired both shots putting out the lights; the other brother
had not fired. They both "proved" this to Mrs. McCarthy by spilling the
bullets and shells out of their revolvers.

>>Meanwhile, because this is a "heater" case, Mallory pulls out all stops
>>in his investigation and, for once, we think he might be on to something
>>and solve the case!

>>The two women have the kidnappers write a threatening letter to Father
>>Brown (with Mrs. McCarthy correcting their spelling and grammar) that
>>they'll kill the two hostages if the Father doesn't find the actual
>>murderer.

>"I'm not cutting off any fingers!"

>I wondered why they didn't just have the women write the letter for them,
>given that they were wondering how to prove they had the women in the first
>place.

That made me laugh. The two women thought they needed to force Father
Brown to investigate. Given that they were sympathizing with the plight
of the two brothers, they had them admit to additional felonies that
they had not committed, making everything worse!

Clearly a note from Mrs. McCarthy asking Brown to look into things is
all that was necessary. I was amused. If you didn't find it funny, then
you're not going to be entertained by much else in this series.

>>The two men turn out to be brothers barely able to run the family farm
>>after the parents died and want to send their younger brother to law
>>school so he can study to become a barrister. The irony that they would
>>pay law school tuition with the proceeds of a robbery escapes them; the
>>third brother had no part of the scheme.

>>The two brothers claim they were hired by an unknown third party to pull
>>off the robbery, so they were, in truth, patsies for the murder.

>>Recreating the crime, Bunty quickly notices that the bullet that killed
>>the diva couldn't have come from the robbers but from a seated person,
>>so that confirms what the audience already suspected, that the murderer
>>is one of the two adopted children as that's where they were seated. And
>>a police officer finds a discarded gun in the field.

>She could have just stuck it back in her purse ...

I guess that was deliberate, that she planted it so police would assume
that the other brother fired the fatal shot.

>>Doing actual police work--Mallory is reviewing a long list of fired
>>railway workers and encounters one with a criminal background and a farm
>>not too far from the location AND who owns a van meeting the
>>description-- figures out the location of the women. They talk armed
>>officers; Father Brown and Bunty interfere, of course. At the farm, the
>>two civilians are in the way of a potential shootout; it's just not the
>>amusing situation the writers believe it is.

>No. And the Father deserved to get shot; he had no idea he wasn't walking
>into an actual hostage standoff - he just assumed nobody will shoot a Father.

Brown has an enormous ego. He assumes God redirects bullets around him
whenever he puts himself into mortal danger.

>>The two women claim they were never kidnapped and that the two brothers
>>rescued them. This is absolutely absurd, given that Mallory knows that
>>they used their own vehicle! But kidnapping and robbery charges are not
>>pursued.

>>Furthermore, after realizing the Bunty is correct, Mallory gets the
>>adopted daughter to admit that she took the gun from her brother's coat
>>and accidentally shot her mother in the dark!

>Her mother who was in the exact opposite direction from the robbers.

Yeah. Mallory resumed being incredibly stupid at that point.

>This entire plan revolves around the two kids being ready for the robbers to
>shoot out the lights. Did they give the robbers instructions to shoot out the
>lights?

That was said in dialogue.

>>Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Mallory lets her go. Father
>>Brown doesn't believe it and decides she's covering for her brother.
>>There's some stupid evidence with a match and a pointless lie the
>>brother told about it (except to laugh at the television audience that
>>missed the stupid clue), so Father Brown believes the brother is the one
>>who shot and killed their mother.

>The match had to be lit by the brother to provide enough light for the sister
>to shoot the mother.

See, your scenario makes more sense than Father Brown's solution, that
their mother was shot WHILE the match was lit. If the brother took the
shot, he'd have been shooting in the dark as he'd put out the match,
according to Father Brown.

Also, Bunty had already established that the shot came from where the sister
was seated! The writers couldn't be bothered to reconcile the plot with
dialogue from earlier in the script.

>>Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
>>intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.

>>The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
>>that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
>>only.

>Giving them nothing but a life of luxury in return.

Yeah, well, they were both in their mid to late 30s. When were they
going to live their own lives?

>>This is a really terrible crime. The two of them might have stopped
>>their mother by talking to the press or writing a tell-all book.

>And for God's sakes they're adults. It's not like they're 12 and about to be
>not cuddly any more and are going to be sent to the workhouse in favor of the
>new baby.

Hehehehehe

>And the new baby is better off in it's current circumstances? Really?

>>Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
>>with irreligious Catholic malarkey.

>And that was the point at which I decided not to watch this again.

You don't understand: That Father Brown often lets the criminals get
away, confusing the audience about the moral lesson being imparted, is a
running gag! That's what the show is about!

Also, that there are never any Anglicans in England aside from the first
episode of the first series. If you really really really want to be
appalled, you've got to watch that one.

>>Lady Felicia presents a large some of money to the two kidnappers (proceeds
>>of the reward offered by her husband) as part of covering up their crime;
>>Father Brown encourages them to use it to pay for the younger brother's
>>tuition, sweeping away all sin. The youngest brother isn't going to make
>>much of a lawyer, failing to understand the ethical violation here.

>Well, he hasn't been to law school *yet* :)

I'm always hoping that some potential lawyer would think ethics are
important.

>>As I said, typical episode.

>Honestly, it would have worked better without Father Brown ...

Yes. His role was greatly diminished this week. As I said, it would have
been a welcome change of pace if Mallory solved the murder for once.

[anim8rfsk]

Thanks

You'd think, but the crooks come in the front door, and the rear window is
behind the victim, so unless there's stuff forward of them that the crooks
came past to get in, that one room is all there is.
(checking)
Okay, that room is the back half of the car, and there's an exterior door
midway.

The husband says the robbers took the jewels - before they shot out the
lights. Although somehow they lost it on the tippy tops of the high grass as
they fled.

We see the robber shoot out the lights! And yet they are wall sconces, and
the daughter turns them back on by flipping a wall switch.

"Army officers on the train heard the gunfire and pulled the communication
cord." Wait. What? Who? Where? How? "They panicked and grabbed the nearest
persons to use as human shields while they made their getaway."

Okay, no part of that makes ANY sense. And the Army officers actually shoot
at them as they flee! After they come running up on foot! From where?

The only way that works is if the Army guys are in the forward half of her
private car ... but even then, what does the cord communicate to, and how
would the robbers know it was pulled?

> > > The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
> > > signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
> > > conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
> > > in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
> > > have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
> > > brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.
>
> > You would think there'd be a last car conductor.
>
> Yeah, I just don't see how neither the train nor engine crew notices a
> car cut from the consist. That's pretty damn serious and both the
> conductor and engineer would have been fired.

Not unless it resulted in a passenger death.

Oh. Yeah.

:)

> Not to mention: If a car was cut from the consist, then its own brakes
> have to be set, else it rolls away. We didn't see anyone bothering to do
> that as it takes some time.

There was some lip service paid to how the robbers must have been train
experts, but didn't they say the kids picked them because they wrote a letter
of complaint to the victim or something?

> > > A robbery ensues. For some reason, the robber shoot out two overhead
> > > lights. There's also a third shot that's killed the diva.
>
> > This was where they began to lose me. First we see all the shots from the
> > outside; then we get witness accounts, which I assume might not be accurate.
> > But by all accounts, the robbers shoot out the lights. After they've left,
> > and they say this twice, the passengers turn the lights back on. What the
> > Hell lighting system do they have that you can turn back on after it's been
> > shot out!? And how good a marksman is this guy? Nobody seems amazed that he
> > shot out the two lights with two shots. Also, they say the the robbers
> > panicked because somebody pulled the communications cord. Um, the what now?
> > The car is sitting there all by itself, the train having driven away. What
> > would a communications cord possibly do?
>
> Those are all excellent points, especially questioning how the lighting
> was restonred, although I think they said the communications cord was
> pulled by a soldier in second class. Someone finally noticed that the
> train was short a car.

How would that panic the robbers, causing them to take hostages? How would
they know about it? And if you're panicked, why does that cause you to take
hostages anyway?

> > > At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
> > > husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
> > > adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
> > > see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
> > > child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.
>
> > > The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
> > > but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
> > > the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
> > > up with.
>
> > A poor man's Ruthless People.
>
> This was the really good part of the episode, the bickering women and
> their interactions with the kidnappers. If this wasn't to your taste,
> you're not going to get anything out of the series. I just watch it to
> be regularly appalled.

heh

> > > In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki
>
> > Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.
>
> I always make the Die Hard reference! What movie is Copenhagen from?

Copenhagen is the first time I heard it in real life, from FBI guys when
friends of mine were kidnapped.

> > > Syndrome; Mrs. McCarthy insists that the two men prove they didn't
> > > commit the murder. Well, they're both able to pull out their weapons to
> > > prove that the only shots fired were to kill the lights. Yeah, yeah,
> > > they could have reloaded but Mrs. McCarthy ignores that.
>
> > I gave them that because they both fired and both had partially full guns.
> > It
> > wasn't "I didn't fire at all" it was "see? I only fired twice"
>
> One brother fired both shots putting out the lights; the other brother
> had not fired. They both "proved" this to Mrs. McCarthy by spilling the
> bullets and shells out of their revolvers.

K, I thought the other guy fired once. Didn't we see a LOT of shots being
fired from the exterior view?
(checking)
Nope, 3, the third of which was later and louder.

But they only looked for it because the uniformed cop took it on his own
authority.

> > > Doing actual police work--Mallory is reviewing a long list of fired
> > > railway workers and encounters one with a criminal background and a farm
> > > not too far from the location AND who owns a van meeting the
> > > description-- figures out the location of the women. They talk armed
> > > officers; Father Brown and Bunty interfere, of course. At the farm, the
> > > two civilians are in the way of a potential shootout; it's just not the
> > > amusing situation the writers believe it is.
>
> > No. And the Father deserved to get shot; he had no idea he wasn't walking
> > into an actual hostage standoff - he just assumed nobody will shoot a
> > Father.
>
> Brown has an enormous ego. He assumes God redirects bullets around him
> whenever he puts himself into mortal danger.

K

> > > The two women claim they were never kidnapped and that the two brothers
> > > rescued them. This is absolutely absurd, given that Mallory knows that
> > > they used their own vehicle! But kidnapping and robbery charges are not
> > > pursued.
>
> > > Furthermore, after realizing the Bunty is correct, Mallory gets the
> > > adopted daughter to admit that she took the gun from her brother's coat
> > > and accidentally shot her mother in the dark!
>
> > Her mother who was in the exact opposite direction from the robbers.
>
> Yeah. Mallory resumed being incredibly stupid at that point.

I guess the jewels were next to the mother ...

> > This entire plan revolves around the two kids being ready for the robbers to
> > shoot out the lights. Did they give the robbers instructions to shoot out
> > the
> > lights?
>
> That was said in dialogue.
>
> > > Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Mallory lets her go. Father
> > > Brown doesn't believe it and decides she's covering for her brother.
> > > There's some stupid evidence with a match and a pointless lie the
> > > brother told about it (except to laugh at the television audience that
> > > missed the stupid clue), so Father Brown believes the brother is the one
> > > who shot and killed their mother.
>
> > The match had to be lit by the brother to provide enough light for the
> > sister
> > to shoot the mother.
>
> See, your scenario makes more sense than Father Brown's solution, that
> their mother was shot WHILE the match was lit. If the brother took the
> shot, he'd have been shooting in the dark as he'd put out the match,
> according to Father Brown.

Yeah. I got the feeling Brown just didn't think a woman could fire a gun,
even if she were in the Armed Forces and was defending herself from sexual
assault. So the brother must have done it.

> Also, Bunty had already established that the shot came from where the sister
> was seated! The writers couldn't be bothered to reconcile the plot with
> dialogue from earlier in the script.

Thank you. I got really confusified there. That's when I came up with my
theory that none of the witness statements were supposed to match ...

> > > Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
> > > intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.
>
> > > The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
> > > that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
> > > only.
>
> > Giving them nothing but a life of luxury in return.
>
> Yeah, well, they were both in their mid to late 30s. When were they
> going to live their own lives?

Yeah, the sister actress is 34. Her last role was as Queen Victoria, although
she's hardly as cute as the incredibly cute Clara Oswin Oswald. She was never
in Doctor Who, although she did do a guest shot on Torchwood (yes, at this
point, I'm just free associating). There seems to have never been a
photograph taken that shows her teeth (which worries me) so here's one
showcasing her legs:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/15/fb/c6/15fbc62ce84314cd2d84013cb2590b10.jpg

> > > This is a really terrible crime. The two of them might have stopped
> > > their mother by talking to the press or writing a tell-all book.

But then they wouldn't inherit ...

> > And for God's sakes they're adults. It's not like they're 12 and about to be
> > not cuddly any more and are going to be sent to the workhouse in favor of
> > the
> > new baby.
>
> Hehehehehe

:)

> > And the new baby is better off in it's current circumstances? Really?
>
> > > Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
> > > with irreligious Catholic malarkey.
>
> > And that was the point at which I decided not to watch this again.
>
> You don't understand: That Father Brown often lets the criminals get
> away, confusing the audience about the moral lesson being imparted, is a
> running gag! That's what the show is about!

Then I was right to bail. :)

> Also, that there are never any Anglicans in England aside from the first
> episode of the first series. If you really really really want to be
> appalled, you've got to watch that one.
>
> > > Lady Felicia presents a large some of money to the two kidnappers (proceeds
> > > of the reward offered by her husband) as part of covering up their crime;
> > > Father Brown encourages them to use it to pay for the younger brother's
> > > tuition, sweeping away all sin. The youngest brother isn't going to make
> > > much of a lawyer, failing to understand the ethical violation here.
>
> > Well, he hasn't been to law school *yet* :)
>
> I'm always hoping that some potential lawyer would think ethics are
> important.

I fear you are destined for disappointment; it's like assuming journalists
are interested in facts and truth.

> > > As I said, typical episode.
>
> > Honestly, it would have worked better without Father Brown ...
>
> Yes. His role was greatly diminished this week. As I said, it would have
> been a welcome change of pace if Mallory solved the murder for once.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Think about the design of a passenger car, which really doesn't have a
front end nor a rear end; only cars with control cabs in them have a
front end. You have a platform on either end. There must be an interior
corridor all the way through. If you're trying to maximize the size of
the bedroom, than the corridor is along the exterior instead of in the
middle.

The diva would never have been walking through second class; she'd have
boarded the Pullman coach directly. Therefore the train robbers could
have entered from either end.

>(checking)
>Okay, that room is the back half of the car, and there's an exterior door
>midway.

I'm not saying the set designers weren't morons.

>The husband says the robbers took the jewels - before they shot out the
>lights. Although somehow they lost it on the tippy tops of the high grass as
>they fled.

I guess one of the brothers had a hole in pocket. Why the other brother
grabbed nothing, I cannot say.

>We see the robber shoot out the lights! And yet they are wall sconces, and
>the daughter turns them back on by flipping a wall switch.

I know. It was so stupid.

>"Army officers on the train heard the gunfire and pulled the communication
>cord." Wait. What? Who? Where? How? "They panicked and grabbed the nearest
>persons to use as human shields while they made their getaway."

>Okay, no part of that makes ANY sense. And the Army officers actually shoot
>at them as they flee! After they come running up on foot! From where?

>The only way that works is if the Army guys are in the forward half of her
>private car ... but even then, what does the cord communicate to, and how
>would the robbers know it was pulled?

The story is impossible, given that we saw the rest of the consist
pulling away.

>>>>The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
>>>>signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
>>>>conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
>>>>in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
>>>>have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
>>>>brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.

>>>You would think there'd be a last car conductor.

>>Yeah, I just don't see how neither the train nor engine crew notices a
>>car cut from the consist. That's pretty damn serious and both the
>>conductor and engineer would have been fired.

>Not unless it resulted in a passenger death.

>Oh. Yeah.

>:)

Hahaha

>>Not to mention: If a car was cut from the consist, then its own brakes
>>have to be set, else it rolls away. We didn't see anyone bothering to do
>>that as it takes some time.

>There was some lip service paid to how the robbers must have been train
>experts, but didn't they say the kids picked them because they wrote a letter
>of complaint to the victim or something?

There would have had to have been quite a lot of correspondence back and
forth. Who puts this into writing? I sure don't see the two brothers
plotting their way out of a paper bag.

>>>>A robbery ensues. For some reason, the robber shoot out two overhead
>>>>lights. There's also a third shot that's killed the diva.

>>>This was where they began to lose me. First we see all the shots from the
>>>outside; then we get witness accounts, which I assume might not be accurate.
>>>But by all accounts, the robbers shoot out the lights. After they've left,
>>>and they say this twice, the passengers turn the lights back on. What the
>>>Hell lighting system do they have that you can turn back on after it's been
>>>shot out!? And how good a marksman is this guy? Nobody seems amazed that he
>>>shot out the two lights with two shots. Also, they say the the robbers
>>>panicked because somebody pulled the communications cord. Um, the what now?
>>>The car is sitting there all by itself, the train having driven away. What
>>>would a communications cord possibly do?

>>Those are all excellent points, especially questioning how the lighting
>>was restonred, although I think they said the communications cord was
>>pulled by a soldier in second class. Someone finally noticed that the
>>train was short a car.

>How would that panic the robbers, causing them to take hostages? How would
>they know about it? And if you're panicked, why does that cause you to take
>hostages anyway?

Quite frankly, the pre-credit sequence suggested that Lady Felicia was
the target all along.

>>>>At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
>>>>husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
>>>>adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
>>>>see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
>>>>child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.

>>>>The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
>>>>but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
>>>>the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
>>>>up with.

>>>A poor man's Ruthless People.

>>This was the really good part of the episode, the bickering women and
>>their interactions with the kidnappers. If this wasn't to your taste,
>>you're not going to get anything out of the series. I just watch it to
>>be regularly appalled.

>heh

It's the same reason I watch Blue Bloods. I have no taste in television,
but Ian's taste is much much worse than mine, as we've established.

>>>>In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki

>>>Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.

>>I always make the Die Hard reference! What movie is Copenhagen from?

>Copenhagen is the first time I heard it in real life, from FBI guys when
>friends of mine were kidnapped.

My goodness!

Fair enough.

>>>This entire plan revolves around the two kids being ready for the
>>>robbers to shoot out the lights. Did they give the robbers instructions
>>>to shoot out the lights?

>>That was said in dialogue.

>>>>Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, Mallory lets her go. Father
>>>>Brown doesn't believe it and decides she's covering for her brother.
>>>>There's some stupid evidence with a match and a pointless lie the
>>>>brother told about it (except to laugh at the television audience that
>>>>missed the stupid clue), so Father Brown believes the brother is the one
>>>>who shot and killed their mother.

>>>The match had to be lit by the brother to provide enough light for
>>>the sister to shoot the mother.

>>See, your scenario makes more sense than Father Brown's solution, that
>>their mother was shot WHILE the match was lit. If the brother took the
>>shot, he'd have been shooting in the dark as he'd put out the match,
>>according to Father Brown.

>Yeah. I got the feeling Brown just didn't think a woman could fire a gun,
>even if she were in the Armed Forces and was defending herself from sexual
>assault. So the brother must have done it.

I dunno, but the series has had female serial killers.

>>Also, Bunty had already established that the shot came from where the sister
>>was seated! The writers couldn't be bothered to reconcile the plot with
>>dialogue from earlier in the script.

>Thank you. I got really confusified there. That's when I came up with my
>theory that none of the witness statements were supposed to match ...

>>>>Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
>>>>intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.

>>>>The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
>>>>that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
>>>>only.

>>>Giving them nothing but a life of luxury in return.

>>Yeah, well, they were both in their mid to late 30s. When were they
>>going to live their own lives?

>Yeah, the sister actress is 34. . . .

Thanks for the information. I thought she was older!

>>>>. . .

>>>>Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
>>>>with irreligious Catholic malarkey.

>>>And that was the point at which I decided not to watch this again.

>>You don't understand: That Father Brown often lets the criminals get
>>away, confusing the audience about the moral lesson being imparted, is a
>>running gag! That's what the show is about!

>Then I was right to bail. :)

I haven't read the original short stories, so I don't know how often
Brown lets the criminal get away.

>>. . .

[anim8rfsk]

The private car is set up into two big open areas, front and rear, with no
corridors. There is a side entrance and a small area in the center we don't
see, but you can see in one side and out the other forward, and the back has
windows on the left, right, and rear (but apparently no rear door, which
makes no sense no matter what). Also there is staff and a kitchen *somewhere*

> The diva would never have been walking through second class; she'd have
> boarded the Pullman coach directly. Therefore the train robbers could
> have entered from either end.

They enter through the side door midway back on the car. I have NO idea why
the diva was walking the length of the train to the back, unless she wanted
her adoring public to see her.

> > (checking)
> > Okay, that room is the back half of the car, and there's an exterior door
> > midway.
>
> I'm not saying the set designers weren't morons.

Actually the exterior shots of the car pretty much match. I'm not sure they
built sets; I think that may all have been shot in the car.

> > The husband says the robbers took the jewels - before they shot out the
> > lights. Although somehow they lost it on the tippy tops of the high grass as
> > they fled.
>
> I guess one of the brothers had a hole in pocket. Why the other brother
> grabbed nothing, I cannot say.

I assume one was carrying the jewelry in his cupped hands and one was
shooting out the lights and then ... they both took the time to kidnap two
women and put convenient bags over their heads and spirit them away and the
one robber was still carrying the jewels in his cupped hands?

> > We see the robber shoot out the lights! And yet they are wall sconces, and
> > the daughter turns them back on by flipping a wall switch.
>
> I know. It was so stupid.

;\

> > "Army officers on the train heard the gunfire and pulled the communication
> > cord." Wait. What? Who? Where? How? "They panicked and grabbed the nearest
> > persons to use as human shields while they made their getaway."
>
> > Okay, no part of that makes ANY sense. And the Army officers actually shoot
> > at them as they flee! After they come running up on foot! From where?
>
> > The only way that works is if the Army guys are in the forward half of her
> > private car ... but even then, what does the cord communicate to, and how
> > would the robbers know it was pulled?
>
> The story is impossible, given that we saw the rest of the consist
> pulling away.

Yeah. The soldiers *have* to be in the forward part of the private car, which
means it's not a private car, it's just a big ass private compartment, and
these are the same soldiers we saw our heroines playing cards with earlier.
But that means the last car has the second class in the forward half, the
exclusive luxury class in the back half, and a TARDIS kitchen in the middle,
and no rear door or conductor, so it can't be used *except* as a caboose. And
even then ...

But that's not what the dialog says. The Diva tells the aunt "My Pullman's on
the back, I never travel without"

Wiki: "Specifically, in Great Britain
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain), Pullman refers to the lounge
cars operated by the British Pullman Car Company
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_train_(UK))."

Okay, there *might* be a rear door, but it's blocked by furniture and hidden
buy a shade of some sort.

We see the front end of the car later in daylight ... it just seems to end
with no platform and no obveeus door. Just a flat end with couplers sticking
out of it.

But here's a question ... they just LEAVE this car on the tracks? They can't
have moved it, or they wouldn't have found the murder weapon outside the
window. How long did they put the railroad out of business for?

And how did the daughter toss the gun out the window when all the blinds were
closed?

I can't find an image of a Pullman car with a side door in the middle like
that - they are all at the front and/or back. I found some amazingly opulent
ones though!
https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/1/16943216/pullman-private-railroad-car-history

As well as Pullmans that definitely don't have a rear door. They're meant to
be the last car on the train. Amtrak will still let you do that!

And this:
A layout that shows where that kitchen could be
https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8067/8261082629_9a25b24b8a_b.jpg
Their car didn't have the rear door or rounded rear end, and the front was
all open inside, but this at least makes sense.

> > > > > The train makes an unscheduled stop. In fact, Felicia spots a red
> > > > > signal. The Pullman coach is unhooked and the train goes on. Somehow the
> > > > > conductor fails to notice this, nor does the engineer notice the change
> > > > > in air pressure in the brake lines. I don't really know but there should
> > > > > have been an indication in the cab, unless UK rails didn't use air
> > > > > brakes at the time. I'll have to ask.
>
> > > > You would think there'd be a last car conductor.
>
> > > Yeah, I just don't see how neither the train nor engine crew notices a
> > > car cut from the consist. That's pretty damn serious and both the
> > > conductor and engineer would have been fired.
>
> > Not unless it resulted in a passenger death.
>
> > Oh. Yeah.
>
>

> Hahaha
>
> > > Not to mention: If a car was cut from the consist, then its own brakes
> > > have to be set, else it rolls away. We didn't see anyone bothering to do
> > > that as it takes some time.
>
> > There was some lip service paid to how the robbers must have been train
> > experts, but didn't they say the kids picked them because they wrote a
> > letter
> > of complaint to the victim or something?
>
> There would have had to have been quite a lot of correspondence back and
> forth. Who puts this into writing? I sure don't see the two brothers
> plotting their way out of a paper bag.

Yeah, you really couldn't count on just sending these guys the one note.

And yet if she hadn't been late, she'd have never run into the Diva in the
first place.

> > > > > At this point, we've learn that the diva has already discarded multiple
> > > > > husbands and thinks very little of her current husband. She has two
> > > > > adult children, whom she's adopted out of unfortunate circumstances. We
> > > > > see no love among any of them. The diva talks about adopting another
> > > > > child. I'm quite sure that this precipitated the murder.
>
> > > > > The two robbers bungle everything and never end up stealing any jewelry,
> > > > > but grab the two women as hostages. The women never stop bickering and
> > > > > the audience expresses some sympathy for what the kidnappers have to put
> > > > > up with.
>
> > > > A poor man's Ruthless People.
>
> > > This was the really good part of the episode, the bickering women and
> > > their interactions with the kidnappers. If this wasn't to your taste,
> > > you're not going to get anything out of the series. I just watch it to
> > > be regularly appalled.
>
> > heh
>
> It's the same reason I watch Blue Bloods. I have no taste in television,
> but Ian's taste is much much worse than mine, as we've established.

I used to like Blue Bloods, but now that I only sample it a couple times a
year, it's rough viewing.

> > > > > In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki
>
> > > > Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.
>
> > > I always make the Die Hard reference! What movie is Copenhagen from?
>
> > Copenhagen is the first time I heard it in real life, from FBI guys when
> > friends of mine were kidnapped.
>
> My goodness!

Yeah. It was actually kind of cool. This is a LONG time ago, when TV was
telling us you had to keep the kidnappers on the phone for a full minute or
something to get a trace. The FBI guys laughed. They were all over the bad
guys sorry asses almost immediately. The victim's family got to listen to the
radio chatter live, too. It probably helps they were wealthy and connected.

Huh.

> > > Also, Bunty had already established that the shot came from where the
> > > sister
> > > was seated! The writers couldn't be bothered to reconcile the plot with
> > > dialogue from earlier in the script.
>
> > Thank you. I got really confusified there. That's when I came up with my
> > theory that none of the witness statements were supposed to match ...
>
> > > > > Brother and sister confess to hiring the two robbers and that they were
> > > > > intending to prevent their mother from adopting another child.
>
> > > > > The audience thinks the motive was their inheritance, but they confess
> > > > > that their mother is unloving and used the adopted children as props,
> > > > > only.
>
> > > > Giving them nothing but a life of luxury in return.
>
> > > Yeah, well, they were both in their mid to late 30s. When were they
> > > going to live their own lives?
>
> > Yeah, the sister actress is 34. . . .
>
> Thanks for the information. I thought she was older!

Yeah, she's not aging well, is she? I couldn't get an age on the brother. But
our points stand.

> > > > > Father Brown tells them that they can get back into God's good graces
> > > > > with irreligious Catholic malarkey.
>
> > > > And that was the point at which I decided not to watch this again.
>
> > > You don't understand: That Father Brown often lets the criminals get
> > > away, confusing the audience about the moral lesson being imparted, is a
> > > running gag! That's what the show is about!
>
> > Then I was right to bail. :)
>
> I haven't read the original short stories, so I don't know how often
> Brown lets the criminal get away.
>
> > > . . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 10:45:44 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Mon, 08 Apr 2019 08:27:52 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>Sun, 07 Apr 2019 11:21:38 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

>> > > > > s
>> > > > > p
>> > > > > o
>> > > > > i
>> > > > > l
>> > > > > e
>> > > > > r
>> > > > >
>> > > > > s
>> > > > > p
>> > > > > a
>> > > > > c
>> > > > > e

>>>>. . .

[configuration of the Pullman coach]

>>>>I'm sure there would have been a private bedroom and bathroom. Not sure
>>>>about a galley, though.

>>>You'd think, but the crooks come in the front door, and the rear window is
>>>behind the victim, so unless there's stuff forward of them that the crooks
>>>came past to get in, that one room is all there is.

>>Think about the design of a passenger car, which really doesn't have a
>>front end nor a rear end; only cars with control cabs in them have a
>>front end. You have a platform on either end. There must be an interior
>>corridor all the way through. If you're trying to maximize the size of
>>the bedroom, than the corridor is along the exterior instead of in the
>>middle.

>The private car is set up into two big open areas, front and rear, with no
>corridors. There is a side entrance and a small area in the center we don't
>see, but you can see in one side and out the other forward, and the back has
>windows on the left, right, and rear (but apparently no rear door, which
>makes no sense no matter what). Also there is staff and a kitchen *somewhere*

That's why I'm assuming there's got to be a corridor and some rooms. If
there's a galley, then there's a cook. She'd also have to travel with
her dresser who might also serve as a lady's maid.

There's no choice about access to the rear platform. It just has to be
there, given that her car wouldn't necessarily trail the consist.

>>The diva would never have been walking through second class; she'd have
>>boarded the Pullman coach directly. Therefore the train robbers could
>>have entered from either end.

>They enter through the side door midway back on the car. I have NO idea why
>the diva was walking the length of the train to the back, unless she wanted
>her adoring public to see her.

I'll accept that wank.

>>>(checking)
>>>Okay, that room is the back half of the car, and there's an exterior door
>>>midway.

>>I'm not saying the set designers weren't morons.

>Actually the exterior shots of the car pretty much match. I'm not sure they
>built sets; I think that may all have been shot in the car.

Perhaps. Then you'd want a largish space just to manoevuer the cameras
and microphones, but we still have to make a few assumptions about what
wasn't seen.

Heh. The car that Jim and Artemis traveled in was impossibly spacious.

>. . .

>Wiki: "Specifically, in Great Britain
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Britain), Pullman refers to the lounge
>cars operated by the British Pullman Car Company
>(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pullman_train_(UK))."

Ah. I guess I remember something about a UK subsidiary, or a licensing
situation.

>Okay, there *might* be a rear door, but it's blocked by furniture and hidden
>buy a shade of some sort.

Heh. The conductor wouldn't allow that!

>We see the front end of the car later in daylight ... it just seems to end
>with no platform and no obveeus door. Just a flat end with couplers sticking
>out of it.

>But here's a question ... they just LEAVE this car on the tracks? They can't
>have moved it, or they wouldn't have found the murder weapon outside the
>window. How long did they put the railroad out of business for?

Good point.

>And how did the daughter toss the gun out the window when all the blinds were
>closed?

I don't think she did. I think she hid it when they all got off.

>I can't find an image of a Pullman car with a side door in the middle like
>that - they are all at the front and/or back. I found some amazingly opulent
>ones though!
>https://www.curbed.com/2018/2/1/16943216/pullman-private-railroad-car-history

Well, yeah. The wealthy always traveled in style!

>As well as Pullmans that definitely don't have a rear door. They're meant to
>be the last car on the train. Amtrak will still let you do that!

Well, yeah, as part of specially-designed consists. But it's too
impractical to do when you're traveling around a railway system up and
down small branch lines, and your coach is switched from train to train.

>And this:
>A layout that shows where that kitchen could be
>https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8067/8261082629_9a25b24b8a_b.jpg
>Their car didn't have the rear door or rounded rear end, and the front was
>all open inside, but this at least makes sense.

That layout could have worked for her coach, ignoring the curved lounge
section.

>. . .

>>>>>>In any event, the two women quickly come down with Helsinki

>>>>>Or Stockholm, or Copenhagen. We really need to standardize that.

>>>>I always make the Die Hard reference! What movie is Copenhagen from?

>>>Copenhagen is the first time I heard it in real life, from FBI guys when
>>>friends of mine were kidnapped.

>>My goodness!

>Yeah. It was actually kind of cool. This is a LONG time ago, when TV was
>telling us you had to keep the kidnappers on the phone for a full minute or
>something to get a trace. The FBI guys laughed. They were all over the bad
>guys sorry asses almost immediately. The victim's family got to listen to the
>radio chatter live, too. It probably helps they were wealthy and connected.

Glad they were ok.

>>>>. . .

[anim8rfsk]

And you never saw it's left side, did you? :)

Thanks!