“The Time Has Come…

…,” the walrus said, “to talk of many things. Of shoes and ships and sealing wax, of cabbages and kings.”



Well, the time has come for the solution to “Death in the Sun,” too–so here goes…









I’m trying to decide how to do this one: I’m having a little difficulty writing the dénouement (which, to be perfectly honest, is why I’ve taken so long to write this), so I’ll just do what I did before and describe the solution. (I hope you don’t mind!)

As noted, JJ correctly noted the clue about “being able to see the beach from the house”; in fact, the Arning house is “…right next to the public beach,” according to the sheriff.

Silver Screenings correctly noticed that the shoulder is an odd place to shoot someone with intent to kill–which is indeed a major clue that we should keep in mind.

JJ then suggested that Thurlow could not have been shot outside, but rather that he was shot in the house and then walked out. But–as he wrote–“would there not be a trail of blood along the sand from the gunshot wound?”

“The deed must have been done in the house,” Colin wrote–and, as noted, correct!

What other points should we keep in mind? “Sadly, said hand and not seen fit to deliver him as brazened as the other sardines…” Thus: he could not have been on the beach long, on that very hot day, if he were not sunburned, as is inferrable, also, from his personality. Where could he have come from? The house, obviously, which is right nearby. So why, as Geoff asked, should he have been at the public beach? The point is what JJ noted: that he had been shot in the house and walked out to the public beach so that someone could see him.

Substantiating evidence? Naturally, he could not have been shot at close range on the sandbar, with no one around him. At close range–and that, my friends, is the point.

George Thurlow, remember, was shot twice: once in the shoulder and once in the back. The shot in the shoulder had powder burns–indicating a shot at close range–but the shot in the back did not.

Conclusion: we assumed that both bullets entered the body at the same time because two shots were heard at once.

But there’s the secret: George Thurlow was shot once in one place (close-range) and once in another (long-range).

In other words, he was shot once in the house (in the shoulder) and once, long-range, on the beach, from the house. Substantiation? In the back–he was facing away–long-range. He had recently come from the house; the people on the beach watched him walk out–he’d been shot in the shoulder at this point–and didn’t see anyone, or any kind of weapon, around.

Who could have committed the crime? The person who was standing on the roof when the shot was fired–the person who brought up “golf clubs” when nobody was up there to take any golf clubs–the person who had argued with Mrs. Ball and with his employer over changes to the house–the person who, obviously from his demeanor and attitude, loved and missed his former employer–the person who had only a few minutes before shown that former employer through what had been her home…

To wit, Billy Cummings.














This entry was posted in Game of Wits, My Stories, Solutions and tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to “The Time Has Come…

  1. JJ says:

    But…what about the trail of blood? 😀


    • The shot in the shoulder did not cause much bleeding, missing anything vital; what finished him off was the shot in the back.

      I hope you liked the solution… (It was only after reading it over again that I noticed how similar it was to one Carr in particular…)


      • JJ says:

        Okay, I’ll pay that. Should have spotted the second shot in the back, that was a bad miss on my part — and the lack of bronzing on the body is a neat little inclusion. Very nicely done, sir!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thanks!

        Is it somewhat original? I can’t recall seeing anything it elsewhere, but I might have missed something. The effect, I realized after writing it, is similar to JDC’s The Peacock Feather Murders.


      • JJ says:

        It’s a variation on the “victim doesn’t realise they’re wounded” routine (the difference here being the deliberate walking somewhere else to die, rather than it being accidental), but certainly distinct enough from that to warrant separate consideration. I can’t comment fully on the originality, but it’s not unlike the Carr you mentioned…however, again, there are enough differecnes to distinguish it on its own merits. That’s the best I can do, I’m afraid!


      • That’s fine, JJ, as long as it’s not identical to some Halter I’ve never read or something…

        What I like about it is that the shot-in-another-place doesn’t kill him, as it would in the scenario you describe (and which we both know well). That’s why—I think!—the variation is enough.

        Thanks again!


  2. Ack! I also missed the other shot in the back.

    Looking forward to more. I’ll figure it out next time! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s