Skip to main content

Sorry, Jonathan Creek, but you got this one wrong

I very much enjoy Jonathan Creek, David Renwick's comedy drama in which designer of magical illusions Jonathan comes up with solutions to seemingly impossible crimes. I mean, it's Alan Davies, how can you not like it? Just occasionally, though, it's irritating because the writer gets it horribly wrong - and that was the case in last night's special, The Judas Tree.

One of the mysteries Creek solves is a Victorian puzzle where a man is seemingly murdered without a means. He is told he will die at a certain time. At the appointed hour he is sitting on a deserted lawn in plain sight. He checks his pocket watch - it's the time. And he dies. From the bushes far away, the Egyptian 'witch' who has cursed him screams - she says she saw death arrive. Nothing has touched him, nor has anything he consumed been poisoned.

So far, so good. The solution that Creek comes up with is that the man's pocket watch had been pumped full of hydrogen cyanide and sealed. The woman's scream was carefully tuned to shatter the glass, releasing the gas and killing him. Unfortunately there are two big problems with this.

The first is the cyanide gas. This was experimented with for gas warfare in the First World War and abandoned for the much less poisonous chlorine. The reason - it's lighter than air and disperses too quickly, before it can be breathed. The chances of a wisp of it escaping from the watch and killing the victim are negligable. Yes it is a deadly killer - it was the gas the Nazis used in the gas chambers - but is unlikely to work in the open air.

Much worse, though, was the breaking of the glass. It is incredibly difficult to do this, and the singer has to produce the exact note the glass produces when it vibrates. A random scream would not do it. More to the point, the singer has to be very close to the glass - no one could do it from distant bushes. And worst of all, the glass has to be able to vibrate with the resonant frequency. Tap a wine glass and you hear it 'sing.' Tap a watch glass and you get a dull clunk. The fact that it is fixed in place means it can't resonate. It couldn't work.

Now you may say 'So what?' It's just a story. But the whole point is that there is a real, physically acceptable solution to the seemingly impossible problem. If we don't have to worry about real world science applying we might as well say someone waved a magic wand and cursed him, or invisible fairies flew in and smothered him. I'm sorry Mr Renwick, but here the science simply doesn't hold up. Better luck next time.


Picture from Jonathan Creek website

Comments

  1. HCN has a molecular mass of 27, while those of N2 and O2 are 28 and 32 respectively. So it is only very slightly lighter than air. It is also a liquid at room temperature.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Although technically true, the 'lighter than air' thing was a bit of red herring. It still is highly unlikely to kill you from a watch held at arms length in the open air (especially when the watch glass couldn't have been broken).

    ReplyDelete
  3. I do not make a habit of sniffing HCN but it has a lot of industrial uses, so its toxicology must be well known. One of the things that makes CO gas so lethal is that like HCN its molecular mass is similar to that of N2 and O2.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...