Eternal Return: Ch 9-16 summary; 26/July/2015; pg 101 - Page 31

Re Chapter 4: I liked the interaction between Geet and Emily, but at first read, it appeared to be distracting. I re-read it to check whether I was wrong, and fortunately I realised that the first bout of exchange between Emily and Geet took place while Mr Guha was jotting down the list. So, it did not distract them from their line of duty. But, a briefer exchange took place while Maan was questioning Mr Guha. Of course, given that they were outside the room, it would not matter as such, but would not their exchange have taken away from their observation of Mr Guha's behaviour?

Originally posted by: -Sookie-

Chapter 5:

...

"There are photos found on the boy's laptop which was clearly taken by Mr. Guha very recently because the photos are all dated. Some digital cameras give you that feature and I think Mr. Guha wanted to retain it as he wanted to remember every day he spent with his son. In few photos there is a dog with the boy and the photos are taken in the small garden here," Geet said.

"But there is no mention of pet in any of the testimonies," Satya said.

"No, it wasn't the family's pet; had it been the case there would have been more photos of the dog along with the boy and not just a handful. I think it belongs to someone else and the boy plays with the dog whenever the dog is left in his care," Geet replied.

...

As Holmes would like us to, should we pay more attention to the dog? Photos of the dog with the boy found on the laptop. Who took the photos? And whose dog was it?

Yet again an awesome story!can't belive i caught up with it soo late!any way,hoping for the story to unfold and really liking the characters of maan and geet!wondering when geet will have to face her demons through the case which in maan's case have already started!

Rewinding back to cc 2 and 3. Here are a few questions that I missed.

Originally posted by: -Sookie-

Chapter 2

'

"What do you see in this room Emily?" Geet asked. Emily looked at her raising an eyebrow. "Describe the room for me please," Geet said switching on a recorder. It was her habit to record everything she spoke when she visited a crime scene which wasn't very often. She got several insights when she analyzed the crime scene with photographs and validated her commentary then.

"Okay, let's see. This looks like master bedroom. There is a queen size bed at the center with its headboard attached to the wall opposite to the door. There is a wardrobe to the right of the door and to the bed. Left of the door and right opposite to the bed attached to the wall is a dresser," Emily said peering at its contents.

'

"Okay, the photos are all on the right side of bed and the wall right opposite to the door. There are photos of the family and the boy since he was a baby," Emily noted. Geet waited for her to go on. Emily sighed. "Well that's all I got." She replied.

'

"There is something very familiar about this crime scene. I don't know exactly what that is," Geet said to a perplexed Emily.

To be continued.

Was there a positive identification for Mrs Guha and Guha Junior? Merely seeking a verification since the face of the woman was severely mutilated and the child's physique didn't match to that of the child in the photographs:-)

So, how many wardrobes were there? Standing at the door and looking into the room, was there one to the right of the door (on the wall which contained the door) and another one to the right of the bed too? If yes, is that not a strange placement of wardrobes for what was perhaps the master bedroom? Should we call for the inventory of items in the room and inside the wardrobe. Would it reveal that the room was not occupied by jointly by Mrs and Mr Guha?

Now, the bodies were found in the master bedroom. The blood stains were found only in the master bedroom, weren't they? Does this mean that the stab wounds were inflicted on both in the same master bedroom? And, from c 3, we know that, in the earlier crime too, the father and daughter too were killed in the master bedroom. Strange that the master bedroom appears to be the crime scene in both cases involving a parent and a child -- mother and son, father and daughter -- and that the parent and child were found in the master bedroom. Should we proceed with this gruesome line of questioning?

Originally posted by: -Sookie-

Chapter 3:

...

"I remember being in a crime scene myself," he said.

Geet frowned at that.

"Maan, are you sure it is a memory?" She asked haltingly. Maan looked at her sharply. He knew what she meant by that and also understood the underlying doubts in the words she didn't utter. Her face had said it all. Are you sure it isn't your imagination?

"What set it off?" Geet asked when there was no response from him.

"The crime scene," he replied almost immediately.

"I mean which part of crime scene?" She asked pressing on knowing specific details.

"The way that woman was killed and laid out today. As if she was being punished for doing something terribly wrong," he replied. Geet peered at him closely.

"Punished, is it?" She asked making mental note of the words he was uttering. In her profession these words and the things people spoke had immense impact on the outcome.

"That's the first thought that crossed my head. I thought you should know that." He said.

...

"As if she was being punished for doing something terribly wrong." Punished for doing something terribly wrong. Now, that does sound like a child's reaction to events. A nine-year old would have analysed events in that manner, right? You do something wrong, you are punished. Mother did something wrong, mother was punished. So, perhaps, seeing the crime scene did trigger his memory.

PS: Since this almost appears to be my third consecutive post, I will keep editing this post with further comments.

@Medha - Please keep the posts separate. It will help me answer better without mixing things. I will respond to the comments tonight.

Two things to note:

1) I will not answer all questions. Because -
a) They will be addressed in further chapters (like how the woman and boy was identified. The team has not yet discussed about the person who has reported the crime)
b) It would give away much bigger part of the story.

2) Everything - characters, animals, places have reason (I have tried very hard to make semblance as far as possible but I might slip once in a while :) )

Something to note -

Nothing to be ignored. Everything has a reason. Many threads make a grand story. The threads may or may not converge. Connection seems to exist but it may just be mist covering it all or thin strands of fate.

Which path would you choose? Yellow brick road or breadcrumbs?

And yeah, the above note probably gives away the plan 😆

@ Sookie: Thanks for the notes. Each note is duly appreciated:-)

It is still too early on in the investigation (and in your story) for everything to be revealed. We'll just keep throwing up questions to confound each other.

Oh yes, definitely the bread crumbs. But, perhaps, the "something to note" has given the whole loaf away.😆

---

I am experiencing a problem with the *like* button. But, as I read through the comments, I realise that a certain someone has added the daakiya and the doodhwala to the list of suspects too!:-)

Some more on c 5.

Originally posted by: -Sookie-

Chapter 5:

...

"I have an injured animal in my arms. It came out of nowhere and since I found it in front of your house I thought it's yours," Geet said.

"But I don't have a pet," Emily said.

"There are photos found on the boy's laptop which was clearly taken by Mr. Guha very recently because the photos are all dated. Some digital cameras give you that feature and I think Mr. Guha wanted to retain it as he wanted to remember every day he spent with his son. In few photos there is a dog with the boy and the photos are taken in the small garden here," Geet said.

...

Reading this chapter had given me the impression that the Guhas' residence was a stand-alone residence (with its own gate, the garden and the enactment of the fictional stranger's excuse of an animal who came out of nowhere and was injured and was found in front of the house). But, did the earlier chapters refer to a lobby (from where Emily's voice came) and a flat? Sookie, you can ignore that, if it's irrelevant.

Now, for questions that may be more relevant.

As the friend, Mrs Guha was scheduled to meet her friend for brunch. That generally indicates a late riser (or perhaps the friend was a late riser), doesn't it? If Mrs Guha was a late riser (and that's probably why the house-help did not come into the house until noon, unless, of course, the house-help was employed only for the latter part of the day), does she also retire early for the night? As per the neighbours, the driver and the house-help both leave by 900 pm. Questions that interviews will reveal, I am sure: Was it routine for the house-help to leave after the Guhas completed their dinner and everything was put away? Or did the house-help routinely leave before the Guhas completed their dinner? If the former, then was it routine for Mrs Guha to retire shortly after 0900 pm (given that she and the child were stabbed / killed / died in the master bedroom, unless there were signs of struggle elsewhere)? The death took place between 1000 pm and 1200 am. Forensics will likely provide more details later. But, is that a narrow time range for the extent of the mutilation that was carried out on the bodies?

Also, if Mrs Guha was to meet her friend for brunch, did the driver turn up in the morning to drive her to meet her friend? If yes, what did he find? If no, why not?


[Sookie, I don't expect you to answer these questions immediately. I would rather that you throw the bread crumbs along the way. I am merely raising the questions that arise as I think this through.]

Hope you had a relaxing stay back and ready to give us some fresh juice from freshly picked fruits.

Hoping to get some from you soon...

I am still processing the rest of the chapters. Too many possibilities. I will be back with more questions later.

Given that Maan has no memory of the first nine years of his life and given that he was told that his mother died in the same accident that resulted in his loss of memory, I wonder if he was troubled by the thought that he may have killed his mother or that her death was some sort of a punishment for her or his acts.

Not if we set out the chronology of the events of the past:

• About 22 / 23 years ago, Maan's mother dies in an accident. Maan survives, but with a memory loss. [Father is a lawyer, a close friend of Inspector Venkat]. Summarily, Mother-son duo, mother dies, son survives.
  
• About 14 / 15 years ago, Geet's father dies in an accident or was killed. Mother may have been dead already, given that a 17-year old Geet was handed over to the care of her maternal aunt. [Father was a forensic psychiatrist known to Inspector Venkat]. Father-daughter duo. Father dies, daughter survives.
  

Inspector Venkat did not reveal the last case that Geet's father was working on. It is interesting that around the same time as Geet was following up with Inspector Venkat about the investigation around her father's death, a 17-year old Maan too visited Inspector Venkat at the police station. Were inquires being made then about an eight-year old incident? Or, this is probably where I put together the bread crumbs and paint them yellow:-)

PS: The word "survives" is used here in the legal sense:-)

PPS: I hope Venkat too reappears in the story.

---

Aarya, thanks for sharing your "two cents":-) Will be back later to respond.

Now that THEY got their trun, when do we get OURs?😒😆