@princearagorn1 said:
Round 1:
Moriarty. I don't think patrick is going anywhere in a week. He will need more than that just to figure out the difference between red john's behavior. Only clues he has is the time new RJ has a victim, and he will be confused enough by whether RJ actually died or he is changing his tactics to play a new game with him.
Round 2:
I think moriarty can find patrick faster. Because patrick's identity is disclosed to the public, he makes official statements and stuff, and regularly goes to the office. Plus he is a small celebrity due to his hunt on red john, and most of the major organisations are wary of him. So getting into one of them is enough. Patrick however has no idea which of the thousands of people moriarty is, whether he is new in town or just one of the old ones getting momentum, which is a huge disadvantage.
Round 3:
Patrick. He's far better at turning people towards him than sherlock was. Playing psych games with him will prove baddd for Jim. I won't be surprised if he figures out when jim meets him as the assistant's boyfriend.
Round 4:
Patrick by a country mile. He's a professional carnival/con-man, his resources include wallets of everyone around him (lol), and locked houses. And he can use resources to his advantage far better imo.
Here is why I can never understand you, PrinceAragorn, since you ignore facts about Poirot and his abilities and feats-here are some facts about Hercule Poirot and his abilities and feats:
After you read all of Poirot's stories/novels, you will see that whatever I posted about Poirot and his abilities is 100% true; PrinceAragorn, for some reason, you ignore all of mentioned facts about Poirot and his abilities; plus, Poirot has met equally invisible and equally smart 4 criminal masterminds in the novel The Big Four, which are at least good if not better than James Moriarty, than Stephen Norton, who is the most perfect criminal in entire detective fiction/genre ever, plus I will copy my own post that I posted yesterday on another thread about comparison between Poirot and Jane:
Just for the record, Poirot figured out who the killer is many times, using only his psychology and intuition, without any physical evidence, clue, pattern or connection, just by seeing the guy the first time the met. Poirot also, like Jane, has played everyone and created mental/psych traps so that no killer could get out.
However, in the last novel/story Curtain: the last Poirot's story, Poirot has met invisible and undetectable person who was so smart that no psych/mental game and no psych/mental trap would put this guy in jail, since the guy (named Stephen Norton) did not say anything and did not do anything physical, so there was no trap he could fall into-Poirot had to execute him, since Stephen Norton truly was the perfect criminal and would never end up in jail and would never get even suspected in the first place, and actually there would be no suspicion at all since the murderers are known, as well as there are witnesses, and there are motives of each and every murder.
Whatever Patrick has done, so did Poirot in his original Agatha Christie's novels/stories. All of Jane's mental/psych/carnival/con-man games would not work on Poirot, because Poirot is too smart for everything Jane has shown, because Poirot is just too damn good Psychologist, who is manipulator himself, and who knows how to play with words, without Jane even figuring out what Poirot is trying to say (Just read the Tragedy at Marsdor Manor and The kidnapped Prime Minister for 2 examples of this), for one of many examples) and that's how Jane could be/would be manipulated by Poirot himself, while Jane would never figure out that he was manipulated in the first place.
My honest apology since this is not a thread about Hercule Poirot, I won't do this again.
Log in to comment