The Cuckoo's Calling discussion

I loved the book but I thought the ending was weak. If you're the murderer, why go to a private detective to solve the case? Wasn't everything going totally in his favor, with virtually everybody agreeing it was a suicide and no one suspecting him in the slightest? It seems bizarre. I understand that it created a surprising plot twist or whatever but I feel like the author just tacked on "oh, he was a psychopath" as an explanation.

I think it explained that perfectly well! John assumed that Cormoran was a loser, not up to finding out the truth, and would fall for all the things he had said in order to set the half brother up for the murder, thus ruling him out of any potential future claim on her estate.

To all those people who are planning to read this book( the Cuckoo's Calling), a word of caution : DON'T waste your time reading this novel. Please don't get me wrong. I am a big fan of Harry Potter novels, and have read all of them and have loved all of them. But this novel is so dull that I got extremely bored while reading this. Th murderer is John Bristow. He kills Lula Landry for money.

I think the book was quite well-written. I agree Colleen. John must have thought that Cormoran can be easily manipulated given his financial situation. He tries to manipulate Cormoran by repeatedly suggesting about the unknown black man running away from the crime scene. He must have planned that with the will not being found, Rochelle dead/not speaking and the black man arrested for murder, he can enjoy Lula's wealth in peace.

This thread is very helpful, because I felt the same way as Rebecca. Colleen and Shankha, now I see your points, too. However, he was going to get the money anyway, and I think the chances of that will being found were really slim. Obviously three months later, no one had found it yet. And if he is a killer already, why doesn't he just go kill the biological brother himself and get rid of them problem that way? So I'm still not convinced it works...Please feel free to keep convincing me!

Good discussion here! I agree that John thought Cormoran was weak and not up to the task of finding the real killer--boy did he underestimate Strike! I think John also thought he was above it all and could wrangle what he wanted out of the situation, including framing Lula's real brother and getting all of Lula's money in the end. John was so self-involved and thought himself so smart that he could literally get away with murder.

Heather wrote: "And if he is a killer already, why doesn't he just go kill the biological brother himself and get rid of them problem that way? So I'm still not convinced it works...Please feel free to keep convincing me! "

Heather, the brother was still in Afghanistan on duty and I can't find anything in the book that hinted that John knew the brother's name even. So that eliminates John just jetting off to kill him. I think John only got the idea to frame the brother when he saw the guy on the CCTV footage and thought he could frame someone else for the murder. (Though I'm not sure at what point he realized it was actually the brother in the video.) Mostly, I think John didn't think Strike would actually investigate because it had been an idle case and John gave such a good performance of grief in the beginning that Strike should have just thought him in need of emotional help.

That is a good point, that he may not have realized, at least at first, who the guy running from the scene actually was. But again, why frame someone else for the murder when everyone had already established that it was a suicide anyway? And if John didn't think Strike would actually investigate (even if to find a scapegoat), why would he bother going to him?

I'm really enjoying this discussion, thanks everyone!

I was really enjoying the book until those last two chapters. While I could believe Bristow was the killer, I can't get past wondering why he would hire a detective in the first place. The explanation just doesn't work. To me, this was like Gone Girl, it felt like a 5-star novel until the weak ending pushed it down to a 3.

Stacey, I thought the same thing but then reader Ashley wrote this, in response to a comment I wrote to her, and I thought it was the best explanation I'd heard and it made me like the book better:
I think the reason John came to Cormoran was to find Lula's half brother. John was a psychopath and I think he was a really paranoid guy. Lula told John that she wanted to give all her money to her brother and that there was a will and everything. He wanted to check that story out and also make sure that nobody would come along later on to claim the money. John was thinking that due to Cormoran's financial situation, he would be a lot easier to manipulate. I think he was expecting Cormoran to find her brother, but not actually solve the murder. That's why when John brought over the evidence, he was so concerned with the runner and not at all with anything else.
http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/...

I really enjoyed this novel. Definitely the best crime story that I have read in some time. I thought that having John Bristow as the murdered was great. As I was reading the novel I kept thinking that he seemed so suspicious but I couldn't find his motive. The way the whole thing is set up is absolutely brilliant.

First off we have Bristow meeting Strike at his office. Right away he references his brother Charlie and his murder, this being the reason that he chose Strike, because of his love for Charlie and the fact that Strike was Charlie's best friend. I think this right here shows how brilliant Bristow believes himself to be, and how manipulative he is. John believes that he has already gotten away with the murder of two of his siblings and he basically is flaunting this in Strike's face right off the bat. I think then we can see by their first meeting that Bristow is arrogant, which could point to a reason why he wants the case investigated. Bristow is so sure that there is no evidence pointing to him as the murderer that he wants to cover all his bases to make sure that he is the one to inherit the money. He wants to frame Lula's real brother for the murder so that even if Lula's will is found Bristow is still set up to get everything being Lula's closest living heir (assuming that her mother dies and leaves everything to John and her biological brother is in jail, framed for the murder).

I agree with Heather's comment that John most likely did not know who this brother was. This could be another reason to hire Strike. Perhaps he thought Strike capable of finding the brother and even if he was unable to pin the murder on him, Bristow could plan to in some way do away with him so he could not inherit Lula's fortune. This is problematic though because Lula's real brother is deployed to Afghanistan in the army so he would be hard to find and/or reach.

As the novel progresses we are time and time again pointed to John as the largest suspect, but until the end we can't see his motive because we do not know about the half-brother.

We see Bristow acting very suspiciously when the subject of Rochelle comes up. It's obvious that he does not want Stirke to talk to her, worried that she will give him up on the blackmail or let something slip about the will or the conversations Lula had with her brother. The reaction that Bristow has when there is evidence that the photos were deleted from Lula's laptop also gave me pause. Bristow stops dead in the conversation almost as if to compose himself and gauge his response. He's also suspicious because he is set to inherit all of Lula's money according to Ciara Porter, and I believe when Strike brings this up to Bristow he has a strange reaction. I'll admit I can't remember exactly what made me suspicious of him, but I know when reading I thought to myself "I wonder if he could be the murderer"

Overall I really thought the book was excellent. Not perfect, I was left with some questions, but i really enjoyed it.

It's funny, because all the comments here helped me understand the ending better, but they also missed the thing that I actually *understood* about the ending that you guys didn't. (BTW, English isn't my mother language so sorry if there are some mistakes)
The main reason that John had to frame sombody else for the murder is that there was a ticking clock over his head- Tony Landry. Don't forget that Tony:
1. Probably knew what John did to Charlie.
2. Knew that John was lying about being in his mother's house the day of the murder.
It's a ticking clock, because as long as John's mother was alive, Tony would never ruin the last months of her life by telling her and everyone else that her own son killed her other sons. But as the months go by and she's closer to dying... why not tell after she's dead, actually? You may say "why would he want to get into this?", to which I reply- "why not?"
We never learned alot about Tony Landry, and for all we know, he is a man who wants justice, even if it will be a headache for him.
John knew that, and so he had to frame somebody else for the murder so that:
1. Tony would reconsider if John actually killed Lula.
2. Tony's task of framing John would be much much harder- he probably wouldn't even try.

Combine all of this with the fact that he was a narccisist and that he didn't want Lula's half-brother to get the money when or if the will would ever be found (thus causing his murder to be pointless), and I think it's perfectly clear why he hired Strike.

Thanks, Yuvaltheval. That was said perfectly, including excellent English!!

SPOILER ALERT (for people who read my update feed)
***

Yes, there was a lot going on in that ending! In my understanding, the motive was that John actually needed Lula's money. Lula's hastily-drawn will bequeathed all her assets to her brother -- and everyone assumed that she meant John, rather than her biological brother, Joseph, because nobody knew that Joseph even existed. John was paranoid that someone would find out about Joseph (or that he would come forward of his own volition) causing John to lose all of the money he recently inherited, so John was looking to frame Joseph, who was running away from the scene of the crime. He thought that Cormoran was an easy mark because he looked washed up and and unimpressive -- he thought that he could easily influence Cormoran into concluding that Joseph was guilty. (This explains why he deliberately tripped up parts of the investigation, like trying to secretly stop Cormoran from talking to Rochelle.)

John, despite all appearances, was in a financially precarious position, having been outed (at least within his company) for embezzling funds (in relation to the prominent court case he was working on), and needed to repay them. (This makes Tony Landry's suspicion of John's motives very reasonable.) He was living beyond his means to maintain appearances; his trust fund wasn't doing well because a large portion of the stock had significantly decreased in value (I don't remember exactly why, but that particular company was doing badly.). He and Lula had been arguing not about her lowlife boyfriend, as people assumed, but about the fact that he wanted her to "lend" him money and she refused, on the day she died.

The ending is what is called denouement. It is classic to the genre. Did any of you actually guess the murderer? Or is this just rehash?

I'm usually great at guessing who dunnit- and this time I guessed right- at first- and then as I read further, I was tricked into talking myself out of my first impression- brilliant! I love this kind of thing. I was intrigued more by knowing it was Rowling and feeling her life creep into the pages, letting her guard down, thinking that she was shielded behind the pseudo. It makes me think of the Lucy Lu character as Watson. I hope she continues to write more, I'm hooked.

I was certain it was the chauffeur that did it. I really enjoyed it.

I enjoyed this book more than I expected to. I think Robin was the one who motivated Strike to get out that "loser" mode. (And I'm not saying that because my name is also Robin). I never pegged John as a psycho who killed Charlie but I liked that part. Yes, the ending did tie up those loose ends and may have been a bit too contrite but I liked the characters. I hope Rowling writes another book with Strike and Robin.

i think my main issue with the book was Strike and Robin were so well drawn the book seemed to exist to introduce them more than it did to intrigue. Some of the peripheral characters were great - Guy Some and the neighbour guy downstairs who worked in movies - but others were forgettable, including Bristows uncle. Come the end I found there was a lack of suspects so the only one I could really assume did it was Bristow, and low and behold he did

I liked the characters, and I'd read more of them, but there was a lack of mystery

Guy Somé was the one character I felt a bit of a caricature. And the one place where I honestly thought "no, in 2013 a male author couldn't get away with such a blatantly flaming description of a gay man."

(The only other legitimate clue to the woman behind the pseudonym that I noticed was the predilection for homes and hospitals named after really obscure saints. Mungo? Elmo? Who's next? Cosma? Turibius?)

Andrew wrote: "The ending is what is called denouement. It is classic to the genre. Did any of you actually guess the murderer? Or is this just rehash?"

The ending was definitely guess-able. I had it. It was very similar to the style of Agatha Christie. She taught me well: follow the money!

Can we discuss those words/poem that strike remembers at the end??? I did not understood that.

Also a thing that confused me, Wilson the security guy was he connected in some way to Lula's biological brother. I remember him talking about having a military son.

Several people above have got it right. If Jonah Ayembe was identified as the man in the video and convicted as the murderer, he would lose his right to Lula's fortune. Then, the intestate heir, ie John Bristol, would get the money. On the other hand, if John Bristol got to bump him off before then, or if he was simply killed in Afghanistan, the intestate heir, ie John Bristol, would STILL get the money. John Bristol wasn't counting on Cormoran being as competent as he was. He hoped to frame Jonah Ayembe.

Rebecca wrote: "I loved the book but I thought the ending was weak. If you're the murderer, why go to a private detective to solve the case? Wasn't everything going totally in his favor, with virtually everybody a..."

Because he needed to really be in the clear. He was being blackmailed. He knew of another half-brother. He knew Tony Landry would continue to control him unless he somehow got (Ayembe) the half-brother identified and blamed. Clearing him and negating blackmail and Tony. Cormoran was much better then expected.

He wasn't expecting Strike to figure it out. And yes, he is a psycho.

When I read a crime novel I always make a list of characters who might be murderers and their purposes, when I was about in the middle of this book I listed them and one of them was John but I couldn't think why he had done this. But I'm really proud of myself for thinking about him being a murderer.

And just random thought about adopted children:
I think people who refuse to be child's parents are kind of crazy (I'm not talking about poor families who can not afford to rise baby), the other day I saw on TV that one family (they weren't poor) had four children and they had three of them at home and they gave one of their child in orphanage and they never visit him. This is ridiculous... I think people who refuse to keep baby because of nothing, have mental problems so their children... Not all of them are crazy, of course, if they have crazy husband who beats them everyday or if they don't have enough money to even feed themselves it's right to give child to institution but when they have no excuse, it is not acceptable, that means they have mental problems and their children might be mentally ill too... I repeat myself: no offence to anyone, not every child in orphanage are ill.

I know I said same thing in every sentence but maybe that's only my opinion...

I like the point made by Andrew that the end of the book is a denouement because that's what I've been thinking while reading these comments. Personally, I like an expository ending. Don't know if anyone on Goodreads is a fan of the TV program "Mystery!” but this summer featured a series called "Endeavor" and those episodes end in a similar fashion. The hero(ine) brings together all the disparate threads and braids together a satisfactory ending - very classic. I suspected John but I also suspected Tony and Freddie at times. It crossed my mind that it could have been Derrick Wilson (the doorman) who has a nephew in Afghanistan (who was somehow involved) and I even thought the author might do a double fake and Evan Duffield would be the murderer (although unlikely). In the mystery genre we call them red herrings :-)
At any rate I thought this was a really good mystery but also, having never been a Harry Potter fan I was blown away by Rowling's writing and wit. The characters were believable and entertaining (loved Guy!) and I want more. As someone else pointed out, a story line with old Johny Rokeby needing Strike’s help would be poetic justice indeed.

It was an entertaining read but the ending was a little bit of a shocker to me because i didnt even guess it. I thought it must have been uncle Tony all the way until the John was revealed as the killer! Actually right up to just before the final meeting between Strike and John Bristow, when Strike was hoping that John would show up before Tony, I was still convinced that Tony was the killer. so when John was revealed as the killer...I was like, huhhh. I suppose Rowling had been dropping various hints that taken together, would support the final revelation, such as the security guard having slipped on the water, and the makeup artist being dyslexic...but some of the clues i thought were too obscure. I didnt feel as excited as I could have been at the ending because I was left in the dust by Strike's mystery solving skill...how did he know that the will was in Lady Bristow's wardrobe???? Why would Lula have placed it there..unless she knew her house was not safe, and if she did know, how did she know?? If she trusted Rochelle, why didnt she just leave the will with Rochelle? oh dear. I need to pay more attention.
It's really hard to write a good mystery novel because so much turns on the ending and an anti-climactic ending is the worst in a mystery/thriller novel.

Eva wrote: "It was an entertaining read but the ending was a little bit of a shocker to me because i didnt even guess it. I thought it must have been uncle Tony all the way until the John was revealed as the k..."

If I remember correctly, Stike knew the will would be in the wardrobe because someone had mentioned that all of Lula's belongings were in the wardrobe. Lula didn't place the will in there, rather it was in the lining of one of her bags that she received from Guy Some. I believe Strike found this out when he met with the makeup artist and Ciara Porter, although I can't remember exactly which one mentioned that the linings in the bags were interchangeable. Also, I don't think Lula trusted Rochelle per se. I think she was kind of using her. She knew the press wouldn't be that interested in Rochelle, so she used her to be able to talk to her brother (by purchasing the cellphone for Rochelle and calling her brother from that phone).

I also was surprised at John being the murderer, but only because I couldn't find his motive. Everything isn't wrapped up for us until the meeting between the two of them at the end. What made me suspect him however was 1. The fact that he would not help Strike find Rochelle and that he actually tried to sway him from ever meeting her. 2. The pictures that were deleted from the laptop, when Strike brings this up to Bristow, he takes a long pause and his reaction to the entire thing is quite strange and 3. The fact that Bristow was named by Lula as the person to whom she was leaving everything (even though the brother she references is in fact not Bristow, but we don't find that out until later).

I thought the ending was really good, but I actually like when I can't guess who it was or when I get it wrong. I like that surprise and unveil.

I wasn't buying into the ending either, it just doesn't make logical sense on why John would hire Cormoran in the first place.

I have a further two questions:

- Why did John leave Rochelle's mobile phone in his mothers safe?

- Cormoran said he knew John will come armed, so why did he reveal the truth alone with John? I mean if John had a gun, then Cormoran would've died there. Or did he somehow know that John will come with a knife.

Rebecca wrote: "I loved the book but I thought the ending was weak. If you're the murderer, why go to a private detective to solve the case? Wasn't everything going totally in his favor, with virtually everybody a..."

I found that a bit odd as well. I would have liked to hear a confession from (view spoiler)[John Bristow (hide spoiler)] himself but wow! he must have been insane to have drummed up all the lies. It was also shocking to me that he (view spoiler)[had killed 3 people (hide spoiler)]

Heather wrote: "This thread is very helpful, because I felt the same way as Rebecca. Colleen and Shankha, now I see your points, too. However, he was going to get the money anyway, and I think the chances of that will being found were really slim. Obviously three months later, no one had found it yet. And if he is a killer already, why doesn't he just go kill the biological brother himself and get rid of them problem that way? So I'm still not convinced it works...Please feel free to keep convincing me! "

John probably would've killed Jonah eventually I agree but he assumed Lulu's brother was going to die in Afghanistan or wherever he was serving anyway. I thought this book was well written and I was impressed by how good a detective Cormoran Strike was. I will definitely like to read more from this hero he is made out to be and I just loved Robin didn't you? A real Batman and Robin lol

Ngan wrote: "Heather wrote: "And if he is a killer already, why doesn't he just go kill the biological brother himself and get rid of them problem that way? So I'm still not convinced it works...Please feel fre..."

Me too! I found it odd that John would hire a detective even after he got away with the murder. I don't pretend to understand the mind of a psychopath though. I was under the impression that John Bristow was a good guy but it threw me for a loop when I heard Strike witnessing against him! of all people! I was floored . So good.

Sandyboy wrote: "i think my main issue with the book was Strike and Robin were so well drawn the book seemed to exist to introduce them more than it did to intrigue. Some of the peripheral characters were great - Guy Some and the neighbour guy downstairs who worked in movies - but others were forgettable, including Bristows uncle. Come the end I found there was a lack of suspects so the only one I could really assume did it was Bristow, and low and behold he did

I liked the characters, and I'd read more of them, but there was a lack of mystery "

Boy you guys are smart for guessing whodunnit. I suspected one of the runners in hoodies but never would have guessed John Bristow. That was amazing

Eva, Strike new to look in Lady Bristow's handbags, which were obviously in her closet, because of the blue paper he saw in Lady Bristow's apartment being the same paper Lulu Landry's will was written on and the handbag being a Guy Somes design had a silk lining. Remember he had asked Ciara Porter about that.

I was only confused at who the suspect/murderer was but Strike wasn't; since he knew the only person who would carry a handbag was John Bristow's mother.

Trishé wrote: "Lula didn't place the will in there, rather it was in the lining of one of her bags that she received from Guy Some. I believe Strike found this out when he met with the makeup artist and Ciara Porter, although I can't remember exactly which one mentioned that the linings in the bags were interchangeable. "

Right :)

Highways wrote: "I wasn't buying into the ending either, it just doesn't make logical sense on why John would hire Cormoran in the first place.

I have a further two questions:

- Why did John leave Rochelle's mobile phone in his mothers safe?

- Cormoran said he knew John will come armed, so why did he reveal the truth alone with John? I mean if John had a gun, then Cormoran would've died there. Or did he somehow know that John will come with a knife. "

I guess John felt he needed to keep Rochelle's mobile phone because it had the evidence of Lulu talking to her brother Jonah? Also because Lulu was still paying for the service and Rochelle was blackmailing John.

Strike had recorded the last meeting with John Bristow and Strike made a big deal that he was a boxer so he was prepared to defend himself even though he had just fell down a set of stairs and his prosthetic was killing him but you're right. John could've shot him.

Highways wrote: "I mean if John had a gun"

You're forgetting where this story takes place.

It's not LA, it's the UK. Not every psychopath with an attitude can get a gun. At least not that easily. Knives are, in fact, the number one weapon for assault.

As for "revealing the truth…" Strike got all the exchange with Bristow down on the recorder of his mobile phone. Everything Bristow said. That was the point of having the meeting with just the two of them. Bristow would have clammed up if anyone else was there. Since Bristow, like most people, didn't think of the possibility of the phone being used as a recorder. (We had this painted out for us in exquisite detail earlier in the story, remember?) The long and short of that is that Strike's got a confession.

I'm not sure if to what extent the recording would be usable as evidence under English law. But even if the recording were disallowed in a trial, the fact that Strike has it, and all the detail, would give the prosecution the foundation for a solid case.

To those coming late to the thread: I was originally a little skeptical about the ending, but after a little thought it became increasingly clear that it's an extremely clever denouement.

Just finished "The Cuckoo's Calling" -I don't care what anyone says, J K Rowling is a good writer! I came to love her her two main characters and thought the ending was great.

Jackie asked why John left the mobile in his mother's safe - I think the reason was that had he disposed of it the network would still pick up a signal from it, even if the phone was powered off. I would presume that signal could not be picked up from inside a safe. It is actually quite difficult to "dispose" of a mobile phone.
I too was completly surprises with John's role - I think it was a very interesting idea to have him actually employ Strike to investigate a crime he had committed himself.
I absolutely loved the line where John says to Strike "You ought to give up detecting and try fantasy writing" - that had me in stitches.
I agree Terry, I too thought it was a great read regardless of what anyone says. I really do hope she writes more for Strike and especially Robin (she is just such a lovely character).

Aisling wrote: "Jackie asked why John left the mobile in his mother's safe - "
Aisling it wasn't me who asked it but someone by the name of Highways . I quoted Highways.

I didn't mind the ending.
What I didn't like about this book was that the author didn't take us along on the journey of working out who did it. It was all just a endless list of questions - and then suddenly all is revealed.
I would have preferred if we were let into Strike's thoughts, who he believed, what he didn't, what his suspicions were etc.
That whole being naked on the balcony thing literally came out of thin air and I started to think I'd skipped some pages, then there's the part where Strike admits there wasn't a photo, he just made that up to fit in with his theory. It would have been better if the reader was taken along on how he came to this theory.
I didn't like the writing style of leaving the reader totally in the dark until the big reveal at the end.

Regarding the "naked on the balcony thing" - strangely enough it had struck me that she was on the balcony & that how she came to hear the conversation & the thought had actually suggested itself to me that she was a victim of domestic abuse.

@Jackie
I apologise for misquoting you

strangely enough it had struck me that she was on the balcony & that how she came to hear the conversation & the thought had actually suggested itself t..."

That definitely hadn't occurred to me at all at that point.
However I meant more how that was introduced, suddenly Strike is talking about this photo where you can see her. I'm thinking "what photo? where was that mentioned?" That's where I thought I had skipped reading something.

I was also completely puzzled about how Rowling chose to write about Strike. He's fat, hairy, has 'pube hair' one leg (with some kind of gross sore on the end of his stump) Drinks and smokes (so he probably stinks)and he has dubious personal hygiene - yet we are expected to believe that gorgeous women are falling at his feet and a supermodel drags him into bed after knowing him for a couple of hours?
Seriously? She has the pick of a nightclub full of gorgeous young men and she sleeps with the old fat, hairy dude? No way.
Even Robin, the start of the book is how blissfully happy she is to be engaged, yet Strike has to make an effort to keep a professional distance in case she can't stop herself from falling for him?
If this was written by a guy, you could rationalize it away as wishful thinking, but Rowling should know that's not how women react to guys like Strike.

Pjaye wrote: "strangely enough it had struck me that she was on the balcony & that how she came to hear the conversation & the thought had actually suggested itself t..."

That definitely hadn't occurred to me a..."

I think he kept his distance from Robin so HE didn't mix professional and personal life, and ended up putting them in an uncomfortable situation, and not because she might fall for him.
But I do agree with you about Ciara, it's unlikely that she'd want him to spend the night with.


For the ones who were asking about Strike knowing about the will in the handbag, wasn't it because Lula had gotten pretty serious when Ciara asked for that bag for herself? Like trying to avoid her to touch it and see it?
Although I don't know how it would fit with the makeup artist seeing the will...

I loved it. I generally don't guess while reading crime novels because then you don't feel any excitement or shock at the revelation. And this one was just awesome. Cormoran's mind was so deep, it really intrigued me. Plus, Jo Rowling is my queen so even if she pens down her grocery shopping list, I'd find it amazing. But no, seriously. This one was better than Casual Vacancy for me.

John had Cormoran re-investigate the case because remember Tansy Bestigui heard the conversation, so maybe someone was bound to believe her if she revealed she wasn't in the bathroom, but in the balcony.

Then Rochelle was aware of things too. So, before someone opens their mouth, he wanted to have Cormoran blame the murder on the runner. Plus, he was "batshit insane" as Strike says.

I could believe that Bristow was hoping to frame Jonah for the murder except for one thing. He never actively does anything to try to frame him. He tries to stymie Strike's investigation, but I didn't see him actually planting any clues to point to Jonah. Yes, there was a black man running away on the security tape, but so what? And wasn't it just a bit too convenient that Jonah was caught on the tape at the exact moment Bristow needed him to be there? How would Bristow know that he'd be there or even that he'd run away, thereby looking guilty? The closest I could come to why Bristow would hire Strike in the first place is what other posters have said here: That he needed someone to locate Jonah, and Bristow didn't think Strike capable of solving the murder. But that was hardly made explicit in the book. And I don't buy the excuse that "he was just crazy" as a very satisfying motivation for a 450-page novel. Like the old joke says, just because he was crazy doesn't mean he was stupid.

And to the posters who said that Strike knew Bristow wouldn't come to his office at the end armed with a gun because in England no one has access to guns, that's preposterous. He was a well-connected man from a wealthy family and surely could have gotten his hands on one somehow. Again, it was just a bit too convenient that he had a knife instead.

I thought tony & alison had done it for the money, but I guess that's what rowling wanted me to think!

also about the knife, strike made it clear that he knew john had chosen a knife so that he could frame strike's stalker, who had said he would slit him open, if he needed to

strike made it clear that he knew john had chosen a knife so that he could frame strike's stalker, who had said he would slit him open, if he needed to.

I suppose that's true, though it's a tad convenient that the stalker wasn't threatening to shoot him. And I don't remember the part where Bristow learns about Strike's stalker and what he says in his letters. (It could be there, I just don't remember it.)