And Then There Were None question

If you re-read Wargrave's epilogue letter, you'll see that he mentions that there was a reason behind the order of people killed. It went from the people who felt the most guilty about their crime to the ones who had the least regrets.

To remind you, this is how the killings went: Tony Marston -> Ms.Rogers -> Gen. MacArthur -> Rogers -> Ms.Brent -> *Wargrave* -> Armstrong -> Blore -> Philip -> Vera.

By this logic, you can actually deduce a lot of cool things about the characters.

One of them is related to your question. The characters who felt the guiltiest, ie. Tony Marston and Ms.Rogers, were offed extremely fast, so they didn't have time to confess even if they had wanted to.

But perhaps the most interesting one to note is that Vera was the morally worst person in the bunch (Wargrave excluded). And if you think of it like that, a lot of her internal monologues suddenly make a lot of sense. Every time she recalled the event her language quickly darkened and you'd find her cursing the child over and over. The child was next in line, meaning her fiancee (Hugo) wouldn't receive the family riches. So she let the child drown on purpose for her gain. However, Hugo was able to see past her front and was so repulsed by her that he moved away. Some time later he met Wargrave and that's how he got to know about the whole deal.

She was so despicable that Philip, the guy who willingly left 21 men to die and boasted about it, felt more guilty than her. Then after she kills him she finally breaks down and ends up putting the noose around her neck.

Other characters to note include Ms.Brent who with this new fact are given a new light. The way she talked it seemed like she had absolutely no regrets about her actions, but this indicates otherwise and makes her more human.

That would of been an interesting twist but i think "The Killer" would of still gone ahead with there plan.

I agree with S.R. The killer would probably rationalize that it was too late to confess at that point. Plus, the killer’s intention in this story seems to be more about making people pay for their crimes, rather than getting them to admit guilt.

It would be interesting to see the thought process of a killer who only wanted criminals to admit guilt, and what he/she would do with an intended victim in such a scenario as you’ve suggested.

I believe the killer would have gone ahead also. The scenario was so perfectly worked out with everything fitting his script of Ten Little Indians that I don't think he would have allowed anything to mess it up.

I think the killer still would have killed him/her. He wouldn't let his carefully pre-meditated plans be thwarted! Plus, that wouldn't be in accordance with the rhyme- ten little indians. Also, when help came to the Island he/she not killed would reveal the whole story. Unless of course, he was working with the killer and helping with all the murders but the killer in this tale wouldn't have risked that and wanted to do these murders by himself.

I think the killer did his research well. No way these individuals were going to admit their guilt. Too much time had past. The passage of time allowed them to built up insulation to support the justification of their actions. He chose his 'victims' well. I agree with S.R. the killer would have proceeded with his plan anyway.