The Turn of the Key
discussion
Ambiguous Endings
date
newest »
newest »
I think that the evidence that Rachel killed the girl is very weak: Maddie easily could have fallen by accident. By the way, I believe there was no scream: perhaps Maddie was hoping to have no trouble landing so she hoped she could hide what she was doing. It would be extremely likely that the evidence of her climbing the roof would come out in a trial. Therefore, the main evidence against Rachel is a fake alibi and we've just destroyed that. In fact, I don't see any justifiable reason to keep Rachel locked up for those months.
Oh, don't forget that there is no good motive for a sane Rachel kill the child: the worst case of her true identity being discovered is that she gets to confront her father. Then she returns to London, disappointed about it all. Psychology has advanced to the point that the doctors can prove that Rachel is not insane, and she would have been tested before the trial. The fake alibi issue is dead, and there's no proof against Rachel. Why would there have even been a trial? If no trial, what were the workers talking about?
I looked into the issue of time of death and for the small number of hours between Rachel hearing the crash and the police arriving, they would have been able to use the body temperature and whatever rigor mortis they see (it starts in specific body parts and slowly moves out), plus blood pooling in the body, they would have a rough estimate of time of death. It might not have completely exonerate her but it would not have condemned Rachel. Which gets back to motive as the only issue. Since she isn't insane, why was there even a trial?
I have now realized that Ellie's confession would not help Rachel. The prosecution would say that Ellie pushed Maddie who was still holding on to a vine and failed to make her fall. So she didn't fall screaming and protecting her head (therefore surviving the fall). But then the prosecution would say that Rachel came across Maddie as she was climbing back into the room and Maddie would tell her what Ellie had tried to do. So Rachel (according to the prosecution) realized that this was her opportunity to get revenge on the family who abandoned her, so she knocked out Maddie and threw her out of the window. Ruth gave the poor girl no way out but being murdered in prison. Ruth messed up the ending very badly.
I disagree the prosecution would try that sure but the confession would still make the jury doubt. Especially if death from a fall seemed the cause of death. So no it’s damning for the case against Rachel. Ruth didn’t mess up anything
Thomas wrote: "I disagree the prosecution would try that sure but the confession would still make the jury doubt. Especially if death from a fall seemed the cause of death. So no it’s damning for the case against..."I’m talking about the overwhelming uncertainty of Ruth’s novel’s ending. Even something like Ellie’s confession could work for or against Rachel. Ellie’s confession (before or during the trial) should have been a get-out-of-jail ticket for Rachel. However, it could instead allow the prosecution to claim that Rachel had turned a child’s horrible but fortunately non-fatal mistake (Ellie pushing Maddie but failing to loosen Maddie’s grip on the vines so Maddie didn’t fall to her death) into an alibi for a heartless murder (Rachel, on finding out from Maddie about Ellie’s actions, then knocks Maddie unconscious and throws her to her death, knowing that Ellie would believe that she was the murderer) or so the police might claim.
Maybe the prison and the police did understand Ellie’s letter but gave it to Rachel just to see what she would do with it. And they would certainly open that sealed letter before Rachel got it. If a letter seemed illegible, they would still put effort into understanding it, and all they had to do is speak it out loud to comprehend it. So why did they not release Rachel, letting her take the letters with her? Why did she feel she had to hide the letters? Were the police waiting to see if Rachel either betrayed Ellie or still insisted on an accidental death? We don’t know what she would do but it seems from the story that Rachel would keep Ellie’s secret. How the Law interprets that is unknown, but it is possibly a likely positive outcome for Rachel (she won’t betray the child, so she does have integrity). But we don’t know. We needed more information but we were denied it.
And there’s the point that Maddie had to be unconscious when she fell because she made no noise, neither in fear nor in anger, and did nothing to protect her head (which should have been instinctive). One and a half floor is not that deadly a fall and she even fell into part of a bush, further softening the impact, but she still split her skull open (hence all that blood). She was unconscious and Ellie’s push wouldn’t have caused that. Therefore, either Rachel murdered her or something happened that isn’t even hinted at in the novel.
I’ve not read anybody else mention Maddie’s odd silence and inactivity during her fall, but I think it is a very important issue and the prosecution would have had a field day with it. So Rachel is convicted of a crime she didn’t do and the other prisoners around her believe she tried to frame a five year old sister for the crime. There isn’t a lot of evidence for that but there isn’t a lot of evidence, period. The convicts would take the ugly conclusion and Rachel’s life is in great danger.
A story that has at least a dozen possible endings, ranging from an exonerated and free Rachel through to an ending where Rachel and most of the Endicourt females are dead while Bill the figurative bastard lives wealthy and horny is not a complete story. There is no way a reader could reliably interpret the ending. So it failed to communicate to the reader what, of many possible endings, was supposed to have happened.
Wow! You really took apart the ending in meticulous detail. As I've stated before, I believe that Ware should have been clearer in her concluding chapter.
What no one seems to be taking into account in all the comments about an 8 yr old could not have pulled all that conniving, and a 5 yr old could not have written that letter even with the glitchy speech-to-text she demonstrated earlier, is the fact that it might not have been either of them at all. Ellie may not have dictated that letter at all and only been given an envelope and bullied into giving it to the housekeeper — by the resident hacker. Rhiannon already demonstrated that she can send phony emails/Happy messages that appear to be from someone else. I wouldn’t put it past her to have instigated the whole thing through the remote smart house app, hacked both her sisters’ and parents’ accounts to get the house to do all those pranks on the nannies. Maybe emotionally blackmailing the younger sisters into cooperating, or sneaking into the attic when she was supposed to be at school. We already know she gets rides whenever to wherever with shady characters. Classic rebellious teen stuff. I’m thinking the nest wasn’t Maddie’s at all, but hers, and Maddie tried to follow, but slipped and fell off the roof like they letter says, except it was her and Rhiannon, not Ellie. R seems troubled enough to have seared her conscience sufficiently to pretend like everything is normal and let Rowan/Rachel discover it on her own and take the blame, then mimic her sister’s writing style to throw the blame on Ellie in case the case against the nanny fell apart, figuring a 5 year old is going to get off the hook more easily than a 14 year old. But regarding the ambiguity about Rachel’s ultimate fate, no not a fan! Enough ambiguity in real life. If I want heavy thinking, I’ll read non-fiction and the Bible. Leisure reading - closure is the way to go, unless it’s a series ending on a teaser for the next book.
If “it doesn’t matter anymore,” then everyone is right - dead or exonerated.
Why were the papers never posted?
1. Again, y’all theorize she is dead through one means or another. I guess that is possible.
2. This is just a copy of what she sent. If I took the time to write out the whole long story, I’d want to keep a copy in case I needed to share it with someone else. Wouldn’t want to write it out again. So possibly sent and exonerated, taken out before she could get her papers out.
3. The letter to the lawyer mentioned some kind of restoration going on at the prison, so possibly prisoners transferred without warning, maybe in the wake of some kind of natural disaster rendering the place uninhabitable, and she couldn’t retrieve her papers
4. She was beat up again and transferred to a different cell block or prison. Couldn’t retrieve papers.
5. Lawyer came to see her in response to first letter before she posted the longer letter so they were able to talk it out and he got another “no hoper” off. 6. Rhiannon made a mistake and the truth came out another way exonerating Rachel.
7. Ellie knew at least part of the story and let it slip causing further investigation which turned up the truth and exonerated Rachel.
8. Someone discovered Ellie/Rhiannon’s letter in the archives of the smart house system causing enough reasonable doubt to prevent murder conviction and invoke double jeopardy. But enough sensational press, she couldn’t get a job in the country in childcare or anything else, (another thing that points to Rhiannon’s threats, suggesting she was behind it all). So on release, she just left it all behind, moved to another country and changed her name, some kind of witness protection deal for a new start.
So many possibilities could have given some kind of closure, but crickets.
That whole family needs counseling for sure, no matter whether it was Ellie or Rhiannon. Hopefully mom can at least do better for the baby that isn’t already damaged by that whole toxic vibe there! And they throw the book at the dad who won’t keep it in his pants.
Reading some more comments - ok so if the author says she’s not dead, The only options are case dismissed because the truth came out (which I still maintain Rhiannon could’ve framed her little sister and it’s not Ellie with the psychotic tendencies. Although they all need help!!), or found not guilty. Because if she was found guilty, the new evidence would be grounds for appeal.
David again:It is an interesting theory, but Rhiannon spends a considerable time at a boarding school away from the home (such schools are still common in Britain). At that age, she'd want to see the results of her "work", but only gets home on major holidays and between terms. So this theory also has problems if all her feedback is only through email (possibly Zoom, but at that point, Zoom isn't well known yet).
It also doesn't handle the Elephant in the story: prisons read every mail coming in and will hold back what they consider inappropriate. So they know of Ellie's confession before Rachel even knows she has mail. Also, it is police policy to hold confidential every criminal act a child is suspected of and they wouldn't give that information to someone hurt by the family and possibly wanting revenge by publicising the letter. Furthermore, they would most likely interview Jean before letting Rachel see the letter. So we have this very unusual act, of exposing a child's guilt to a prisoner, which is being committed by the law authorities.
Also, Rachel's massive letter would have been hand written, putting as much on each page as possible, since she'd not have access to a typewriter nor to much paper, so it's hard to read. If it were real, we'd not see the nicely printed book with chapters that we read, but a pile of foolscap.
I'm half tempted to say there is no Rachel nor Elincourts as the letter is a failed attempt by a wreaker who wants to prove it's believable by fooling his fellow wreakers into believing the letter is real. It's a nasty trick to play on readers but it makes more sense than the other explanations.
David again. Oh, I forgot to mention that nobody ever considers what Bill may do. If Maddie (and why give the insane kid that name?) was psychopathic, the only person she could have inherited it from was her father (the mother is definitely not a psycho, stupid, but not psychopathic). And the mother has left that man in Scotland with access to all their accounts and the sale of the house and lot, knowing his marriage is over, and likely blaming the mother for hiring that murderous nanny and getting the child most like him murdered. That isn't a smart thing to do, but nobody considers it. Why wouldn't he embezzle every penny of the family and leave for the Caribbean to design vacation homes for wealthy Americans? He's smart enough.
Tamara wrote: "Reading some more comments - ok so if the author says she’s not dead, The only options are case dismissed because the truth came out (which I still maintain Rhiannon could’ve framed her little sist..."Very true Tamara. I often wonder if it was “ not proven” a verdict soon to be abolished in Scotland that is generally assumed to mean the jury is saying “ you probably did it but we have too much doubt” I believe when such a verdict is handed out authorities often don’t look for alternative suspects
Janice wrote: "David again. Oh, I forgot to mention that nobody ever considers what Bill may do. If Maddie (and why give the insane kid that name?) was psychopathic, the only person she could have inherited it fr..."Probably all in accounts she needs to approve access to
I am not a huge fan of the ending myself, that being said, I don't believe Rachel went to prison for the death of the child. I can't speak from first-hand experience, but I don't believe you can receive correspondence in prison without it being reviewed by security. So, they would have known what really happened and the child would have received counseling. Rachel would have gone free.
So I just finished the book and may have missed this somehow. But when Rowan/Rachel first moved in she found the picture drawing an an unfinished note from Katya trying to warn her. Was any more information ever unfolded about this and where the other half of the note went?
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
I think the loophole is that no one is sure when Ellie died, therefore she could have died after Rachel left Jack's house. but I'd have thought the forensics would narrow down the time frame. I agree it's pretty strange.