Troubled Blood, Chapters 57-62: The part that contains Chapter 58. Plus, a small Hallmarked Man spoiler (cover blurbs and Galbraith interviews, not the chapter preview!)

I must say, the description of the "5-star" American Bar, decorated with pennants and baseball caps, seems a bit incongruous to me, given that so many very casual sports bars in the US have that type of decor. I mean, I'm sure it is classy (and expensive) but....  pennants?

I know I have mentioned this before, but I am always bothered by Robin's statement that this was the "very first time" she'd told Strike she knew who his father was bugs me. While perhaps technically true, this absolutely should not be an issue that concerns her. Strike heard Robin say "That's very kind of Mr. Rokeby" during a talk with Peter Gillespie back in Book one, she met his brother Al Rokeby in Book 2, they had a talk about Leda, the Deadbeats and "old Jonny" in Book 3, and stood side by side reading an article on her phone that called Strike "the illegitimate son of rocker Jonny Rokeby" in Book 4. There has also been tons of annoying press coverage, and Rokeby would have been mentioned in any story about Strike. Strike's parentage is like the camp bed in CC, she knows, he knows she knows, and she knows he knows she knows. The idea that she is giving away some big secret here is absurd. 

That being said, re-listening to Chapter 58, the part where Strike told Robin about his two meetings with Jonny Rokeby touched me as much or more than the "my best mate is you." comment. We were told at the start of the book that Strike seldom cried as a child. For him to describe one of the times he did cry is doubly touching. And it's probably a good thing Robin was both emotionally touched and numb with whiskey; otherwise she might have reacted a lot more strongly to the knowledge that Strike could have solved all their financial concerns (as well as paid her a much higher salary) over the past four years with just one phone call. 

As for Robin's injury, I love that what she says to the other team members perfectly reflects their relationships at this time. 

• For Barclay, she trusts him with the truth about what happened and knows he'll be discreet about it. 
• For Pat, she makes up a story that does not involve Strike. I don't think this indicates mistrust of Pat per se, but she recognizes that her and Strike's relationship isn't great and knows she has to be careful not to say anything that would reflect badly on Strike in front of the secretary. 
• By THM, post-bomb and post-Will Edensor, I think Pat would be in a different category and would be trusted with the full truth. 
• As for Morris, despite the fact that she is standing in front of him with two black eyes, he is too focused on his own, much lesser injury to even ask or care what happened to Robin. So typical. She's likely have told him to mind his own damn business anyway, but still... 

I will fully admit I was completely taken in by the Luca Ricci handwriting red herring on my first read. When Strike said that they didn't have the resources to go up against Luca's organized crime network, I was taken back to Career of Evil, where he said, "A serial killer's out of our league, Robin. It always was." Of course, he wound up nailing the serial killer anyway. I was completely convinced Luca was the killer and that the same thing would happen this time. 

While it is disturbing to think the partners could have a 2 week long row, it is gratifying to see them finally settle the disagreement amicably. BTW, one idea I once had was that the series was originally designed to end after 5 books. If that had happened, I think Robin would have shattered the glass door on her way out.  Then, the end of the book would have ended with Strike replacing it with both of their names, then them heading off to the "golden glow" of her birthday celebration as an official couple. 

I wonder if we'll ever learn more about Pat's first husband, and why Strike's resemblance to him created such hostility. Or, is the "doesn't spread easy on toast" story from IBH enough of an explanation? 

Onto the minor Hallmarked spoilers. The most recent Robert Galbraith interview posting talks about pigpen ciphers (sometimes known as Freemasons ciphers and regularly used by that organization in the past). The video provides us with a coded message that translates to "Where is the silver nef?" A reminder that a very expensive silver nef was one of the twitter header hints dropped for THM. This is a hint that the nef itself, not just the idea of silver and sailing ships, will be relevant to the story. Perhaps not too surprising given we've been told the body is found in a silver vault. 

What excites me more about the cipher is that I can add cracking coded messages as another potential link of The Hallmarked Man to Troubled Blood. As regular readers know, one distinguishing feature of my Double Wedding Band structural model is that it predicts connections to Troubled Blood, not just to other even-numbered books. In TB, the detectives had to get advice on translating Pitman shorthand, match the zodiac signs with the appropriate suspects and discern a coded message in Creed's letter to Brian Tucker. If they have to decode a pigpen cipher in THM, this is another link to TB to add to the list:

• Decima's partner = a male Margot Bamborough.  The core mystery is a missing young parent whose partner insists would never leave their child.
• The mystery expands to include "other missing men," just as the Margot mystery expanded to include Louise Tucker and Kara Wolfson. 
• Christmas is likely to be celebrated. 
• It has strongly been hinted that Strike and Rokeby will meet. The closest we've come to seeing Rokeby is when he called Strike in TB.
• We also learned about his two previous meetings with Rokeby in TB. 
• Ethical dilemmas for the detectives. This is particularly relevant to the re-read section I'm covering today; see below for further details. 
• (A few other connections that you won't know about unless you've read the first chapter sample. Click here if you want to know.)

Given what the Danish blurb said about Strike facing a conflict with his professional ethics and personal feelings in THM, I think it is worth exploring some of the detective ethics issues that come up here. 

1. The Shifty case.  The board members hired the agency to find out what dirt Shifty had on his boss (SB) that forced SB to give Shifty a job for which he is unqualified. The agency has found the answer; in fact, they know more specifics than Shifty. If Strike genuinely meant what he told Robin back in LW ("We're like lawyers, Robin, We're on the client's side,") then they should have just passed the info onto the board, collected their check and wash their hands of the case. Yet, with Robin and Barclay having saved SB from a possible suicide attempt, they take it upon themselves to re-define their assignment: find dirt on Shifty that will allow the board to force him out. Given the circumstances of SB being blackmailed and potentially suicidal over a fetish that is merely embarrassing, not harmful, Strike and Robin decide that preventing him from self-harm trumps their professional obligation to the people paying them. Although this is noble, and pays off after the board terminates the job and SB himself proves willing to pay them to get dirt on Shifty, it does not seem exactly fair to their original clients. 

2. Luca Ricci:  This whole business with the note and Luca Ricci makes me wonder what the agency's obligations are as far as turning the fruit of their work over to the police. Obviously Strike feels honor bound (and perhaps legally bound?) to tell the police when he has evidence of a serious crime or something that could help solve a crime; hence his need to give them the snuff film. We know, however, that he feels like they have to keep the threatening note and the fact that it matches Luca's handwriting secret, for their own safety as well as the clients'.  That certainly makes sense, given where they are now. 

• But what happens once they solve the case and are providing the police with the evidence they need to convict Janice?  
• Will the information about the notes be provided in the final report for Anna, with the assumption that, now that the real killer is caught, there would be no need to mention it to anyone and therefore safer to tell her?
• Would the report include the information they got from Gloria about how Margot helped her get the abortion and gave her the courage to escape her abusive partner, since that history is important to understand why Luca threatened Margot?  
• Or, would the detectives protect Gloria's privacy and keep that secret?

If I were Janice's defense attorney, that threatening note, the registry book that matches it to Luca's handwriting and the motivation Luca had to hate Margot would be evidence I would absolutely want to have, to give the jury an alternative suspect and perhaps create reasonable doubt for my client. At least in the US, it is mandatory that the police and the prosecution turn over any potentially exculpatory evidence to the defense; to fail to do so could mean overturning the conviction I don't know if the UK has similar laws, or to what extent private detectives are required to cooperate with defense attorneys or anyone else who is not the client or the police. 

If exculpatory evidence rules are similar in the UK, it would seem to be in the best interest of the prosecution not to be in possession of the note and the information connecting it to Luca. So, if they subpoena the agency for "all evidence relating to the Margot Bamborough case," would Strike be obliged to hand the notes and the matching handwriting picture over, even though that risks both helping Janice get off of the charges and (as before) puts the agency and potentially the Phipps family in danger from the Riccis?

I'd love anyone with knowledge about UK law to chime in with some comments here. 

Coming up next:  the pace picks up with Gemma, Skegness and Gloria.