Classic stuff by Manraviel. I suggest that you publish it.
It could be in your our own budgeoning new holmes site under the title
"Conspiracy Theory - Was Moriarty Holmes, 10 reasons to say No" !

I think that we need to debunk the Holmes = Moriarty theory.
I would like to believe in the existence of the classic
detective and the classic criminal as two separate personalities
,rather than Dr.Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

It is interesting to note this "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde" coloring
sugggestions of many famous personalities both fictional and real.
It seems that literary figures take it upon themselves as a past time
to do this.Another one I can tell you is the suggestion that Jack the
Ripper was in fact an English Count, only that in this case the Hyde
personality was dominant.

Another one is of course on ACD himself, who has been accused
of murder and persecution by vain conspiracy theorists.

-Anand

--- In sherlockholmessocietyofindia@..., "watsonjh2002"
<watsonjh2002@y...> wrote:
> If it was 'P. G. Wodehouse' that gave this theory then I do not think
> that we can really take it all that seriously.
>
> As far as Sumal's points go:
>
> 1) Yes, Holmes did have a comfortable life but I do not think he had
> an expensive or extravagant lifestyle. He had a case in hand most of
> the times and though his clients were not quite well-to-do he always
> got a payment in some form. (Except perhaps 'the Three Gables'. Do
> correct me if I'm wrong). Also he has assisted the government more
> than once ('bruce-partington plans', 'His last bow') and I'm sure he
> got a sound reward for that even though it is not mentioned in the
> canon and also from the Duke in 'priory school'. I should think that
> Holmes saved enough money to live a comfortable life in Baker street
> (we should not forget that he shared the rent) and later for his bee
> farm. There are also many other cases that we do not know of (the
> royal family of scandinavia, the french republic -"final problem")
>
> 2)ACD never said that 'Nobody' has seen Moriarty. Moriarty never
> featured in any of the stories himself because Watson never met him.
> He held a mathematics chair and if I'm not completely off the mark he
> was a professor in the University. He was a well known person. But,
> the criminal aspect of Moriarty was known only to his minions, Holmes
> and later Watson. I believe that ACD never brought Moriarty face to
> face with out chronicler to keep a sense of mystery surrounding his
> personality. He is a mysterious and an enigmatic mastermind who is
> also the classic supervillain. Had Watson given us a one-on-one
> description of Moriarty, there are chances that we might have had a
> different perception of the man. We might have considered him either
> superior or inferior to Holmes or other supervillaians that we have
> read or heard of. What makes him the perfect opposite or arch nemesis
> of Holmes is that we do not know anything else of his character
> except that his mental faculties work on the same plane as of Holmes.
> We do not know of his other strengths or weaknesses and that's what
> makes us compare the two men only at the intellectual level.
>
> 3)No matter how vain Holmes was (was he or wasn't he?) of his powers,
> I believe he was also strong enough to admit that there was another
> person alive who could equal him. But I think he also revelled in the
> fact that this other person or Moriarty was working against the law
> or for the bad side. Being intellectually equal and opposite Holmes
> took it upon himself to rid the society of the Moriarty scum as he
> did not think that anybody else would be capable of it. I do not
> think it is possible that he was referring to himself when he
> describes him to watson. His exact words:
> "I could not rest,Watson, I could not sit quite in my chair, if I
> thought that such a man as Professor Moriarty were walking the
> streets of London unchallenged" (final problem)
> "I had at last met an antagonist who was my intellectual equal. My
> horror at his crimes was lost in my admiration at his skill" (final
> problem)
> "Never have I risen to such height and never have I been so hard
> pressed by an opponent" (final problem)
> These statements I believe come from a man who regrets the whole
> existence of a person like Moriarty.
>
>
> And ANAND I fully agree with your points regarding Fred Porlock and
> the Greuz.
>
> But as far as the "Final Problem" goes, it is wholly possible that
> Holmes (assuming that he himself is Moriarty) double crossed Moran
> (which rhymes very well with Moron) and the other whatshisname
> Parker. Moriarty and these two were the only ones (?) who had not
> been apprehended by the police. And as per Holmes himself, it was he
> who was the key to the break up of Moriarty's gang. Now
> Moriarty's 'business' had been flourishing for many a year. No matter
> how much Holmes tried he had not been able to put an end to it. Again
> assuming that Holmes=Moriarty, Holmes found a glitch in his social
> mask or his organisational order or something else and decided to
> stop living a double life. He chose the life of Sherlock Holmes, a
> respected and admired detective over James Moriarty, a defamed
> Professor with a criminal background. Holmes doublecrosses his gang
> by sending them to jail but does not succeed in doing so with Moran
> and Parker. There is no one waiting for him at Reichenbach falls and
> he frames the death of both his identities and withdaws from 'active
> life' so that those who suspect a link between the two masterminds
> may tend to forget it. POOF! He makes an appearance two years later
> and again becomes the subject of admiration in the Scotland Yard by
> solving the murder of Ronald Adair and in the meantime becomes
> successful in nabbing Sebastian Moran: the only other person capable
> of blowing his cover when he tries to kill Holmes again from the
> Camden House. The wax statue I think was good enough to fool anybody
> even Watson so I do not think that could have been a problem.
>
> This is just a theory and there is a major hole in it. Why did not
> Moran confess the involvement of Holmes in the criminal organisation?
> Was it because it would result in his own confession? (which does not
> make sense) Moran was only arrested for the murder of Ronald Adair.
> There is no indication that he had confessed his involvement with
> Moriarty. Or was it because he himself was not sure that Holmes and
> Moriarty were the same?
>
> And some of my own small points negating the theory that Holmes was
> Moriarty.
>
> 1) Holmes was frequently found complaining about inactivity when
> there were no cases at hand. During such periods he liberally made
> use of Cocaine. Now if a man lives two lives totally different in
> character, actions, and morals then I do not think he would have
> enough time to complain about too much time at hand.
>
> 2) Moriarty, we are made to believe, is a man who depends solely on
> his intellectual processes. He finds solutions of all his problems by
> thinking about them. In problems where thinking cannot be the only
> course to the solution, he makes his cronies like Moran and Parker
> do his dirty work. Holmes on the other hand, thinks, meditates and
> also runs around the city or even country if the situation called for
> it ('the sign of four', 'scandal in bohemia', 'man with the twisted
> lip', 'hound of baskervilles', 'priory school' etc etc)
>
> 3) No matter how good an actor is, he cannot keep up with his
> pretense forever without even a glimpse of his real self. Watson had
> known Holmes for many years and never has he led us to believe that
> Holmes had ever shown even a hint of cruelty or criminal behaviour.
>
> So as a last note of this horribly long narrative: I DO NOT BELIEVE
> THAT SHERLOCK HOLMES WAS IN FACT PROFESSOR JAMES MORIARTY HIMSELF and
> I hope I have given enough proof in theories to back this up.
>
> Manraviel