Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

5204Re: SHSI Coincidence in the Second Stain

Expand Messages
  • Noufal Ibrahim KV
    Aug 8, 2017
      I suppose that's one way of looking at it but it's really a case of multiple
      coincidences knocking the train of the events in a direction suitable
      for Holmes.

      1. Lucas' had a jealous lover. This is clearly unrelated to the events
      of the tale.

      2. This jilted lover was waiting spying on him on the very night Lady
      Hilda came in, her wrong assumption that the latter was Lucas' lover
      and the ensuing murder. This is also unrelated to the events of the

      However, because of these two, Lucas' is unable to use the letter and
      Lady Hilda is able to recover it (both unknown to Holmes) till his

      Not "just a coincidence" would, to my mind, mean incontrovertible

      On Tue, Aug 08 2017, Ravi muzikbuff@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] wrote:

      > Hi Noufal,
      > For the sake of argument, I disagree with you :)
      > You say that the coming of the French woman, just as Lady Hilda was
      > leaving, was completely coincidental. However, do pay attention to the
      > words the french lady utters as soon as she enters - <quote> screamed in
      > French, ‘My waiting is not in vain. At last, at last I have found you with
      > her!’ </quote>
      > Does the above not imply that the french lady was waiting for an opportune
      > moment, to capture Lucas red-handed? And if so, then it cannot be
      > coincidental.
      > I rest my case.
      > Cheers,
      > Ravi.
      > On Sun, Aug 6, 2017 at 11:59 PM, Noufal Ibrahim KV noufal@...
      > [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] <
      > SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:
      >> Hello fellow Holmesians,
      >> Here's a long unsolved problem I've had with Sherlock Holmes that
      >> I'd like to offer for consideration.
      >> In the Adventure of the Second Stain, the detective names 3
      >> possible criminals one of whom is Eduardo Lucas. Immediately, there's
      >> news that this person was found dead in his rooms.
      >> Watson suggested that the murder was a coincidence to which Holmes
      >> asserts - "A coincidence! Here is one of the three men whom we had named
      >> as possible actors in this drama, and he meets a violent death during
      >> the very hours when we know that that drama was being enacted. The odds
      >> are enormous against its being coincidence. No figures could express
      >> them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected -- MUST be
      >> connected. It is for us to find the connection."
      >> Now, this seemed like he was jumping to conclusions, given how
      >> stubbornly led by facts he is but in this instance, we can actually
      >> verify it. Lady Hilda had exchanged the diplomatic paper for her
      >> indiscreet love letter and was leaving when the French woman came into
      >> the room and stabbed Mr. Lucas. This was completely coincidental. The
      >> only thing that actually helped the mystery was that Mr. Lucas couldn't
      >> immediately use the letter in any fashion but the murder itself was
      >> still a complete coincidence. If one of the other 3 possible suspects
      >> had stolen the letter, the whole murder would still have happened and
      >> Holmes would have followed up the fake lead because of his confidence
      >> that the two incidents "MUST be connected".
      >> Is this not a lapse in his judgment? What are your opinions?
      >> --
      >> Cordially,
      >> Noufal
      >> http://nibrahim.net.in

    • Show all 6 messages in this topic