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

Re: SHSI Coincidence in the Second Stain

Expand Messages
  • Ravi
    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
    Message 1 of 6 , 7 Aug
      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




      --
      ............................................................................
      The music that can deepest reach,
      And cure all ill, is cordial speech.
      -Ralph Waldo Emerson, Writer & Philosopher (1803-1882)
    • Noufal Ibrahim KV
      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.
      Message 2 of 6 , 8 Aug
        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
        story.

        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
        searches.

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

        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
        >>
        >>

        --
        Cordially,
        Noufal
        http://nibrahim.net.in
      • Sajan Venniyoor
        I think Ravi makes an interesting point, but one has to agree with Noufal that if it isn t one coincidence, its probably two; but nevertheless it s just a
        Message 3 of 6 , 8 Aug
          I think Ravi makes an interesting point, but one has to agree with Noufal that if it isn't one coincidence, its probably two; but nevertheless it's just a coincidence that Lucas got bumped off that fateful night. If La Rothière had choked on a fishbone or Oberstein been run over by a Hansom cab on that fateful night, Holmes would have jumped to similar conclusions. 

          "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence," says Holmes. "No figure could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected—must be connected. It is for us to find the connection." As it turns out, they weren't connected, but Holmes doesn't apologize to Watson when it becomes clear that the unfortunate Mme Fournaye's presence at Lucas's house had nothing to do with the missing letter. 

          Which reminds me, why are all these international spies in London mostly sinister foreigners with exotic names, who stick out like sore thumbs in Britain's genteel upper class society? Of another Mr. Lucas (in The Wisteria Lodge), ACD says, "Mr. Lucas, is undoubtedly a foreigner, chocolate brown, wily, suave, and catlike, with a poisonous gentleness of speech." 

          Spies or not, foreigners in the canon are seldom up to any good. 

          The celebrated spies in the canon are men like Louis La Rothière, Hugo Oberstein, Eduardo Lucas (a.k.a Henri Fournaye), Von Bork etc etc. Surely if a private detective knew about them, so would Whitehall. (Of course they did: In the Bruce-Partington Plans, Mycroft -- who works with the British government -- writes to his brother, "There are numerous small fry, but few who would handle so big an affair. The only men worth considering are Adolph Mayer, of 13 Great George Street, Westminster; Louis La Rothière, of Campden Mansions, Notting Hill; and Hugo Oberstein, 13 Caulfield Gardens, Kensington". 

          This was ten years after The Second Stain, so the late Eduardo Lucas has been replaced by Adolph Mayer.

          I don't think ACD could quite reconcile such high levels of international skulduggery with his fellow countrymen. To the co-conspirator in The Bruce-Partington Plans, Holmes says, "How an English gentleman could behave in such a manner is beyond my comprehension."

          The truth is that there probably were no freelance spies in Britain who stole incriminating letters and auctioned them in Europe. And the German spies in town mostly blended rather well into British society. The first of 11 German spies to be shot in the Tower of London during the First World War went under the name 'Charles Inglis' and spoke English very well. 

          By the Cold War, of course, all international spies in Britain were clean cut, upper class Englishmen, like the Cambridge Four (or Five, or Fifty -- the actual number is not known), like Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, men driven by political beliefs, not profit motive. Though most of them were bumbling amateurs, they escaped detection for so long because, just as it was to Holmes, it was beyond the comprehension of the British establishment that an English gentleman could behave in such a manner. 

          Sajan











          On 9 August 2017 at 08:04, <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:

          2 Messages

          Digest #2012
          1.2
          Re: Coincidence in the Second Stain by "Noufal Ibrahim KV" n_kv2001

          Messages

          Tue Aug 8, 2017 9:38 am . Posted by:

          "Ravi" raviraomv

          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@ yahoogroups.co.in> 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
          >
          >

          --
          .............................. .............................. ................
          The music that can deepest reach,
          And cure all ill, is cordial speech.
          -Ralph Waldo Emerson, Writer & Philosopher (1803-1882)

          Tue Aug 8, 2017 11:50 pm . Posted by:

          "Noufal Ibrahim KV" n_kv2001


          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
          story.

          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
          searches.

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

          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@ yahoogroups.co.in> 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
          >>
          >>

          --
          Cordially,
          Noufal
          http://nibrahim.net.in



          Virus-free. www.avast.com
        • Ron Lies
          Wow, Thanks for all the information. Your groups exchange has been quite interesting! Ron in Denver ! On 8/9/2017 12:13 AM, Sajan Venniyoor
          Message 4 of 6 , 9 Aug

            Wow, Thanks for all the information. Your groups exchange has been quite interesting! Ron in Denver !


            On 8/9/2017 12:13 AM, Sajan Venniyoor venniyoor@... [SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia] wrote:
             
            I think Ravi makes an interesting point, but one has to agree with Noufal that if it isn't one coincidence, its probably two; but nevertheless it's just a coincidence that Lucas got bumped off that fateful night. If La Rothière had choked on a fishbone or Oberstein been run over by a Hansom cab on that fateful night, Holmes would have jumped to similar conclusions. 

            "The odds are enormous against its being coincidence," says Holmes. "No figure could express them. No, my dear Watson, the two events are connected—must be connected. It is for us to find the connection." As it turns out, they weren't connected, but Holmes doesn't apologize to Watson when it becomes clear that the unfortunate Mme Fournaye's presence at Lucas's house had nothing to do with the missing letter. 

            Which reminds me, why are all these international spies in London mostly sinister foreigners with exotic names, who stick out like sore thumbs in Britain's genteel upper class society? Of another Mr. Lucas (in The Wisteria Lodge), ACD says, "Mr. Lucas, is undoubtedly a foreigner, chocolate brown, wily, suave, and catlike, with a poisonous gentleness of speech." 

            Spies or not, foreigners in the canon are seldom up to any good. 

            The celebrated spies in the canon are men like Louis La Rothière, Hugo Oberstein, Eduardo Lucas (a.k.a Henri Fournaye), Von Bork etc etc. Surely if a private detective knew about them, so would Whitehall. (Of course they did: In the Bruce-Partington Plans, Mycroft -- who works with the British government -- writes to his brother, "There are numerous small fry, but few who would handle so big an affair. The only men worth considering are Adolph Mayer, of 13 Great George Street, Westminster; Louis La Rothière, of Campden Mansions, Notting Hill; and Hugo Oberstein, 13 Caulfield Gardens, Kensington". 

            This was ten years after The Second Stain, so the late Eduardo Lucas has been replaced by Adolph Mayer.

            I don't think ACD could quite reconcile such high levels of international skulduggery with his fellow countrymen. To the co-conspirator in The Bruce-Partington Plans, Holmes says, "How an English gentleman could behave in such a manner is beyond my comprehension."

            The truth is that there probably were no freelance spies in Britain who stole incriminating letters and auctioned them in Europe. And the German spies in town mostly blended rather well into British society. The first of 11 German spies to be shot in the Tower of London during the First World War went under the name 'Charles Inglis' and spoke English very well. 

            By the Cold War, of course, all international spies in Britain were clean cut, upper class Englishmen, like the Cambridge Four (or Five, or Fifty -- the actual number is not known), like Kim Philby, Guy Burgess and Anthony Blunt, men driven by political beliefs, not profit motive. Though most of them were bumbling amateurs, they escaped detection for so long because, just as it was to Holmes, it was beyond the comprehension of the British establishment that an English gentleman could behave in such a manner. 

            Sajan











            On 9 August 2017 at 08:04, <SherlockHolmesSocietyofIndia@...> wrote:

            2 Messages

            Digest #2012
            1.1
            1.2
            Re: Coincidence in the Second Stain by "Noufal Ibrahim KV" n_kv2001

            Messages

            Tue Aug 8, 2017 9:38 am . Posted by:

            "Ravi" raviraomv

            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@ yahoogroups.co.in> 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
            >
            >

            --
            .............................. .............................. ................
            The music that can deepest reach,
            And cure all ill, is cordial speech.
            -Ralph Waldo Emerson, Writer & Philosopher (1803-1882)

            Tue Aug 8, 2017 11:50 pm . Posted by:

            "Noufal Ibrahim KV" n_kv2001


            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
            story.

            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
            searches.

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

            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@ yahoogroups.co.in> 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
            >>
            >>

            --
            Cordially,
            Noufal
            http://nibrahim.net.in



            Virus-free. www.avast.com

          Your message has been successfully submitted and will be delivered to recipients shortly.