History Headscratchers / SherlockHolmes

7th Oct '17 6:36:18 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but many of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at Watson's records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair "concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:

to:

* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but many of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at Watson's records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair "concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:
7th Oct '17 6:35:28 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


## Being a decent, honourable sort of chap, Watson gains consent from the people involved with the case for him to publish it;


Added DiffLines:

## If the case is not public knowledge, then being the decent, honourable sort of chap that he is Watson gains consent from the people involved with the case for him to publish it;
7th Oct '17 6:26:40 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


## If they don't mind it being published but don't want their identities revealed, Watson changes or obscures sufficient details to prevent those involved from being identified while still preserving what happened;
## If they don't want it published at all, Watson still writes it down but doesn't submit it for publication, but may be willing to ask again in future, or at least wait until either (a) those involved who object or would be negatively impacted are no longer around to be affected (either via death or emigration) or (b) such a time that the events recorded are no longer considered scandalous enough to worry about; or
## The people involved have sufficiently annoyed Watson or themselves behaved in a sufficiently dishonourable manner about things for Watson to consider himself freed from any honourable obligation to keep their involvement in events secret.

to:

## The case is already public knowledge to a degree (as IIRC with "The Noble Bachelor") and Watson's just filling in the details of what happened, in which case the identities of those involved are already widely known;
## If they those involved don't mind it being published but don't want their identities revealed, Watson changes or obscures sufficient details to prevent those involved from being identified while still preserving what happened;
## If they those involved don't want it published at all, Watson still writes it down but doesn't submit it for publication, but may be willing to ask again in future, or at least wait until either (a) those involved who object or would be negatively impacted are no longer around to be affected (either via death or emigration) or (b) such a time that the events recorded are no longer considered scandalous enough to worry about; or
## The people Those involved have sufficiently annoyed Watson or themselves behaved in a sufficiently dishonourable manner about things for Watson to consider himself freed from any honourable obligation to keep their involvement in events secret.
7th Oct '17 6:10:56 AM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It's admittedly a bit of a stretch, but this case does take place after Holmes's retirement, when his powers were presumably not as sharp as they once were. He might also have simply been distracted by trying to attend to the man dying right in front of him, and depending on the weather the man might have dried fairly quickly if it was a hot, sunny day.

to:

** It's admittedly a bit of a stretch, but this case does take place after Holmes's retirement, when his powers were presumably not as sharp as they once were. He might also have simply been distracted by trying to attend to the man dying right in front of him, and depending on the weather the man might have dried fairly quickly if it was a hot, sunny day. So this might just be a case where a younger Holmes might have come to the correct conclusion a bit quicker, but older Holmes was just a bit slower on the uptake.
15th Sep '17 8:42:24 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** Also, considering that the events of the narrative heavily revolve around India and all but one of the Four were Indian, it's also logical to speculate that the inside man is probably connected to India in some fashion as well. [=McMurdo=] presumably is not Indian nor has been to India, which likely rules him out.
15th Sep '17 8:37:35 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but most of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at his records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair "concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:

to:

* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but most many of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at his Watson's records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair "concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:
15th Sep '17 8:19:35 PM DoctorNemesis
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but most of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at his records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair " concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:

to:

* At least one story directly addresses several of these questions. "The Veiled Lodger" opens with Watson openly saying that he's got boxes and boxes filled with records of cases that he and Holmes worked together to solve, but most of them will likely never see the light of day because those involved have asked him to keep them secret (which, we can presume, also includes Holmes). He assures the reader that he's happy to acquiesce to any reasonable request for confidentiality... but also notes that someone involved with a case has apparently tried resorting to burglary or other unscrupulous methods to get at his records in order to keep the affair he or she was involved with secret, with a barely-veiled warning that if said person doesn't knock it off sharpish the world will soon know rather a lot more about the affair " concerning "concerning the politician, the lighthouse, and the trained cormorant" than said person would presumably like. In addition to other examples listed, several stories also note that much of the affair in question is already public knowledge and Watson's just offering another perspective. So we can presume that with the stories that are published, either:


Added DiffLines:

** It's admittedly a bit of a stretch, but this case does take place after Holmes's retirement, when his powers were presumably not as sharp as they once were. He might also have simply been distracted by trying to attend to the man dying right in front of him, and depending on the weather the man might have dried fairly quickly if it was a hot, sunny day.
13th Aug '17 5:57:58 AM Sparrowhawk
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* When Holmes discovered the dying victim, McPherson, the latter had just come up from being immersed - up to his neck - in water. Yet Holmes didn't notice any sign of this, despite physically handling McPherson. And when he found a dry towel by the water, he erroneously concluded that he had not gone into the water. Surely, given that McPherson had evidently donned his clothes in haste after leaving the water, Holmes should have noticed that the coat, trousers or shoes were damp - especially considering his extraordinary attention to detail!

to:

* When Holmes discovered the dying victim, McPherson, [=McPherson=], the latter had just come up from being immersed - up to his neck - in water. Yet Holmes didn't notice any sign of this, despite physically handling McPherson.[=McPherson=]. And when he found a dry towel by the water, he erroneously concluded that he had not gone into the water. Surely, given that McPherson [=McPherson=] had evidently donned his clothes in haste after leaving the water, Holmes should have noticed that the coat, trousers or shoes were damp - especially considering his extraordinary attention to detail!
13th Aug '17 5:56:02 AM Sparrowhawk
Is there an issue? Send a Message



!!Regarding Holmes's initial error in "The Lion's Mane"
* When Holmes discovered the dying victim, McPherson, the latter had just come up from being immersed - up to his neck - in water. Yet Holmes didn't notice any sign of this, despite physically handling McPherson. And when he found a dry towel by the water, he erroneously concluded that he had not gone into the water. Surely, given that McPherson had evidently donned his clothes in haste after leaving the water, Holmes should have noticed that the coat, trousers or shoes were damp - especially considering his extraordinary attention to detail!



!!Regarding Holmes's initial error in "The Lion's Mane"
* When Holmes discovered the dying victim, McPherson, the latter had just come up from being immersed - up to his neck - in water. Yet Holmes didn't notice any sign of this, despite physically handling McPherson. And when he found a dry towel by the water, he erroneously concluded that he had not gone into the water. Surely, given that McPherson had evidently donned his clothes in haste after leaving the water, Holmes should have noticed that the coat, trousers or shoes were damp - especially considering his extraordinary attention to detail!
13th Aug '17 5:55:37 AM Sparrowhawk
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

!!Regarding Holmes's initial error in "The Lion's Mane"
* When Holmes discovered the dying victim, McPherson, the latter had just come up from being immersed - up to his neck - in water. Yet Holmes didn't notice any sign of this, despite physically handling McPherson. And when he found a dry towel by the water, he erroneously concluded that he had not gone into the water. Surely, given that McPherson had evidently donned his clothes in haste after leaving the water, Holmes should have noticed that the coat, trousers or shoes were damp - especially considering his extraordinary attention to detail!
This list shows the last 10 events of 301. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.SherlockHolmes