![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alafaye posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
sherlock60This week we are reading The Adventure of the Abbey Grange. It carries the themes of unhappy marriages and heroes.
Our story opens in a few paragraphs (ones which detail Victorian England quite well: the fog, the chill, trains, and tea) with Holmes excited about a case to which he was called by Inspector Hopkins who has yet to give Holmes a false case.
We find however upon Holmes' and Watson's arrival that the witness, the lady of the house, had come around to give details of what happened. Three burglars, a regular group who had broken their pattern, had decided upon the home for their thievery; she screamed and her husband rushed in only to die in scuffle between himself and the burglars. We are led to believe that they are shaken by the event that they only took what they could immediately get their hands on in the room and fortified themselves with some wine from the sideboard. No servants were on the ground floor to hear the mess of it and all had rooms in the front which provides sufficient explanation for why no one heard the bell pull when it was taken down to tie up Lady Mary.
All seems neat and tidy except for the wine glasses. Holmes almost leaves the case as is, but as we can expect of him, he cannot. He goes back and thoroughly examines the crime scenes. Only one glass has the full of what would expect from the wine meaning that only two were use, but three implicated and the third had the dregs of the two actually used so as to imply there were three burglars. The blood from the dead man was on the chair Lady Mary was sitting, but how if she was sitting in it during the murder? And why cut the bell pull instead of only pulling it?
When pressed, the Lady Mary and her servant stick to their story. Holmes leaves it there, but does send a message to Hopkins and checks the women's story of how they arrived in England, asking about the passenger and staff manifest. Not only does one find out that all but one of the sailors were gone from the country but that the silver was sitting in the duck pond. Holmes proposes to Hopkins that it was merely a hiding place and agrees with Hopkins that if the accused gang were not in England last night -- arrested the night before in New York -- then it must be a new gang.
End of the plot? No. The sailor was in London still and paid a visit to Holmes at his request. He was the first mate of the ship Lady Mary sailed in on and fell in love with her. Rather than press her, he let her be. When the ship next made berth in London, he paid her a visit to inquire of her and congratulate her on her marriage. Only he finds that the marriage isn't a happy one and is abusive. Lady Mary urges him to keep away, to let it be, but he visits one last time and that night Sir Eustace catches them, naturally assuming the worst.
A scuffle later and Sir Eustace is dead. A plot is formed, using details of a gang published in the paper. As no one involved in the plot is willing to speak up, Inspector Hopkins is satisfied with the official story (and we are led to believe he never suspects otherwise though I doubt it), and Holmes is happy with the sailor's character, the story closes with no one actually at fault.
I find myself rather happy with the story. I wish I could say that I am unhappy with the murder and the murderer going free, but from all accounts, I would think that the Lady Mary was not the only one tormented by Sir Eustace, especially since Inspector Hopkins says that the man was almost arrested despite any monetary and social influence. The world might actually be better off without Sir Eustace. I'm sure Lady Mary and her household will have a much brighter future. And I do think that given what background we have of the sailor he will have a fine career instead of being sent off to jail for the murder, giving the Navy a career that will be a bright star for her.
Thoughts?
Our story opens in a few paragraphs (ones which detail Victorian England quite well: the fog, the chill, trains, and tea) with Holmes excited about a case to which he was called by Inspector Hopkins who has yet to give Holmes a false case.
We find however upon Holmes' and Watson's arrival that the witness, the lady of the house, had come around to give details of what happened. Three burglars, a regular group who had broken their pattern, had decided upon the home for their thievery; she screamed and her husband rushed in only to die in scuffle between himself and the burglars. We are led to believe that they are shaken by the event that they only took what they could immediately get their hands on in the room and fortified themselves with some wine from the sideboard. No servants were on the ground floor to hear the mess of it and all had rooms in the front which provides sufficient explanation for why no one heard the bell pull when it was taken down to tie up Lady Mary.
All seems neat and tidy except for the wine glasses. Holmes almost leaves the case as is, but as we can expect of him, he cannot. He goes back and thoroughly examines the crime scenes. Only one glass has the full of what would expect from the wine meaning that only two were use, but three implicated and the third had the dregs of the two actually used so as to imply there were three burglars. The blood from the dead man was on the chair Lady Mary was sitting, but how if she was sitting in it during the murder? And why cut the bell pull instead of only pulling it?
When pressed, the Lady Mary and her servant stick to their story. Holmes leaves it there, but does send a message to Hopkins and checks the women's story of how they arrived in England, asking about the passenger and staff manifest. Not only does one find out that all but one of the sailors were gone from the country but that the silver was sitting in the duck pond. Holmes proposes to Hopkins that it was merely a hiding place and agrees with Hopkins that if the accused gang were not in England last night -- arrested the night before in New York -- then it must be a new gang.
End of the plot? No. The sailor was in London still and paid a visit to Holmes at his request. He was the first mate of the ship Lady Mary sailed in on and fell in love with her. Rather than press her, he let her be. When the ship next made berth in London, he paid her a visit to inquire of her and congratulate her on her marriage. Only he finds that the marriage isn't a happy one and is abusive. Lady Mary urges him to keep away, to let it be, but he visits one last time and that night Sir Eustace catches them, naturally assuming the worst.
A scuffle later and Sir Eustace is dead. A plot is formed, using details of a gang published in the paper. As no one involved in the plot is willing to speak up, Inspector Hopkins is satisfied with the official story (and we are led to believe he never suspects otherwise though I doubt it), and Holmes is happy with the sailor's character, the story closes with no one actually at fault.
I find myself rather happy with the story. I wish I could say that I am unhappy with the murder and the murderer going free, but from all accounts, I would think that the Lady Mary was not the only one tormented by Sir Eustace, especially since Inspector Hopkins says that the man was almost arrested despite any monetary and social influence. The world might actually be better off without Sir Eustace. I'm sure Lady Mary and her household will have a much brighter future. And I do think that given what background we have of the sailor he will have a fine career instead of being sent off to jail for the murder, giving the Navy a career that will be a bright star for her.
Thoughts?
