![[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 Boscombe Valley Mystery. It carries the themes of ill gained fortune and dark character traits.
Our mystery opens with a summons from Holmes to Watson for a case in the countryside. A man has been murdered and Lestrade was retained for the case; when he found that he couldn't make heads or tails of it other than the obvious, he referred it to Holmes.
A land tenant has been murdered (Mr. McCarthy) and his son appears to be the only suspect. Two witnesses saw McCarthy go down a small lake where he said he had an appointment; one of these witnesses saw the son follow after with a gun. A child heard the two men argue. Some moments later, the son, covered in blood, reported that his father was dead. When he was arrested some time later, he didn't protest his arrest, saying it was his just deserts.
Like Holmes, Watson and I both saw some singular points in the narrative. First of course was that the son had been away and no one apparently had expected his return. Why then did the father make the cry usually exchanged between father and son? Why would he invent something his father said as he was dying and then not for why they had quarreled? And for my own part I wondered about why the son would strike out with the butt of his gun and not just shoot him? (I argue of course because while it could be said that he was so angry that he just lashed out, if he was angry enough to murder his father, he might have just lashed out by shooting.)
Holmes speaks to the son. The matter that was being argued was that the father wanted the son to marry the daughter of the owner of the land McCarthy rented. (And we find out that though the son wanted to marry the daughter, he had made a mistake in his youth and married hastily a barmaid (whom we find out confesses that their marriage was illegal as she was already married and she's thrown him over for her first husband; what a tangled weave this story has become).) And then the crime scene is investigated which of course has been disturbed by the removal of the body and Lestrade dragging the lake (why? he remained adamant that the son had done it so why drag the pool?). Holmes however finds the murderer and the weapon. The murderer being a man of age with a limp and who smokes; the weapon being a rock.
Holmes and Watson retire to their hotel where Holmes produces a map of Australia -- the land owner and the tenant had become friends in their youth in the country. On the map, Holmes points out that there is an area called "Ballarat", leading one to think that that is the full name of what the dying man had said.
They are interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Turner, the land owner, who confesses. He had been a miner in Australia, but fell into bad habits. He joined a highway gang and his last raid had gotten him and those who remained of his group enough to retire. They left for England and each went his own way. Turner bought a nice piece of land and had a family. But his past caught up to him -- McCarthy from whom he had last stolen. McCarthy blackmailed Turner (threats to report him to the police as there was, we assume, still a bounty on his head; at the least we know that there are still plenty who remember the gang) for not only a home, but rent free land and in time we can suspect money as well. On the day of the murder, McCarthy and Turner were meant to meet up -- hence the cry the son heard -- and Turner eavesdropped on the fight, where he learned that next McCarthy also wanted, essentially, his daughter (so that the son would inherit Turner's home and money by marriage to the daughter). When the son left, Turner acted and used a rock to murder McCarthy.
Holmes, in his usual manner of choosing discretion and being a private citizen rather than an agent of the law, takes his statement, but will not present it to the courts unless it becomes obvious that the courts will proceed with a charge despite the weak case against McCarthy's son. We find out later that the courts dismissed the case, Turner died six months later, and the son and daughter had plans to wed.
And so ends that mystery. I find myself satisfied with this case, but curious as well. Again as I said above, why did no one point out that the son could have used a bullet to kill his father rather than just hitting him? And how convenient it was that young McCarthy couldn't marry the daughter, but then suddenly could. And though Turner makes it out like he was the victim after his return to England and that he didn't not want McCarthy's blood to mix with his own, I can't help but feel that he protested unduly as of course he made his riches by theft and had quite the black reputation in Australia.
Thoughts?
Our mystery opens with a summons from Holmes to Watson for a case in the countryside. A man has been murdered and Lestrade was retained for the case; when he found that he couldn't make heads or tails of it other than the obvious, he referred it to Holmes.
A land tenant has been murdered (Mr. McCarthy) and his son appears to be the only suspect. Two witnesses saw McCarthy go down a small lake where he said he had an appointment; one of these witnesses saw the son follow after with a gun. A child heard the two men argue. Some moments later, the son, covered in blood, reported that his father was dead. When he was arrested some time later, he didn't protest his arrest, saying it was his just deserts.
Like Holmes, Watson and I both saw some singular points in the narrative. First of course was that the son had been away and no one apparently had expected his return. Why then did the father make the cry usually exchanged between father and son? Why would he invent something his father said as he was dying and then not for why they had quarreled? And for my own part I wondered about why the son would strike out with the butt of his gun and not just shoot him? (I argue of course because while it could be said that he was so angry that he just lashed out, if he was angry enough to murder his father, he might have just lashed out by shooting.)
Holmes speaks to the son. The matter that was being argued was that the father wanted the son to marry the daughter of the owner of the land McCarthy rented. (And we find out that though the son wanted to marry the daughter, he had made a mistake in his youth and married hastily a barmaid (whom we find out confesses that their marriage was illegal as she was already married and she's thrown him over for her first husband; what a tangled weave this story has become).) And then the crime scene is investigated which of course has been disturbed by the removal of the body and Lestrade dragging the lake (why? he remained adamant that the son had done it so why drag the pool?). Holmes however finds the murderer and the weapon. The murderer being a man of age with a limp and who smokes; the weapon being a rock.
Holmes and Watson retire to their hotel where Holmes produces a map of Australia -- the land owner and the tenant had become friends in their youth in the country. On the map, Holmes points out that there is an area called "Ballarat", leading one to think that that is the full name of what the dying man had said.
They are interrupted by the arrival of Mr. Turner, the land owner, who confesses. He had been a miner in Australia, but fell into bad habits. He joined a highway gang and his last raid had gotten him and those who remained of his group enough to retire. They left for England and each went his own way. Turner bought a nice piece of land and had a family. But his past caught up to him -- McCarthy from whom he had last stolen. McCarthy blackmailed Turner (threats to report him to the police as there was, we assume, still a bounty on his head; at the least we know that there are still plenty who remember the gang) for not only a home, but rent free land and in time we can suspect money as well. On the day of the murder, McCarthy and Turner were meant to meet up -- hence the cry the son heard -- and Turner eavesdropped on the fight, where he learned that next McCarthy also wanted, essentially, his daughter (so that the son would inherit Turner's home and money by marriage to the daughter). When the son left, Turner acted and used a rock to murder McCarthy.
Holmes, in his usual manner of choosing discretion and being a private citizen rather than an agent of the law, takes his statement, but will not present it to the courts unless it becomes obvious that the courts will proceed with a charge despite the weak case against McCarthy's son. We find out later that the courts dismissed the case, Turner died six months later, and the son and daughter had plans to wed.
And so ends that mystery. I find myself satisfied with this case, but curious as well. Again as I said above, why did no one point out that the son could have used a bullet to kill his father rather than just hitting him? And how convenient it was that young McCarthy couldn't marry the daughter, but then suddenly could. And though Turner makes it out like he was the victim after his return to England and that he didn't not want McCarthy's blood to mix with his own, I can't help but feel that he protested unduly as of course he made his riches by theft and had quite the black reputation in Australia.
Thoughts?
