Watch the Footage archive

Yes, that is a YGOTAS reference you just saw. Sorry, I just couldn't HELP myself. (And THAT was a Code MENT reference.)

Anyhow, our detective friend has reached a new city and a new continent, so it's only fair he gets a new thread to go with his new mystery. And I totally overused the word 'new' in that last sentence.

Looks like a case of a suicide that isn't a suicide. Multiple named characters are mentioned, and assuming that this is a Fair-Play Whodunnit, one of them is probably the culprit. Problem is, unlike the Poirot case where I could not at first discover the true motive, I now have TOO MANY possible motives. I can give a bunch of reasons why any of the characters would have pulled it off straight out of other books. Well, I'll get a comprehensive list posted in a while with all the likely options. I'm just a tad busy for the moment though.

Anyhow, theorize away!

Wasn't this an episode of Castle?

Congratulations Sicon! The quickiest thread derailment of history! One post!

Victin wrote:Congratulations Sicon! The quickiest thread derailment of history! One post!

Hey! Maybe I'm trying to be Genre Savvy by recognizing the direction this plot is taking.

Alright, so, the promised breakdown. Assuming a Fair-Play Whodunnit (Which is not a given) our culprit will have been mentioned in the first post. So, first name mentioned, the dead guy. Please note that they Never Found The Body, which is probably going to show up at a later date. Second is this James fellow who hired Sherlock, and while many people over the years have hired detective protagonists to investigate stuff they did, this setup does not seem to be one of them. Baring future info that makes him more suspicious, I doubt it's him. (Unless, of course, the real crime here is not the murder, but something else)

Then we get to the good stuff. We have Jane, the estranged daughter who appears to have been at moral and philosophical odds with her father, and is now the head of this foundation which she uses for charity. Also, she received the main part of the victim's will, which is always suspicious. It would be just like a detective story for her to off her corrupt jerkass of a dad so that she can use his money for charity. A very interesting plot indeed.

However, Richard is also very suspicious, simply because his testimony is so at odds with that of the client. Is the client then lying in a Batman Gambit to get Sherlock to inadvertently allow him to forward his master plan? Certainly possible. However, it is also possible that Richard is up to something himself, possibly working with the daughter for his own reasons and trying to cover his trail.

Then we have the mysterious other witness of the will, which we know nothing about, and so, cannot theorize on.

For the moment, there is not enough information to begin truly concocting a solid theory, so we shall have to wait for his next post. I think there is something going on here that runs far deeper than just a murder that may or may not have happened, though.

Okay, great use of Detective-story-logic. Slight problem, though: in my experience, Sherlock Holmes stories have a tendency NOT to follow those rules. Not saying we should throw this out completely, but it's entirely possible that we may not be able to solve this, at least not yet.

Flitterbie wrote:Okay, great use of Detective-story-logic. Slight problem, though: in my experience, Sherlock Holmes stories have a tendency NOT to follow those rules. Not saying we should throw this out completely, but it's entirely possible that we may not be able to solve this, at least not yet.

I know that they do not usually act as Fair-Play Whoddunnits, which is precisely why I was making a big deal of assuming it. If they are not fair, then there is nothing we can do in the meantime anyway. If they are, we can start guessing. So, I assume fairness, and if I'm wrong, oh well, nothing is hurt.

Sicon112 wrote:

Flitterbie wrote:Okay, great use of Detective-story-logic. Slight problem, though: in my experience, Sherlock Holmes stories have a tendency NOT to follow those rules. Not saying we should throw this out completely, but it's entirely possible that we may not be able to solve this, at least not yet.

I know that they do not usually act as Fair-Play Whoddunnits, which is precisely why I was making a big deal of assuming it. If they are not fair, then there is nothing we can do in the meantime anyway. If they are, we can start guessing. So, I assume fairness, and if I'm wrong, oh well, nothing is hurt.

Unless, of course, we put Holmes on the wrong scent and something goes horribly wrong.

Flitterbie wrote:Unless, of course, we put Holmes on the wrong scent and something goes horribly wrong.

I'm more doing this for the sake of predicting the end of the detective story because that's just what you DO with a detective story. Not to tell Holmes...

Holmes has updated his blog. He's found something in a Testament, but he's not sure what it is
I don't quite understand, but there ya go

RotavatoR wrote:Holmes has updated his blog. He's found something in a Testament, but he's not sure what it is
I don't quite understand, but there ya go

It's the will. A bunch of law related stuff. I don't have enough caffeine to deal with this right now, so I'm just going to put it off till morning and consult the massive amount of law books we have at my house due to both my parents having a law degree.

On the post it just says that the account that Richard (the murder victim) use to control his daughter's funds was removed by the will, so she has unlimited access to the funds. Also Rupert, the son also had access to the account along with his father, so surely they must have had his consent to remove it.

(I also attempted to quote Sherlock to Sherlock to nudge him in the right direction, believe or not he wasn't to impressed)

I believe that Rupert would be the clear main suspect at the moment.

I left a comment with my thoughts but it's awaiting moderation. The last one I sent took ages to go through.

NeverSlender wrote:I left a comment with my thoughts but it's awaiting moderation. The last one I sent took ages to go through.

It's probably just the time of day, when I posted last night it didn't take very long.

I think I know the motive and who did it, yet I'm not sure if I should actually post it or just wait Sherlock to figure it out himself. Then again I could be wrong about it.

A few quick thoughts:

* Why was Jane's access to the money restricted? There must be a reason, and there might be more to Ms. Jane than meets the eye.

* Is it at all possible that Jane and Rupert worked together?

They're brother and sister, it's definitely possible.

You bring up a good point in the blog comments, NeverSlender. I don't think it's outlandish at all for someone to have dressed up as the victim and jumped off of the bridge, but how could he have gotten to shore safely? The Brooklyn Bridge is a good distance from the water. Soft Water, perhaps?

I definitely think that the culprit(s?) want this to be written off as a suicide and closed, though. I mean, if Rupert was going to kill Dad and frame his sister, why not just outright murder him (or hire a hitman) and plant evidence pointing to Jane? Why bother setting up an alibi for Jane? Why be so careful about making sure that the witnesses saw a suicide? That's part of why I think Jane and Rupert are working together.

ningyou wrote:You bring up a good point in the blog comments, NeverSlender. I don't think it's outlandish at all for someone to have dressed up as the victim and jumped off of the bridge, but how could he have gotten to shore safely? The Brooklyn Bridge is a good distance from the water. Soft Water, perhaps?

I definitely think that the culprit(s?) want this to be written off as a suicide and closed, though. I mean, if Rupert was going to kill Dad and frame his sister, why not just outright murder him (or hire a hitman) and plant evidence pointing to Jane? Why bother setting up an alibi for Jane? Why be so careful about making sure that the witnesses saw a suicide? That's part of why I think Jane and Rupert are working together.

If he had help someone could have pulled him out.

NeverSlender wrote:If he had help someone could have pulled him out.

Very true.

The way things are pointing now, the likeliest theory is that Rupert is behind most of this, whether willing or otherwise, though at the same time he is doing everything he can to insulate Jane from whatever he has himself caught up in. If he is being manipulated, it is very likely that someone was trying to get his hands on Richard's money, used Rupert to this end, but was out gambitted when Rupert then removed the limit's on Jane's access. That would make our biggest suspect now Sherlock's employer, who intends for Sherlock to catch Richard and not him.

Sicon112 wrote:The way things are pointing now, the likeliest theory is that Rupert is behind most of this, whether willing or otherwise, though at the same time he is doing everything he can to insulate Jane from whatever he has himself caught up in. If he is being manipulated, it is very likely that someone was trying to get his hands on Richard's money, used Rupert to this end, but was out gambitted when Rupert then removed the limit's on Jane's access. That would make our biggest suspect now Sherlock's employer, who intends for Sherlock to catch Richard and not him.

It's so possible Rupert and Jane are working together. If she has unlimited access to the money, she can give it to anyone.

NeverSlender wrote:

Sicon112 wrote:The way things are pointing now, the likeliest theory is that Rupert is behind most of this, whether willing or otherwise, though at the same time he is doing everything he can to insulate Jane from whatever he has himself caught up in. If he is being manipulated, it is very likely that someone was trying to get his hands on Richard's money, used Rupert to this end, but was out gambitted when Rupert then removed the limit's on Jane's access. That would make our biggest suspect now Sherlock's employer, who intends for Sherlock to catch Richard and not him.

It's so possible Rupert and Jane are working together. If she has unlimited access to the money, she can give it to anyone.

I'm aware of Jane's possible guilt, but I already made a theory saying that at the first, so there is no point in me reposting the same stuff. I'm just coming up with more possibilities, and that one seemed to me to be the best fit for now when looking at this both as an actual case and as a story.

Your theory mentions they never found the body, meaning he may not be dead, but is trying to disappear.

NeverSlender wrote:Your theory mentions they never found the body, meaning he may not be dead, but is trying to disappear.

I never updated it to include the discovery of the body. I'm lazy. Sorry.

NeverSlender wrote:Your theory mentions they never found the body, meaning he may not be dead, but is trying to disappear.

Wait a sec, my theory doesn't mention that. I just offhandedly mention the possibility at the beginning of my post! My theory involving Jane says she kills him.