In real life, yes there are edge cases, but we don't play games to be 100% realistic.
Nevertheless, for me the game didn't give enough evidences to solve the case, which makes me angry as what is the point of the detective's game when you can't know if you solved the case correctly or not. His one top left pocket had a knife missing - You can't possibly know that, and if this detail would be relevant sherlock would point that out So for me, when it comes to making the most logical decision (not necessary the right one), Paul was a culprit.Īrthur hardly works (tells workers to do all the digging and only manages them) - I don't know what was your profile of him, but he did work hard there, as he was a true passionate, and in the best profile Sherlock points that outĪrthur still doing there working the site - As you mentioned he still had few months
When he saw the knife he immediately recognized it, as oppose to Arthur, who really doesn't us such tools. He truly hated Gilden, and when it comes to darts he knew precisely what's in them, and he thought about how it might affect an elephant (he literally admit it). For me he was a sociopath, who did everything he could to stay alive (once again Gilden could possibly kill him), and spend his live with a loved one. He was a criminal and fighter, if he wanted something he fought for it, and his moral compass was questionable at best. Moreover Paul's motive was much stronger, as not only was he threaten to be physically attacked (and so he was), but in fear that a love of his life might be taken from him.
#Sherlock chapter one gilded cage how to
Paul (most likely) knew how to sneak into the manor, as he was a lover of one of the inhabitants, so that's the occasion. Yes, he was in conflict with Gilden, but how often do you kill someone over archeological founding? I know he was a maniac, but he had few months left still, and there was room for discussion. So doing old school detective work we need to think about the motive and occasion. So it must be either Paul and Arthur, and frankly there are none hard evidence against any one of them. There is a possibility that this was an accident, but as it is revealed Gilden really took good care of the elephant, and there is no reason for the Goliath to attack him with no reason however as we know someone shot a dirt at him. One of them had book on elephants, but in the end it wouldn't help him at all. Evidences where mostly similar between Paul and Arthur, both had bruises, darts etc. I know most people will lean towards Arthur due to his reaction, but it couldn't be known beforehand. I think that when one had to make decision Paul was the most logical choice.