Sherlock Holmes : Comments by Dr. A. K. Dutta

Dear Mr. Mukherjee, I have gone through your articles. Thay are very interesting and well written. I am not, however, sure that one is justified in critically analysing the charecter of a fictional charecter and condemning him outright of criminality. Conan Doyle's potrayal of Sherlock Holmes as a man of outstanding intellegene, power of observation, knowledge of human psychology and of deductive ability impresses the readers who do not feel too much concerned about the imaginary lapses of Sherlock Holmes.

Dr. A. K. Dutta.

Computer Science

In this article I will share some interesting facts about COMPUTER in which you are reading my article right now. Can you imagine how the world would be today without these machines. It will not be fit to call them Machines; they are not just machines but now have become an essential commodity for all. Now in India almost every house has a computer in it. But you will be very amaze to know that computer is the most idiot, working Friend of mankind. Want to know how?

Just take an example, If ask you “Can you see what’s the time?”, you will have a glance of your watch showing 2:45 and answer me “ its 2:45 ”. But if you ask a computer the same question, for your understanding I am writing a fictitious program in BASIC.
10 SEE THE TIME
The computer will respond
OK.
I.e. it will see the time and sit lazily.
But if you type the program little differently,
10 SEE THE TIME
20 PRINT THE TIME
Then it will give you an answer
RUN
ITS 2:45
OK
That means if you don’t ask it to show you the time it will not tell you the time. Here comes the need of “Artificial intelligence”. The computer which we use works on the basis of some PRE-STORED instructions. Our scientists are working hard on providing an artificial intelligence system to the computer so that it can presume the type of answer which the user is expecting from it. And I must say we have already achieved some good results.


If there is any mistake on this article Please excuse it. And post your comments on it.

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? by A. Roy Mukherjee

Part – IX (Concluding Part).

We must now judge the character and identity of Sherlock Holmes in the light of the analysis as above. We must see his relationship with the petty street criminals like Higgins and the boys afresh. It was a close relation no doubt. Those boys were almost at his beck and call. They obeyed him like their own master and addressed him as “Yes, Guv” which was the normal language of address meant for the leader in the under-world. Admittedly, Holmes was not a retired police officer choosing the profession of a consulting detective, so that he could utilize and maintain his connections made during the service period. The credulous fans would argue that he had to keep the connections to keep himself abreast of the happenings in the crime world. It is perfectly all right for the police or detective department or any other government agencies to keep or develop moles and informers in the criminal world. But does it equally be in order and possible for a private consulting detective? How will he develop the contact? We know that Holmes operated alone and not in the style of detective agencies of modern times. He was a private consulting detective only. “The only unofficial consulting detective. The last and the highest court of appeal in detection”. His knowledge about the foreign spies operating in the country is equally shrouded in mystery. (Second Stain). In normal circumstances we find that even the government’s espionage department officials do not always have knowledge of the identities of foreign spies. The moment someone’s identity is doubted, the man is shadowed. His identity is not disclosed to any outsider and is arrested only if caught red-handed. But in Second Stain we find that the immediate reaction of Sherlock Holmes after hearing the case was of not only knowing the names and identities of those foreign spies but also that he had the knowledge that the heads of espionage departments of three foreign countries were then present in England. How could he have the knowledge unless he himself was attached with the espionage department of a country ? It was nowhere disclosed that he was so attached with the government agency of his own country. His addiction to drugs and methods of procuring the drugs are also not clear. From the story of Charles Augustus Milverton we know of his hands in burglary. The blue curbuncle, the valuable jewel which he got by chance through Peterson was not handed over to its owner the Countess of Morcar. His relationship with Langdel Pike, the journalist, who used to collect and publish spicy and scandalous news items in newspapers also raises doubt about his integrity and character. And finally there is no doubt that he murdered Professor Moriarty in cold blood.

But all said and done, Sherlock Holmes was a successful person. He was successful everywhere and in all respect and with wonder, we may watch the reaction of Colonel Sebastian Moran, when caught. His only words were “….you fiend ! you clever, clever fiend ! you cunning, cunning fiend !”

Perhaps Colonel Moran was the only person during his time to correctly assess Sherlock Holmes.

C O N C L U D E D

WAS HERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? by A. Roy Mukherjee

Part - VIII

But why? We may surely surmise that either Prof.Moriarty had the knowledge and evidence to prove that Holmes had a different identity, which was not very honourable, other than the publicly known one as a famous detective or that both of them were rivals in the underworld and it was a case of bitter rivalry and hatred between two underworld dons. But from the narration and the facts, the idea that Prof.Moriarty was a criminal and an underworld kingpin can easily be discounted.

The narrative of the “EMPTY HOUSE” only helps to confirm and pinpoints in that direction. In “Empty House” Sherlock Holmes reappeared with the story that the Professor attacked him at the spot near the Reichenbach Falls, not with any weapon, but threw his long arms around Holmes. If Moriarty had any intention to kill Holmes, he would not have allowed him to write the letter addressed to Dr.Watson but would have killed him instantly with some weapon and surely would not have thrown his long arms around him. It was not the move of a calculated man, a mathematical genius, a brain behind all crimes as was painted by Sherlock Holmes about his character and who was never even suspected at all by the police in any crime at any time. It is also now clear from the narrative that Moriarty did not carry any weapon with him when he went to meet Sherlock Holmes. It can also fairly be presumed now that the letter which Holmes wrote addressed to Dr. Watson was actually drafted and written much earlier, and most probably before he set out for the place in the morning. Sherlock Holmes went to spot fully prepared to meet Moriarty alone at that lonely spot and left the letter there for Watson to find out, after completing the job for which he came there. The only possibility, rather the truth, which came out by reasoning and analysis is that Holmes planned the whole event to happen in that fashion. He wanted to meet the professor alone. He lured him to that particular lonely spot on some pretext or other. He wanted to know how much the professor knew about him, whether he had any evidence in his possession and if so, to extort all the information and the source of evidences and where those are stored and then kill Professor Moriarty and throw his body into the gorge of the Reichenbach Falls. He wanted some time to recover and destroy all the evidences against himself and for that purpose alone wanted everybody to believe that he was dead. His own confession in this respect is recorded in the story of the “Empty House”. “I owe you many apologies, my dear Watson, but it was all important that it should be thought I was dead and it is quite certain that you would not have written so convincing an account of my unhappy end had you not yourself thought that it was true.” And in this way he further wanted to hoodwink Professor Moriarty’s friends and catch them unawares when he could buy his own safety from the Law And he did exactly that. It came out that Colonel Sebastian Moran, a good friend of the professor was by some means aware of the truth and was also aware that Holmes was alive. He patiently waited for Holmes to resurface and then to take revenge on him for his friend’s murder. Holmes anticipated this and laid his net accordingly to catch him red-handed and hand him over to the police on the charge of attempted murder of Sherlock Holmes. To seal the fate of the Colonel for ever, he further accused him for the murder of the Honourable Ronald Adair, without furnishing any evidence, direct or indirect, in support. He confessed that he had only one confidant, his own brother Mycroft Holmes. He invented a good story that Colonel Moran was the murderer of Ronald Adair. A careful study , however, would only reveal that he did not provide any real evidence in support of his contention. But it appears from the events following that the police officer Lastrade was impressed. Sherlock Holmes was successful.
(to be concluded)

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

Part VII

Let us now critically examine the details of the situation and the narrative. When Holmes met Watson at his residence, the entire story was from Holmes’ words alone and there was, till then, no real evidence either in police records or were produced against Moriarty. Holmes claimed to have all the evidences but did not hand those over to the police. He told Watson that he was in mortal danger. Is it not strange that he did not seek protection from the police, but came to Watson with the bizarre idea of fleeing to the continent? He could hand over all the evidences to the police force and asked for protection. That would have been the most reasonable and normal step taken under the circumstances. He did not also seek help of so powerful and influential a person as Mycroft Holmes, his own brother, for a few days till Moriarty and his gang members were arrested. There is, therefore, every doubt that he had made an extremely exaggerated statement about his brother being the central exchange, the clearing house of all information of all government departments and that he was the person to whom conclusions of every government department were passed to him and that the nation’s policies were decided, many a times, on his advice only. Such an influential and high-ranking person could easily have made arrangements for his protection. Evidently Holmes made a complete misstatement of the entire episode as might be revealed from the facts of the case.

When the special train, which Holmes suggested that Moriarty would take to chase him, passed the Canterburry Railway station, Watson did not see the Professor or any other person in the train. In fact, Dr.Watson, most probably did not even ever met or saw Prof. Moriarty. It was Holmes who suggested that Moriarty was following them in a special train and Watson believed. When Holmes was so certain that Moriarty was following him in the special train, he could immediately alert the police about it so that they could alert all the police stations on the way and the sea ports to make arrangement for his arrest. But that was not in Sherlock Holmes’ scheme of things. He did not at all want Moriarty to be arrested or be in the hands of the police, as we shall see. Now take the letter, the vital clue through which Watson concluded about his death, which Watson found at the spot near Reichenbach Falls. In this letter Holmes told that he could write the letter by the courtesy of Moriarty. He even suggested that both he himself and Prof.Moriarty were going to die. He also gave clue to the details of all materials for the police to convict Moriarty and his gang. But did not Holmes tell Watson in London that Moriarty and his gang would be arrested in three days’ time? On what evidence would the police take the action? On Holmes’ words alone? On his promise to place all the evidences after arrest? The Scotland Yard never acted in such an irresponsible manner. Even if they acted on his words alone, could they not arrange for his safety till Moriarty and his gang was arrested? Would they not ask Holmes to remain in their safe custody with all the papers till the case was started before the court of law and framing of charges were completed? According to Holmes it was evident that Moriarty arrived at the spot with the sole intention of killing Holmes. If that was true, would he have allowed Holmes to write the letter, a statement of a dying person, wherein he gave all the clues to the evidences against Moriarty and particularly the suggestion that Moriarty was his murderer? Moriarty, even if we believe all that Holmes stated about him, definitely did not know that he also was going to die. Even if he knew that he would also die, the contents of the letter would jeopardize his otherwise blameless character and reputation as a mathematical genius and a good citizen, as also the safety and security of the other members of his gang, if he really had any. It must be remembered that till then, there was nothing against the Professor and he was a respectable member of the society. It is, therefore, absurd to accept either that the Professor arrived at the spot with the intention to kill Holmes or to get himself killed. We should take note of that particular sentence in Holmes’ letter where he stated , “I was quite convinced that the letter from Meiringen was a hoax, and I allowed you to depart on that errand under the persuasion that some development of this sort would follow.” There is no proof that the person whom Dr.Watson saw coming towards the spot where he left Sherlock Holmes was really Professor Moriarty or it was a different person altogether. And what happened to the swiss youngman whom Watson left with Holmes as a companion and a guide? He vanished into the thin air. The entire event, therefore, clearly points to the conclusion that it was Sherlock Holmes, who allured Professor Moriarty to meet him at the spot alone. When Holmes left London he definitely did not declare from the rooftop that he was going to the village Meiringen near Reichenbach Falls. How was it possible then for Prof.Moriarty to reach the exact spot almost by the same time as Holmes and Watson in the big continent of Europe when Holmes supposedly played every trick to give the professor a slip? This is further established from the fact that though Holmes claimed to possess all the evidences for the conviction of Moriarty, he did not hand those over to the police. It is evident that he chanced himself to strike a bargain with Moriarty, if possible. Holmes had all along doubted that Professor Moriarty had knowledge about his real or other identity and that was the reason for him to allure the professor to such a remote and quiet spot. His intention was to strike a bargain, if possible or extract all the clues and evidences the professor had against him and then murder him in cold blood.. He wanted to meet the professor alone and that is why he sent away Watson knowing fully well that the letter about the patient at Meiringen was a hoax. It is clear that the inn-keeper at meiringen and the swiss youngman were his accomplices in this design. He asked Dr.Watson to accompany him to the continent as a guard for the safety of his own life but knowingly allowed him to leave him at the very crucial juncture of his life. He made Dr.Watson believe that it was Moriarty who was following them. The special train from London which passed before the eyes of Watson at Canterburry Railway station, could have been arranged by Holmes himself or by any of his accomplices including his brother Mycroft Holmes. Dr.Watson would never know. Holmes was fully aware of the naivety of Dr.Watson and of his love and admiration for him. He therefore, took Dr.Watson along with him to make him see what he wanted him to see, to believe what he wanted him to believe and to narrate later exactly what he wanted him to narrate and thus used Dr.Watson to publicize the story of his death.

( .. to be continued)

Sherlock Holmes - Comments by Mr. PRASENJIT SEN

We sent an advance copy of our article on Sherlock Holmes to Mr. Prasenjit Sen whose comments are as below :



Dear Mr. Roy Mukherjee,

Your research on Sherlock Holmes is fantastic.On such detailed work I dare to make merely two observations:

1) The title could be slightly milder- not calling Holmes outright a criminal, but some thing like, " Failings of Sherlock Holmes- Discrepency in Conan Doyel's stories".His acts which are failings in strict moral norms and bordering even to a criminal act,I feel, may be told with humour rather than dry factual analysis..

2) In India I think the readers are not matured enough to appreciate such a detailed research. Hence one may find difficult to get a publisher.However, a reader in UK will appreciate these findings surely enough.They have a sense of humour.

However, the readership in Bengali is different (at least they wer so in my generation) and they are exposed to the Bengali Translated version of Sherlock Holmes.Igf these findings are presented with a sprinkling of humour, I think that would immediately be picked up.

Regards

--Prasenjit--

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? by A. Roy Mukherjee

Part – VI.

In the “Final Problem”, we find Holmes suddenly appearing before Dr. Watson one evening and narrated that he had collected all evidences against Moriarty and in three days’ time the Professor with all the principal members of his gang would be in the hands of the police. But Moriarty had already got scent of Holmes’ activities and as a result, He was in mortal danger. So he wanted to get away for the few days till Moriarty and his gang members were arrested. He wanted to flee to the continent and requested Dr. Watson to accompany him. He also told that his presence would be necessary for the conviction and he would come back in time for that purpose after the arrests. Watson agreed and according to the plan, both of them left for the continent the next morning. On the train, Homes suddenly told Watson that Moriarty would obviously follow them, but not by the same train. He would engage a special. Therefore, to give Moriarty a slip, he proposed to get down at a midway station for an alternative route to the continent. They got down at Canterburry. While they were still at Canterburry railway station a special train actually passed with a rattle and a roar. Eventually, by resorting to many subversions and diversions, both of them finally reached the village of Meiringen, where they put up at a place ran by one Peter Steiler, who spoke excellent English. They then started for another place across the hills and on the way stood the now famous Reichenbach Falls. When they reached a placed near the falls, they saw a Swiss boy come running to them with a letter purportedly from the inn-keeper Peter Steiler to Dr.Watson requesting him to come back immediately to attend a serious patient. So Watson returned back to the inn with an arrangement that the young swiss messanger would remain with Holmes as a guide and companion, while the doctor, after attending the patient would rejoin Holmes at Rosenlaui in the evening. While Watson was hurrying back to attend the patient, he saw a man walking very rapidly towards the place where he left Holmes. Reaching Meiringen he could however discover that the letter was a fake one and the inn-keeper suggested that it must have been written by the tall Englishman who came there after Holmes and Watson had left. Watson then surmised that it was definitely a trick played by Moriarty and hurried back to the place where he left Holmes. But back at the site of the falls there was no sight of any human being. Then he found the letter written by Holmes to him. In fact, it was the last dying statement of a person, wherein Holmes gave a definite hint that he was going to die in the hands of Moriarty. Watson concluded that both Holmes and Moriarty died while combating for life, reeling over into the dreadful cauldron of the swirling water of Reichenbach Falls. This story, particularly the way it ended with the news of the death of Sherlock Holmes, created a furore amongst the public and Holmes’ fans. ( .. to be continued)

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL? BY A Roy Mukherjee PART 5

Lastly, we come to Prof. Moriarty, the arch-enemy of Sherlock Holmes. In the entire narration of the adventures of Sherlock Holmes, Moriarty was mentioned in only three of them, “Valley of Fear”, “The Final Problem” and “Empty House”. If we carefully go through the above three stories, we come to the conclusion that the “Valley of Fear” was a case earlier to “Final Problem” and “Empty House”. It was in the story of the Birlstone tragedy (Valley of Fear) where Prof. Moriarty was introduced for the first time. In Holmes’ own words, Moriarty “was a man of good birth and excellent education, endowed by nature with phenomenal mathematical faculty”. He had a most brilliant career as a mathematical genius. But, according to Holmes, behind the façade of this genius of a man was hidden a most dubious criminal, who was the king-pin of the British underworld. (Valley of Fear). In this story we find that Holmes got a coded message from one Mr. Porlock, who worked for Moriarty and informed Holmes of some danger at Birlstone House. It was later learnt from the Scotland Yard detective that Mr. Douglas of Birlstone Manor House was horribly murdered that morning. We find that Holmes immediately on getting the news started a vocal campaign against Moriarty and tried to impress upon the police detective that Moriarty was connected with the crime. In the process, he disclosed so many information concerning Moriarty, such as, his legal income, the twenty banking accounts he maintained, that the bulk of his fortune was kept in foreign countries and about his illegal activities, income and wealth. It may please be noted at this stage that there was nothing against Prof. Moriarty in police records till then. On enquiry, he confessed that Porlock, who sent him the coded message, was a nom-de-plume and was not known to him. But Holmes used to pay him money for information through the Camberwell Post Office. In fact, before “Valley of Fear”, we do not come across Moriarty or even thereafter, excepting in the “Final Problem”. Sherlock Holmes also did not or could not prove any relation or connection between Prof. Moriarty and any crime, directly or indirectly or in any manner whatsoever. And as it has already been stated, there was nothing against Prof. Moriarty in police records also. The question which obviously comes to the fore is that when there was no case against Moriarty or about his involvement in any crime, why should Holmes collect such detailed information about him ? No case was referred to him either by any of his clients or the police. Why should he implant a mole or an informer in his house ? That Porlock was Holmes’ mole is beyond doubt. Otherwise, he could not send a coded message understandable to both of them. How could Holmes know that Porlock, the person who sent him the coded message, was a nom-de-plume ? The person who kept track of such meticulous details about Moriarty, would not know his informer, is simply unacceptable. He could easily be traced through the Camberwell Post Office. Moreover, Holmes was paying him money for information. How this entire transaction of sending information, nature of information etc. and payment against those could be done without a prior understanding and arrangement between them ? The vital question, however, is that why a private detective should collect information about another citizen when no case was referred to him involving that person? The way Holmes tried to impress the police detective was rather peculiar and vindictive. When the story ends, no connection of Moriarty with the events narrated was found or established. Nor did Holmes could or did establish any connection of the murder to Moriarty. The facts of the case did not even require an investigation in that direction. Why then, Moriarty was so forcefully and out of context, brought up by Holmes even before the murder took place and before the investigation was started at all ? The answer to this question can be traced in the “Final Probem”. It must be remembered that there was nothing against Prof. Moriarty in any records including Police records. ( .. to be continued)

Household Robots

iRobot-Scooba 5800

Scooba is a robotic household cleaner designed and manufactured by iRobot. It uses AWARE - robotic intelligence system to clean your entire floor efficiently, automatically and without missing a spot. It has been carefully designed to use on all sealed hard floor surfaces such as tile, linoleum, vinyl, marble, slate or wood. Its cleaning process consists of five steps: vacuum, soak, spread, scrub and dry.Released in 2006.

From-robotadvice.com

130 cm tall, 54kg Asimo was the first walking humanoid robot. Now it can run at a speed of 6 km/hr, move in a circle and zigzag. It can be used to guide your guest to a meeting room or serve coffee to them.

From-gadgetophilia.com

Interesting.............................

GREATEST LOVE OF ALL

BY-ABESH ROY
I Believe The Children Are Our Future.
Teach Them Well And Let Them Lead The Way
Show Them All The Beautiful They Possess Inside
Let The Children’s Laughter Remind Us How We Use To Be
Everybody’s Searching For A Hero
People Need Someone To Look Up To
I Never Found Anyone Who Fulfilled My Needs
A Lonely Place To Be And So I Learned To Depend On Me
I Decided Long Ago Never To Walk In Any one Shadow
If I Fail, If I Succeed, At Least I Live As I Believe
No Matter What They Take From Me
They Can’t Take Away My Dignity
Because The Greatest Love Of All Is Happening To Me
I’ve Found the Greatest Love of All Inside Of Me
The Greatest Love Of All Is Easy To Achieve
Learning To Love Of All
And If By Chance That Special Place
That You’ve Been Dreaming Of Leads You To A Lonely Place
Find You Strength In Love

Independence Day

From-
Arun Roy Mukherjee~~~~Gouravmoy Bandhopadhyay~~~~Abesh Roy

~~~Chairman~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Manager~~~~~~~~~Asst. Manager

AND

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Dipmala Mohinta~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

--------------------------------Secretary--------------------------------------

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? by A. Roy Mukherjee

PART – lV

In Charles Augustus Milverton, one Lady Eva Brackwell placed her piteous case in the hands of Sherlock Holmes. Milverton, a dubious blackmailer, was in possession of a few love letters written by Lady Eva in her younger life to a youth. Milverton was then blackmailing her. Her marital and social life was in real jeopardy. Holmes took up the case and requested Milverton to see him. When they met, he pleaded with the blackmailer to have pity on the Lady. But Milverton, a rogue as he was, did not agree to the terms offered by Holmes and when Holmes tried to use force, it was found that Milverton also was armed and nothing would be gained by use of force and rather worsen the matter. Milverton, “with a bow, a smile and a twinkle” was out of the room and Baker Street residence of Sherlock Holmes. Holmes then, having no other alternative, planned to burgle Milverton’s house. On a stormy night, accompanied by Dr. Watson, he burgled into the house of Milverton. While they were there, Milverton was murdered in the same room by another woman and Holmes in a hurry, opened Milverton’s safe with his skill and tools, took all the papers from the safe and poured them all into the fire in the fireplace. Somehow, they escaped and came home. Lady Eva was saved. Holmes’ method was technically criminal, though apparently morally justifiable. On the face of it, it emphasized the magnanimity of his character. But the question remains that why should he take such great risk, the risk of his life and reputation, to save his client, who, it appears, was not totally innocent. The clue to the mystery was in the way Milverton left Holmes’ Baker Street residence, “with a bow, a smile and a twinkle”. It was not only a challenge but also an indication that he had materials in his possession concerning Holmes also. Milverton, during his discussion with Holmes indicated that he had eight or ten similar cases maturing. A little objective overview of the whole case would suggest that Holmes took the risk not so much for saving Lady Eva from social disgrace alone but also to save his own life and reputation. He confessed to Watson “I have always had an idea that I would have made a highly efficient criminal. This is the chance of my life in that direction.” It circumstantially appears that it was not a chance alone but that he had no other choice. For the purpose of this burglary he brought out his “first class uptodate burglary kit with nickel-plated jimmy, diamond-tipped glasscutter, adaptable keys and every modern improvement which the march of civilization demands.” Very very civilized for a consulting detective to possess and use indeed !

Dr. Watson told us that opening of locks and safes was his particular hobby. It may be noted that this peculiar hobby is not like collecting postage stamps or photography. It is inconceivable that he used to purchase safes, now and often, to pursue his hobby. It is absurd that the safe-makers allowed him to fiddle with the safes at their workshops for practice to his satisfaction and it is far more improbable that any safe-owner would have allowed him to fondle with their safes. It is but natural that to unravel a crime, the detective must also think in the same way as the criminal who committed the crime. But should he also acquire the skill, practise it and particularly keep all the tools and implements with him for committing the crime ? It is only natural for a criminal whatever be his social face, standing and reputation. ( .. to be continued)

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? - by A. Roy Mukherjee

PART – III

In the story of the ADVENTURE OF BLUE CURBUNCLE a precious diamond, belonging to the Countess of Morcar, was lost from her room at the Hotel Cosmopolitan. Just a few days prior to the Christmas, Holmes came to know of the case from newspaper reports, where it was also mentioned that John Horner, a plumber, was accused for stealing it. James Ryder, upper attendant at the hotel, gave evidence that he had shown Horner upto the dressing room of the Countess upon the day of the loss. He left Horner there and was called away. On returning, he found that Horner had disappeared. Horner was arrested and trial was in progress. These were all in the newspaper reports. Meanwhile, Peterson, the commissionaire ( a policeman ) brought to Holmes one hat and a goose which he found somewhere. Holmes kept the hat and gave away the goose to Peterson for Christmas enjoyment. While Holmes and Dr.Watson were discussing about the hat and Holmes, to the astonishment of Dr. Watson was explaining certain characteristic features of its owner, Peterson rushed into the room with a jewel which he found in the corp of the goose. Holmes immediately recognized it as the Blue Curbuncle belonging to the Countess. He locked it up in his strong box and hinted to drop a line to the Countess to say that he had it. Then he started his investigation all by himself and ultimately got a private confession from James Ryder, the hotel attendant, that it was he, and not Horner the plumber, who had actually stolen the jewel from the Countess. We come to know from the narration that Holmes allowed Ryder, the actual thief to go away scot-free and did not hand him over to the police. In fact, he made quite a show in front of Dr. Watson throwing out Ryder from his house and made a statement in excuse of his action. His justification was that he had not been retained by the police and therefore had no obligation to supply their deficiencies. According to him, Horner, who was arrested on the charge of stealing the jewel, would be released as Ryder would not any more appear in court as a witness and the case would collapse. So, by releasing Ryder, he had actually saved a soul (meaning Ryder) without doing any injustice to Horner. In his own words, he was, by such action, commuting a felony. From the story of “A STUDY IN SCARLET”, we come to know that Holmes had a good practical knowledge of the British Law. He was, in this case, in possession of a stolen property, without informing either the police or the true owner. Holmes himself was very well aware, but did not disclose that, under the law, Ryder could not escape appearance in court and also could not retract his earlier statement made before the police. If he failed to appear in court, a non-bailable warrant could be issued for his arrest and if after appearing he retracted his earlier statement, he would become the prime suspect. Therefore , it does not stand the test of logic that Ryder would not appear in court as a witness and that the case against Horner, the plumber, would collapse and he would be released by the court. Thus Horner, even after such assurance from Holmes, remained in danger of being punished for a crime not committed by him. At the least, Horner would not be able to avoid harassment in the hands of the police. His reputation would be in jeopardy and he would suffer immensely, even if, he was released by the court of law on the grounds of benefit of doubt. Holmes’ justification of his action, therefore, fails. There would not have been any doubt as to his good and genuine intention, had he, immediately as he got the jewel from Peterson, the policeman, informed the police and the Countess and explained how it came into his possession. Peterson and Dr. Watson were his witnesses. He could also advise Peterson to go to the police station with the jewel and hand it over to them. Moreover, everybody would have accepted the statement from so renowned and famous a detective as Sharlock Holmes. Such action would have secured safety for both Horner, the plumber and Ryder, the hotel attendant. And the question of Ryder’s not appearing in court would not have arisen at all. Therefore, there remained a doubt about his motive and intention. Why was he so indulgent about James Ryder, the real thief ? It appears from his action that either he wanted to keep the valuable jewel for himself or extract a higher reward from the Countess than she promised. Infact, he made a remark that there were reasons which would induce the Countess to part with half her fortune to recover the Gem. Jmaes Ryder, most probably, was one of his accomplices. It was easy to hoodwink the naive and credulous Dr. Watson by enacting the drama with James Ryder and then giving a sermon on social justice, forgiveness and saving a soul. It is evident that Peterson, the policeman, was equally gullible. When he got the jewel, he did not go the police station direct and inform his higher authorities, but instead went to Sherlock Holmes. Sherlock Homes, whatever was his reputation, was not a government officer and had no authority to deal with a matter relating to items lost and found. Peterson, as a policeman, must have been aware of this. Therefore he, by bringing the Gem to Holmes and handing it over to him, had acted in an unauthorized manner. Therefore , if per chance, he tried to raise a question against Holmes at a later stage, nobody would believe him and he would have lost all credibility. Moreover, he would be charged on the count of negligence in discharging his duties and even for abetment of the crime of theft. So, Peterson’s mouth was sealed for ever. In all other stories Dr. Watson gave complete details of the reactions of the police and the clients and of their respectful admiration for Holmes. But, in the instant case, when so valuable a jewel, was recovered, the Doctor not only kept silent but totally ignored to mention a single word of appreciation either by the Countess or the police. Therefore it is doubtful whether Holmes did part with the jewel and the Countess ever got it back.

(….to be continued)

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ? - by A. Roy Mukherjee

Part – II

Admittedly, Holmes was a drug addict. He used to consume cocaine regularly and even morphine injections and used to keep a good stock for his own use. Dr. Watson did not write any prescriptions for him. He had developed the habit even before he met Dr. Watson. The Doctor, while living with him at his Baker street residence, had become irritable and his conscience swelled at the thought that he lacked the courage to protest. But, ultimately, he gathered courage to warn him of the injurious effects of the Drugs. The way Dr. Watson pleaded with him leaves any doubt about his sincerity and anxiety for the welfare of his friend. (A STUDY IN SCARLET and SIGN OF FOUR). There is no explanation anywhere about the source of supply of the drugs.

Holmes had connections with the under-world. It was not just a connection, but a very intimate one. Wiggins and the boys, the Baker Street irregulars, Holmes often employed for his investigation, no doubt, were pick-pockets and street hoodlums. The money offered by Holmes in exchange, for the services, was meager and much less possibly than their day’s income. And yet, whenever Holmes required of their services, they were at his beck and call. (SIGN OF FOUR).

Dr. Watson told us without any reservation that Holmes used to keep connections with the under-world and also had atleast five small refuges in different parts od London in which he was able to change his personality. (BLACK PETER).

He was an expert in opening locks and safes. Dr. Watson told us that he had a case complete with instruments and tools for opening locks and safes and “with the calm, scientific accuracy of a surgeon who performs a delicate operation” would open a lock or safe. “Opening of safes was a particular hobby with him and the joy which it gave him” was described in detail by Dr. Watson. (Charles Augustus Milverton). In the adventure of the GREEK INTERPRETER, he, just for once, opened a locked door in the presence of a police officer. “It is a mercy that you are on the side of the force and not against it” was the apparently innocuous remark made by the officer.

Sherlock Holmes had complete knowledge of the international spies present in England at a particular point of time, their names and also of their identities. When a very important document concerning international relations was stolen from the Government office, the Prime Minister himself sought his help. After listening to the details, he remarked that the stolen document, most probably were still in possession of several international spies and secret agents “whose names were tolerably familiar to him”. He further remarked that at the moment three foreign spies who might be said to be haeds of their profession, were in England and he would start his investigation from those people. (SECOND STAIN)

Mycroft Holmes, the elder brother of Sherlock, is almost unknown to us and whatever we know, we come to know through the mouth of Sherlock Holmes alone. According to him, Mycroft was the examiner of accounts in a Government office. “He was famous in his own circle, but had no ambition and no energy. He was the founder-member of the Diogenes Club, the queerest club in London and contained the most unsociable men in town and no member was permitted to take least notice of any other one.” Mycroft was “one of the queerest man”. (GREEK INTERPRETER). He , however, contradicted his earlier statement and in formed Dr. Watson that Mycroft’s position was unique. “He had made it for himself. He had the tidiest and most orderly brain. The conclusions of every government department were passed to him’. The Government, even the ministers, now and often, sought his advice on important matters. Many a times, the nation’s policies were decided on his advice only. (ADVENTURE OF THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLAN). These were all Sherlock’s version about his elder brother. According to Sherlock, Mycroft was “the central exchange, the clearing house of all information of all the government departments” and if all other men in the government were only specialists, Mycroft’s “specialization was omniscience”.(ADVANTURE OF THE BRUCE PARTINGTON PLAN).

Dr. Watson told us of a character “Langdel Pike” who kept track of all social scandals and incidents and used to “earn a four figure income by the paragraphs he contributed to the garbage papers which catered for the inquisitive public”. Holmes used to keep in touch with this man and in Dr. Watson’s words “discreetly helped Langdel to knowledge and on occasion was helped in turn” (ADVENTURE OF THE THREE GABLES).

We will now study the details of a few adventures, one by one, and examine them critically and objectively. ( ….to be continued)

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

Was Sherlock Holmes a criminal?

By Arun Roy Mukherjee.

Part - I

Sherlock Holmes – a criminal ? Preposterous – absurd – a conjecture of a crooked mind. Madness – plain and simple. That is what the normal reaction should be and is expected from our readers..

Sherlock Holmes, the detective, the immortal creation in the history of detection of crimes, is possibly the most popular over the world. The readers are mesmerized, rather bewitched by his super-intelligence, power of observation, deduction and logic and ultimately in his superb skill in solving mysteries. His magnanimity under certain circumstances, makes him a man to our hearts. Any elucidation to prove his great qualities and his popularity is unnecessary. These are established facts.

And yet, do we truly know Sherlock Holmes ? Dr. Watson, one of his admirers, by dint of his narrative style takes us away from our own critical self and also makes us equally naïve to admire Holmes’activities. We close the analytical part of our minds and fail to make a fair judgment of the person named Sherlock Holmes. While reading, rather devouring THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES, do we not admirably watch his methods in solving the mysteries and do we not totally forget to read between the lines to find out the real character of the person?

Applying the same method of observation, deduction, logic and intelligence, as were the qualities of the subject matter of this article, we come to the shocking revelation that the man, Sherlock Holmes, had different and contradictory traits of character, a man with two different faces. One, of course, was the detective as we all know him. But the other ?

Before going into the detailed examination of a few cases and before drawing any conclusions, we may take note of certain basic facts to make a fair assessment of the person. While carrying on our probe or investigation, we should take recourse to the facts from the text alone and should rely on the same materials as was presented by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and should not take into account any material other than what is found in THE ADVENTURES OF SHERLOCK HOLMES. We promise that we shall not invent anything out of our own imagination and shall not resort to any outside material not found in the book mentioned above.

( to be continued…)

The Handicapped and their Problem

In our society there are many who cannot live as normal human beings because of some kind of physical disability. Some have such disabilities since their birth while others have become disabled by accidents or by some diseases. Such persons are called physically handicapped. A child may lose muscular control because of an injury to its brain and become a spastic. It may be born blind or may become blind because of malnutrition. Some other may be born deaf and dumb. Another still become a victim of polio. Again, one may lose one’s leg or an arm being involved in an accident like fire or bomb explosions or road accidents.

These handicapped persons were previously considered a burden not only to the family to which they belonged but also to the society as a whole. But, it should be borne in mind that these persons may be handicapped in respect of one or two physical organs but they may be superior to others in respect of some special qualities that they may possess. Thus, a blind person may possess a keen sense of music. A person who is crippled may have the talent of a good painter. So, we must sympathize with these persons and help them to become useful members of the society. It is indeed a tough job to meet the needs and problem of the handicapped. We should do our best to rehabilitate them in the Society. We can give them special training so that they can do some suitable jobs and live with dignity.

This is, however, a huge task requiring organizational and financial support. The government of the country should come forward and arrange for special training center for the handicapped people of the country. The philanthropic organization should extend their helping hands to these unfortunate people and provide them with the various props like artificial limbs, wheel chairs etc. Our attitude towards these weak brothers and sisters should not be one of pity. We should treat them with love and affection. It is our duty to help them in their need and make them feel that they are not different from us, rather they are very much like us, and sometimes, even better.
NB:Please pardon me for my horrible english.

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

And What About Prof. Moriarty ?



And what about him ?

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

He burgled into the house of Charles Augustus Milverton and destroyed all his papers after opening his safe.



Milverton was a blackmailer and there was no other way to save Lady Eva from the clutches of such a rogue.

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

He did not hand over the real culprit James Ryder, who stole the Blue Curbuncle belonging to the Countess of Morcar to the Police, while John Horner, the innocent plumber remained in custody.


It is easy to punish a criminal but difficult to rectify him and save a soul. Holmes, being Sherlock Holmnes, did it. Horner would eventually be released , as Holmes assured us.

WAS SHERLOCK HOLMES A CRIMINAL ?

He used to keep a close contact with Langdel Pike, a freelance journalist who dealt with matters of social scandals and incidents and obtained information from him.


It kept him abreast of the inside affairs of higher echelons of the soceity and such knowledge helped him in solving mysteries.