Talk:Beauregard Lionett/@comment-2601:601:4680:4892:28F1:8CBD:46CB:88E-20180202163111/@comment-34397391-20180216153508

It's kind of like "Look underneath the underneath." For instance a murder might at first seem to have an obvious suspect, except you can't find a motive for them doing it or they had no murder weapon on their person when found with the body. The lack of obvious intent/means implies that the real murderer might be someone else, or as TiamatZX said, the old man was just a random victim with no connection to his attacker.

Sherlock Holmes used this way of thinking quite frequently. In the case of the Blue Carbuncle he was able to eliminate Henry Baker as a suspect because he showed a lack of interest in the goose's crock where the gem had been hidden.

In the case of the Reigate Squire, Holmes is able to deduce that the witnesses were lying because of inconsistencies such as a lack of powder burns on the victim (which he should have if he was shot point blank as they claimed) and a lack of tracks/damaged hedge despite claims of the murderer running across the muddy yard and jumping the hedge.

In both cases of the Beryl Coronet and the Boscombe Valley Mystery, Holmes strongly suspects that the supposed culprits are innocent because they don't give convincing excuses (one admitting to arguing with his father (and in grief at being arrested says it was "no more than his deserts") but refuses to say what about (his father wanted him to marry while he thought he was already secretly wed), the other claiming to be innocent of the crime but gives no explanation for holding the damaged crown (he was protecting his step-sister who was the real culprit). In each case the suspects claimed innocence, yet made no effort to fabricate believable lies.

In the case of the Engineer's Thumb, Sherlock concludes that the scene of the crime must be close to the train station (with the coach riding in circles to seem further) because of the lack of mud and tiredness of the horse and how the victim awoke near the station (wrongly believing that the culprits had decided not to kill him and carried him there while he was out).

As Sherlock once said, "See the value of imagination? We imagined what might have happened, acted upon the supposition and find ourselves justified." But just the same, investigating a possible chain of events and finding a lack of evidence to support it is nearly as valuable, "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth."