The Capital of Great Detective

Ukrainian, 23 y/o, art-blog @marmuruah

[turron-jon-john]

Hi, it's @marmuruah's Frogwares Sherlock Holmes blog

I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s time to make a separate blog just for my thoughts and sometimes reblogs about Frogwares’ Sherlock, so my artworks don’t get lost among all the posts about these games.

[turron-jon-john]

My lizard Banshee likes @milkofbeads's standee.

[turron-jon-john]

I remembered something while playing Vampyr...

[turron-jon-john]

At first I thought that everything was okay, but then...

[turron-jon-john]

Ansel horrors.

[turron-jon-john]

The Mystery of the Mummy Holmes is so dramatic.

[turron-jon-john]

Crimes & Punishments situation.

[turron-jon-john]

[turron-jon-john]

Unexpected frames I managed to catch while using Ansel.

[marmuruah]

How to draw Jon.

[turron-jon-john]

I’ll just share the thought I posted on the Frogwares Discord server.

[shco-shta-fanzine]

Work in Progress!

You were probably expecting some new updates and wondering how the project is progressing. We're happy to share that the work is moving forward in full swing, and all participants are approaching their tasks with great responsibility! To make the wait a little more enjoyable, we'll casually drop a few sneak peeks. 🤫

Everything you see in the image is NOT the final version of the zine at this stage. Both the materials and the design may still undergo minor or significant changes.

[turron-jon-john]

Duel.

[turron-jon-john]

It’s time for me to voice my unpopular opinion about A Gilded Cage case in Sherlock Holmes: Chapter One, namely, that I believe Paul Perks was the culprit, not Arthur Swift.

Before getting into the arguments, let’s clarify something. If a character you like turns out to be guilty of something, that does not automatically make them a bad character or, in some cases, even a bad person. This post is absolutely not meant to say “Paul is a bad character.” I simply want to express my interpretation of his involvement in the crime.

I will also avoid discussing anything not directly supported by the investigation itself. I wasn’t interested in whether certain choices yield greater rewards, I’m interested in the case, not the technical side of the game. And let’s also avoid the argument “I think this character is guilty because they behave more suspiciously,” since that is entirely subjective perception and does not constitute factual evidence.

Let’s start with how I see the situation that unfolded:

Paul and Imogen planned to run away together that unfortunate morning. In order to do so, they devised a plan in which Paul would distract Theodore, who visits Goliath every morning. However, things did not go as planned, as Paul did not expect the elephant to react to the poison in such a way that it resulted in Theodore’s death. Alternatively, Paul may have originally intended to shoot Theodore, considering the dart’s placement on the elephant and the trajectory of the shot (not aimed at the elephant’s rear or forehead, but mere centimeters from Theodore’s position). But honestly, that detail is not the most important point.

Why did I come to suspect Paul rather than Arthur?

Imogen stated that she first looked out the window (from which she could already have seen the culprit), then went outside and began throwing stones at the elephant. Judging by the trajectory of the stones, we can see she was looking directly toward the offender. Why did she claim she saw no one? Because it was her lover, Paul, whom she did not want to expose. Moreover, this happened in the morning, meaning it would have been sufficiently bright to see someone from that distance.

Since the gates to the Swift estate were broken by the elephant, we can conclude they had been closed, meaning someone would have needed a way to enter the enclosed area. Paul would have been far more capable of doing so than Arthur, whose poor health is explicitly confirmed by the fact that the trial had to be postponed due to his condition (as reported in the newspaper if you choose to accuse Arthur). Not to mention that Arthur is clearly an elderly man.

Imogen was packing her suitcases on the very morning of the incident, while Paul informed his “colleagues” that he would be leaving Cordona, implying he would not be attending the competition that same morning. He later explained his absence to Sherlock by claiming he had been at the hospital, which, within this hypothesis, would be a lie.

Paul mentions that he had been considering how the poison affects elephants and that he had not yet tested it on humans. This may hint that he originally intended to shoot and not just distract but kill Theodore, though again, this is secondary.

The bosun’s knife. Many assume it belonged to Arthur because his vest has one empty tool slot. However:

How do we know that slot was ever occupied?

It is most likely simply part of the vest model. Other workers wear identical vests with one empty slot.

If Arthur had planned to commit the crime, would he really have done so in his work vest? And why carry a knife if he intended to use darts? Meanwhile, we know Paul had been physically attacked by Theodore’s hired men, which provides a reasonable explanation for why Paul might carry a knife for self-defense.

Another common argument for Arthur’s guilt is the elephant-related book found on his desk. Yet Arthur explicitly explains this as his desire to better understand the elephant. His motivation is consistent: he does not wish to abandon his research and that's why he wants to learn how to coexist with the animal on the same territory.

Paul was the only one with whom strychnine on the darts was discussed. With Arthur, the conversation concerned only the darts themselves.

Both suspects had motives. However, while Arthur theoretically had an alternative as coexistence with the elephant for the sake of his studies, while Paul faced not only written threats, but physical violence. Paul’s choice was stark: either his life would be ruined with certainty, or he could risk everything in an attempt to escape with Imogen and reclaim control of his future.

All of this led me to the conclusion that Paul’s potential guiltiness does not make him a worse character. On the contrary, it makes him more compelling, portraying him as someone willing to take extreme risks for love and freedom.

[ruinathings]

omg, yes, finally! I totally agree! Btw, I never saw anyone mentioning elbow bruises in this case. Both Arthur and Paul have a bruised elbow, yet on different arms! Arthur's left elbow and Paul's right elbow have bruises. And judging by the reconstructions on the crime scene in Goliath's yard and by the damage made to the shed we can see that the person who felt backwards from the impact of the gate most probably broke a board with his right elbow. The reconstruction could be wrong, of course, but after examining the shed I don't think it's very likely to land on the shed to break that board like that with a left elbow. Not sure if it was intended that way, but it was one of the first things that caught my attention while investigating and strongly affected my final decision. Still, an interesting detail either way

[turron-jon-john]

I actually thought about that and even considered including it in the article! Because to me, it seems harder to land there with a left elbow (Arthur injured left elbow) than with a right one (Paul injured right elbow). In the end, though, I decided to leave it out, since it felt like a rather shaky argument given the visual ambiguity of the reconstruction.

Still, I agree the fact that the injuries are on different arms really doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

[jonlock]

I gotta offer my perspective as an Arthur-did-it truther :p

If we focus only on what we know pre-decision, we have the knife and the book that speak against Arthur already, and also a very angry diary entry by him that basically calls Theodore stupid for only caring about the elephant and not for their project:

"I must think, lest out invaluable history be buried by the inconsequential." -> this quote alone suggests he wasn't going to sit around and let Theodore ruin the site and turn it into baths. He was trying to come up with a plan.

Shortly after, their partnership ended. Arthur's motive was never that he couldn't co-exist with the elephant, but that Theodore, who was the sole proprietor, didn't share his vision on the future of the site. He didn't share the passion and cared about his elephant more, and his carelessness destroyed their partnership.

Arthur, on the other hand, saw the site as his most important achievement in life and he is said to "have sacrificed almost everything to get it".

His interest is described as obsession. Yet, he was about to lose funding because the whole project was funded by Theodore with whom he quarreled, and that after he's already used up all his resources on the site.

Why wouldn't Arthur, whose dream was about to be destroyed by Theodore, use that very elephant to destroy Theodore, in return? After months and months of resentment and trying to find a way to save the future of the site?

Arthur is a man portrayed as desperate and paranoid enough that, even though you find the tomb, he becomes hostile towards you and accuses you of trying to steal "his" discovery.

We also know Arthur was supposedly injured while digging, but we never actually see him do any manual labour while we are there and looking for his tomb. He doesn't leave his tent at all. And yes, the workers have the same vest, but FW also reuses assets a lot and I don't see that as evidence that the slot was supposed to stay empty and that there was no knife.

Arthur supposedly only owns the book to educate himself about the elephant, but the article itself notes that it contains a chapter about the danger coming from elephants in heat.

I don't believe Arthur when he says he wanted to learn how to understand the animal. I don't see why I have to believe in anything a possible culprit says unless there is evidence. And the man had devoted his life to his digsite to a point he neglected his appearance because of it, as stated above. I would say he did not have the time to educate himself about the habits of an animal he didn't care about and begrudged Theodore for having.

Paul, on the other hand, has no real motive to attack Theodore after he's already packed his bags to disappear with Imogen and escape - they are about to leave Cordona and won't be bothered by him at all anymore. Theodore might have been a threat to Paul in the past, but not in the future.

Moreover, we don't know if they were planning to leave immediately. We don't know if Paul really wanted/needed to distract Theodore to get Imogen out - she could have simply left the manor while her father was sleeping instead of taking the risk of being caught by having Paul distract him while she was carrying multiple suitcases.

And in general, Paul's alibis is more believable. He was beaten up - we saw the threats. He says he was at the hospital - he don't visit it in the game, but if we apply real world logic, we could actually ask in the hospital if he went there.

But nothing Arthur uses as an alibi can be confirmed. To assume he is innocent, we have to take everything he says by the word - that he never had a knife, that he injured himself while digging (which we never see him do), that he was merely interested in the elephant. He can't prove anything he claims.

Also, about the stones that Imogen threw - when you consider where they landed, you can assume that the elephant was right in front of the gate already by the time she got outside and started throwing. The elephant would have covered the gate and she wouldn't have seen who was hiding behind it. The culprit is only visible in the imagination sequence because the elephant is still a few steps before the gate, but this is not where the stones landed.

This is what I mean, if Jon was Imogen and threw a stone in that direction, then her target is likely right in front of the gate, and her target was large enough:

And to come back to the decision:

Arthur never says he didn't kill Theodore if you tell him you'll let him go. He says Sherlock came to his senses right after Sherlock accused him of murder. That, in itself, doesn't speak of an innocent man to me.

And last but not least, Arthur is not an elderly man, either. He might not be as strong as Paul, but he is apparently strong enough to work as the site to a point of injury. Unless he lied.

Anyway, I wanted to offer my two cents because I saw your comment saying how the game should present the facts before the final decision is made (as a reply to me talking about Arthur's reaction to being accused but let go), and I felt the need to show that the game does present a lot of facts that point towards Arthur :D People don't believe that Arthur did it just because of the reward, but because many believe he has the strongest motive.

[holmesivan]

I read the reblogs of this post. They seemed very curious to me, and I'm very glad that there's a discussion of my favorite topic (deduction). I have a huge desire to participate in this, even though I didn't plan to study this game. I really hope that I understood everyone correctly and didn't create a straw man in my response.

Regarding the empty pocket in Arthur's vest. It's empty because it's missing a knife? Let's assume yes. Now there are two cases.

When Arthur bought the vest, did knives come with it as a set? Suppose yes. Then the archaeologist's set included a bosun's knife. Or it was a universal set for all professions in life, but that's a bit hard to believe.

If the knives weren't sold together with the vest, then Arthur bought them himself and placed them in the pockets. In that case, not every pocket needs to be filled.

Let's still assume that this knife was part of the original vest set. Then the question: How did the knife end up here? Consider two cases.

The knife fell out of Arthur's vest. But it's very unlikely that Arthur came to the scene in this vest with a bunch of items.

The knife didn't fall out of the vest. Therefore, Arthur took the knife separately. But why did he take the knife if he wanted to use a dart?

Let's talk about the elbow. Imagine that the killer broke the board with his left elbow. Indeed, that's harder than landing with the right elbow. However, it's even harder to land with the left elbow and not press down the green bush at all. Moreover, the knife flew quite far from the killer. This seems more realistic if the knife didn't fall out of the pocket, but from the killer's hand. But in that case, the question arises: why was the killer holding this knife in his left hand?

Regarding the explanation for why Arthur had the book. Indeed, we shouldn't believe those words, since Arthur is a suspect for the role of murderer. However, if we consider the hypothesis that Paul is guilty, then we inevitably face the question of why Arthur needed a book about elephants. If Paul is guilty, then Arthur is innocent, and therefore he has no reason to lie about the book. So in this case, we must accept his explanation. I think that's exactly why the article's author paid attention to this very book.

Regarding the stone of the murdered man's daughter. As I understand, there were three stones. And the first one fell far enough from the gate that the criminal could be seen in exactly the same way as in imagination mode.

Regarding the alibi. We really didn't go to Paul's doctor, but we also didn't interrogate the workers. If Arthur is the murderer, could he really be sure that none of the workers noticed his absence?

As for the motive. Paul has another obvious motive—money. He clearly needs it.

I agree that Arthur had a motive for murder, but the other details seem less convincing if we imagine that he is the killer, than if it's Paul.

[turron-jon-john]

That’s exactly what I meant! Thank you, Holmesivan, for clarifying my point.

Especially about the book, because from the original post it could indeed have seemed that I was using it as an argument for Arthur's innocence, whereas what I meant was that if we accuse Paul, then we need to explain why Arthur had the book and there is an explanation for that.

[turron-jon-john]

It’s time for me to voice my unpopular opinion about A Gilded Cage case in Sherlock Holmes: Chapter One, namely, that I believe Paul Perks was the culprit, not Arthur Swift.

Before getting into the arguments, let’s clarify something. If a character you like turns out to be guilty of something, that does not automatically make them a bad character or, in some cases, even a bad person. This post is absolutely not meant to say “Paul is a bad character.” I simply want to express my interpretation of his involvement in the crime.

I will also avoid discussing anything not directly supported by the investigation itself. I wasn’t interested in whether certain choices yield greater rewards, I’m interested in the case, not the technical side of the game. And let’s also avoid the argument “I think this character is guilty because they behave more suspiciously,” since that is entirely subjective perception and does not constitute factual evidence.

Let’s start with how I see the situation that unfolded:

Paul and Imogen planned to run away together that unfortunate morning. In order to do so, they devised a plan in which Paul would distract Theodore, who visits Goliath every morning. However, things did not go as planned, as Paul did not expect the elephant to react to the poison in such a way that it resulted in Theodore’s death. Alternatively, Paul may have originally intended to shoot Theodore, considering the dart’s placement on the elephant and the trajectory of the shot (not aimed at the elephant’s rear or forehead, but mere centimeters from Theodore’s position). But honestly, that detail is not the most important point.

Why did I come to suspect Paul rather than Arthur?

Imogen stated that she first looked out the window (from which she could already have seen the culprit), then went outside and began throwing stones at the elephant. Judging by the trajectory of the stones, we can see she was looking directly toward the offender. Why did she claim she saw no one? Because it was her lover, Paul, whom she did not want to expose. Moreover, this happened in the morning, meaning it would have been sufficiently bright to see someone from that distance.

Since the gates to the Swift estate were broken by the elephant, we can conclude they had been closed, meaning someone would have needed a way to enter the enclosed area. Paul would have been far more capable of doing so than Arthur, whose poor health is explicitly confirmed by the fact that the trial had to be postponed due to his condition (as reported in the newspaper if you choose to accuse Arthur). Not to mention that Arthur is clearly an elderly man.

Imogen was packing her suitcases on the very morning of the incident, while Paul informed his “colleagues” that he would be leaving Cordona, implying he would not be attending the competition that same morning. He later explained his absence to Sherlock by claiming he had been at the hospital, which, within this hypothesis, would be a lie.

Paul mentions that he had been considering how the poison affects elephants and that he had not yet tested it on humans. This may hint that he originally intended to shoot and not just distract but kill Theodore, though again, this is secondary.

The bosun’s knife. Many assume it belonged to Arthur because his vest has one empty tool slot. However:

How do we know that slot was ever occupied?

It is most likely simply part of the vest model. Other workers wear identical vests with one empty slot.

If Arthur had planned to commit the crime, would he really have done so in his work vest? And why carry a knife if he intended to use darts? Meanwhile, we know Paul had been physically attacked by Theodore’s hired men, which provides a reasonable explanation for why Paul might carry a knife for self-defense.

Another common argument for Arthur’s guilt is the elephant-related book found on his desk. Yet Arthur explicitly explains this as his desire to better understand the elephant. His motivation is consistent: he does not wish to abandon his research and that's why he wants to learn how to coexist with the animal on the same territory.

Paul was the only one with whom strychnine on the darts was discussed. With Arthur, the conversation concerned only the darts themselves.

Both suspects had motives. However, while Arthur theoretically had an alternative as coexistence with the elephant for the sake of his studies, while Paul faced not only written threats, but physical violence. Paul’s choice was stark: either his life would be ruined with certainty, or he could risk everything in an attempt to escape with Imogen and reclaim control of his future.

All of this led me to the conclusion that Paul’s potential guiltiness does not make him a worse character. On the contrary, it makes him more compelling, portraying him as someone willing to take extreme risks for love and freedom.

[ruinathings]

omg, yes, finally! I totally agree! Btw, I never saw anyone mentioning elbow bruises in this case. Both Arthur and Paul have a bruised elbow, yet on different arms! Arthur's left elbow and Paul's right elbow have bruises. And judging by the reconstructions on the crime scene in Goliath's yard and by the damage made to the shed we can see that the person who felt backwards from the impact of the gate most probably broke a board with his right elbow. The reconstruction could be wrong, of course, but after examining the shed I don't think it's very likely to land on the shed to break that board like that with a left elbow. Not sure if it was intended that way, but it was one of the first things that caught my attention while investigating and strongly affected my final decision. Still, an interesting detail either way

[turron-jon-john]

I actually thought about that and even considered including it in the article! Because to me, it seems harder to land there with a left elbow (Arthur injured left elbow) than with a right one (Paul injured right elbow). In the end, though, I decided to leave it out, since it felt like a rather shaky argument given the visual ambiguity of the reconstruction.

Still, I agree the fact that the injuries are on different arms really doesn’t feel like a coincidence.

[turron-jon-john]

It’s time for me to voice my unpopular opinion about A Gilded Cage case in Sherlock Holmes: Chapter One, namely, that I believe Paul Perks was the culprit, not Arthur Swift.

Before getting into the arguments, let’s clarify something. If a character you like turns out to be guilty of something, that does not automatically make them a bad character or, in some cases, even a bad person. This post is absolutely not meant to say “Paul is a bad character.” I simply want to express my interpretation of his involvement in the crime.

I will also avoid discussing anything not directly supported by the investigation itself. I wasn’t interested in whether certain choices yield greater rewards, I’m interested in the case, not the technical side of the game. And let’s also avoid the argument “I think this character is guilty because they behave more suspiciously,” since that is entirely subjective perception and does not constitute factual evidence.

Let’s start with how I see the situation that unfolded:

Paul and Imogen planned to run away together that unfortunate morning. In order to do so, they devised a plan in which Paul would distract Theodore, who visits Goliath every morning. However, things did not go as planned, as Paul did not expect the elephant to react to the poison in such a way that it resulted in Theodore’s death. Alternatively, Paul may have originally intended to shoot Theodore, considering the dart’s placement on the elephant and the trajectory of the shot (not aimed at the elephant’s rear or forehead, but mere centimeters from Theodore’s position). But honestly, that detail is not the most important point.

Why did I come to suspect Paul rather than Arthur?

Imogen stated that she first looked out the window (from which she could already have seen the culprit), then went outside and began throwing stones at the elephant. Judging by the trajectory of the stones, we can see she was looking directly toward the offender. Why did she claim she saw no one? Because it was her lover, Paul, whom she did not want to expose. Moreover, this happened in the morning, meaning it would have been sufficiently bright to see someone from that distance.

Since the gates to the Gilden estate were broken by the elephant, we can conclude they had been closed, meaning someone would have needed a way to enter the enclosed area. Paul would have been far more capable of doing so than Arthur, whose poor health is explicitly confirmed by the fact that the trial had to be postponed due to his condition (as reported in the newspaper if you choose to accuse Arthur). Not to mention that Arthur is clearly an elderly man.

Imogen was packing her suitcases on the very morning of the incident, while Paul informed his “colleagues” that he would be leaving Cordona, implying he would not be attending the competition that same morning. He later explained his absence to Sherlock by claiming he had been at the hospital, which, within this hypothesis, would be a lie.

Paul mentions that he had been considering how the poison affects elephants and that he had not yet tested it on humans. This may hint that he originally intended to shoot and not just distract but kill Theodore, though again, this is secondary.

The bosun’s knife. Many assume it belonged to Arthur because his vest has one empty tool slot. However:

How do we know that slot was ever occupied?

It is most likely simply part of the vest model. Other workers wear identical vests with one empty slot.

If Arthur had planned to commit the crime, would he really have done so in his work vest? And why carry a knife if he intended to use darts? Meanwhile, we know Paul had been physically attacked by Theodore’s hired men, which provides a reasonable explanation for why Paul might carry a knife for self-defense.

Another common argument for Arthur’s guilt is the elephant-related book found on his desk. Yet Arthur explicitly explains this as his desire to better understand the elephant. His motivation is consistent: he does not wish to abandon his research and that's why he wants to learn how to coexist with the animal on the same territory.

Paul was the only one with whom strychnine on the darts was discussed. With Arthur, the conversation concerned only the darts themselves.

Both suspects had motives. However, while Arthur theoretically had an alternative as coexistence with the elephant for the sake of his studies, while Paul faced not only written threats, but physical violence. Paul’s choice was stark: either his life would be ruined with certainty, or he could risk everything in an attempt to escape with Imogen and reclaim control of his future.

All of this led me to the conclusion that Paul’s potential guiltiness does not make him a worse character. On the contrary, it makes him more compelling, portraying him as someone willing to take extreme risks for love and freedom.

[turron-jon-john]

How did it even happen... Sherry, you're cruel!

TW: blood, decapitation (not a real one in any way, head just accidentally fell under the floor and it looks cursed in this situation)