I. The first and second case of the Napoleon Statues
1. a.) The first case happened inside the shop of Morse Hudson. The event that follows based on the report are hereby listed as follows:
The assistant heard a crash sound. When he went in, he found Napoleon statue was broken into pieces.
The assistant rushed outside but could not found any one who might be responsible.
The investigation results assumed the case to be too childish as the plastic cast was of little worth.
b.) The second case happened in the house of a well-known medical practitioner and enthusiastic admirer of Napoleon, named Dr. Barnicot at Kennington Rod and in his office at lower Brixton Road, some two miles away.
1. Dr. Barnicot purchased two plaster casts of the famous head of Napoleon and placed one in his house, and the other in his surgery clinic at Brixton.
2. Dr. Barnicot’s house was burgled during the night but nothing was stolen except the plaster head of Napoleon was broken into pieces outside of his house.
3. He later found out that his office at Brixton was also burgle and was surprised to see the splintered fragments of plaster head of Napoleon right where it stood.
4. Both cases were unresolved as per the identity of the perpetrator. Holmes draws his inference on the method the crimes were carried out which reflect a pattern.
2. b.) Inferences draw by Dr. Holmes are 1. There is certain method in the man’s crime. 2. The cases were done by the same person. 3. The man who commits the crime is overwhelmed with hatred of Napoleon for some reason.
c). Lestrade’s inferences are as follows: 1. the man is determined to destroy Napoleon’s images, and he has just begun at his area. Lestrade has drawn his inference from assumption that the person behind the crime lives in the area.
3.) a. 1. The man was tall and still young. Though he was poorly dressed, yet he may not be poor. 2. He has a deep cut in his throat. 3. He is lying on his back in a pool of blood.
4. The scene was the doorstep of Mr. Harker’s house. 5. The place where the man lies is sprinkled with blood.
b.) There are several inferences from this inscription. 1. The criminal’s hatred with Napoleon was so great that he can afford to kill a person. 2. they can have a lead of the crime after they identify the dead person.
Part II. Lestrade’s main conclusion and premises
The main conclusion of Listrade’s argument is that the dead man was a member of underground society called Mafia, who was sent to execute a fellow who may have broken the organization’s rule. He tracked the man but in the ensuing scuffle met his own death in the hand of the renegade person. His conclusion is that the case about Napoleon’s case was nothing but a pretty larceny.
b. Holmes noted that the explanation on the busts or the case of Napoleon’s plaster head was missing.
4.) a. Holmes argues that the man who smashed the bust of Napoleon was extremely influenced by a general hatred. Holmes final argument was Napoleon bust contains the most expensive Jewel in the world dating back to Napoleon’s own time. The Smashing of the bust was meant to get the precious object. The killing was linked to this activity as the murdered person has knowledge of the importance of those busts. In other words, though the first three cases of napoleon’s bust were freely and executed nicely but since there are some people who are involved, the quest for such busts resulted to murderous killing.
b.) The Premise of Holmes that smashing of napoleon’s bust has something to do with precious jewel hidden in the bust, is quite accurate. I would say that on the first three cases of smashing Napoleon’s bust on both Morse Hudson shop and the Barnicot’ s place was done possibly by the two persons involved in the case, the murdered and Murderer.
It is quite possible that were partner in those crimes. Realizing the great value of the objects, greed has taken its place resulting to the murder of the other. The evidence for this argument was the fact the murderer had no problem locating the victim. The killing at the doorstep was intentional in an attempt to divert attention.
c.) Yes, I believe the facts alone determine the difference between these approaches. Lestrade based his approach in the identity of the dead man while Holmes on the sheer facts. He identified the facts about the bust, the facts about the men, and everything related to the problem. He ends up having a better finding. The identities and the importance of every related issues such as history of the bust, the identities of the two men, and the company that manufactured those bust had yielded important information that lead to the truth and justice on the case.
Holmes, S. & Doyle, A., C. The Adventure of the Six Napoleon