Submitted by ricarleite2 t3_10m715v in books
rositalagata t1_j61jxzf wrote
Stapleton is a bit off his rocker, but from a practical standpoint, if Sir Henry and Sir Charles are killed by the specter of a family curse, he's not a potential suspect. "What a terrible, spooky accident," the police say. By contrast, if the baronets get shot to death, the police look for a human murderer with a gun.
ricarleite2 OP t1_j61k8aj wrote
For Sir Charles, okay. Sure. Heart attack. For Henry, what would be the excuse? "Mauled by a phantom dog, oh well, case closed"?
If Henry is just shot and placed with a gun on his hand, there's no forensics back then to prove it wasn't a suicide.
CopperknickersII t1_j637m9w wrote
You're forgetting a fairly major issue here - Stapleton stands to directly benefit from Henry's death in a very public way, because in order to get his hands on the family money he has to out himself as a Baskerville. So that immediately gives him an obvious motive. What's more likely - a wealthy young extraverted aristocrat suddenly commits suicide and his money happens to go to a local relative, or his death was staged? The dog provides a far more plausible smokescreen than a staged suicide (when you consider that in those days, basically everyone accepted the existence of ghosts as a fact - indeed even in modern Britain it's not uncommon).
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments