How is that not an assumption?
And when you mention "facts" I hope you are aware that these books are all "fiction" so confining to the fictional world in which Poirot and Holmes operate in, I am saying that just because Poirot was able to solve said crimes in said manner does not guarantee with any amount of certainity that Holmes would have failed.
Yes these books are all fiction but we are talking about which character has been shown capacity to solve more crimes than the other.
And the facts are Holmes can never suspect anyone without evidences and without clues, while Poirot, thanks to his vast psychological abilities and vast intuition can because this is what exactly what has been shown in the books.
I will again explain below why, once again, after I write these facts if you don't see those key differences you are either blind, or a fanboy, or simply you are not good enough at detecting facts and conclusions based on 100% irrefutable facts.
And no, it is not an assumption-
you are LYING TO OTHER PEOPLE when you say something like that-it is a fact, because if you take all the stories where Holmes was able to solve crime cases and the one where he was not able to solve crime cases, plus crime cases, you would see that Holmes never suspected anyone until he actually had hard evidence against him/her.
Can you imagine Holmes detecting Norton as being responsible for those murders can you actually imagine being able to solve Cornish mystery, the tragedy at Marsdon Manor, Five little pigs, the kidnapping of Prime Minister and similar, no he cannot because there are not even signs which would at least tell him what to investigate and who to investigate, since there are no evidences against those criminals.
Without evidences and without clues Holmes never actually knew who the criminal is responsible for whatever crime he/she committed-these are facts shown in all Holmes stories/novels.
You have to remember than the only reason why Holmes was able to solve all those crime cases were because he was able to find the guilty person thanks to evidences and clues.
In all those mentioned stories/novels, Holmes always had something to go with, at least some piece of hard evidence.
Yes, Poirot was similar to Holmes in plenty stories/novels when it comes to investigations, but still in most of the stories/novels Poirot has always told "I don't have a shred of evidence against him/her".
Poirot always knew who did it, but he/Poirot had to fool the criminal because there are zero evidences and zero clues against him/her, deductions without facts (Poirot himself has directly said this), Poirot made deuctions directly based on psychology and intuition and not based on evidences and clues, in most of the stories-Holmes has always made deductions, but only after he saw the facts, Poirot made deductions without facts and yet he was always still right, however like I said he had to fool the criminal to catch him/her-THESE ARE ALL FACTS WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS/STORIES/NOVELS, THESE ARE NOT HYPOTHESES, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BOOKS, AND WHEN YOU COMPARE HOW AND WHY HOLMES WAS SOLVING CRIME CASES, COMPARED TO HOW POIROT WAS SOLVING THEM-YOU WILL SEE AND CONNECT THE FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS BASED ON FACTS THAT ARE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS.Curtain shows this, Cornish Mystery shows this, Five little pigs shows this, the Kidnapping of prime minister shows this, and etc. So how can you say that these are assumptions if these facts are shown in the books? You are lying to yourself and you are lying to all other people, it's not my or your fault that this is how Poirot was written, it's not our fault why Holmes has never been written to detect the criminal with psychology and intuition only with zero evidences, zero facts and zero clues, because Holmes has always been shown to create deduction after he saw/investigated facts, Poirot in most of the stories created deductions without facts and that's why Poirot's job to put the criminals inside the jail, was much tougher task, and yet Poirot has never failed.
Your examples that you showed above are the examples of those stories and novels where Poirot was similar to Holmes and yes in those stories and novels Poirot was similar to Holmes, but you have to knowIn all those crime cases Poirot could not create a usual traps the ones you posted above in other stories novels (I'm talking about traps that Holmes has also created-these usual traps), so he had to create mental traps-mental traps are traps created to lure the criminal in order to think he left something behind but he did not, however mental traps are all about in luring the criminal that he did something behind, and yet he/she didn't.
Holmes has never been shown to be able to create mental traps, because in order to create mental traps you would have to first know who the criminal is even though there are zero evidences and there are zero clues against him/her.
This is the key point what makes both Poirot and Jane superior to Holmes, and these facts, not hypotheses, but facts 100% prove why Poirot can solve more crime cases than Holmes can.
Have you ever considered that Holmes knowledge can be easily fooled by someone who is as smart as he is when it comes to crime scenes and facts, so that evidences and clues and facts are adjusted-have you?
Poirot was in these situations so many times, and yet it has never fooled him, But Holmes who directly relies on evidences and clues, someone who is equally good at observations and deductions of crime scenes and facts-and yes, Holmes was fooled several times by Henry Peters and Irene Adler.
Henry “Holy” Peter has many aliases and a long history of taking people into his confidence and convincing them to donate large sums of money to his various chartable causes. In the tragic story “The Disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax” Holy Peter convinces Lady Frances he is a philanthropic priest helping to spread the good word in Africa and save starving children. The well-meaning Lady Frances falls for it, and nearly winds up dead. Holy Peter’s plan includes burying Lady Frances alive in a casket secretly designed for two people.
Holy Peter is so good at talking people into things that Holmes nearly doesn’t deduce what is really going on. The only reason why Holmes was able to deduce what was really going on was because he found 2 pieces of hard evidence that enabled Holmes to first deduce that Dr. Shlessinger is actually Henry Peters-the first piece of evidence was Dr. Shleissinger's left ear which was “jagged or torn”-Holmes discovered this information after he/Holmes wires back asking for a description of Dr. Schlessinger’s left ear and than Holmes gets his confirmation after Holmes reads a telegram from Baden about Dr. Schlessinger’s left ear — “jagged or torn”. This confirms Holmes’s suspicion that Dr. Schlessinger is in fact Henry Peters, a vicious rascal from Australia (his earlobe was chewed away in a bar brawl). His wife’s real name is Fraser. He beguiles young women by playing to their religious beliefs, as Dr. Schlessinger did with Lady Frances Carfax. This suggested his true identity to Holmes. Holmes believes that Lady Frances is in London, and quite possibly dead, or if not, confined in some way.
Second evidence came from the coffin: The search seems hopeless. The police follow known associates, Holmes places advertisements hoping to learn something, but nothing happens. Then, a pawnshop reports that someone matching Schlessinger’s description has pawned a pendant very much like one owned by Lady Frances. He gave a false address, but this gives Holmes what he needs. He has Philip Green wait in the pawnshop, knowing that Henry Peters will want to pawn more jewellery. It takes a few days, but he is not disappointed. His wife shows up this time to pawn a matching pendant, and Green follows her, first to an undertaker’s, where he finds Peters’s wife discussing an “out of the ordinary” order, and later to an address in Brixton. He watches the house and sees some men deliver a coffin.
Holmes writes Green a note and sends him to the police to fetch a warrant. Meanwhile, Holmes and Watson go first to the undertaker’s to ask about the funeral — it is at eight o’clock the next morning — and then to Brixton where they demand to see Dr. Schlessinger, or whatever he may call himself. Once inside, in the absence of a warrant, Holmes is obliged to resort to force to search Peters’s house. He finds the coffin, and deep inside it is a small, emaciated, very old, dead woman. It is certainly not Lady Frances. Peters explains that it is his wife’s old nurse. The police come and tell Holmes and Watson that they must leave. Peters gloats over Holmes’s obvious humiliation.
The day ends in apparent failure. Nothing suspicious can be found about the household, no warrant arrives, and Holmes and Watson go back to Baker Street. Holmes does not sleep that night, preferring to go over the case in his mind.
Finally, early the next morning, Holmes realizes what is going on. Holmes and Watson rush to Brixton and make sure that the coffin is not removed from the house to go for burial. They unscrew the coffin lid and find Lady Frances inside, chloroformed. The Peterses, while dishonest enough to kidnap someone to steal her jewels, were too squeamish to commit murder. Watson manages to revive her, and the Peterses are found to have fled. It was the remark heard by Green at the undertaker’s that helped Holmes deduce the truth. The woman there had been talking about an unusual coffin, and Holmes then also remembered that it was a big coffin for a very small woman, the idea being to obtain the necessary legal documents for the old woman, and then “legitimise” the burial of a coffin containing two bodies. Because Holmes and Watson are essentially late on the scene in the final moments of the story, Holy Peter is among the few schemers who outsmarted everyone’s favorite detective.
As you can see, ManUtdRulz, unlike in Curtain, against Henry Peters it was the one piece of hard evidence that enabled Holmes to detect that Dr. Shlessinger was actually Henry Peters-a vicious rascal from Australia (his earlobe was chewed away in a bar brawl);his wife’s real name is Fraser. He beguiles young women by playing to their religious beliefs, as Schlessinger did with Lady Frances Carfax. This suggested his true identity to Holmes. Holmes believes that Lady Frances is in London, and quite possibly dead, or if not, confined in some way.
And also like I posted above so many times already; Cornish mystery, the Curtain, the kidnapping of Prime Minister, the tragedy of Marsdon Manor, Cards on the table, King of clubs, Sad Cypress, The Hollow and many other stories and novels where there were no evidences and no clues or evidences and clues were completely destroyed-facts!As you can see it was at least one piece of hard evidence that enabled Holmes to detect and identify the true identity of Dr- Shlessinger-Henry Peters, after Holmes after he finds out that convinces Lady Frances he is a philanthropic priest helping to spread the good word in Africa and save starving children-Henry Peters beguiles young women by playing to their religious beliefs, as Schlessinger did with Lady Frances Carfax.
Holmes suspected that Dr. Shlessinger was actually Henry Peters thanks:
...to the nature of his tactics suggested his identity to me, and this physical peculiarity--he was badly bitten in a saloon-fight at Adelaide in '89--confirmed my suspicion. This poor lady is in the hands of a most infernal couple, who will stick at nothing, Watson. That she is already dead is a very likely supposition. If not, she is undoubtedly in some sort of confinement and unable to write to Miss Dobney or her other friends. It is always possible that she never reached London, or that she has passed through it, but the former is improbable, as, with their system of registration, it is not easy for foreigners to play tricks with the Continental police; and the latter is also unlikely, as these rouges could not hope to find any other place where it would be as easy to keep a person under restraint. All my instincts tell me that she is in London, but as we have at present no possible means of telling where, we can only take the obvious steps, eat our dinner, and possess our souls in patience. Later in the evening I will stroll down and have a word with friend Lestrade at Scotland Yard."
In the story "The disappearance of Lady Frances Carfax Holmes directly was saying this:
"Should you care to add the case to your annals, my dear Watson," said Holmes that evening, "it can only be as an example of that temporary eclipse to which even the best-balanced mind may be exposed. Such slips are common to all mortals, and the greatest is he who can recognize and repair them. To this modified credit I may, perhaps, make some claim. My night was haunted by the thought that somewhere a clue, a strange sentence, a curious observation, had come under my notice and had been too easily dismissed. Then, suddenly, in the gray of the morning, the words came back to me.
It was the remark of the undertaker's wife, as reported by Philip Green. She had said, 'It should be there before now. It took longer, being out of the ordinary.' It was the coffin of which she spoke. It had been out of the ordinary. That could only mean that it had been made to some special measurement. But why? Why? Then in an instant I remembered the deep sides, and the little wasted figure at the bottom. Why so large a coffin for so small a body? To leave room for another body. Both would be buried under the one certificate. It had all been so clear, if only my own sight had not been dimmed. At eight the Lady Frances would be buried. Our one chance was to stop the coffin before it left the house.
"It was a desperate chance that we might find her alive, but it WAS a chance, as the result showed. These people had never, to my knowledge, done a murder. They might shrink from actual violence at the last. The could bury her with no sign of how she met her end, and even if she were exhumed there was a chance for them. I hoped that such considerations might prevail with them. You can reconstruct the scene well enough. You saw the horrible den upstairs, where the poor lady had been kept so long. They rushed in and overpowered her with their chloroform, carried her down, poured more into the coffin to insure against her waking, and then screwed down the lid. A clever device, Watson. It is new to me in the annals of crime. If our ex-missionary friends escape the clutches of Lestrade, I shall expect to hear of some brilliant incidents in their future career."
Additional facts and 100% irrefutable evidences why Poirot can solve more crimes than Holmes brothers can.
Just deal with it once and for all these are not hypotheses these are facts that are shown in the books.
Once again, I CHALLENGE YOU TO SHOW ME and 100% PROVE ME that Holmes' psychology has ever been able to detect the criminal who committed a crime/crimes-no, Holmes has not, never, ever not even once been able to detect the criminals who have committed crimes just by reading them, and as I have shown that Poirot in these above mentioned short stories and in those novels like the Curtain for example, Poirot's psychology and intuition have actually been directly shown and 100% proven to detect all the criminals who have committed all forms of crimes that he has faced against (yes sometimes, it was with evidences and crimes, but most of the time it was without evidences and without clues like the stories and novels I mentioned above and in previous posts)-of all fictional detectives in entire detective fiction, only Mentalist-Patrick Jane has shown and 100% proven that his psychology does detect and has detected all the criminals who committed crimes-these are 100% irrefutable facts, I'm not making this up.Cheers.
reply
share
ManUtdRulz
8 years ago
Nope, still not convinced to believe otherwise.
I will revert to my earlier points that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Holmes much before Agatha Christie penned the Poirot stories. So when you mention it is not your or my fault that they were (or weren't) written like that, it inevitable circles back to my belief that since they occupied completely different realms and timeframes, comparing them is foolhardy.
As I already said, its like comparing Babe Ruth to Don Bradman. Roger Bannister to Usain Bolt. Apples to Oranges.
Go ahead and assume (or think of it as a fact!) that I'm a blind ignorant fanboy. You have done so with Poirot already so not a new thing anyway....
reply
share
ipesun-264-940574
8 years ago
Nope, still not convinced to believe otherwise.
I will revert to my earlier points that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle wrote Holmes much before Agatha Christie penned the Poirot stories. So when you mention it is not your or my fault that they were (or weren't) written like that, it inevitable circles back to my belief that since they occupied completely different realms and timeframes, comparing them is foolhardy.
THE PROBLEM WITH YOU IS THAT YOU DON'T ANALYZE THIS ENOUGH, YOU DON'T DIG EVERY SINGLE DETAIL TO THE VERY END IF YOU TRULY WANTED TO ANALYZE THIS STORY BY STORY, NOVEL BY NOVEL, YOU WOULD SEE THAT HOLMES, THANKS TO EVIDENCES AND CLUES, WOULD BE ABLE TO SOLVE MOST OF THE CRIMES POIROT HAS SOLVED, BUT HE/HOLMES WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO SOLVE CRIME CASES THAT I MENTIONED ABOVE IN THE BOOKS AS DESCRIBED AS THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES AND CLUES TO FOLLOW-THIS IS COMMON LOGIC-WHY DO YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES????
ON THE OTHER HAND, POIROT HAS PROVEN TO SOLVE MORE CRIMES AND DETECTING MORE CRIMINALS WHO COMMITTED CRIMES-EXACTLY BECAUSE OF THE FACTS THAT SOLVED CRIME CASES WHERE THERE ARE NOT EVIDENCES AND NO CLUES, OR IF THE EVIDENCES AND CLUES ARE ADJUSTED-THE PROBLEMS WITH ADJUSTED EVIDENCES ARE SOMEONE WITH HOLMES' KNOWLEDGE CAN BE EASILY FOOLED, SO EVIDENCES AND CLUES ARE HOLMES' GREATEST ADVANTAGE, BUT ALSO THE GREATEST WEAKNESS-THOSE BOOKS PUT POIROT IN THE SAME PLACE AND YET HE WAS ABLE TO SOLVE CRIME CASES, EVEN THOUGH HE TRULY DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE AND NO CLUES.
SO, PLEASE, DO THE MATH-WHO SOLVES MORE CRIMES-HOLMES WHO IS TOO DEPENDABLE ON EVIDENCES AND CLUES, AND BECAUSE OF HIS DEPENDANCE ON EVIDENCES AND CLUES WAS ACTUALLY ALMOST FOOLED SEVERAL TIMES LIKE IN ABBEY GRANGE, WAS FOOLED BY HENRY PETERS, IRENE ADLER AND SIMILAR....
OR POIROT WHO WAS SHOWN TO SOLVE CRIMES WITHOUT EVIDENCES AND WITHOUT CLUES?
JUST DO THE DAMN MATH, LOGIC AND FACTS-DO THE DAMN MATH-I TRULY DON'T KNOW, WHY DO YOU IGNORE THESE FACTS IN THE FIRST PLACE?
THE LACK OF ANALYSIS, IT DOESN'T MATTER IN WHAT TIME THEY LIVED, SINCE NOTHING WAS EVER CHANGED, IT IS ABOUT METHODS WHICH SOLVE CRIMES, AND POIROT'S METHODS, WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON EVIDENCES AND CLUES, HAVE BEEN PROVEN/SHOWN CAPABLE TO SOLVE MORE CRIMES THAN HOLMES DID.
As I already said, its like comparing Babe Ruth to Don Bradman. Roger Bannister to Usain Bolt. Apples to Oranges.
That is totally wrong approach, you cannot compare methods in solving crimes to a baseball areas-it's totally uncomparable because this is not about times when they lived, it's about their methods and the fact is methods have not been changed at all not even a bit-so wake up!!!!!It is totally irrelevant in which time Poirot and Holmes have existed, because the methods in detecting criminals have not changed not even a bit.
Heck even with today's technology you wouldn't be able to solve mysteries like curtain and Cornish mystery.
This is also about methods methods in detecting and proving the criminals did their crimes have not changed in both Poirot and Holmes times, and this is what we talk about: the methods whose methods are proven to be more successful in solving more crimes and in detecting more criminals, obviously.
Go ahead and assume (or think of it as a fact!) that I'm a blind ignorant fanboy. You have done so with Poirot already so not a new thing anyway....
I AGAIN CHALLENGE YOU ONCE AGAIN: IF HOLMES NEEDS EVIDENCES AND CLUES TO TELL HIM WHO THE CRIMINAL IS, AND POIROT DOES NOT NEED THEM, WHO DO YOU THINK WILL SOLVE MORE CRIMES-THESE ARE ALL THE FACTS I'M TALKING ABOUT-AND YOU IGNORE THEM, AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Sorry, but that's not every intelligent from your side, if you ignore these facts.
You can think whatever you want, you clearly think completely and absolutely wrong, you ignore facts, not assumptions, but facts; facts that I wrote here and above and in previous posts and the lack of analysis, and lack of logic and and not acceptance of facts and simple math, you are basically lying to yourself and to others, because you know damn well,
that someone (Poirot) who has proven and who has actually directly shown that he (Poirot) does NOT need evidences and clues to solve crime cases (this is the basic key in all of Agatha Christie's stories and novels where Poirot was involved in), will always solve more crime cases than someone (Holmes) who actually always needs evidences and clues to solve crime cases, since it has been 100% proven in all stories and in all novels that the lack or the absolute absence of evidences and clues has ALWAYS directly proven in all stories and in all novels that Holmes cannot solve any crime case-so, where exactly is the assumption in this? These are all facts shown in all the books in which Holmes has been in.So, please, wake up from your dreams and absolutely wrong conclusions, which are not based on facts, but they are based on your own totally wrong hypothesis and fiction, while at the same time you ignore objective facts, that you don't like.
I'm not subjective at all, if I have read at least one story or at least one novel where Holmes has been shown to solve crime cases like both Poirot and Jane did and where Holmes has solved crimes without evidences and without clues, than I would say they are equal or if Holmes has shown something/some abilities and ability to solve crimes superior to both Poirot and Jane, and to also solve more crimes than both Poirot and Jane, than I would say he is superior to both Jane and Poirot-but Holmes has never been able to show something like both Jane and Poirot have shown ever-Poirot has always been one step ahead of Holmes because of the fact, that he did not depend on evidences and clues like Holmes always did and always will.Curtain, Cornish mystery, the kidnapping of Prime Minister, Five little pigs, the Tragedy of Marsdon Manor, Cards on table, Sad Cypress are just one of stories/novels that have been shown that Poirot solves crimes with both psychology and intuition and does not need evidences and facts.
Just do the damn math and accept those damn facts, that you simply always refuse over and over again.
Cheers.
reply
share
ipesun-264-940574
8 years ago
Also, do the damn tests: Holmes was always able to both suspect and detect criminals only after he found some clues and some evidences, but when you have no clues and evidences you cannot suspect and detect anyone, while Poirot and Jane have both both detected and suspected everyone/all criminals, even though there were zero evidences and zero clues against all those criminals.
I again challenge you: Do you really claim that Holmes would be able to solve crime cases like Curtain and Cornish mystery and The kidnapping of Prime Minister and King of Clubs, Tragedy at Marsdon Manor, Five little pigs and etc, where Poirot himself directly admitted that he has no shred of evidence and no clues, and no facts at all against criminals in each and every single story?
Poirot has solved so many crime cases without evidences and without clues and without facts, or if there were evidences and clues and facts, they were adjusted so the real criminal stays unsuspected and gets away-Holmes has never been in this situations-the only situations he was in, he again had at least one piece of hard evidence against the real criminals-and it was only after he had-however without that one piece of hard evidence, all those criminals would get away and Holmes would not suspect anyone and Holmes would be outsmarted by these criminals-it was so close several times where Holmes was actually outsmarted!
I challenge you to answer me!
Again you cannot compare evidences and clues with baseball or with anything else, because the methods evidences and clues are not changed one bit, only technology has changed, yes, all of the crime cases that Holmes has solved would be solved as well, however all the crime cases that both Poirot and Jane have solved would not be solved at all, criminals would still get away with their crimes-and I'm talking about crime cases where there were no evidences, no clues and no facts and no connections-in the Poirot's stories and novels I have mentioned above, even with today's technology you would not be able to solve above mentioned crime cases!
Also, if everything has changed so much and if everything in Holmes, time Poirot time and in today's modern times-Mentalist's-Patrick Jane's time is so uncomparable, how the hell Jane was able to solve crime cases without using the damn, modern DNA technology and before that anything was proven or disproven and in some crime cases Jane, like Poirot did not have evidences at all and no clues at all, no facts at all no connections at all; just pure psychology and nothing more-and these are modern times-I challenge you to answer me this.
Your speculations are absolutely wrong, exactly because of Patrick Jane solving crime similar as Poirot did in his time prove that it is 100% comparable and nothing has changed! So, wake up from your dreams and speculations and accept the facts that you don't want to accept, for Pete's sake, if you don't accept facts than you could some fanatic who does not analyze and think with his head in the first place, just try to compare them-you obviously did not try to compare them at all because you are too damn lazy to do it or maybe because you are afraid since you know that what you are saying is 100% wrong!
reply
share