|
|
Post by Vanja on Apr 12, 2010 5:41:14 GMT -5
I was thinking and I have conjured a theory about the sugar bowl's contains.
First, in the slippery slope Olaf says that the Snicket file is the last evidence against him, so it can't be something that's against Olaf.
Second, in the slippery slope also, Lemony indirectly says that the sugar bowl contains something that proves his innocence.
Third, in the peril penultimate, Kit and Olaf mention a story about a box of poison darts, involving the Baudelaire parents getting a box of poison darts before Esme could get a hold of it.
Fourth, we know that this particular sugar bowl was a possession of Esme's and Beatrice (and Lemony) stole it from her.
Fifth, in the peril penultimate it is revealed that Olaf's parents were murdered with poison darts.
I am suggesting that the sugar bowl may contain the same poison darts, that the Baudelaire parents tried to hide from Esme.
You might ask yourself how that would prove Lemony's innocent.
To prove a murder, often is needed the murder weapon.
So I thought if the poison darts Esme was trying to hide in the sugar bowl were the murder weapon to Olaf's parents.
If the Baudelaire parents and/or Lemony were blamed for the murder of Olaf's parents, it would make sense that V.F.D. needed to get the sugar bowl, to prove their innocence.
We know that Esme was very mad about not having the sugar bowl, it would make sense that she is so angry about it if it proves that she is guilty of the murder.
Discuss.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 12, 2010 9:40:16 GMT -5
An interesting idea, but it has a couple of issues: The first is that I'm not entirely clear on how merely producing the murder weapon exonerates anyone. Secondly, I think most of us are of the opinion that the Baudelaire parents really are guilty of the murder of Olaf's parents. I'm not sure what Esmé's motive would be.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 12, 2010 10:00:51 GMT -5
An interesting idea, but it has a couple of issues: The first is that I'm not entirely clear on how merely producing the murder weapon exonerates anyone. Well, they might have the real killer's fingerprints on them, for instance. Yes, we are - though I still think the killing may have been accidental, in line with TPP itself and with La Forza del Destino - but certainly it's generally accepted they brought about the death in some way. But now I'm wondering why. Kit tells the Baudelaires about a night at the opera when she gave their parents some poison darts. Olaf says 'Wait till I tell you a story about your parents and some poison darts'. Later he says, and Dewey confirms, that the weapon that left him an orphan was poison (or poyzon) darts. Possibly this doesn't prove that the Baudelaire parents were guilty, only that Olaf thought, or wanted it to be thought, that they were. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 12, 2010 10:28:44 GMT -5
Well, they might have the real killer's fingerprints on them, for instance. I'm aware of options like this, but it doesn't really narrow it down any. Those fingerprints could've gotten there in any way - for example, by Esmé trying to get the poison darts away from the Baudelaire parents so they couldn't use them for murder. It's also best not to take too many steps away from what evidence we have in canon. The presence of poison darts is unquestioned. Fingerprint evidence, on the other hand, I don't recall ever being mentioned in the series. Recall also that, when Olaf suggested the Baudelaires ask Dewey the story of the poison darts, Dewey blushed. Bit of an under-reaction, but it demonstrates that whatever happened with the poison darts is something he's not proud of - something he'd prefer the Baudelaires not know. The evidence against the Baudelaire parents may be circumstantial - but it's the only evidence we have of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on Apr 12, 2010 15:42:41 GMT -5
There's strong evidence the Baudelaire parents murdered Olaf's. I don't recall another instance in which they did anything we might classify as "evil," but the one we do know about is is needed to show that Beatrice and Bertrand (and maybe Lemony) aren't good through and through (though there are surely other, off-screen incidents).
Also, I think the vitally important reputation of the sugar bowl would be something more than proving two (or three) people's innocence. V.F.D. doesn't have public trials. Even if their innocence is proved, bringing it to all of V.F.D. might prove quite a task, and with what outcome? Olaf wouldn't become "good" because of it. The Baudelaire parents are dead, so it certainly won't do them any good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vanja on Apr 13, 2010 8:17:31 GMT -5
But what if instead of proving Esme's guilty it proves that the Baudelaire parents are guilty and Lemony is innocent?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Apr 13, 2010 8:45:00 GMT -5
I don't know if that really helps. The crimes we've heard that Lemony is accused of are all arsons.
Edit: Although I do suddenly rather like the idea that the item that both sides of the schism are looking for actually indicts members of the supposedly good side - but it wouldn't really resolve anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vanja on Apr 13, 2010 9:10:09 GMT -5
Yes, all as you suggested it would be rather unexpected if the sugar bowl's contains would discriminate someone of both sides of the schism but rather realistic.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Apr 13, 2010 11:56:23 GMT -5
Recall also that, when Olaf suggested the Baudelaires ask Dewey the story of the poison darts, Dewey blushed. Bit of an under-reaction, but it demonstrates that whatever happened with the poison darts is something he's not proud of - something he'd prefer the Baudelaires not know. The evidence against the Baudelaire parents may be circumstantial - but it's the only evidence we have of anything. True. If this were a detective story, it's quite likely that this would all be building up a case against the Baudelaires that was to be proven wrong at the last moment - that Dewey blushed would just show that he, too, thought they were guilty. However, it isn't a detective story, and we never get a further revelation, so I think we should accept this evidence at face value. (I still think this is compatible with the death being accidental; given the way morality works in the Snicketverse this would still be seen as a source of guilt.) Also, I think the vitally important reputation of the sugar bowl would be something more than proving two (or three) people's innocence. The real problem is fitting together what it says in TGG and TPP - that the SB is something vital to the whole of VFD - with what it says in TSS - i.e., apparently, that it contains something that will prove Lemony's innocence (and, so far as we can see, no one else's). What Esme says about it doesn't make it sound like evidence at all - and in any case, implies that everyone in VFD has known about it for a long time, while what Lemony says in TSS suggests he has only just noticed its significance. I'm not sure one can find a solution which fits everything. |
|
bumblebee
Catastrophic Captain
The world is quiet here
Posts: 52
|
Post by bumblebee on Apr 20, 2010 2:26:30 GMT -5
I'm not sure about the whole poison darts theory, although I respect your views. To me it seems that in the sugar bowl there might be a document of some sort, which might be for example a police report on a crime that was caused by Lemony, but by the public it was seen as if it wasn't. But on the other hand it wouldn't fit with what Vanja stated in the first post. I do recall a document being mentioned in TSS, when Olaf is talking with the Woman and the Man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 22, 2012 4:04:15 GMT -5
I was thinking that perhaps Esme committed the murder of Olaf's parents, but loved Olaf, and didn't want him to find out. This would fit if Lemony and Beatrice only told V.F.D that the evidence could acquit Lemony and respected Esme enough not to tell them about it. Maybe it was Esme who burnt down the Baudelaire Mansion so as to stop her from informing Olaf of her treachery. Your post has made me think that this might be one possibility, but (as we all know) the real solution will most likely be much more convoluted and succinct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on May 22, 2012 5:46:23 GMT -5
That's an interesting theory, Charles, but I'm not sure why Lemony, Beatrice, and Bertrand would want to let Olaf believe that they were guilty and let Esmé off the hook for her crime. I'm not sure what possible motive they would have for doing that - given that it led all of them to be destroyed one way or another, while Esmé got everything she ever wanted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Charlie on May 25, 2012 22:35:06 GMT -5
Esmé could have been on the good side of the schism, (having apparently been a friend of Mrs. Widdershins) committed the murder, defected and blamed Lemony, Bertrand, and Beatrice for it when asked by Olaf. Maybe then Esme burnt down the Baudelaire mansion not just to destroy Beatrice and Bertrand, but also to endear herself to Olaf.
|
|
|
|
Post by Christmas Chief on May 26, 2012 7:42:18 GMT -5
That all works in theory. The only issue is we have no evidence as to why Esmé would want to kill Olaf's parents in the first place. Certainly, we can speculate, but without some indication in the text why not the Baudelaire parents? It's one of the few - perhaps the only - instance(s) we have of their treachery.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew lisa on Jul 27, 2012 4:28:17 GMT -5
These are all the things told by third person and we are not aware of any true facts so we need to first search for the facts.
|
|
