When we read ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ and studied the detectives in it that we found that they were very unlike Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. Detective Noonan is from the regular police force and comes to the crimes scene and doesn’t investigate every possible suspect because he doesn’t interrogate Mrs Maloney and therefore does not come across as a very good policeman who suspects everybody unlike Sherlock Holmes. Detective Noonan also doesn’t come across as professional as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. You can tell this because Noonan excepts some whisky which is very wrong because if he had been found out he would most likely been fired. Noonan also has some food, which is also wrong and it is also the murder weapon so there would be no chance of finding out that Mrs Maloney killed her husband.
The detective come across as being gullible because it doesn’t take much questioning for the detective to believe Mrs Maloney that she didn’t kill her husband, which again shows that Noonan isn’t very intelligent. Also it doesn’t take much questioning to the green grocer to rule Mrs Maloney out. The detective was only at the green grocers for fifteen minutes and that was it.
‘In fifteen minutes he was back with a page full of notes.’
Detective Noonan was exceptionally nice to Mrs Maloney, which show yet again that they are not very broadminded and don’t suspect everyone. The police should fully investigate Mrs Maloney.
Sherlock Holmes is very polite towards people who ever they are. Detective Noonan doesn’t come across as being very polite because he belches when he is eating the leg of lamb, which is very rude and impolite, Holmes, would never do this.
There is another detective in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ named Detective O’Malley. This detective is not much different to Detective Noonan and totally different as Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson. He also doesn’t come across as very intellectual, unlike Holmes. You know this because he eats the murder weapon and is saying that he thinks the murder weapon is right under their noses, which it is. He also doesn’t appear to be professional at his job because he also eats the murder weapon and he drinks the whiskey. He is also exceptionally nice to Mrs Maloney, which means that he also isn’t inspecting every angle of the case.
There are more detectives on the case in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ than in ‘The speckled band’ which is an advantage. They have a photographer and forensics to help the case. They could get time of death what instrument killed Patrick and so on, this would have helped to solve the case but they didn’t. Sherlock Holmes didn’t have any of these but still managed to solve the case. This shows that the detectives are no where near as clever as Holmes and Watson.
When we looked at each storey we studied the crime and the motive in each story and compared them to each other, we found that the crimes and motive were very unfamiliar whereas in each story there was a murder involved.
In ‘The speckled band’ the murder was very carefully planned, an air vent was installed so the snake could pass through into the next room from Dr Roylotts room. Bell pull was put in next to the vent so that the snake could climb down onto the bed where Julia was sleeping. The bed was clamped down to the floor so the girl was unable to move the bed away from the vent and bell pull.
‘The bed was clamped to the floor… the rope was there as a bridge for something passing through the hole, and coming onto the bed.’
There was no way in which the girl could prevent her death unless she moved rooms. There was also a saucer of milk in Dr Roylotts room to lure the snake back. The poison in the snake would not show up on any tests so the death could not be linked to the snake so no one would suspect the doctor. The crime was so well done that no one suspected Dr Roylott and nothing was said for years until Helen began to hear the same whistling sound and clanging sound as Julia.
This crime was no where as neat the same as the murder in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ because the murder was not planned whereas in ‘the speckled band’ it was. The murder was out of jealousy and madness. It was out of jealousy because Mrs Maloney couldn’t face her husband with another woman because she loved him so much. It was out of madness because she couldn’t believe that he was leaving her after what she has done for him. The murder in ‘The speckled band’ was out of greed for money, which I will describe later. Mrs Maloney didn’t mean to kill him she was just so mad and confused she just hit him with what she had in her hand. Mrs Maloney was also quite clever at covering up the crime because she put the murder weapon in the oven and cooked it and made the policemen eat it. She also went out to the grocers and acted very cheerful and told the grocer that she wanted to treat him and cook him a nice tea and pamper him because he was tired.
‘She heard a few of the whispered phrases – “…acted quit normal…very cheerful…wanted to give him a good supper…peas…cheesecake…impossible that she…”
Mrs Maloney also told herself that when she set off from her house Patrick was alive and when she got back and found him dead that it would be a great shock to her so that she wouldn’t have to fake her emotions. Mrs Maloney was very good at covering up the murder, acting very shocked and using the grocer as an alibi. This is similar to ‘The speckled band’ because both murders were cleverly covered up.
When we studied the crimes we looked at why the murders would kill those people and we found out some motive of why they killed them. Once we had done this we compared them.
In ‘The speckled band’ Dr Roylott had an obvious motive, money. Money linked to inheritance. Julia, the girl who was murdered was due some money so if she died it would go to Dr Grimsby Roylott. Helen was also due some money linked to inheritance and again it would go to Dr Roylott if she died. His motive was money and greed. Julia was a typical victim as Dr Roylott was a typical villain. Julia was a young woman, innocent and venerable. Dr Roylott was a typical villain because he was violent, aggressive and had a previous record.
“What has she been saying to you?” screamed the old man furiously.
The doctor had a very unusual method of murder, snake, whereas in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ it was not as unusual.
In ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ the motive was Mrs Maloney’s husband was leaving her for another woman. Mrs Maloney was confused, jealous and angry. Mrs Maloney was and unusual victim because she was pregnant, the wife of a policeman very happy to be married to Patrick. The murder was impulsive and it maybe was manslaughter.
When we had looked at the crimes and motives we then looked at the clues and red herrings which were given throughout the two stories. In ‘The speckled band’ quite a lot of clues and red herrings are given. For instance when Helen Stoner came to Sherlock she describes that Julia was complaining of whistling and metal clanging sounds in the last few nights that she was alive. Also when Helen was forced to sleep in the room where Julia died she heard the whistling and clanging of metal sounds.
‘“Tell me, Helen,” said Julia, ‘have you ever heard anyone whistle in the dead of the night?’
This shows that the whistling sounds and the metal clanging sounds are linked to Julia’s death. Some more clues, which were linked to Julia’s death was the vent which didn’t leave outside it lead straight through to Dr Roylotts room. There was also a bell pull, which lead to no bell. The bell pull ran straight down to the bed, which was clamped to the floor. Helen also described that Julia always locked her door every night because the doctor kept a cheetah and a baboon. There was also bars in the chimney so no one could come down from the roof and the windows were very small and had shutters on which could not be forced open from the outside.
‘After a careful examination through the window, endeavoured in every way to force the shutter open, without success.’
Another clue given to you in ‘The speckled band’ was that when Julia was found she was holding a match, which had been lit, in one hand and in the other hand she held a matchbox. Also just before she passed away she said,
“O, my God! Helen! It was the band! The speckled band!”
She pointed in the direction of the Doctors room after she said this.
When Holmes was examining Dr Roylotts room he noticed that he kept a large metal safe, a saucer of milk on top it and on the wall a dog lash. All these were very peculiar.
‘A large iron safe was the principle thing that met the eye… He took up a small saucer of milk which stood on top of it… the object which had caught his eye was a small dog lash hung on the corner of the bed.’
There are not just clues in ‘The speckled band’ there are red herrings, things which send you in the wrong direction of solving the case. For instance a red herring in ‘The speckled band’ are the peculiar pets which the doctor keeps, the cheetah and baboon. Another red herring is the gypsies, which camp on the Stoke Moran property. When Julia say that it was the speckled band Helen told Holmes that the gypsies wear head bands which are speckled so Holmes thinks that the gypsies have something to do with the death of Julia. This again is leading Holmes and Watson off the case.
We then compared ‘The speckled band’ clues and red herring with the ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ clues and red herrings we found that they were very different. There were very little clues and red herrings in the story because the murder was unplanned and the story is a short one. Although there was some clues and red herrings within the story. The leg of lamb was the murder weapon but the police failed to notice this whereas Holmes found every clue there was in ‘The speckled band.’ Already there are differences between the stories because the police didn’t find any of the clues linked to Jack Maloney’s death whereas Holmes found them all. As I said there were very little clues but there are quite a few red herrings, as there was in 'The speckled band.’
A red herring in the ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ was that when Mrs Maloney went to the groceries acting very cheerful and happy as if there was nothing wrong. This is leading the police off from blaming Mrs Maloney for Patrick’s murder because she wouldn’t be acting cheerful if she had just killed her husband. Mrs Maloney uses the grocers for an alibi, which suddenly throws the blame off her. Another red herring is the way Mrs Maloney acts in front of the police. When she was talking to the police she put on innocent eyes and an innocent face and tilted her head, which gave the impression that, she would never hurt anyone let alone her husband.
‘She looked at him with large, dark, tearful eyes.’
A red herring for the police, which again showed that Mrs Maloney could never kill Patrick, was the fact that she was pregnant and they were about to have a baby together so why would she ant to kill Patrick? Mrs Maloney is always leading the blame of herself. This is totally different to ‘The speckled band because Dr Roylott comes to visit Holmes and is aggressive, violent and out of control which is making Holmes, Watson and the reader that he is capable of killing someone. In the ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ it is doing exactly the opposite and making the police and the reader think that is wouldn’t be able to do such a thing. Another occasion where she is leading the police away from her is when she says ‘I hope you catch him.’ Again it’s putting the blame on to a totally different person.
“I hope you catch him.”
After we had looked at the clues and red herrings in both stories in great detail we began to compare the different methods of investigation in both stories.
When we looked at ‘The speckled band’ I noticed that Holmes was very observant in his investigations. Holmes examines every minor detail with great care and does it more than once. He doesn’t have any scientific equipment all he has is a magnify glass. Holmes makes all the decisions whereas Watson follows him and does as he says. Sherlock suspects everyone and everything and relies on his instinct, all this brings him closer to the villain. For example, when he is looking at the Stoke Moran place he looks in great detail at everything especially Dr Roylotts room and that brings him to the conclusion that the doctor is involved, the iron safe, the milk, the dog lash and the chair with foot prints on.
When he talks to Helen he makes her go over the story a few times and asks her questions on it and he makes sure he has got the full story and got it correct. Holmes has solved many cases even though he has little technology, he has solved over seventy cases. Sherlock uses methods of deduction like I have mentioned, milk, lash, vent, and bell rope and so on.
Sherlock discovers motive and method using precise investigation. Holmes causes the murders death by setting the snake back to the doctor’s room after it has been hit. Dr Roylott is killed and punished and Holmes has saved Helen Stoner, Holmes has saved the day and everyone is happy.
After we has examined ‘The speckled band’ we looked at the methods of investigation in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ they were quite the opposite. In ‘The speckled band’ Holmes only had himself and a magnify glass whereas in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ the police force had forensic scientists, photographers and a lot of men to help with the murder.
‘First a doctor, then two detectives. Later, a police photographer arrived and took pictures, and a man who knew about fingerprints.’
In this way they could get time of death, have more accurate tests and they could do a post-mortem. ‘The speckled band’ and ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ did have a similarity because both detectives searched the house for clues but in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ they we unsuccessful unlike Sherlock Holmes. The police force did not really investigate Mrs Maloney, which isn’t very professional. In ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ the police questioned more people than just Mrs Maloney, for example, the green grocer. In ‘The speckled band’ Holmes didn’t ask anyone else and managed to solve the case but the police in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ didn’t find the murderer. In ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ the police get to examine the body and don’t solve the case whereas Holmes doesn’t get that opportunity but still solves the case. The police take some alcoholic drink from Mrs Maloney and then eat the murder weapon. This is very wrong and very unprofessional, and once they have eaten the meat, (murder weapon), they have no chance of solving the case. Holmes and Watson would never do this and they are very professional and take their job very serious. At the end of ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ the police do not find the murder weapon when it is right under their noses and Holmes finds out what has killed Julia and he didn’t know what he was looking for. When Holmes was investigating there was a lot of red herrings for him. In ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ there are few and they know what kind of instrument killed Patrick.
‘Her husband, he told her, had been killed by a blow on the back of the head administered with a heavy blunt instrument.’
If Sherlock Holmes were on Detective Maloneys case he probably would have solved the case because he would look very carefully at the evidence and observe every minor detail. Holmes would have carefully observed Mrs Maloneys actions and mood like he did in ‘The speckled band’ with Helen Stoner. Also Holmes would have never eaten or drank anything. It might have taken Holmes and Watson longer but I think he would have solved the case in the end.
The two stories, ‘The speckled band’ and ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ have totally different settings. In ‘The speckled band’ it is set in the nineteenth century and Helen, Julia and Dr Roylott live in a large house isolated in the countryside. Helen, Julia and the Doctor each have there separate rooms. They are of the upper class. You can tell this because the house is very large and you can even tell by the name, Stoke Moran.
“I am Dr Grimsby Roylott, of Stoke Moran.”
Only three people lived in the house before Julia died. Although Dr Roylott was of the upper class he didn’t have a lot of money, which is the main reason why he murdered Julia and tried to murder Helen.
Because it was set in the nineteenth century the transports was much different too nowadays because a car was not a popular as they are today. People had to travel by train and dogcart, which are much slower, compared to the transport in the twentieth century.
You could tell that Dr Roylott was of the upper class because of the way he dressed.
‘He costume was a peculiar mixture of the professional and agricultural, having a black top hat, a long frock-coat, and a pair of high gaiters, with a hunting crop swinging in his hand.’
As you can see from this quote he dressed professionally but how he wanted. Only the high class would dress to this standard.
Dr Roylott, Helen and Julia were not very sociable. You know this because in the story they live in an isolated place, in the country, and nobody likes to get into Dr Roylott way because he is a fierce man and a violent one. You know that the doctor is a violent man because he has a past record of throwing a blacksmith into a stream.
“Last week he hurled the local blacksmith over a parapet into a stream.”
We then looked at the settings, location and the social conditions in ‘Lamb to the slaughter.’ We found that it was much different to ‘The speckled band’ mostly because it was set in a different time to ‘The speckled band. Whereas in ‘The speckled band’ it was set in the nineteenth century, ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ was set in the twentieth century, and the family was a middle class. You knew this because they lived in a normal sized house in a normal neighbourhood with a local green grocer and Patrick Maloney was a police detective.
Mr and Mrs Maloney would have shared their own room whereas in ‘The speckled band’ each person had their separate room. Although the Maloney’s are middle class they still had a bit of money. You can tell this because they go out every Thursday and they have plenty of food in the house, also Patrick drinks whiskey, which is quite expensive.
“If you’re too tired to eat out,’ she went on, ‘its still not too late. There is plenty of meat and stuff in the freezer.”
Dr Roylott is very clever because he knows how to hide the evidence from linking him to Julia’s death but Jack is also clever as he is a detective and has been for some years. Mr and Mrs Maloney are very sociable people because they are known throughout the neighbourhood. The local green grocer, Sam, knows them.
“Hullo Sam,” she said brightly, smiling at the man behind the counter.
You also know that they are very sociable because when Mrs Maloney has murdered Patrick and the police men come she knows them and they treat her really nice because they know each other. This is nothing like ‘The speckled band because Dr Roylott is very unsociable.
Patrick Maloney is smartly dressed because of his job, he dresses in a suit which was smart for when the story is set. You don’t know how Mrs Maloney is dressed because it doesn’t describe her but I expect she would be dressed quite smartly. This is a similarity to ‘The speckled band’ because all the characters are dressed smartly.
There was a lot of suspense in ‘The speckled band’ all the way the story. The first dose of major suspense is when Helen stoner has only just left Holmes place after telling about Dr Roylott and Julia’s death and the doctor walks in furiously. He bursts in the door uninvited and starts to bellow at Holmes asking about what Helen has been telling him. Holmes just keeps cool and laughs at him when he is calling him. There is suspense here because Dr Roylott is being very violent and aggressive and you don’t know what he is going to do. You are asking yourself is going to hit Sherlock Holmes with his hunting crop? You don’t know what he is going to do so while you reading the story you are on the edge of your seat.
“What has she been saying to you?” screamed the old man furiously.
“Ha you put me off, do you?” said our new visitor, taking a step forward, and shaking his hunting crop. “I know you scoundrel! I have heard of you before. You are Holmes the meddler.”
My friend smiled.
This is a very tense section of the story because you just don’t have a clue what he is going to do.
Holmes does not let this run with Dr Roylott scare him off the case. He carries on and he goes over to the Roylott place and examines it. They do not have a lot of time because Dr Roylott might come back at any moment and they have already run into each other once before. This adds to the suspense of the story. At the end of the story just before he solves the case they see something on the way over to Stoke Moran. Dr Watson sees as what he describes as a hideous and distorted child that threw itself on the grass with writhing limbs, it was a baboon. This is a suspense moment because this abnormal creature what looks like a child jumps out of some bushes and throws itself into the grass. You don’t know what it is and it scares you. Holmes realises that it is a baboon and then remembers that the doctor also keeps a cheetah and they are expecting they are going to get jumped by a cheetah. This is a very tense moment because again you don’t know what is going to happen and again you asking yourself questions. What is going to happen? Will the cheetah jump on them?
“I have forgotten the strange pets which the Doctor affected. There was a cheetah, too; perhaps we might find it upon our shoulders at any moment.”
The cheetah doesn’t jump on them and they get to Stoke Moran. When they are in the room where Julia died they are waiting in total darkness with Watson’s pistol ready on the table next to him. Holmes then says:
“Do not go to sleep; your very life may depend upon it. Have your pistol ready in case we should need it.”
This is a suspense part of the story. The reader knows that something bad is going to happen but you just don’t know what. Holmes and Watson see a light coming through the vent from Dr Roylotts room. They then hear a hissing and suddenly Holmes reacts and strikes something. You don’t know what because Dr Watson is telling the story and when they turn on the light Watson is blinded by the sudden change from dark to light so you don’t know what it is. There is suspense because you don’t know what is going to happen and you don’t even know what has happened. This is the most suspense moment of the story. When they find out what has happened the suspense suddenly drops and it is all calm because Dr Roylott is dead and the case is solved and its all over.
There is also suspense building when Helen Stoner comes to visit Holmes and is telling him about the Julia’s death. There is suspense when she says that it is not the cold which makes her shiver, it is fear.
“It is not the cold which makes me shiver,” said the woman in a low voice, changing her seat as requested. “It is fear, Mr Holmes. It is terror.”
There is also suspense when she is telling Holmes what Julia’s last word was. It scares the reader because it makes you think that she has just died of pure shock and terror and what ever the speckled band is it must be extremely scary.
We then compared the suspense in ‘The speckled band’ to the suspense in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ and we found that was not as much but still some.
There was suspense when Patrick comes in and says he has something to tell Mrs Maloney. It suddenly comes from all calm when Mrs Maloney can’t wait for Patrick to come back and then it suddenly rises to suspense. This time you know that Patrick has to tell her something bad to tell her because he is having a second whiskey, which is much stronger than his first. He also downed both whiskeys in one.
“He lifted his glass and drained it in one swallow although there was still half left.”
“When he came back, she noticed that the new drink was dark amber with the quantity of whiskey in it”
You can also tell that he is going to tell her bad news because he has a bad temper on him and he keeps lashing out at her, he keeps on telling her to sit down and that he doesn’t ant any tea.
“Go on,” he said. “Sit down.”
“For God’s sake,” he said, “Don’t make supper for me. I’m going out.”
Just before he is about to tell her what wrong his eye starts to twitch. This creates suspense because you can see that Patrick is nervous. He is scared about what he is about to tell her.
“She noticed there was a little muscle moving near the corner of his left eye.”
The author, Roald Dahl, creates suspense by the way that he describes Patrick’s face being in a shadow beside the lamp.
“So that the light from the lamp beside him fell across the upper part of his face, leaving the chin and mouth in shadow.”
After Mrs Maloney has murdered Patrick there is always the suspense of whether she is going to get caught or not. Throughout the story the police are constantly asking Mrs Maloney questions, which is creating suspense. The police investigation is always creating suspense, some places more than other. Mrs Maloney knows that she won’t get caught because of her alibi, Sam the grocer.
At the end of the story there is some irony and a twist. The police are saying that they think the murder weapon is right under their nose when they are eating up the lamb, which has actual kill Patrick. This is irony. This irony is quite funny because it make you laugh because Mrs Maloney is in the front room listening to the policemen talk and she hears them say it and she has a little giggle to herself. This makes the reader laugh. Its not just irony its called black irony.
In conclusion there are many differences and similarities between ‘The speckled band’ and Lamb to the slaughter.’ I have compared and contrasted the different ways the detectives acted. What crime the villain committed and why. The clues and red herrings in the two stories, which the villains had shown and had used in the murders. The different type of methods of investigation the detective undertook. Each stories settings, location and social conditions. Finally I have compared the different ways the stories created suspense.