Examine the characters of Mrs Maloney in ‘Lamb to the slaughter’ and Roylott in ‘The Speckled Band’, both are clever about the way they hide the evidence of their crimes. Why does Mrs Maloney get away with it while Roylott doesn’t

Upon hearing the news from her husband, the reader can detect instantly the point at which Mrs Maloney becomes slightly unhinged " a kind of dazed horror as he went further, and further away from her with each word". During this portion of the story, it's as though Mrs Maloney is capable of anything, including the murder of her husband, as each word he says brings her further and further away from reality. Only the reader is aware of the fact that Mrs Maloney is the culprit, which adds to the suspense later on in the text when the detectives arrive, as by this time Mary Maloney has effectively 'snapped out' of her daze. Before Mrs Maloney struck her husband, but after she'd been told the news, the reader can still see the love she has for Patrick (her husband). She is in an uncontrollable daze, acting out of anger, hurt and a whole mirage of emotions " Everything was automatic now". This quote conveys the tranced way in which Mrs Maloney was acting, it's almost as if she wasn't responsible for what she was doing.

It is after she has killed Patrick that the reader can see the cold and calculating image emerge through her previously generous and loving one. " The violence of the crash, the noise, the small table overturning (when Mr Maloney fell), helped bring her out of her shock". After this point Mrs Maloney no longer upholds the perfect wife persona, the killing of her husband consequently leads her to try and cover her tracks which makes her appear overly calculating.

After the murder of Mr Maloney, Mary Maloney does not immediately display or express any signs of regret or guilt. An admission of regret would have led her to call an ambulance or someone who could help, she did neither of these things. As soon as she had realised the results of her actions her thoughts were "so I've killed him". She now portrays the side she feels is necessary to get herself out of the situation as it was very typical in those days for the penalty of murder to be death. Mary Maloney thought it essential to be somewhat cautious, this is why she practised her faces and her voice until they sounded normal. I also believe that Mrs Maloney acted out of fear for her child. Being a police detective's wife, she would have been very aware of all the procedures and sentences for crimes such as the one she'd committed. After practising her faces and voice, she then goes to the grocery store and effectively fools the grocer into becoming her alibi.

In the Speckled Band, the character Roylott completely fulfils the stereotypical villain, which is where the stories differ. Roylott was a violent eccentric man whose actions and words upon meeting Watson and Holmes made him the prime suspect in the mystery. It is from the brief encounter between the three men, that the reader can gather his/her own ideas concerning Roylott's involvement in the crime. In the Speckled Band Roylott is described as 'Huge, tall, large faced, with deepset bile shot eyes' etc. Upon entering the office he did not knock but 'dashed open' the door. Here, we get the sense that he is quite a blunt and aggressive character as it is traditional, to knock before entering, this is the first time the reader is able to look into the mannerisms of his character. After declaring (literally) his name, he says, " My stepdaughter has been here I have traced her. What has she been saying?" Roylott has a very dominant tone within his speech. His conversational tone conveys to the reader, that he believes he is better than the person he is talking to. When Roylott doesn't acquire the information he is seeking he 'screams furiously' repeating the question. It was at this point that I as the reader became certain of his involvement in the mystery. Everything that Roylott threatened after this just added to my certainty of his either partial, or complete involvement in the crime. " Don't you dare to meddle with my affairs...I am a dangerous man to fall foul of, see that you keep yourself out of my grip", he snarled. As mentioned before, it is from this brief encounter that Roylott has managed to escalate himself to the top of the suspect list. This is purely because anyone, who had nothing to hide, would not have acted in such a threatening manner, and would be only too happy to have a case such as this, solved (the death of his stepchild).

Doyle uses very threatening language whenever Roylott is around, this is to add to the villainous character that he upholds. Doyle's use of descriptive language also helps to reader to gather a picture of Roylott, as he gives very shady and distinctive description.

Both Mary Maloney and Roylott hide their evidence very cunningly. However it is my belief that Roylott tried to be overly cunning within his task whereas Mrs Maloney's efforts in getting rid of her evidence were simple but effective. She was able to use her state to emotionally blackmail the detectives into eating the lamb. In doing so, the detectives subconsciously take the suspicion away from Mrs Maloney and the evidence from themselves. Roylott's downfall came, because his plan was not as foolproof, as he believed. There were too many aspects he had not covered which were of great significance and were later on picked up by Holmes. For example: The ventilator between the two rooms (that did not ventilate), the dummy bell pull, and the fact that Julia's bed was bolted firmly to the floor. There was also the fact that Roylott's chair had been frequently stood on (he did stand on it when he was trying to put the snake in the ventilator, so it would go into Julia's room). Little things like these were big leads for Holmes and aroused great suspicion that led to the uncovering of the mystery.

The reason that Mrs Maloney was able to get away with murder whilst Roylott wasn't, purely came down to the complete lack of professionalism concerning the detectives looking into Mary Maloney's case. They did not interrogate her (a usual and practised police procedure). They treated her kindly with regards to the situation, but to the extent that they were unable to conduct the investigation objectively. Because the detectives knew Mary Maloney, they became complacent and allowed themselves to become emotionally involved with the case. "Have some whisky", Mrs Maloney said, and the reply was, "It's not strictly allowed but I might just take a drop to keep me going". 'One by one the others came in and were persuaded to take a little nip of whiskey'. Because of her emotional state, she was able to manipulate an unprofessional response from the detectives. Once she realised she had this power, Mary Maloney took advantage, and convinced them to consume the evidence (the lamb).

Roylott had the absolute misfortune of having Holmes investigate his case. Unlike the detectives in 'Lamb To The Slaughter', Holmes was thorough, observant and completely professional. We first see this when Holmes makes some precise and accurate statements about Miss Stoner's journey, purely from minor observations made by himself. The reader can also see the great speed at which Holmes able to respond to any information given to him, for example; When Holmes read the will of Roylott's deceased wife, he was able, almost instantly to see the connection between, the inheritance for the children (in the case of marriage) and the little sum of money left over for Roylott, (giving him motive to kill). This gave Holmes reason to believe that Roylott held the strongest motive.

Holmes was so professional in his approach, that by the time he had examined both of the rooms in question (the one in which Julia died, and Roylott's) he had already concluded the events of the crime in his mind, all he had to do was prove his theory correct. When the mystery had finally been solved, Holmes explained the order of events to Watson, being sure to add every little detail and noise that may have been heard. Holmes' accuracy and precision were vital qualities that helped throughout the duration of the investigation. When summarising how the murder was committed, he admitted, "I had come to these conclusions before I had ever entered Roylott's room".

The main points of my essay try to emphasise the complete lack of professionalism displayed by the detectives in 'Lamb to the slaughter' which led to the excusing of Mary Maloney. As a woman Mrs Maloney was able to manipulate the detectives to her advantage. Roylott however, being a man and a stereotypical villain was unable, in his conduct (confrontational, threatening etc), to detract suspicion from himself. He also found himself faced with one of the best detectives. I believe if Holmes had take n Mrs Maloney's case, he would have interrogated her to the point that she herself, told him, how, where and with what she murdered her husband.