In the story, "The Adventure of the Speckled Band" written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes should not be found guilty for the death of Dr. Roylott. Presented throughout the story, were multiple explanations of why Sherlock Holmes was not guilty. For instance, Sherlock Holmes did not identify where Dr. Roylott was, due to the wall in between them. Additionally, while Sherlock was hitting the animal that had killed Roylott, he was striking it out of self-defense. Lastly, Dr. Roylott was intelligent enough to know not to be right next to the deadly snake when it was slithering down the wall. Therefore, Sherlock Holmes should not be guilty for the death of Dr. Roylott. In the story, Sherlock should not be guilty for Roylott’s death, because he did not acknowledge where Dr. Roylott was when he struck the snake to retreat. Sherlock had hit the snake to withdrawal without thinking…show more content… Roylott, because Dr. Roylott was an extremely intelligent man; therefore he should have known to stand away from the ventilator where the destructive snake was entering. Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson were in the bordering room to Roylott. In that room, they had been shouting from the presence of the snake. Dr. Roylott most likely should have heard the screams, since he was next–door. There could have been multiple ways for Dr. Roylott to avoid the deadly snake. For instance, he could have been on the other side of the room with the leash ready. Additionally, he could have baited the snake with the bowl of milk, and then captured it safely. The poisonous snake had hissed while it was coming back, so Roylott had a plentiful amount of time to get out of the way. Instead, Roylott had been seated on a worn down chair. He could have stood away from the chair , since the chair was placed directly below the passageway for the snake. Those are multiple ways that Dr. Roylott could have done to avoid his
