Hello everyone and welcome to your lesson on collecting evidence in the case of The Speckled Band.

I'm Miss Sutherland and I'll be teaching you today.

Our learning outcome for today is to able to make a plausible argument using relevant evidence from the text.

We'll be using relevant evidence from the story of The Speckled Band to make an argument about who may have been involved in Julia Stoner's death.

And our key words for today are, sinister, if something is sinister, it is evil or harmful.

Plausible, a plausible explanation for something is a likely or fair reason for something.

Suspect, a suspect is a person thought to be guilty of a crime.

Motive, a motive is a reason for doing something.

And guilty, a guilty person is a person that is responsible for a wrongdoing.

In today's lesson we're going to start off by considering the evidence that surrounds Julia Stoner's death.

We're then going to use all of that evidence to construct an argument about who may have been involved in her death.

So let's begin with weighing the evidence.

We're going to read Sherlock Holmes' reflections on Helen Stoner's account of her sister's death, so we're gonna find out what Holmes is thinking right now and who he thinks may be involved or what clues he thinks are relevant.

So let's read.

There was a long silence, during which Holmes leaned his chin upon his hands and stared into the crackling fire.

This is a very deep business, he said at last.

There are a thousand details which I should desire to know before I decide upon our course of action.

Yet we have not a moment to lose.

If we were to come to Stoke Moran today, would it be possible for us to see over these rooms without the knowledge of your stepfather? As it happens, he spoke of coming into town today upon some important business.

It is probable that he will be away all day and that there would be nothing to disturb you.

We have a housekeeper now, but she is old and foolish, and I could easily get her out of the way.

Excellent.

You are not averse to this trip, Watson? By no means.

Then we will both come.

What are you going to do yourself? I have one or two things which I should wish to do now that I am in town.

But I shall return by the 12 O'clock train, so as to be there in time for your coming.

And you may expect us early in the afternoon.

I have myself some small business matters to attend to.

Will you not wait and breakfast? No, I must go.

My heart is lightened already since I have confided my trouble to you.

I shall look forward to seeing you again this afternoon.

She dropped her thick black veil over her face and glided from the room.

Consider this question, what is Holmes planning to do later that day? Pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said Sherlock Holmes is planning to visit Stoke Moran, where Helen and her stepfather live, to look over the rooms. He is not planning to confront Dr Roylott, in fact he actually doesn't want Dr Roylott to be there at all when he visits, and he's not said anything about the autopsy report for Julia Stoner.

Well done if you said Sherlock Holmes is planning to visit Stoke Moran to look over the rooms just after meeting Helen.

Let's continue reading.

And what do you think of it all, Watson? Asked Sherlock Holmes, leaning back in his chair.

It seems to me to be a most dark and sinister business.

Dark enough and sinister enough.

Yet, if the lady is correct in saying that the flooring and walls are sound, and that the door, window, and chimney are impassible, then her sister must have been undoubtedly alone when she met her mysterious end.

What becomes, then, of these nocturnal whistles, and what of the very peculiar words of the dying woman? I cannot think.

Answer this question, what could be implied when Holmes remarks that the death of Julia is dark and sinister? Pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said that when Holmes and Watson remark that the death of Julia is dark and sinister it could be implied that someone had wicked intent to kill her, because remember sinister means evil.

Let's continue reading.

When you combine the ideas of whistles at night, the presence of a band of gipsies who are on intimate terms with this old doctor, the fact that we have every reason to believe that the doctor has an interest in preventing his stepdaughter's marriage, the dying allusion to a band, and finally, the fact that Miss Helen Stoner heard a metallic clang, which might have been caused by one of those metal bars that secured the shutters falling back into its place, I think that there is good ground to think that the mystery may be cleared along those lines.

But what then, did the gipsies do? I cannot imagine.

I see many objections to any such theory.

And so do I.

It is precisely for that reason that we are going to Stoke Moran this day.

Answer this question to show your understanding of the text.

Why does Dr Roylott have interest in preventing his stepdaughter's marriage? Pause the video and have a think.

Well done if you said Dr Roylott has interest in preventing his stepdaughter's marriage because he would have to give money away to her when she marries.

We have no evidence that Dr Roylott does not like his stepdaughter's suitor and we also have no evidence that he would not see her much after she marries or that he'd be upset about not seeing her much.

However, we do have evidence that if either Julia or Helen get married Dr Roylott would have to give some of the money away that his late wife gave to him upon her death.

Therefore, we know that Dr Roylott would have to give money away to Julia if she married and therefore you could argue he has interest in her not marrying, since he would lose out on money.

Well done if you got that right.

We're now going to weigh the evidence.

On the right-hand side of the screen are all the clues Sherlock Holmes has formulated.

I want you to sequence the clues from what you think is the least important piece of evidence to the most important piece of evidence.

I also want you to justify your placing of the least and most important pieces of evidence.

Pause the video and order the evidence from least to most important, also justify why you placed each clue as least or most important.

Pause the video and complete that task.

Let's go through what you may have said.

So, least important, Dr Roylott keeps exotic pets, one of which is speckled, the cheetah.

My next piece of evidence that I've said is slightly more important is that Julia references a band before she dies.

Next, I think it's quite important to know that there is a whistle and metallic sound when Julia dies because this could be a huge clue about how she died.

And I consider the most important piece of evidence that the doctor has reason to object to Julia's marriage and she dies just before she marries.

Now, why do I consider Dr Roylott keeping exotic pets as least important? Because every element of the room seems impassible, meaning nothing can get through, so I think an animal would not have been able to get in, so therefore I'm not sure that the cheetah is involved, so I think that's the least important piece of evidence.

Now, why do I think that the doctor having reason to object to Julia's marriage is the most important piece of evidence? I think that's the most important piece of evidence because it could imply Dr Roylott is behind the death, also he has a reputation of violence.

So that piece of evidence together with us knowing about his past could imply that he's somehow involved, he has a motive, he has a reason for wanting her to die.

Now, you may not have ordered the pieces of evidence in that way.

This is personal opinion.

We're now going to use all of those clues to construct an argument about what may have happened in the mysterious death of Julia Stoner.

Sherlock Holmes always uses concrete evidence to make plausible explanations about his cases.

Remember, plausible means he puts forward explanations that are fair and reasonable and likely.

You are now going to formulate your own plausible explanation as to what may have happened to Julia Stoner.

In order to do that, you need to recap some of these key questions here.

So I want you to discuss who you think murdered Julia Stoner, 'cause we are beginning to think that someone had wicked intent to kill her, why you think they did it, how you think they did it, what key information or clues you found to support your theory, and what you think this could mean for Helen.

Pause the video and discuss those questions.

Brilliant discussions.

True or false? Sherlock Holmes uses concrete evidence in his cases.

Pauses the video and have a think.

Well done if you said true, Sherlock Holmes does indeed use concrete evidence in all of his cases.

Why is that? Pause the video and justify your answer.

Sherlock Holmes uses concrete evidence in his cases to ensure his explanations are as plausible as possible.

It's not because he wants to ensure his cases hold up in court.

He hasn't mentioned going to court, he hasn't mentioned ever having to present the case, he just wants to make sure he's coming to the right conclusion.

Well done if you got that right.

So, moving back to creating a plausible explanation, our very own plausible explanation as if we were Holmes.

Let's consider how this student, Aisha, has constructed her argument for Julia Stoner's death to help us consider the best way to create our own argument later.

So she says from the information I have gathered so far, I think Dr Roylott is the main suspect in the death of Julia Stoner.

He has a clear motive, not wanting Julia to marry as he would lose money.

My evidence suggests the murder was committed in the following way, he may have had a key to her room, the metallic sound may have come from opening and closing the lock and the whistle may have been to summon the cheetah towards her room.

This is further corroborated by the fact that he is known to be violent and thus this type of crime would not be unusual for him.

Let's dissect Aisha's answer.

So firstly, she names a suspect that has a known motive.

She names Dr Roylott as the suspect, the person who may have committed the crime, and she's mentioned that he has a clear motive.

In other words, he has a clear reason to want her dead.

He did not want her to marry as he would lose money.

So first thing's first, name a suspect that has a known motive.

Next Aisha provides key pieces of evidence and explains how they link to the suspect.

So Aisha's used a clue such as there being a metallic sound when she died, there being a whistle when she died, and the doctor owning a cheetah and she's pieced those pieces of evidence together to explain how the suspect may have committed the murder.

Next, Aisha gives a further piece of relevant evidence to strengthen her explanation.

She mentions the fact that Dr Roylott was known to be violent and therefore it further supports her hypothesis or argument.

So when you're writing your argument, make sure you have as many pieces of evidence as possible to strengthen your argument.

It's now your turn to write your own plausible explanation for the death of Julia Stoner.

Use the sentence starters to help you.

So you could start by saying, from the information I have gathered so far, I think, dot dot dot, is the main suspect in the death of Julia Stoner.

Their motive is, dot dot dot.

Of course, where there are gaps, you should fill in your answers.

My evidence suggests the murder was committed in the following way, you'd then explain how.

And this is further corroborated or supported by the fact that, and that is where you'd include your additional piece of evidence.

Now, pause the video and write your own plausible explanation for the death of Julia Stoner.

In other words, how do you think Julia Stoner died? Who was involved in her death and how did they lead to her death? Pause the video and write your own plausible explanation.

I now want you to re-read and assess your work.

Have you named a suspect, named someone who may have been guilty of this crime? Have you provided their motive, given a reason they may have wanted Julia to die? Have you provided an explanation for how the suspect links to the key pieces of evidence? In other words, have you mentioned the clues that Holmes gathered, such as the whistle, metallic sound, the exotic pets, Dr Roylott's history of violence, Julia mentioning the speckled band? Have you got a range of those clues in your argument? And lastly, have you provided any other additional evidence relevant to your explanation? Pause the video and self assess your work.

You've written some really brilliant arguments today.

Let's go through what we've learnt.

It is likely that Julia Stoner's death has a sinister explanation to it.

Dr Roylott is a suspect in the death of Julia Stoner as he has a clear motive.

There are several pieces of evidence to consider in the case.

And Holmes must weigh up the evidence to make a plausible explanation about what happened to Julia Stoner.

Very well done on all your hard work today and I look forward to seeing you next time.