There's enough circumstantial evidence to put a convincing story around either one. Taken in the same vein as the other cases, there should've been two equally compelling suspects: An individual trying to live life with said individual's partner on their terms, and an individual who's so single-minded on their project that it's conceivable that they would remove any threat by any means available. Save Goliath because Gilden had it coming based on his mistreatment of the Elephant, which makes absolutely no sense once the dart is found, as finding the dart provides concrete proof that an outside agent caused Goliath's condition
To not accuse either of them due to insufficient evidence leaves only two options that don't make any sense in this context:Ĭondemn Goliath to death (as above, the player has chosen that Goliath was the instrument, not the actor, so punishing him makes about as much sense as punishing a grenade for exploding instead of the person who pulled the pin and threw it) The problem that makes this case so weak is when the player answers the first question with Goliath is the instrument of another agent, because it means the player is choosing to find Paul Perks or Arthur Swift at fault for Gilden's death and needs to go through the evidence to decide which one. Is Sherlock bound to the desires of his client? (i.e.: Imogen's desire to have Sherlock permanently remove the Elephant in the room) Is Goliath's mistreatment at the hands of the victim a factor that led to him being trampled to death? If Goliath is the agent of Gilden's death, can he be found at fault under the same laws humans are held to? Is Goliath the agent of Gilden's death, or the instrument of another agent? In my view, the questions the case is asking the player to answer are:
Indicating that even Sherlock might not be confident in the answer either. Was the elephant shot before or after Theodore's death - and does it matter? When you find the dart, Sherlock even records in the casebook Of the cases that comprise the main storyline, I also think Gilded Cage is the weakest of the cases to showcase this, and is overshadowed by the case that follows it: A Muse From Abroad. At least for me, the idea of having Sherlock Holmes showcase objective truth without definitive conclusion took a while for me to get my mind around. I think one of the main themes in the Sherlock Holmes Chapter One storyline is how it presents the lack of definitive conclusion in the cases, which is a departure from the previous games.