Hercule Poirot vs Sherlock Holmes

There's gotta be more opinion than just this?

Holmes ftw

Holmes. Poirot's mysteries weren't as challenging as Sherlock's. Holmes is also much more skilled.

On the contrary, Poirot almost exclusively relied on his genius intellect and logic to solve cases. Whereas Holmes sometimes resorted to the use of chemistry.  Plus Holmes was know to be a druggie.

He pimped his mustache...he wins.

" Holmes ftw "

" Sherlock Holmes wins
"

@High Revolutionary said:

@Tyler Starke said:

" Holmes ftw "

@King Saturn said:

" Sherlock Holmes wins
"

Why?

Even Poirot has met his match in the last story he did find out who was behind the killings, basically a guy who manipulates other people to kill for him, Poirot could never prove it, so he basically killed that manipulator and than killed himself. As for who is smarter and who would be the faster in solving the crime (no matter how hard and tricky this crime is), Poirot is smarter than a guy who has to visit crimes scenes to solve a crime, Poirot used his grey cells on the level that Holmes does not. Poirot just thinks and solves the crime, Holmes does not think he visits crime scenes and than deduces, but Poirot does this all without visiting any crime scenes.

Cheers.

@High Revolutionary said:

On the contrary, Poirot almost exclusively relied on his genius intellect and logic to solve cases. Whereas Holmes sometimes resorted to the use of chemistry. Plus Holmes was know to be a druggie.

On the contrary, both Holmes and Poirot have been written relied on their genius-level intellects and logic to solve cases with Holmes being more adept in chemistry, botany, geology and anatomy. In the last novel/story, the 'murderer' that Poirot was hunting had never expressly killed anyone, but subtly and psychologically, he had manipulated others to kill for him. Poirot thus was forced to kill the man himself as otherwise he (the "murderer") would have continued his actions and would never been officially convicted, because there is no way it could be proven, not even Poirot could prove it. After killing the "murderer", Poirot was waiting for his death from complications of a heart condition at the end of Curtain: Poirot's Last Case, but moving away the medications only hastened it - so it was, technically, a suicide. In short, Poirot commits suicide by moving the pills necessary for his own survival out of his own reach, dying soon after (although Poirot would also die even if he was using pills all the time, just he would live longer). The more shocking thing in the story was the fact that Poirot actually killed someone, albeit the murderer who would have gone free.

Norton was not smarter than Poirot after all-but there was none who could prove that he was responsible for murders, while professor Moriarty was equally matched with Holmes.

bump

Sherlock Holmes is certainly more intelligent, Poirot is more intuitive and has a better understanding of human nature.

I think I'm gonna go with Poirot

Poirot is smarter than Holmes the guy who solves crimes without visiting crime scenes is what makes you smarter than a person who needs to visit crime scenes to solve the crime, including all of street crimes.

Yes, Holmes has vast knowledge in science, tracks and etc. but when it comes to solving crimes, Poirot beats him in this area, also Poirot's mysteries are much more challenging, since Poirot deals without evidences, clues, patterns, connections, tracks and etc. pretty much all the time.

Obviously Poirot's psychology, intuition, sensing evil and danger puts him above Holmes when it comes to solving extremely complicating crimes .without evidences, clues, patterns, connections, tracks and etc.

I found this here on PDF:

https://is.muni.cz/th/74993/ff_b/thesis.pdf

It explains methods of each and every detective, but it also proves my points about Poirot: vast psychology, vast intuition, sensing evil in humans and sensing even danger.

Also, it prove that Beowulf was wrong: Poirot has used his mental traps to catch killers many times, but Poirot's greatest weapons are his words, Mentalist is a raw copy of Poirot, with several disadvantages.

Also, it says in the text that Holmes can easily send someone to jail who is innocent, because all the tracks and all evidences and connections and all the patterns can easily be misleading-something that Holmes cannot see despite his observations.

Also, I have to say that Beowulf was only 50& right, when he told that Mayerling told about the existence of the Big Four to Poirot-because Poirot 4 pages earlier, before Mayerling even showed up to the door, said to Hastings, that he started his own private investigation where he came up with the phrase the Big Four.

It doesn't explain how did Poirot in his own private investigation detected completely invisible Big Four, but he sensed this would be an event of international proportions (Poirot told this with his own words).

When Mayerling showed up on the door and told about the members of the Big Four, Poirot simply said/responded: "I knew this, I was right, I was right all alone"-which again confirms that Poirot detected and knew about the existence of the invisible Big Four.

Also, Poirot would have continue to investigate the Big Four if Abe Ryland did not call him and payed him a lot of money to investigate something inside his company-however later in that same novel (The Big Four, of course) it is fully revealed that Abe Ryland was number 2 of the Big Four and the main and the key reason why he consulted Poirot is to mess his investigation regarding the Big Four-so he was called by Abe Ryland and that was before Mayerling came to the door.

In the novel "The Big Four" you can actually see that none knew about the Big Four since Japp and similar inspectors only laughed to Poirot when he mentioned them-the same as James Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes.

It is only the very near end of the novel when other people and investigators have become fully aware of the existence of the Big Four.

I own the copy of this novel, so none can mess me around.

I also own the copy of the Curtain, where it is specifically shown why Holmes would never be able to crack this case, his deduction would be there is no killer.

the Big Four is the living evidence of Poirot solving outside of the house crimes, street crimes and international level crimes.

Poirot is at least capable of doing this as Holmes is-Poirot has shown this multiple times, not just once.

Regarding Mentalist and Poirot: they are both similar, with few exceptions:

Poirot can actually sense evil and danger when it comes to humans, he can easily know the distinction between real and fake emotions-without looking for any body language-something that Mentalist usually always does, because body language can fool you into thinking that this guy is innocent or guilty-but that does not work with Poirot.

Like Mentalist, Poirot has shown using mental traps, mental games to use them against all kinds of criminals.

However, Poirot has very, very powerful, unmistakable intuition, it has been shown even though when all connections, patterns, evidences, clues fit in, and the crime is 100% solved (and that would be Holmes' deduction and conclusion as well after looking for everything), Poirot's intuition comes to save the day.

The key problem with Holmes like I said is that he can send innocent man into jail, despite all the knowledge he possesses, because clues, evidences, even patterns and connections can all be very misleading-Poirot does not have such problems, since he literally enters into person's head.

It has been shown, that Poirot has been tracking people, or just was sure when he looked at them that they are guilty as charge for the crime, even though everything even for Poirot was fit in.

Poirot's intuition has never let him down, than he used psychology and create mental traps to solve the crime.

Also, if Poirot meets Moriarty he would know that there is something very wrong with this man, and would know that he needs to track Moriarty-because it would Poirot's intuition that would lead him to that conclusion-although he has never seen Moriarty (that has happened at least several times, actually many times, even though Poirot did not know these persons and has never met them in his entire life and intuition told him these persons are crucial to solve the crime, even though the crime was perfectly solved, even if Poirot said and admitted that there was absolutely no reason and nothing to dig and again investigate) this is what it has been shown or just play with words with Moriarty and create mental traps to put Moriarty to jail.

Don't get me wrong: Holmes is my favorite here, because he is so technical, and has vast and encyclopedical knowledge but if someone asks who is the detective who would solve more crimes-Holmes or Poirot-the 100% objective answer is Poirot, of course.

So, when it comes who solves more crimes: Poirot is the first followed by Mentalist, third is Sherlock Holmes.

When it comes to Holmes' observation, it is at least as good as and perhaps even better than that of Adrian Monk's, Columbo's, Psych's and etc.

So Beowulf is 100% wrong when he says that Monk is more observant than Holmes, I have seen all the episodes of all the seasons o Adrian Monk at least 15 times, and I have never ever seen anything Monk has done that Holmes has not done when it comes to observation, analysis and deduction and evidences, clues, patterns and connections that do not fit in-facts.

Cheers.

Exactly.

Poirot is smarter than Holmes the guy who solves crimes without visiting crime scenes is what makes you smarter than a person who needs to visit crime scenes to solve the crime.

Sherlock takes it handily. Different as their methods are, holmes is so much smarter and technical than poirot, who's more about intuition.

Exactly, that's a key point, don't forget Poirot's sixth sense/intuition and Poirot's vast psychological abilities.

There are many cases wherein Holmes sits at 221B and solves a case, that's why he's often called an, 'armchair detective'.

Sherlock Holmes is better. The argument that Poirot is better because he figures out things without visiting the crime scene is not evidence of superiority. It's evidence of lazyness. If anything the fact that he couldn't prove his greatest case illustrates the weakness of Poirot's methodology. If you can't prove anything, then you don't have anything. Sherlock Holmes by collecting evidence always, could always back up his claims with the proof and actually have people locked up with hoping that third parties would follow his deductions while he stayed home and drank tea.

Wrong, Poirot is an expert in making criminals to confess him their crimes-Poirot does not fly around crime scenes he merely knows who the killer is by just conversation. Also read the Curtain: The last Poirot's story-Poirot basically faces the prfect murderer-but this murderer does not do anything physical because he is psychological manipulator-the guy has never done anything physically ever!

Poirot has solve almost all cases by his intuition and psychology and logic without using science and technology, Poirot solved even the most complex crimes by just sitting in the chair and thinking about these cases-that's much smarter than if you have to use science and technology to solve a crime-facts, Poirot solved all crimes without science and technology.

Poirot knew who the killer is the very moment the killer (Stephen Norton) entered the house!

Basically you would be in a situation where people talk with each other and the next A kills B without any reason-Holmes would never find out anything, because he would have to know psychology much, much better and the only way to stop this psychological manipulator is to kill him-literally-because no court would convict, since there are no physical evidences at all.

But Holmes would never find any physical clue, evidence, no connection or anything like because this killer does not do anything physical ever-that's why Poirot is smarter than Holmes.

Poirot solves all cases without ever visiting crimes scenes and without any evidence he makes other people underestimate him and confess crimes they have committed.

So, you're wrong, Poirot is not lazy he is just smarter he doesn't need science like Holmes does.

This is why Poirot's methodology is much better, plus Poirot has never made a single mistake in almost any case (he failed to solve only one case-Chocolate box-however, Poirot's psychology enabled for the true murderer to confess the crime), while Holmes does make mistakes occasionally.

Also, in Cornish mystery Poirot never had any kind of clue of evidence against the killer-and yet his psychology and intuition told Poirot who the killer is, and than Poirot forced him to confess by creating a smart trap.

And if you think that Poirot would not detect Moriarty you're dead wrong-because Poirot has detected and defeated the invisible Big Four-4 of the world's greatest and smartest criminal masterminds.

This is where Poirot was like Holmes in tracking people, deductions and similar.

If Poirot detected and defeated the invisible Big Four, than detecting Moriarty is normal task for Poirot.

Also, if you think Mentalist is better than Poirot you're dead wrong-what Poirot does is tha he makes other people underestimate him in conversation, and Poirot always knows who is the criminal responsible for the crime-by just observing them.

Poirot, unlike Mentalist, makes other people to confess him, and also Poirot knows when someone is going to be killed-that's ability that not even Mentalist has.

All in all Mentalist is the only fictional detective who can match Poirot in terms of psychology, but Mentalist would still not be able to beat Poirot in psychology.

Poirot would always solve more crimes than Holmes did because of these facts-Poirot would always solve much more complex crimes than Holmes did because of these facts.

But Poirot has solve almost all cases by his intuition and psychology and logic without using science and technology, Poirot solved even the most complex crimes by just sitting in the chair and thinking about these cases-that's much smarter than if you have to use science and technology to solve a crime-facts.

Hi, PrinceAragorn:

How exactly is Holmes smarter than Poirot-please explain:

Poirot is an expert in making criminals to confess him their crimes-Poirot does not fly around crime scenes he merely knows who the killer is by just conversation. Also read the Curtain: The last Poirot's story-Poirot basically faces the prfect murderer-but this murderer does not do anything physical because he is psychological manipulator-the guy has never done anything physically ever!

Basically you would be in a situation where people talk with each other and the next A kills B without any reason-Holmes would never find out anything, because he would have to know psychology of the people much better and the only way to stop this psychological manipulator is to kill him-literally, because there are no physical clues or evidences or connections with him.

Poirot knew who the killer is the very moment the killer (Norton) entered the house!

And by the way the psychological manipulator's name is Stephen Norton!

But Holmes would never find any physical clue, evidence,no connection or anything like because this killer does not do anything physical ever-that's why Poirot is smarter than Holmes.

Poirot solves all cases without ever visiting crimes scenes and without any evidence he makes other people underestimate him and confess crimes they have committed.

So, you're wrong, Poirot is not lazy he is just smarter he doesn't need science like Holmes does.

This is why Poirot's methodology is much better, plus Poirot has never made a single mistake in almost any case, while Holmes does make a mistake occasionally.

Also, how do you think Mentalist will deal with Norton-a psychological manipulator?

Why are your sure Mentalist is smarter than both Poirot and Holmes?

And would Sherlock Holmes from original stories be able to detect Norton (in Curtain: The last Poirot's story)-as psychological manipulator?

No, he would not.

I mean how would Holmes be able to detect a Norton as psychological manipulator-if a guy only talks nothing defined and the next someone gets killed?

How good was Holmes in psychology in original Doyle's stories/novels?

Holmes was very stupid when it comes psychology, even those tv series also show Holmes not very good at psychology at all.

How would Holmes know that Norton is responsible for all the murderers even though all murderers are known and detected-so how would Holmes detect Norton is behind all this-if there is nothing physical that is left against this guy, since it is all psychological-tell me please how would Holmes detect Norton?

Plus Holmes would never have any physical evidence, or a clue or a connection or anything like it to put Norton as a suspect-Holmes from original Doyle's stories sucked in the psychology.

Holmes would never be able to solve cases Cornish mystery and Curtain-since they are purely psychological.

It is true that Holmes has much more knowledge on just about everything-but Poirot solves cases without that knowledge of pretty much everything-so Poirot is smarter than Holmes.

Plus, Poirot has unmistakable intuition and logic and psychology-unmatched by anyone.

And if you think that Poirot would not detect Moriarty you're dead wrong-because Poirot has detected and defeated the invisible Big Four-4 of the world's greatest and smartest criminal masterminds.

This is where Poirot was like Holmes in tracking people, deductions and similar.

If Poirot detected and defeated the invisible Big Four, than detecting Moriarty is normal task for Poirot.

Also, if you think Mentalist is better than Poirot you're dead wrong-what Poirot does is tha he makes other people underestimate him in conversation, and Poirot always knows who is the criminal responsible for the crime-by just observing them.

Poirot, unlike Mentalist, makes other people to confess him, and also Poirot knows when someone is going to be killed-that's ability that not even Mentalist has.

All in all Mentalist is the only fictional detective who can match Poirot in terms of psychology, but Mentalist would still not be able to beat Poirot in psychology.

Poirot would always solve more crimes than Holmes did because of these facts-Poirot would always solve much more complex crimes than Holmes did because of these facts.

@goldfinch:

Sherlock Holmes is definitely better than Hercule Poirot in ways more than one. I will try and explain some here.

Firstly, I would say that it is SH who “reasons” while HP merely “feels” though he claims he “thinks”. Notice that HP uses “I was not satisfied”, “it didn’t ring true”, “it struck me as rather odd”, “somehow it all seemed wrong” etc. to express his suspicions. I mean to say that he is not able to verbalise any actual incongruity which he notices to set him suspecting, whereas SH clearly explains what the culprit had wanted him to think and where exactly he gave himself away !! Even granting that you can’t be “logical” and / or “conscious” all the time and you DO have hunches / your recall memory fails you at times, you don’t find HP actively pursuing his suspicions. I mean – he says he suspected some character at some point of time; but, what did he do after that – tapped his / her phone ? followed him / her to identify who he / she is meeting or what he is doing secretly ? intercepted his / her letters ? overheard any conversations from outside the door / window ? Nothing of the kind ever happens. Thus, his saying that he suspected some character serves only to drag the reader into believing that he [too] is a suspect !! That is, AFTER you know who the murderer is, if you re read the book and look at character’s actions and/or words, they MAY give you to “feel” he / she is hiding something or evading some question or something like it – pure verbal trickery - that’s Agatha Christie for you !! (How else will you explain Poirot’s sudden absence from some scenes, but later using the “clues” from these scenes in his conclusions ???) In fact, the element of “mystery” in her stories is achieved only through this verbal trickery and not because of any genuinely unusual sequence of events like what SH had investigated and explained !!

Secondly, {dare to contradict me when I say that} the method of investigation used by a detective should be suitable for identifying the perpetrator whoever he is and WHEREVER he is at the moment ! SH scores over HP again here. HP’s way of “reconstructing the crime” is suitable ONLY when the perpetrator is within the confinement of investigation – be it a house, plane, ship, library, railway coach, or anything. If the criminal is an outsider (as is more often the case in SH adventures AND by no means an impossibility in real life), HP would be in a soup for sure !! Notice that whenever HP needs to do something outside the confinement, like doing background check, gathering info, tracing people, there is always someone ready with the objective, reliable and accurate info on a platter for HP.(I OFTEN WONDER HOW AGATHA CHRISTIE FANS NEVER REALISED THIS !!) Whereas SH too uses outside agents to help him but only in situations when when he needs to observe the goings on at more than one place simultaneously. And even then, he tells his agents what exactly to do - meaning it is HIS brains that does the trick ! To ONLY conveniently direct the suspicion back to those inside the confined area, HP asks seemingly “logical” questions like “whose word do we have for it that there was a man in the corridor ? (Mystery of the Blue Train), “what evidence do we have for it that it was left in the draw last Friday ? (The Submarine Plans), etc. In fact, HP’s “logically” suspecting / concluding that ‘the lone testator to anything in the plot is most likely a liar’ itself is [based only on this assumption that / valid in a situation where] no outsider could have been involved in the affair ! And yes ! A detective simply ought to be amidst a lot of travel, action, thrill and adventure. I would say that a person who feels he can 'detect' without visiting crime scenes IS but lazy ! [But, mind you - this is NOT to say that no mind work need to be involved !]

Another really annoying point is AC’s way of “proving” that tangible clues cannot help a detective much. Either this ‘proof’ is too contrived or it is too superficial !! I feel that it is a direct insult to Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes ! And the best thing is HP has indeed used tangible clues (Read The Big Four – chronologically, the very next adventure to “The Murder on the Links”, where he had despised them so openly !) but doesn’t have the moral courage to accept the same !

Psychology, if you ask me, can be used in a milder sense to elicit some info which the character would conceal consciously (like how SH does in “The Blue Carbuncle” at the goose store). I mean, you have to use your psychological skills with people about the village or locality to collect info about some pasts or secret info about some character in such a way that they don’t get alarmed that you are a detective and you are spying for some info. With those inside the house, direct questioning can easily be employed to a far greater degree than what HP does.

HP fans often point at “Curtain: Hercule Poirot’s Last Case” and demand something to the effect of ‘what would have SH in a case like this?” Before I reply to this, it is essential to [at least broadly] understand “how” SH solves his cases. Here we go ... He first talks in detail to the person bringing the case, visits the scene of the mystery, looks for any forensic clues, analyses what he finds, traces the ‘unknown / unseen’ characters, puts his findings about their movements to all of them and thus, jolts the guilty into a confession. No serious differences in opinion here I hope ?? NOW, I would extend my argument “the method of detection used by a detective...” above and continue thus: In such a case as “Curtain...”, SH would have successfully trapped the actual murderer AND THE INSTIGATION ELEMENT WOULD HAVE GOT EXPOSED during the confession phase of concluding the case !! This confession would serve to get the guilty punished, but what good is HP's 'unmistakable' 'intuition' ?? The intuition of even the judge who would sentence the culprit in the case is not admissible as 'proof of guilt' !! In fact, in all good humour, I can assure any HP fan that SH wouldn't have waited for so many murders to occur – he would have nabbed the culprit far earlier ! Let me recall two of SH's statements here: [I don't mean to quote verbatim, though.] IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO HANDLE AN OBJECT OF EVERYDAY USE WITHOUT LEAVE AN IMPRESS UPON IT and A GOOD DETECTIVE IS NOT ONLY SOMEONE WHO ACCURATELY REASONS FROM WHAT HE OBSERVES, HE IS ALSO SOMEONE WHO KNOWS WHAT CLUES TO FIND IN WHICH TYPE OF CASE AND WHERE TO LOOK FOR THEM. Interestingly and incidentally, this proves one more point in favour of SH - He relies on his own merits to solve any case, whereas HP relies on the guilty to trip himself up by saying something which he had better not said ! After all, there are cases where HP / some other chief investigator is fooled till the end and the reader is told the truth thro a letter to the investigator or in a secret meeting with the investigator towards the end of the story. I mean to say 'forensics' is not so simple that a murderer would walk out with a blood dripping knife with which he had stabbed his victim, in his frenzy, falls into a swimming pool inside the premises, rushes into a room before anybody sees him and all the detective will come and do is follow the wet footprints that leads to a long unused and so, unsuspected room which is occupied by the murderer to nab him !! On the contrary, one can go on putting up a face ! If you tease SH saying he wouldn't able to do anything without all those forensic evidence, I would ask you to read the first statement [It is impossible...] here and validate it in general {I mean, not necessarily in the context of this debate, but even otherwise}. Further, I would complement it with mocking HP in a similar fashion - 'What would HP do in many of SH cases where all he has is nothing more than the case-bringer's word for what needs to be investigated ? What does HP do if not merely rely on the inconsistencies between the testimonies of the different characters to form his conclusions ?' Unless there is a questionable act [more than most often, a murder] which could have been committed by only those inside the confinement and all the people yap yap about the act and about each other, what can HP do ? What would HP do if the "motive" of the crime is the crime itself ? Like, say,a burglary, a bank robbery etc. ? Would he conclude that only one of those inside had faked it ]based on the motive [something like] that the youngster had wanted the property to be sold to fund his business venture, but his parents wouldn't allow it ???? LOL !!

Thirdly, Hercule Poirot keeps harping “order and method” all the time. But tell me dear Christie fans, what exactly does he do in an “orderly” and “methodical” way ? He presses his clothes, folds the newspaper, arranges flowers in vases, wears his tie, etc. in a neat methodical fashion. But then, my dears, he is supposed to be a “detective”. Is he any orderly and methodical in his profession ?? Sherlock Holmes is shabby in his appearance but EXTREMELY methodical in his profession and isn't this what is more important ?? If you are not able to understand why exactly I am saying this, let me ask bluntly like this: (Answer honestly) IN HOW MANY AGATHA CHRISTIE STORIES YOU ARE ABLE TO STOP READING THE STORY SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE & SAY with conviction THAT (THIS) IS WHAT THE DETECTIVE HAS FOUND OUT SO FAR. (THESE) CHARACTERS ARE ABOVE SUSPICION, (THIS) CHARACTER IS BEING SUSPECTED B’COZ OF (THIS) REASON / CLUE ? That is, CAN YOU EVER SAY when POIROT / MARPLE OR WHOEVER FOUND which ASPECT OF THE CASE ?? You merely keep reading page after page after page without knowing where things are heading and suddenly, the “truth” is revealed all at once. It is as though, the author herself felt tired of rambling for so many pages – she could have rambled more if she had wanted to – and so “condescends” to give the solution to the reader ! ( Even then, only how / why the murder was done and NOT all that convincingly about HOW IT WAS FOUND OUT like who was suspected when and why, what was noticed, whether the suspicion was confirmed / allayed, etc. are not told whereas Sherlock Holmes explains the whole investigation process right from the moment he was given to investigate till the final solution).

Another, but perhaps minor, point is HP is very fickle. In one story, he would say, “People don’t change” and in another, he would say “people change”. If you look at the context when he makes these statements, both will appeal as “correct” – I mean, he himself doesn’t have any particular approach value to life / detection and says whatever is convenient to the particular plot of the story ! One another such inconsistency is his looking at a lone testimony about something. While very often, he “suspects” it saying “I have only your word for it”, there are instances when Hastings points it to Poirot, Poirot asks, “But why should he lie ?” However, SH is consistent in his approach to all his investigative endeavours.

I will repeat my response that I have already responded to Anurag_50 and PrinceAragorn:

I read all of Holmes's stories/novels, and I watched all the Mentalist (all 6 seasons) 3 times so far, I'm very well aware what is Jane capable of. But, like I said above in order to get the full picture how did Norton manage to make people kill each other is just too brilliant for Holmes and too brilliant for Jane.

So, it's fact that Norton would outsmart Holmes, hell, even Irene Adler was able to outsmart HolmesTWICE!

Because, people say this stuff many days in every day in their life randomly and this does not make people to kill each other at all (even if you say their weak points to other people, so that they can hear you, even though, you don't say that to them directly, but people hear when you say their weak points to other people), except if it's not Stephen Norton who is talking-this is why Jane would never figure it out, yes Jane will figure it out if someone hypnotized you, or forced you to or talked you to kill, or manipulated you in any other way, but Jane would never figure it out if you just normally throw words like you can't kill anyone, you are weakling, you don't stand a chance, these words are present in every day life, and don't affect anybody at all, unless that person is not Stephen Norton, this is why Jane does not stand a chance-this is why I say, this is why I keep saying, read the Curtain-as Poirot himself said it-Stephen Norton is the perfect criminal, there is no way you can detect or prove anything.

Plus, Jane never had that kind of opponent never in any episode, neither did Holmes in any of his original stories/novels, murders where people kill each other in Mysterious styles of affairs-second time, remain just normal murders with witnesses and verdicts of the murderers who did them, while Jane Holmes and every other/all other fictional detectives will never be able to even suspect what is going on here, people just kill each other, and that's it.

Holmes and Jane both would be lost and their conclusions/deductions would be people kill each other because they all have motives to kill each other, while Norton would stay/remain undetected-like I said, read the Curtain: The last Poirot's story to get the full picture of how Norton was making people kill each other without anyone even suspecting anything at all.

Jane did manipulate others when he wanted to get the information and setting up mental traps, but he never manipulated anybody so that person could kill another person, and when Jane did manipulate some to do something/anything, Jane has has always done it directly, Jane actually asked people to do what he wanted them to do!

Yes, directly.

Because of that Jane cannot be compared with Stephen Norton and Norton's methods, because Norton has never physically done or say anything directly or indirectly, plus the way Norton was "operating" people to kill each other is basically impossible by anyone else, including Jane, because if you throw you words randomly, not to a person that should kill, but to another person, while the person who Norton wants to kill, simply hears what Norton is speaking to another person, creates psychological pressure that makes that person, that should kill, kill whoever Norton wants get killed-not even Jane can recognize someone like Norton, because it has never been shown in any episode, because this seems to be more like mystical thing than psychological thing.

And like I said, anyone else doing exactly what Norton was doing, would not be able to make other people to kill each other, because, it simply does not work (it never did, never in all fictional detective world, in all fictional, detective history!!!) unless you're Stephen Norton-not Holmes, and not even Patrick Jane was able to do something like this ever-facts!

Plus, Jane's manipulation words were always direct and not random, but with perfect sense so that who everyone Jane has manipulated with words everyone can recognize that Jane has manipulated them, because Jane always manipulated directly persons face to face that he wanted to be manipulated in the first place, by saying them their weak points in their own face! Because of these facts and direct-in-the-face approach influences and manipulations, everyone can directly recognize how Jane manipulated people!

This was never the case with Norton, never, not even once!!! And this is why both Holmes and Jane would never be able to detect Norton as a perfect criminal! And that's what makes Stephen Norton a perfect criminal!!!

Because Norton has never said anything directly or indirectly to a person that he wanted to commit murders or suicide, because he never forced anyone directly or indirectly, because he never persuaded anyone, directly or indirectly-I already described/explained above, how exactly Norton "persuaded" and/or "forced" other people to kill each other, because all of these mentioned, both Holmes and Jane would never be able to detect Norton as some mastermind manipulator.

Also regarding James Moriarty and Red John-more perfect criminal than James Moriarty is also Red John, there is no doubt about that, Stephen Norton beats all of them combined when it comes to perfection, yep Stephen Norton truly is the most perfect criminal in all fictional world of entire detective fiction.

This is another copy of my other post that I already posted several months ago:

However, regarding Poirot, I did not say that Poirot is better detective than Holmes, what I did say that he is vastly better in psychology, while Holmes tracks fro physical clues and evidences, Poirot rather thinks and solves the case. Holmes also thinks for house even all night, as described by Watson, but only after he visits crime scenes, Poirot has rarely visited crime scenes (Murder on the links is an example, if I remember correctly), but always solved crime cases without even visiting them, actually almost all of the crime cases Poirot has solved without visiting crime scenes, while Holmes has always solved crime cases with physical clues/evidences, he always had some piece of evidence.

Bottom line here is, the killer would get away without Holmes knowing about him, while in Poirot's case yes the killer will get away, but not before he/she is detected by Poirot, Poirot would know about the killer, while Holmes wouldn't.

Today I just read Empty house and Final problem and the Valley of Fear, Prince Aragorn asked how did Holmes know exactly where to look and who to look in the first place, how did he know that Moriarty was behind all of this?

Holmes did know because he investigated crimes where the patterns repeated, what I don't like here is the fact PrinceAragorn represents Moriarty as invisible, undetectable abstract entity, where none could know about him, and yet those who worked for him, actually did know for him (this was especially confirmed in the Empty house where Holmes describes what members of the Moriarty's gang have tried to kill him (kill Holmes), because of the death of their leader/Moriarty), so basically they simply kept their mouth shut, and that's why Moriarty was invisible, what Prince Aragorn is insinuating is simply not true.

Moriarty was detected as any other invisible criminal mastermind would be, the same as Red John, people knew about him, but they also feared him and Red John was both life and death for those people, and because of that none outside the Red John's secret organization could know who he is, very similar to Moriarty.

If you read the Big Four, Poirot has faced also equally invisible/undetectable 4 criminal masterminds that wanted to rule the world when it comes criminal underground, the same as Moriarty and Red John, so Poirot would detect both Moriarty and Red John, it would not be a problem.

What I'm saying here that Holmes and Jane would never be able to detect Norton, and this is why I always tell and challenge Prince Aragorn to re-read all the novel (Curtain: The last Poirot's story) and see how Norton operated.

How can anyone even intelligent as Holmes and Moriarty and Red John be able to detect everything regarding Norton, if he would simply throw random words.

However, unlike people he psychologically manipulated who than killed each other, it wouldn't be much of the problem if Stephen Norton was the member of any super-secret gang, what would Norton is to create doubts and than members would kill each other, without anyone including Moriarty and Red John what is going on.

People who already killed many times other people is not hard to manipulate to kill each other, to make them fight each other to the death-and these people are members of all forms of gangs.

Now, Pince Aragorn says that Moriarty and Red John are too smart to not to detect what Norton is doing, and that's where he is 100% wrong, because Norton is the type of the guy who serves to the master, gains his/her trust, and manipulates him in the end in the way he (Norton) wants-I, again, say to you, read the Curtain: The last Poirot's story.

The problem with Stephen Norton, is that he would never ever go into jail because he has never directly persuaded or forced anyone and never will persuade or force anyone/people to kill each other, he was simply saying to other people for example: how they guy is weak, and cannot be considered a man, and he lets his wife controls him, but also that guy heard anything, except Norton has never said anything to him but to someone else, but, however Norton wanted to be heard in the first place, there are also other examples so effective that no other fictional detective would be able to detect anything, and this is why I always keep saying that Poirot is the best at what does psychology; vastly better than Holmes in psychology, vastly more intuitive than Holmes, and unlike Holmes who has been tricked/outsmarted twice by Irene Adler, Poirot could not be outsmarted by Countess Verakoff.

Regarding what Prince Aragorn said about Holmes and his use of psychology:

"The man who could read people's thoughts, Hypnotically calm people instantly, predict the next moves of someone like moriarty, and exploit people's personality."

Answers: Well, reading people's thoughts has never helped Holmes to detect the killer, he could read people's minds because he has great knowledge of streets and London's own people and their characters and behaviours (but that's because he lives in London and knows how people breath (literally), let alone how they think, put Holmes in New York, and he would not be able to do that, because he has zero experience with New York people and how and why they behave they way they behave, and what and how they think), predicting the next move from Moriarty is not that special, since he already knew his opponent, Holmes knew how Moriarty operates, and this is why he was able to predict Moriarty's next moves-surely very impressive, but not that impressive compared to what Stephen Norton was doing in the Curtain: The last Poirot's story, and the way Poirot has detected Stephen Norton as the mastermind and the manipulator and what exactly he was doing.

You're forgetting that Holmes could do all that I mentioned, because he always had some physical clues/evidences/connections/patterns to start with in the first place, and which he (Holmes) could have read them, while this is extremely impressive, it doesn't compare to Poirot who studies the mind of the criminal and does not need physical clues/evidences/connections/patterns to start with in the first place.

Like the wardrobe he/she is wearing and similar (these physical clues tell Holmes what kind of person he is dealing with, while Poirot has actually been shown to warn when he/she would be killed (I remember this as Poirot told to an woman to get out from the island, because if she doesn't leave the island, she would be killed and he was right).

Also, there is the other time where Poirot had no clues or anything, but he concluded by psychology who the killer is, but the killer was so smart that he didn't leave any clues or evidences, but only victim's husband's trails and fingerprints and footprints were present, and because of that victim's husband was put in jail, but it was Poirot's psychology and intuition who revealed it all, who the real killer is, killer was so smart that he was never alone in the house, but always when there were others and the husband and used opportunity to put a poison in the cup of tea (I think), and of course he always had gloves and never left any physical clue/evidence/fingerprints/footprints, and all the clues and evidences were left by the husband, and not be the real killer-this happened in the Cornish mystery.

Also, Poirot does not need physical clues to make deduction about the case he merely manages to make deductions by simply talking with people.

Also, all in all Holmes is better detective than Poirot, but if you ask which detective would solve more crime cases (whatever crime cases), thew answer is 100% definite: definitely Poirot.

If you ask which one will faster solve crime cases: the answer is, definitely, Holmes.

However, Holmes also has vast knowledge about chemistry, botany, crime scenes, but he can be fooled, by someone equally smart as Holmes is, which can easily lead Holmes to completely wrong physical trails/clues/evidences/patterns/connections/deductions, while Poirot does not depend on physical trails/clues/evidences/patterns/connections/deductions and it has been plenty of times (not all, but majority of times) where Poirot solved the crime case where he actually ignored crime scenes and physical clues, except in several stories, especially the most memorable is the Murder on the Links, in which Poirot was could not answer why the chair was moved, until he solved this question he did not solve the case, although he knew who the killer was, but he had to prove it.

There is also another example of Poirot visiting crime scene in the novel The Big Four where Poirot detected Number 4-the Destroyer in The Big Four, simply by visiting crime scene, although there were no physical clues left except one piece of physical evidence, which were so funny and actually weird: sheep's leg-how could anyone think that it had to do with the Number 4 at all.

Also, there were footprints that were all messed up, because they have been compromised by people who lived in that house where the murder has been occurred.

On page 34, Poirot says to Hastings the same as Holmes said to Watson: Dear Hastings, you look, but you don't observe. Now, Poirot instantly said that this very dumb man was killed by The Big Four's orders, but there was no way Poirot could ever prove this-this put him at least on the level the same as Holmes, who detected Moriarty and Moriarty's criminal operations.

However, Holmes has never faced anyone like Stephen Norton, someone that Poirot had to face against, as described by Poirot himself, Stephen Norton, may not be the best criminal mastermind, and people usually call him dull, but none can ignore that Stephen Norton is the perfect criminal, because there are no connections, no physical clues, no evidences, no patterns or anything else, because in those 5 murders the murder and victim were seen by other witnesses, but the key point here is also that when Poirot detected that there is a psychological mastermind in those 5 murders from 5 pieces of newspapers, is that all of people that were present in those 5 murders (and there were many of those same people in each and every and all murders), also had very strong motives to kill each other-Holmes never had similar situation.

Stephen Norton would never, ever go to jail-why?

Because throwing out random words, will not send you to jail, because not only you did not do anything physical to leave physical clues/evidences/connections/patterns, but you also did not directly or indirectly persuaded anyone to commit any form of murder, you also did not threat to anyone to commit murder, and you have also not force anybody to commit murder-that is the perfect method created by Stephen Norton, this is something that Holmes had never faced, because people are not psychologically affected by someone saying random words like Stephen Norton was saying, but unlike all other people and unlike all other criminals, Stephen Norton simply had a gift, which psychologically influenced people to kill each other, something that no other man or woman was capable of.

Because of these same facts I explained above, Holmes would never be able detect Stephen Norton as any form of mastermind at all, not even the slightest.

Stephen Norton could never be detected by Holmes-period, the types of criminals where you can find something tangible and where you will eventually find some physical clue/connection/evidences/pattern, will eventually be detected by Holmes and of course, Poirot (all of this has been 100% proven in the novel "The Big Four).

But, the types of criminals where you can never prove anything at all, because there is truly absolutely nothing to prove at all, where there are no connections, no clues, no evidences, no patterns; where there is nothing to detect, not even on what Norton was saying all the time; Holmes would be lost and his conclusion would be they kill each other because they all have motives to kill each other, while Norton would stay/remain undetected-this is why I again strongly suggest to read the Curtain: The last Poirot's story, to actually have the full picture of Stephen Norton, how good he was and Poirot, who was able to detect him.

I believe Hercule Poirot is smarter than Sherlock Holmes even though both of them are geniuses