Gilded Cage - Unanswered Questions

[deadbeef]

I'm at the end of the Gilded Cage. I too am having the situation where the game is still prompting me to talk to someone about the darts and the elephants. Seems like everybody has reached a consensus that it's just a bug or something and should be ignored. But I'm not convinced.

My reasoning is because there is still some major unanswered question in the case that everybody seems to have overlooked. That unanswered question being:

How did Theodore Gilden's coat get hung up on the tree? https://i.imgur.com/CIFB27A.jpg

Sherlock even calls this out when you first find it. Someone has neatly hung the coat on this tree. How on earth is this possible? It seems likely to me that the coat was probably stuck onto the elephant from when it attacked Theodore, attached to the elephant as it ran through the woods (could be hanging from it's left tusk, as Sherlock specifically calls out the left tusk during the investigation). Then someone must have either collected the coat after it fell off, OR did something to calm the elephant in the woods and peacefully remove it.

Given that the unfinished clue in the casebook asks the question "Was the elephant shot before or after Theodore's death?" raises the possibility that the elephant was actually shot AFTER Theodore's death - such as when it was running through the woods, in an attempt to pacify it, at which point the coat was removed.

As part of this case, there is a letter from the governor of the island sent to Theodore, pleading with him to take better care of the elephant, and that he wants to give the elephant to a Mr. Tailhart. This letter doesnt seem to have any relevance on anything else in the case - but could it actually be a hidden clue as to who is the true culprit?

[RRevy]

Originally posted by deadbeef:

Seems like everybody has reached a consensus that it's just a bug or something and should be ignored. But I'm not convinced.

My reasoning is because there is still some major unanswered question in the case that everybody seems to have overlooked. That unanswered question being:

How did Theodore Gilden's coat get hung up on the tree?

Yeeeah, I remember running around trying to find the answer for that, but it looked like it's not possible to for example, ask anybody about it, or examine it closer, so the first thing that came to my mind was that the coat was "sunken" in "The Elephant Sweat Perfume" (Gildens daughter said, that the elephant were never agressive in the presence of her father), so the animal took the piece of cloth with itself, because it liked the smell of it... :D

And why the coat had ended carefully hunged on tree? Maybe the elephant did it, because it treat it with love :D and then ran find some food or something, hahaha. Well, anyway, the elephant is the only one we can't ask, soo...

But when it came to pick the suspect (and they were on the same level of the weight for me), I had a second thought :D

The second thought was, that the murderer (being in shock after the outcome of his acts?...) ran after elephant, and when the animal dropped the coat and went to the water, the murderer hung it on a tree for some reason. Maybe he didn't expected that somebody will actually trace the animal and will find the evidence, or he didn't thought at all, just did that. Or maybe hunging the coat was a sort of... of showing respect to the just murdered person... or rather a friend? A partner?

Probably the second conclusion is more likely because it shows who, of the two suspects, would rather act like that.

Anyway, I also felt like in this case we could do more, just to be more certain. For example, at least check the alibis of the suspects.

[Legato Bluesummers]

You also don't get to gather testimony about the archeologists whereabouts on the morning which would have been a necessary distinction. I think the game really wants you to try and see the 3rd person operating behind the scenes since one of the solutions is that someone was trying to save Theodore which makes zero sense from all the evidence you go around gathering. It would have made much more sense that someone was trying to kill Theodore but accidentally hit the elephant causing the chain of events. but if you just point your finger at the elephant you have to assume someone was trying to save Theodore and yet there is no real acknowledgement about this 3rd party from Holmes. I just got rid of Paul because obviously I wanted to clean up the streets of Cordona but I think OP is correct that it's likely the person who wanted the elephant (i forget his name) and then ultimately gets the elephant if you elect to spare its life. and that would mean he shot the elephant after it had killed Theodore.

[Xaneorath]

Hmm ... I believe the case is interesting and I actualy think the evidence does strongly point towards Paul as true killer.

I think the key to consider are two things: The lost knife and both Pauls and Mrs Gildens behavior.

Considering the knife: One could wonder - why did the third party even BRING the knife there? Well, Id say its likely to finish the job if anything goes wrong. It IS a big bet to try and use an elephant as murder weapon ... chances are it wont work and rather alarm the victim.
That being said: I dont believe it was ever the goal to hit the elephant in the first place. As the dosage of Strychnine in the dart suggests - It was the goal to hit Mr. Gilden. Hitting the Elephant and then causing the murder indirectly was only a coincidence which was welcome for the killer and unexpected, as the result - them being wounded themselves - suggests.

In another thread I read that Arthurs Wounds are on his right side, while Pauls wounds on his left side, which is also interesting to note as it points towards Paul when I try to imagine how the whole incident happened and how the third party wouldve been pushed back against the vase and shed. Not to mention how Pauls two injuries suggests that they got their bruise from hitting the vase but their wounds on the hand from hitting the shed, which also coincides with dropping the knife they probably held in that hand.

So .. considering the knife being a backup murder weapon, who do we have as suspect? A somewhat old academic who lets others do his work and feels his age (as he does admit several times) or that young person who even ~admits~ multiple times they would commit a murder personaly? ... Once when you suggest they shot the dart and they get defensive about how they wouldve done such a thing more directly. And then I also believe they also said something along and between those lines when asking about if the dose of Strychnine would be enough to kill an elephant and/or human. ( I had them profiled as Smuggler, dont know if this affects the reactions)
Well, to be fair, that old academic was still able to kick a whole statue ... or was he?
I believe it was never said it was him who kicked it, just implied in a way one could imagine it might have been him. ;) Even in the journal its noted as "someone kicked the statue" and not "Arthur kicked the statue". Gives the "he was furious" from the gossiping workers a completly different meaning, wouldnt you say?


Second strong factor pointing towards Paul for me is Mrs Gildens overall behaviour.
She is adamant in not wanting to talk too much about the case and getting the elephant punished, with a worryingly strong focus on hard punishment, which gets obvious in the way she reacts on how you solved the case. (yes, I did reload and check all possible outcomes, because the reactions made me curious)
I do think her behaviour points at her having seen Paul at the scene. The most glaring thing is the travelling case she packed in a hurry. If she knew she was fleeing with Paul, wouldnt she have had time to pack beforehand? No, I believe she went down, saw what happened to her father, went back up and packed for her pirate-knight in shining armor to flee with her like in her adventure books ... in a hurry and just after covering the windows. Putting the detective who happened to approach and disrupt her on a goose chase against the true scapegoat in the case. ;)

Which brings me back to the questions of the OP.

Considering the question about Gildens Coat: I think it was the elephant that hung the coat on the tree.
Key here is the newspaper article you get for Johns bet, which highlights the deep empathetic behaviour elephants are able to do.
I believe there was a strong bond between Mr. Gilden and his elephant, and I do not believe he actualy abused it. That poker does look like a tool to force, but was it really? Couldnt it also have been a toe-cleaner or something like that? Im honestly not sure myself, but I am pondering it.
Thing is - Mr. Gildeds whole office shows how much he adored those animals, almost worshiped them. Well, kind of obviously worshipped them, considering the many depictions of Ganesha(?) in his office.
I just cannot imagine him abusing an animal he had such a bond to, which is reinforced by seeing the state and food of Goliaths pen. So Id imagine the elephant, after recovering from his panic, hanging the coat of his dear owner on that tree almost lovingly, before taking a swim near the aqueduct.

Considering the seemingly irrelevant letter in said coat:
I do think it outlines why Arthur had the book about elephants - He did try to seperate Mr Gilden and his elephant by creating a reasoning why he would be a bad owner, using his connections to make it a matter for them governor themself.
It fits to his assumption about Mr Gilden being unreasonable because of being too attached to his pet, trying to seperate them so he might refocus him on the academic/archeological exploits.
I also believe that is truly what Arthur wanted to say with that "I never wanted to.."-confession, that is sometimes taken as proof for his guilt, which he makes in one of the conviction-scenes. Before being cut off he wasnt about to admit a murder but was about to admit trying to seperate Mr Gilden and his elephant.

Considering the "was it shot before or after and is it even relevant":
No, it is not. First of all, even IF we assume the third party went after the elephant and tried to calm it or tried to save Mr. Gilded, it would leave the glaring question - why would that person even have a Strychnine-filled dart at that moment, if not to kill Mr. Gilded (or harrass the elephant, which I still doubt as sane Modus Operandi... )
Neither Arthur nor Paul wouldve had time to go back to their camp/workshop to get them, so they mustve had them on their person at that time.



Well, Im very happy with the case and think its the strongest yet. Almost brings back the feeling of the old Sherlock Holmes titles for me. ^^ (much needed after the graveyard-case which really disappointed me)

Im quite sure about my reasoning and my decision about Paul being the true culprit, but Id be interested about your thoughts on what I said.


Overall, and a little more meta, I do like the metaphorical implications of the case.
I dont think the gilded cage only refers to the elephant, but also refers to Mrs Gilded, who considered herself as such. Being envious about the elephant and the love her father gives to it, waiting for her pirate to get her out of there, without realising she is getting the same kind of love (as the yard, the photo and her room suggest).
On the other side we have Mr Gilded who mirrors the "grey peaceful giant". Like his elephant friend I do ~not~ think he was ever going to get aggressive and send goons after Paul. He was furious and he sent that letter to intimitade the threat to his daughter, but Id say thats all he was going to do. (which one could consider a choice in good intuition, considering the other crimes Paul was willing to commit for success)
The quote from Sherlock himself towards Paul wasnt actualy about Mr. Gilded, but his way to somewhat snarky mirror to Paul what they have become.

[chromatix]

So far as I'm concerned, the dressing gown being neatly hung up actually makes sense. The daughter insists that Goliath was never violent with Theodore, and the archive entry on elephants makes note of their dexterity, their ability to show love, and their tendency to perform rituals to grieve. Having got away and found time to calm down in a familiar location, Goliath would have taken the dressing gown as representative of his master, and would certainly be capable of hanging it up neatly.

[Frosty]

I can't remember if I got 100% of the clues for this case, I think I did, but if this coat thing was a bug then maybe it was just fixed, since I'm playing it so late after launch.

I will that this case (and some others) does have basic "confirmation" of the real killer, but it's just done in a very ham handed and awful way which is not obvious or intuitive and can be easily missed. I've put the answer below and added spoiler tags in case you want to try and work it out yourself. I would highly advise against trying to get it yourself, it's not gated behind some satisfying logical deduction, it'll almost certainly be a huge waste of time.

It's the archaeologist. If you find all the relevant evidence and accuse him he'll initially deny it. But then if you morally sympathise with him you can say you'll let him go free, and put the blame on the elephant being dangerous. He accepts your offer and briefly discusses leaving the island, which is not a direct confession but heavily implies he's guilty.

Note that once the mission is finished if you switch to Jons notebook, I believe he puts an entry in there praising Sherlock for getting the case right, this maybe an additional indication the choice was correct.

One downside is that blaming the elephant being dangerous on the death leads to them killing it during the wrap up of the case. Not only is this system very bad because getting details on the real killer is so obscure and obtuse, it also ties the confirmation of the real killer to the moral choices, you have to let him go and have an innocent animal killed in order to get the confirmation. So lame in fact that I re-loaded before the choice, accused him again and gave him the harsh punishment.

This is true of the first case in the game as well, another separate spoiler:

In the first murder, of Emma, if you get all the clues and confront the black guy who is the ex-thief, and you accuse him and again set him free, he'll confess directly to the murder. Again this ties the moral choice to the confirmation. I'd recommend always saving before final accusation, that allows you to save scum and see the confirmation for yourself and then re-load accuse again and allow you to pick the harsh punishment if you so choose.

I don't know how many other cases have confirmations of the right choice, searching online doesn't find much sadly, it's mostly just people opinions.