Sherlock Holmes vs. Gil Grissom

Just this week I re-read "The Red Headed League" by A.C. Doyle. It's such a classic Sherlock Holmes mystery. I must confess I'm a big fan of London's greatest detective. My grandfather used to read me his tales when I was just a young lad.

Holmes is a pretty easy guy to admire. He is wicked smart, likes his brandy and pipe, and prefers a good riding crop over a hand gun. It was from Holmes and his singular adventures that I first realized brains beat braun, wit beats foul play, and logic always wins out over violence.

My composition instructor is using Holmes to illustrate his teachings on argument and logic. I would venture to say Holmes is one of the best examples you could give for deductive logic -- the inclusion of Holmes in the class is elementary, if I do say.

However, the other example Mr. Lee used was CSI (the original, not the crappy, ego vehicle of David Caruso) and specifically Chief investigator Gil Grissom. Now I have always admired the work of William Peterson, specifically in the underrated Manhunter, the original Hannibal Lecter film, but I was skeptical about comparing this T.V. character with the legndary Sherlock Holmes.

But you know what, I wouldn't mind seeing a deductive battle between these two. Call it an assumption, obeservation, and deducing throw down.

After watching a few episodes of CSI with the express purpose of analyzing the logic I came away impressed. First off, the show is different than other crime shows. The crime, and more specifically, the evidence is the story. Grissom is a careful observer. He is equally as eccentric as Holmes -- a key chracteristic of a great detective. Grissom figures things out based on evidence. Most importantly, he questions the assumptions that make up the base of his logical conclusions.

Now to make this competition fair we would have to take technology out of the equation. I mean imagine what Holmes would have done with a DNA centrifuge and some high-end digital photo enhancing software. Hell, imagine what he would have done with a camera and fingerprints. Had Holmes access to the Las Vegas crime lab, there would have been zero crime in London gauranteed.

No, we would have to present the two of them with a singular event told to them by an unwitting and hapless victim (I'm thinking of a curvy red-head in a low cut dress; I think we are safe including some technological advances in clothing). Then the two of them could face off looking for clues, interviewing suspects, and setting up a fantastical trap to catch the evil-doer red-handed.

I would watch that. I would read that story.

The thing is, both detectives are gifted at what they do. All criminals make mistakes. And in the end, with careful reasoning and deductive locic, these two role-models of any age always catch their crook.

Logic always wins out ... elementary, my dear reader.

Sherlock Holmes vs. Gil Grissom