How Many Murders and How Many Murderers are in the Sign of Four?

How many murders and how many murderers are there in The Sign of Four?  Definitely two murders committed by at least five murderers, but maybe more.

First, based on the words of Jonathan Small himself, in 1857 or 1858, Jonathan Small joins a conspiracy with Mahomet Singh, Abdullah Khan and Dost Akbar to kill the merchant Achmet and steal a treasure comprised of precious stones and pearls.  The merchant tries to escape, but Small trips him, and the merchant dies, either from the fall or from subsequent knife wounds.

Second, in 1888, Tonga kills Bartholomew Sholto with a poison dart.  Small claims that he had not intended to kill Bartholomew Sholto, and thus claims that he is not responsible for the murder, only Tonga. “I don’t believe that I can swing over the job,” Small tells Holmes.

The law, however, probably would disagree.  Under English and American law, a person committing certain dangerous crimes such as burglary is responsible for murders caused by their partners in the course of the crime, a principle called “felony murder.”  Small was committing burglary with Tonga, and likely knew that Tonga had poison darts with him.  Small thus would likely be guilty of murder under the felony murder rule, even if he did not actually intend to kill Bartholomew Sholto himself.

Those two murders are clear, with one murder committed by four people and the second murder committed by one or possibly two.

But there likely are two other murders.

A third murder probably occurred when Jonathan Small escaped from the Andaman Islands.  Small says that he used his wooden leg to attack a guard “who had never missed a chance of insulting and injuring me.”  Small says that he “struck him full, and knocked the whole front of his skull in,” and that he left the guard “lying quiet enough.”  It is not absolutely clear that Small killed this guard, but it sounds probable.

The fourth possible murder involves the death of Mary Morstan’s father.

According to Thaddeus Sholto, his father, Major John Sholto, revealed on his deathbed in 1882 that he had been present when Captain Morstan died four years earlier.

According to Thaddeus, Major Sholto said that Captain Morstan had confronted him over the Agra treasure and about Sholto’s keeping the treasure all for himself.  “Morstan had sprung out of his chair in a paroxysm of anger, when he suddenly pressed his hand to his side, his face turned a dusky blue, and he fell backwards, cutting his head against the corner of the treasure-chest.”

A very convenient story.

Assuming that we can believe Thaddeus’s account, Major Sholto probably lied to his sons by claiming that Captain Morstan’s death was just an accident.  More likely, Major Sholto probably struck Captain Morstan, knocking him into the chest and causing his death.  Major Sholto then covered up the death rather than risk investigation.

By the end of the Sign of Four, Holmes has cleared Thaddeus Sholto for the murder of his brother Bartholomew.  But the story might get more complicated afterwards.

By Thaddeus’s account, Major Sholto’s servant Lal Chowdar was an accomplice after the fact to the murder of Captain Morstan by helping Major Sholto hide the body.  Chowdar could be prosecuted as an accomplice and probably would be encouraged to at least reveal the location of the body.

And Thaddeus himself could face prosecution connected to the death of Captain Morstan.

By his own words, Thaddeus was aware that a felony had been committed as of 1882.  He then stayed silent for years afterwards, keeping silent for personal benefit.  English law at the time recognized that not reporting knowledge of a crime could be a crime in and of itself (misprision of felony), and U.S. federal law still recognizes misprision of felony as a crime today.  English law might have recognized an exception for not reporting the crimes of a close relative, especially one who had died, but it might not excuse Thaddeus for failing to report Chowdar’s involvement.

Moreover, Thaddeus himself might be an accomplice to the murder himself, especially if Chowdar cooperates against him.  Thaddeus’s story might have been as self-serving as his father’s, and he might have known more earlier than he claimed.