nickyt1980
07-27-2013, 12:25 PM
eg. explain this to me.
if monks was attempting to make a criminal out of Oliver to prevent Oliver from receiving his inheritance, then this suggests that proof of the will still exists, which suggests that a solicitor was present at the time of the drawing of the will.
This begs the question, why didnt the solicitor seek out Agnes and Oliver, and if he did Mr. Brownlow would have known about the will form that source. Mr Brownlow did not know about the will so there is a contradiction.
Simply...the contradiction here is that 1. Monks out to criminalise Oliver with 2. Brownlow not aware of the will
Another contradiction/plot hole is as follows... 1. Monks out to criminalise Oliver with 2. Monks mum passing on this "secret about the will" to Monks.
3 hours ago
there is no logical connection between points 1 and points 2, gaping plot holes, unless I am mistaken
3 hours ago
the two GLARING questions arising from the plot are as follows...
1. there is no logical reason for Monks to make a criminal out of Oliver.... because we are led to believe that there is NO proof of the will around... it was burnt.....and if it did exist Brownlow would have heard about it ( in all probability )
2.Even if the will is sitting in some Law firm, the is no connections whatsoever from oliver to Mr. Leeford. There isnt even any watertight proof that Agnes Fleming(even if she was still alive) was the actual Agnes Fleming mentioned in the will. The Locket she had doesnt prove ANYTHING.
In fact, the locket is only know to the dead man, his wife and Mr Fleming when Mrs Leeford showed him the letter. Even if Mr Fleming was alive and showed the letter to the law firm, all it proves is that A letter was written from SOMEBODY to a RANDOM agnes saying mind the locket I gave you. Again if Agnes was alive this could have been an elaborate plot to gain a strangers inheritance.
I will post more later on.
replies greatly appreciated
if monks was attempting to make a criminal out of Oliver to prevent Oliver from receiving his inheritance, then this suggests that proof of the will still exists, which suggests that a solicitor was present at the time of the drawing of the will.
This begs the question, why didnt the solicitor seek out Agnes and Oliver, and if he did Mr. Brownlow would have known about the will form that source. Mr Brownlow did not know about the will so there is a contradiction.
Simply...the contradiction here is that 1. Monks out to criminalise Oliver with 2. Brownlow not aware of the will
Another contradiction/plot hole is as follows... 1. Monks out to criminalise Oliver with 2. Monks mum passing on this "secret about the will" to Monks.
3 hours ago
there is no logical connection between points 1 and points 2, gaping plot holes, unless I am mistaken
3 hours ago
the two GLARING questions arising from the plot are as follows...
1. there is no logical reason for Monks to make a criminal out of Oliver.... because we are led to believe that there is NO proof of the will around... it was burnt.....and if it did exist Brownlow would have heard about it ( in all probability )
2.Even if the will is sitting in some Law firm, the is no connections whatsoever from oliver to Mr. Leeford. There isnt even any watertight proof that Agnes Fleming(even if she was still alive) was the actual Agnes Fleming mentioned in the will. The Locket she had doesnt prove ANYTHING.
In fact, the locket is only know to the dead man, his wife and Mr Fleming when Mrs Leeford showed him the letter. Even if Mr Fleming was alive and showed the letter to the law firm, all it proves is that A letter was written from SOMEBODY to a RANDOM agnes saying mind the locket I gave you. Again if Agnes was alive this could have been an elaborate plot to gain a strangers inheritance.
I will post more later on.
replies greatly appreciated