Sherlock Holmes' brilliance was based on an eye for detail. He'd notice sand on a trouser leg, a tiny bruise on a hand, or the suggestion of ink on a sleeve, and, from these minutiae, he'd extrapolate an entire narrative - correctly, I might add! There's a reason these stories stand the test of time, but would Conan Doyle have been even more convincing if he'd created a more fallible hero? You have the information to come to the right conclusion. But, if you misconstrue the facts, you could end up on the wrong path.