Here's a breakdown of how Holmes's deductions play out:
* The hound: Holmes correctly identifies the existence of a large, vicious dog, which is initially dismissed by the local police and others. He even suggests the dog is trained and controlled, which turns out to be true.
* The footprints: Holmes correctly identifies the footprints on the moor as belonging to a gigantic hound, despite the initial belief they belonged to a human.
* The killer's identity: While the "hound" itself is a key element of the mystery, Holmes ultimately deduces that the real killer is someone else, manipulating the situation. He correctly identifies the murderer as Stapleton, using various clues and observations.
* The motive: Holmes unravels the motive behind the murder, pointing out that Stapleton wanted to inherit Baskerville lands and wealth through a staged "hound attack."
Where the "proof" lies:
While Holmes might not be "proven wrong" in a traditional sense, his initial deductions about the hound are initially met with disbelief and skepticism. However, his deductions and theories are ultimately confirmed through the investigation and the unmasking of the real culprit.
It's important to remember that Holmes's brilliance lies not only in his deductions but also in his ability to explain his reasoning and build a convincing case, even when others find it hard to accept.