STCooper1

Actually, Sherlock became a bad man when he murdered Magnussen as it was unnecessary and undeserved. He was then worse than Magnussen as a traitor and murderer.

Well, then you as a born again Christian do not understand the grace that you received by not being condemned for your sins. Something happened and Sherlock received grace from the punishment. It doesn't erase the fact of what he did, and by sending him on the MI6 mission he was basically being given a death sentence from a country that otherwise cannot practice capitol punishment. But Sherlock passed from death to life through grace. Sherlock made the choice to end the suffering of and protect a lot of people, most especially those in his inner circle. He did what Mycroft couldn't do - and trust me, Mycroft has blood on his hands somewhere, somehow. Although Sherlock isn't a superhero like a Marvel character, he is no less fictional. He may seem more realistic and live in a more realistic world, but he's completely fictional. How many innocent people died in MAN OF STEEL due to all the destruction caused by Superman? What's the difference between pulling a trigger on an unarmed man and being so destructive that thousands of innocents are killed? Or have they actually been murdered by Superman's actions? After all, Superman willingly caused that destruction. And yet we say Superman does the right thing for Truth, Justice and the American way. He remains a hero. Sherlock shoots one baddie and he deserves no mercy or grace? We can't really make a judgement on Sherlock as we don't know his heart, but we do know he understood what he did and was willingly facing his punishment - which also was a form of grace, I suspect. I doubt Magnussen's death was linked to Sherlock in the press. It was likely swept under the rug to avoid the embarrassment and shame over someone who I read in a fan fiction was referred to as a "national treasure." It was fitting. Was he repentant? Does he feel any remorse? These answers have yet to be revealed but undoubtedly will be in S4. Wrong, I understand the free gift of salvation perfectly, and I also understand that the Bible says that the laws of man are to be OBEYED unless they obviously contradict what God says. Sherlock DELIBERATELY did the opposite and committed high treason and murder, thus disobeying the laws of man, all because of his hate of a man that wasn't actually dangerous. He did nothing deserving of a pardon. Our not being worthy of God's grace and salvation has nothing to do with Sherlock's getting away scot-free for murder and treason just because the man he murdered and was trying to trap by committing treason was detestable. Setting aside superheros and especially Man of Steel since that was just stupid, Sherlock doesn't deserve grace for doing the opposite of God's Will, even if he doesn't believe in Him. Also, he WASN'T actually protecting anyone by murdering Magnussen as he wasn't a threat to anyone's life, just their reputation. Do you think that God would just let him get away with those crimes? No, he wouldn't. Would he forgive them? Certainly, as there is only one sin that is unforgivable and thats blasphemy to the Holy Spirit. Trying to compare the two is invalid as they are two entirely different things as one is actual, undeserved mercy and grace given by a perfect being out of love of man, while the other is a mockery of actual justice and a violation of the laws of both God and man. People have done the things that Sherlock did for probably some of the same or similar reasons, and gone to prison for the rest of their lives. So should Sherlock. Even if he thought he was protecting his loved ones, he was doing so in a very evil and flawed way that was very much the opposite of what God did by giving us grace and what had to be done to make it possible. Everything he did was necessary, however horrible it may have seemed to send His own Son to die as a sacrifice for us once and for all time, as there was LITERALLY no other way at that point given what he'd given as prophecy in the Old Testament. What Sherlock did wasn't necessary as nobody was in any danger and the murder did nothing to end the threat of Magnussen's blackmail with his hard copies still out there and there still being others that knew their location.

Wrong, Mary was going to murder Magnussen because he knew the truth about her and she could go to prison for the rest of her life, which she openly admitted to in the episode, and she had NO way of knowing Magnussen put John in the bondfire.

Wrong, Magnussen was not blackmailing Mary and she was going to murder him just because he knew the truth about her. Completely psychotic and unnecessary.

You missed it, I see. After his Mind Palace display, Magnussen openly says to Watson in reply to his comment about the lack of evidence saying "Well, sometimes I send out for something if I really need it, but mostly I just remember it all". He showed evidence this claim was true earlier in the episode when he showed Holmes and Watson the letters from Lord Smallwood to that girl. That reply line confirms the blackmail knowledge in his Mind Palace is still in his possession and safely stored away somewhere else than Appledore where he can send for through trusted underlings should he need anything. Therefore, if he were to be sued for libel or slander, hes got all the proof he'll ever need to win.

A born-again Christian is someone has been saved from Hell by accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior and the free gift of salvation. Out of the religions you have just named, anyone who has done this is a born-again Christian. Anyone(in a religion or not) who does not, regardless of their religion, isn't going to Heaven as only the redeemed of God and the unaware(meaning people unable tom understand their nature of sin because of being too young or because of a mental handicap preventing them from doing so) can dwell with him for all eternity. As to which of those religions I am a part, its Baptist. I'm Missionary Baptist.

Thank you for your answer. That does indeed help me to understand where you are coming from. I actually agree with you ... in principle; two wrongs do not make a right. Not because I am a practising Christian (far from it! ) but because I believe in what might be called a universal moral code (and no, gang, I will not debate what that means! :D ) I'm as unhappy as anyone with the writers' decision to have Sherlock kill Magnussen. The thing is, though, I also understand why others defend that decision; whether because it's smart scriptwriting, or because Sherlock is meant somehow to be above the law, or because fiction is not real life; etc. I don't AGREE; but that's my personal opinion. It doesn't make me right and everyone else wrong. However, I do love sfmpco's invocation of "grace", and that is what I like to believe happened at the end of HLV; not that Sherlock got away with murder, but that he received grace and mercy. “Grace is what God gives us when we don't deserve and mercy is when God doesn't give us what we do deserve.” Nor do I think Sherlock was entirely undeserving; he did what he did out of love for his friends and country (or so I believe). That's worth something, in my book. At any rate, that's how I live with how the story unfolded; my belief that grace is greater than vengeance. Well we differ in regards to grace. I don't think Sherlock deserves it and that to give it to him would mean that he got away with high treason and murder with no repercussions. He DESERVES to be punished for his crimes in my book.

:applause: Thank you for that. Also thanks for proving that there are in fact religious people in the world who are capable of seeing things from a different perspective (I did know this before, being an unbaptised agnostic married to a devout Christian, but it's just good to be reminded that his kind are more numerous than I tend to think). I particularly like the superhero parallel. I think it's funny how superheroes kill villains by the score and cause huge collateral damage and nobody gives a hoot, but Sherlock takes down one bad guy and there's outrage. It's a sign of how high the quality of the show is, of course. Sherlock is just more realistic than Avengers or Fantastic Four or Superman or whatever, so we come to it with more realistic expectations of right and wrong. And I love how the episode itself presented the killing of Magnussen as problematic. Sherlock just isn't a good character. Like he said himself, he may be on the side of the angels, but he's not one of them. He doesn't want to be made into a hero, and he told Moriarty that if he wanted to shake hands with him in hell, he would not disappoint him. We the audience for the most part seem to share Lestrade's hope that some day, Sherlock will be good as well as great, but I don't see Sherlock being in on that plan. We'll see. For the time being, we have to be content that we're rooting for a dangerous, unpredictable and in a lot of ways unscrupulous man. Well, superheroes usually kill villains in a fair fight where they have to to stop them, and while usually trying to prevent any lives being lost. If it happens anyway, its not usually their fault it did. With Sherlock, it was the opposite. Murdering Magnussen was completely unnecessary, unfair(since was unarmed and defenseless), and immoral since he took an actual life that can't be replaced. Something far worse than anything Magnussen ever did. So that deserves outrage.

Well, I am a born-again Christian too and there's at least one other on this forum. That being said, we are dealing with a character who DOESN'T believe in God, who has extraordinary powers of observation, and who lives in a fictional world and who often operates above the laws of the land. I expect Mycroft and Magnussen didn't believe in God either, and I don't impose Christian values on non-Christian characters. It doesn't work. Again, it's fiction. It's not the real world. Let's not forget the O.J. Simpson got off a murder charge when he was completely, totally guilty. Justice doesn't always prevail regardless. You try to preach the Gospel to Sherlock, try to point out the fallacy of evolution vs. creative design by an almighty God, and Sherlock will bury you under your own theology and leave you puppy-whipped in the corner. No one gives a fig when thousands of people are likely killed by The Avengers smashing through buildings and sending rubble, glass and debris everywhere. Leave it in the fictional world. Let the laws of fiction stay fiction. And yes, Magnussen was a blackmailer. ----- I should also add that I am not saying that Sherlock should not be punished, but there is also such a thing as grace, and it's called a pardon, and he may very well have been pardoned in those 4 minutes. Nice to meet another born-again Christian here! Its a pleasure! But no, Magnussen was shown to actually be a blackmailer, not legally speaking. He was just called one. Legally, to be a blackmailer you have to make threats and demands that something be met or else you'll expose this information. Magnussen didn't do that, from what we see in the episode. He makes deals yes, but how they come about is unknown. Could be through meeting like the one at Baker Street where his "victims" call on someone for help arranging them. Although he may be pardoned and amnesty does exist, I don't Sherlock is deserving of it. He deserves punishment.

May I ask you a question? Legality aside, do you think it was "moral" of Magnussen to use people's flaws and weaknesses to control them? If not ... if he was technically within the law, but behaving either immorally or amorally ... would it be appropriate for him to receive ANY kind of punishment, from anyone? Or is punishment acceptable only for those who have broken the law? I hadn't really thought about it that way before, so I'm just curious what you think. No, it wasn't moral of Magnussen to use people's flaws and weaknesses to control them, it was very sinful. He wasn't breaking the law by doing it, however, since he wasn't truly a blackmailer. I think he deserved to be punished legally for the abduction of John by man if they can prove it by being put in prison, and for his other, technically legal, sins by God as divine judgement. However, he didn't deserve to be murdered since he'd never killed anybody or even had anyone killed that we see, and his abduction of John, whose life was in NO danger, doesn't warrant a death sentence. Overall, as a born-again Christian, my point of view is that if you can punish him LEGALLY then do it, but if you can't leave his punishment to God. "Vengeance is mine. I shall repay", says the Lord. As to other forms of punishment as retaliation, such as what Mary did when she knocked him out, I'm also against that as two wrongs don't make a right. I know you may not agree with my point of view and that many don't, however, that is my take on it and I hope you understand where I'm coming from. Yes, Magnussen deserved to be punished for his actions, but in a legal, sinless way only, and not through some illegal, immoral way even worse than him such as murder.

Saved from being bullied? Yeah, thats a worthy cause for murder....not!

Morally and legally speaking, those questions can be answered. No, Magnussen's murder wasn't justice since he didn't deserve to die and murdering him was even worse than what he'd done. Sherlock being sent into exile initially for treason and murder was justice since he indeed deserved to be punished for the crimes he'd committed, but calling him back in four minutes was an absolute mockery of justice.

Magnussen's file on Sherlock shows that he was/is MI6. When Mycroft said "MI6. They want to place you back into Eastern Europe" means that MI6 had placed him there before (probably the 2 years of dismantling Moriarty's network). So he IS MI6. For him to be a spy is part of original canon. I don't know why people balk at the MI6 thing. No one is trying to make him into James Bond. His committing murder and high treason (if it really was high treason and not just part of a set-up with Mycroft to nail Magnussen) are, as you stated, completely wrong and illegal. I do believe Magnussen's guards were not so stupid as not to do their jobs. But even Magnussen says "It's fine. They're harmless!" So he probably didn't have them searched. Fatal mistake. Incorrect, the guards were stupid as he put them out there for that reason. He hired them to do a job and they'd been with him a while, so Magnussen shouldn't have to tell them constantly to do their jobs and search the guests for weapons. They should have known to and did it, but they forgot and their boss wound up dead. The fact that he dismissed them after they brought in Holmes and Watson to him and later said " Its fine. They're harmless" proves he thought they were unarmed and that his guards had done the job he paid them for. Also, Magnussen's file on Holmes said nothing about him being MI6 and Mycroft's statement "back into Eastern Europe" doesn't mean he was an agent necessarily. It could have been just a passing reference to the fact Sherlock was there before as much as a statement that hes MI6 and that they had put him there. Its not expressly confirmed either way. You need to look at Magnussen's read out on Sherlock again because it very specifically shows MI6. Also, the guards would have searched them. That was their job. Why didn't they? I don't think they forgot. Did they forget when they went to Sherlock's flat? No. Why would they ever "forget" at Magnussen's place? They aren't stupid. That's what they are paid to do. Why didn't they? It's all speculation but Magnussen clearly didn't suspect or feel any threat from them. And yes, MI6 had placed him in Eastern Europe before. No, Magnussen's read-out didn't say that Sherlock was MI6, but that his brother Mycroft was instead. So, no its not expressly confirmed in the episode that Sherlock either was or wasn't MI6. Yes they did forget, and those two at Appledore weren't among that were with Magnussen at Baker Street. They were two other, completely different guards, and though they may not have been completely stupid, they had a stupid moment when they forgot to do their jobs at Appledore as they'd been paid. Magnussen didn't have to tell them to do their job since they already knew to do it. Why would they forget then? Plot convenience. As an adaptation of Milverton, Magnussen was always going to die since hes too much to be defeated by Sherlock Holmes. Thats why they forgot. Predictable and cheap, yet simple.

Magnussen's file on Sherlock shows that he was/is MI6. When Mycroft said "MI6. They want to place you back into Eastern Europe" means that MI6 had placed him there before (probably the 2 years of dismantling Moriarty's network). So he IS MI6. For him to be a spy is part of original canon. I don't know why people balk at the MI6 thing. No one is trying to make him into James Bond. His committing murder and high treason (if it really was high treason and not just part of a set-up with Mycroft to nail Magnussen) are, as you stated, completely wrong and illegal. I do believe Magnussen's guards were not so stupid as not to do their jobs. But even Magnussen says "It's fine. They're harmless!" So he probably didn't have them searched. Fatal mistake. Incorrect, the guards were stupid as he put them out there for that reason. He hired them to do a job and they'd been with him a while, so Magnussen shouldn't have to tell them constantly to do their jobs and search the guests for weapons. They should have known to and did it, but they forgot and their boss wound up dead. The fact that he dismissed them after they brought in Holmes and Watson to him and later said " Its fine. They're harmless" proves he thought they were unarmed and that his guards had done the job he paid them for. Also, Magnussen's file on Holmes said nothing about him being MI6 and Mycroft's statement "back into Eastern Europe" doesn't mean he was an agent necessarily. It could have been just a passing reference to the fact Sherlock was there before as much as a statement that hes MI6 and that they had put him there. Its not expressly confirmed either way.

Magnussen wasn't blackmailing Lady Smallwood since all he did was make blunt statements that he owned her. Thats arrogance, not blackmail as blackmail is, legally speaking, to threaten to expose embarrassing or incriminating information on someone unless they meet a demand. He didn't make a threat or a demand to or about Smallwood, and Magnussen was therefore not legally a blackmailer. Wrong, What Mycroft said to Sherlock while they were smoking was "I have a job offer which I would like you to decline" and next he said "MI6. They want to place you back into Eastern Europe." He didn't say Sherlock had worked for MI6 before, but that they had a job offer for him. Mary was John's weakness, therefore he needed her to own her husband. Thats the spectrum Magnussen revealed; by owning Mary through his knowledge of her past, he owns her, by owning her he owns John, by owning John he owns Sherlock, and by owning Sherlock he owns Mycroft, and therefore the entire British government. He NEEDS Mary for it to be possible because Watson cares more about her than Holmes or anyone or thing else. it wasn't just a boring job for MI6 that Sherlock was sent to do. He was punished in the most dishonorable way possible as his own brother exiled him for high treason and murder, and sent him own a suicide mission that he said earlier would prove fatal in about 6 months. Then they made a joke of justice by calling him back in 4 minutes when Moriarty's face pops up everywhere in the country.

In exposing the information of Smallwood(if he did), Magnussen did act lawfully and honestly as newspapers can legally expose scandalous information, and Magnussen didn't threaten to expose the information to Lady Smallwood if she didn't rule the inquiry in a certain way. Not at all. All he did was inform her that he had and knew the letter's contents and then bluntly told her she was now his property, licking her face to prove it when she verbally defied him. As gross and arrogant a creep as that made Magnussen, that is not blackmail. As I've said in earlier posts on this site, from what we see of his actions, Magnussen isn't even legally a blackmailer. He didn't threaten to murder Mary, he just used the fact that he could contact people who hated her and tell them her location as a scare tactic to force Watson to let him flick his face. Magnussen NEVER would have done so, as hes aware that if he did and something happened to Mary, he wouldn't just lose her, he'd lose John, Sherlock, and Mycroft right along with her. He NEEDS her alive and well to be able to ultimately own Mycroft. True, Magnussen had John abducted and put in the bond fire, but he didn't have him almost burned to death. He guaranteed John's life was in no fatal danger by putting men nearby to get him out in case Sherlock didn't make it in time, which was proven by his possession of the footage of Sherlock and Mary getting John out. His men filmed it, as anyone else there that might have been filming the fire had most definitely shut their cameras off after Watson started screaming, provided anyone else was filming at the time. Overall, John's abduction was the only actual crime we saw happen by Magnussen's hand, and that was nowhere near as bad as what Sherlock did to him for no reason, or what Mary did in her past life. Magnussen was not stupid as he put his guards out front to search John and Sherlock for weapons at Appledore, just as those with him at Baker Street did. He anticipated they might bring a gun and try to kill him after he'd won the battle of wits, but the only reason his murder was possible was because his guards, despite knowing their jobs and why they were there, forgot to search John and Sherlock for weapons as they'd been hired to do and their boss ended up dead as a result. If anything, they were stupid, not Magnussen. Magnussen had an extraordinary intellect rivaling or equal to that of Mycroft Holmes, so he was a genius, not a fool. Far from it. Yes, he was a bully, but you're factually wrong when you call him a fool. The footage of John being pulled out of the fire may not be incriminating as they have to prove he had that done and that his men filmed it, which the footage alone can't do. For all they know, he could have got that from someone else who was just visiting from another country and happened to film it, and who has now returned home(I know I said anyone normal probably wouldn't have done that, but that would make a good lie to why he has it that the police would have a hard time disproving). And his openly admitting to do it, with Sherlock and Watson as witnesses, won't be enough unless they recorded the conversation at that point as then he can just dispute them and it will be their word against his. Not enough for a conviction. Sherlock isn't an agent for MI6 as far as we know, so his action of committing murder and high treason was completely wrong and illegal, and he deserved to be punished for them. As to Mycroft maybe having more plans brewing, I wouldn't be surprised given who and what he is.

Nobody died through Magnussen's fault. Lord Smallwood killed himself, possibly for no reason as we didn't see that Magnussen exposed the letters to the public unless it was on that newspaper that couldn't be read. And even if Magnussen did expose the letters, thats his JOB as a newspaper owner, to expose scandals and profit from them. He didn't MAKE Smallwood kill himself, the latter chose to which proved what a wuss and weakling he was that he couldn't take the truth being known like a man. So your statement that he "sowed havoc in the lives and deaths of people in HLV" is overall false, since all he did was ruin reputations. May seem morbid and easy to hate, but perfectly legal and honest. Secondly, Mycroft didn't want Magnussen dead and didn't seem to feel threatened by him. He openly appreciated what a useful asset he was, and protected him. Next, Sherlock MURDERED a man in cold blood who had never killed anybody in his entire life and who wasn't even threatening to, on top of committing high treason, both deliberately. Thats way worse than ruining somebody's reputation, which they can live without, as Magnussen would do. Next, you're completely wrong that Sherlock was aware that he might have to murder Magnussen, as his whole cover plan would have been done differently and he wouldn't have guaranteed his own capture for murder and treason, as well as probably not brought Watson along and had a silencer on the gun, if he had suspected or knew the Appledore vaults would turn out to be a Mind Palace. He DIDN'T know or suspect that before Magnussen revealed it, therefore he was utterly defeated at his own game(intellectually), and then proved himself worse than Magnussen by committing murder and doing something worse than he ever did and giving him moral victory as well. Asking Watson if he'd brought his gun was for one or the other, if not both, of two reasons; protection or a hostage situation. They were stealing state secrets, so theres officials to worry about, and also Sherlock had just finished openly describing Magnussen as the most dangerous man they'd ever faced, so he'd of course want a gun there in case Magnussen betrays them, or goes back on the deal and refuses to turn over the papers on Mary after getting the laptop. Then, they would take him hostage and make him, afterwards probably using him to get out of Appledore just before Mycroft and the police arrive, though that in itself has a measure of idiocy since hes gambling that Magnussen's guards will forget to do their jobs when he has no guarantee that they will.

Even if he does make puppets out of them, hes not dangerous and Mycroft openly admits Magnussen is their ally and occasionally useful to them, along with that he never causes much damage to important people. If thats the case, why would Mycroft care about Magnussen or bother getting rid of him. Its just destruction of a useful ally and asset and unnecessary trouble. Its not that Mycroft is ignorant and stupid, just appreciative of Magnussen and his resources, despite noting them as a necessary evil. Dead isn't defeated since Magnussen then had moral victory and intellectual victory together. He was the better man, and the smarter. Thats a winner, not a loser. I agree that Sherlock in this episode is not like in the previous 8 though.

What do you mean "the secrets that Magnussen wanted"? You mean government secrets? Of course he'd never have revealed those since its not known whether he even had any. He said when explaining Sherlock's plan "They will discover further information of this kind, and I'll be imprisoned", but whether that means he actually knew classified secrets or if what he said mean't blackmail material in the form of dark secrets is unknown. He didn't want government secrets necessarily, he wanted OWNERSHIP of Mycroft, which he didn't need government secrets for since he also owned Sherlock, who is Mycroft's pressure point. Thats what he explained at Appledore, and what he intended to do with ownership of Mycroft is also unknown. For all we know, he would have done little to nothing aside from flaunt his power like a bully since, at heart, thats all Magnussen is.

Mary's life was NEVER threatened by Magnussen and he never would have gave their address to her enemies as Magnussen NEEDS them both alive and well, which makes his murder completely unnecessary and not a fulfillment of Sherlock's vow to the Watson's.

No, they won't claim victory as they didn't defeat Magnussen, Magnussen defeated them as they had nothing to use against him. Also, Mycroft being involved and potentially trying to get rid of Magnussen makes no sense since he openly calls him a necessary evil and thinks of him as an asset. He knows Magnussen isn't dangerous, saying "He never causes too much damage to anyone important. Hes far too intelligent for that". So no, when he said "Here be dragons", he didn't mean Magnussen was one, nor was he in on Sherlock's plan directly.

It's interesting,because if there are truly no vaults,he has no evidence,as John points out. He says he doesn't need evidence because he prints it in the papers, and certainly that is enough to destroy someone's reputation whether there is evidence or not. But according to Sherlock at the beginning, Magnusson does do deals with people when he's ready,so what does he give them in the exchange? The promise of his silence wouldn't be particularly reassuring for me....! The thing is he doesn't need to remember that much information, just enough to convince people he has more, surely? - he doesn't seem to be tested on it very often. He said he could call up people who hated Mary, but he doesn't do so because John isn't going to risk it. So how do we know? It is very clever! Magnussen did have evidence, as he points out to John right after the Mind Palace display.

No, CAM didn't mislead Sherlock about the letters and he does have everything in his Mind Palace in physical form elsewhere away from Appledore, as he confirmed after the Mind Palace display. What Sherlock thought as his best educated guess was that they were at Appledore, and that theory was completely wrong.

No, Magnussen wasn't lying about having an exceptional memory, as later proved by his Mind Palace's immense size and capacity. He has a EXTRAORDINARY memory.

Funny that I've pointed to the facts in the script four times now and yet you keep blithely declaring they do not exist. Sherlock's explicitly stated motivation in the script is to see the vault. So, contrary to your claim, it is far more than merely "personal opinion". Nor is it, contrary to your claim, just "personal opinion" that Sherlock recognizes in the cafe that CAM has Appledore in his mind - ie that CAM himself is the "portable Appledore". That explicit revelation is the entire point of that scripted scene. And, contrary to your claim, it is not "personal opinion" but fact that the script reveals Sherlock has the entire plan put together right after discovering the vault is mental rather than digital - right down to the day it will occur - months later on Christmas - and down to the explicit motivation for it: Sherlock's "deal with the devil" is, contrary to your claim, explicitly stated right in the script, to be the betrayal of his brother - not for Mary's files - but to see the vault. Everything I've stated about Sherlock's motivation has, contrary to your claims, been in the script. In fact, the script virtually beats the viewer over the head with it - especially with Sherlock's discovery that Appledore is in CAM's mind. I'm not sure why you keep trying to claim all of this doesn't exist in the script, but if it is more "fun" for you that these scripted facts not exist, then far be it for me to stand in the way of your "enjoyment". If you truly don't want to talk about them further, then I won't discuss them with you any longer either. Seems fair enough. Please *quote* lines/stage directions - *not* 'he looked like this which meant he was thinking this'. If you can't do that, we're going to have to agree to differ and accept that none of us know except the writers - and if you are one of the writers undercover, i'm sorry but you didn't do a good enough job of conveying what you wanted to get across! I'm sorry my summary of the words and actions of the script are not convincing. However, I am more than happy to quote the actual words and actions from the script as they occur on-screen, if that is what you truly require (though, for the record, I never said anything like 'he looked like this which meant he was thinking this'. Quite the opposite, in fact. I have stated 'He did or saw this, which is why he looked like that'. If you truly believe otherwise, then I would request you do the same that you request of me: provide my actual words - ie please "quote" me.) Now, here is when Sherlock discovers CAM's vault is in his mind: Sherlock: "Oh, I think you're a lot more careless than you let on." CAM "Am I?" Sherlock: "It's the dead-eye stare that gives it away. Except it's not dead-eyed, is it? Sherlock takes off CAM's glasses. "You're reading. Portable Appledore. How does it work? Built-in flash drive? 4G wireless?" Sherlock puts the glasses on. He realizes they are normal glasses. Sherlock: "Just ordinary spectacles." CAM: "Yes. They are." We see CAM's view again - and see the readout we've seen all along, except now without the glasses. It is thus similar to what we see when Sherlock identifies things in his mind. CAM: "You underestimate me Mr. Holmes." So, as I've stated numerous times now, in the script Sherlock identifies the fact that CAM is reading. What is CAM reading though? The script makes clear he has no papers physically in his hands. So he's not reading physical files. The script does have CAM wearing glasses though. Thus the script has Sherlock conclude that CAM is reading something digitally in the glasses (something akin to an HUD). The script has Sherlock attempt to confirm his deduction about what CAM is reading by taking the glasses to view the vault himself. But was CAM reading from the glasses? No. So - the script tells us Sherlock knows CAM is reading. But the script now tells us Sherlock knows CAM was not reading physical files nor digital files. So what was CAM reading then? In the script, CAM tells Sherlock his deduction - that CAM supposedly requires an external source to be able to read his files - underestimates CAM. In other words, the script has CAM state to Sherlock that the belief that CAM requires files to be either physical or digital is an underestimation of what CAM is capable. So the script tells us Sherlock knows CAM is reading. And the script tells us Sherlock knows CAM is not reading anything physical or digital. So if the script eliminates for Sherlock the files being physical or digital, what does the script then leave him? The mental, of course. The script leaves for Sherlock only the fact that CAM is reading mental files - files in his mind - the files which the script had Sherlock call the "portable Appledore". In other words, the script leaves for Sherlock the fact that CAM holds Appledore in his his mind. Pretty simple actually. And all in the script. One simply need pay attention to it. Now, I can provide the verbatim quotes from the script for all the rest of the points I made as well, if you really need them. Just let me know. However, since this is the most important point of them all - Sherlock's recognition that the "portable Appledore" is not the glasses but is in fact CAM's mind - it should suffice to prove what I've been stating. For if the script itself is not enough to convince you, then nothing will. Wrong, the script confirms that Sherlock THINKS Magnussen is reading because of the dead-eyed stare. That fact that he said "Is it" along with "Except its not dead-eyed" proves that, not that he KNEW Magnussen was.