CSIBakerStreet

Merry Christmas, Mycroft. Merry Christmas, Molly Hooper. And everyone else. Especially the Sherlock Forum. Thank you for the...lovely e-card. Yes, I know I'm a day late, but deal with it. I was busy. Better late than never, isn't that a common phrase? I do have a sort of card for those of you that might want one...It's apparently too large to send here, so you MIGHT have to e-mail me. But nevertheless... Brilliant. Meretricious. And a Happy New Year.

But you DID get the joke, right? And I am quite at odds to admit that Doyle made several errors in his writings, but as you say he was "human". He was at different ages when he wrote them, they aren't in sequence either. And he did write it for some time, that I suppose could account for any small mistakes. Yet, whether he made mistakes or not, people always seem to enjoy his novels. And I must admit, he was a great writer.

Oh. Yes. Does anyone remember the series Case Histories starring Jason Isaacs as Jackson Brodie? If you do, go on then. I challenge you to find any similarities between Brodie and I. I suppose there is a REAL connection between the miniseries Sherlock and Case Histories. For those of you who don't already know, it will appear on the blog I have mentioned enumeral times very soon. Along with the connections I am looking forward to. By the way, they are bringing Case Histories back for a third season. Oh, God.

What happens is they reach Meringen on the third, then on the afternoon of the fourth they set off with the intent of crossing the hills and spend the night at the HAMLET of Rosenlaui, not IN Rosenlaui. Finally the passage "My friend would stay some time at the fall, he said, and would then slowly walk over the hill to Rosenlaui, where I was to rejoin him in the evening." That plus the date of the newspapers. The first one is May 6th, 1891. The second is May 7th. So yes. I was...wrong. Again... (Ignore anything you've seen in THIS post before I edited it...Let's just say Sherlock made another mistake...)

See what? Carol, drinking and then it going up her nose because of my little joke or me in the sheet? Because I was speaking figuratively. I didn't really overstep the limits of my sheet, I leave that to someone else. Oh, and by the way, Conan Doyle is a sly old fox. I/Sherlock did not die on the THIRD of May, but the FIFTH. So, for THE LAST TIME, the correct date is May 5th, 2011.

Lucky the carpet caught that one, eh?

Let me see... I've already indicated that I/Sherlock was 30 in 2010, the year he/I and John met. John's first post was December 14th of the year before. 2009. The rest of his post dates, in order: December 15th (2009), January 20th (2010), January 21st (2010), January 25th (2010), January 28th (2010), January 29th (2010) [when he/and I met for the first time...how could I ever forget that date?], January 31st (2010), February 1st (2010), February 7th (2010), 2 posts on March 23rd (2010), March 27th (2010), March 28th (2010), April 1st (2010), May 1st (2010), 2 posts on May 30th (2010), June 16th (2010) [Hmm, that same date...], July 13th (2010), August 1st (2010), August 12th (2010), September 2nd (2010), September 15th (2010), December 19th (2010), December 25th (2010), December 31st (2010), January 1st (2011), March 12th (2011), 2 posts on March 16th (2011), and...the...last...post... June...16th. DAMN. Well. You were right. And I in my arrogance over stepped the limits of my sheet. Well done. Ahem. I shall now correct it. Sherlock's/My death date is May 3rd, 2011. So it's been longer than I thought. A year. A year since I faked my own death and was seperated from John. No wonder he was so angry at me when he was still on here and I still had one.

I'll look further into that little tidbit about 1895 for you, Miss Adler. Meanwhile, I have done another equation. Doing The Math 2: Sherlock's/My Death Date. This one was extremely difficult, the writers were sneaky. Luckily, however, the modern math ACTUALLY matched the original math for ONCE. Now, it's important to note not only what you see in The Reichenbach Fall; but what you HEAR. John's therapist, Ella Thompson, says it's been 18 months since their last appointment. So I backtracked. And their last appointment would have been in January of 2011. Quite a while back. Which means that the point at which John and Ella having their appointment, 18 months later, is June 2012. Now. Here's the tricky part. The start of John's story, the screen says "3 months earlier." but then a LOT later, the screen says "2 months later". Now what I thought was that it still meant it was in that first month. But no. It was counting down. So three months earlier than June, that's March. And two months later than March, that's May. And John's last blog post was a month after that, June 16th. That is, as I am full aware, the modern math. For those of you fond of the original novels/short stories, you may enjoy this. Now, April 24th, (a month after March. Yes, suffice to say the original math does not include March anywhere in its equation of The Final Problem, but that doesn't matter.) Sherlock Holmes goes to visit John Watson in his study. Then he and Watson meet at Victoria Station the next day, April 25th. Then, they spend 2 days in Brussels. (Remind any of you of anything? HOUND, for instance? Bob Frankland covers up for me/Sherlock when I/he breaks into Baskerville charading as Mycroft by saying he met me/Sherlock (but Mycroft) at a convention and he pretended to try to remember where it was and he said "Brussels, was it?" See, nothing gets past me.) Equaling it being the 27th of April. Watson and Holmes then leave for Strasbourg on the next day, the 28th. But then Conan Doyle became the trickmaster here. For the next thing he says, Holmes and Watson spend a WEEK traveling through Switzerland. A WEEK. There I was struck and thought for a moment I'd never know when I "died". I stopped counting, because my mind had done so much work and I was racking it trying to solve this quagmire. However, I was relieved to find that Doyle went right out and said it. Holmes and Watson reached the village of Meiringen on the third of May. If you scan as carefully as I did, you will find NO other dates after that. So since, as far as I'm aware, there are no disagreements from the modern math, then his/my death date is May 3rd, 2012. If there are any arguments to this, look to the writers, but I can assure you that I am completely right.

My dear cousin, I do not hate Kurt Wallander. I am simply not fond of the fact that with him, every case is personal. He lets it become personal, emotion is able to overrule him. Everything weighs down on him, his daughter or someone else he cares about is involved; or he has past memories that connect with the case; or he just finds some little connection. And it...destroys him. All those people he cares about getting hurt because of his job and what he does, the past eating him up inside, and those connections he just can't seem to forget...Having difficulties keeping his personal life in check because of his job, the death of two people who were very close to him; mattered to him very much... And yet some people wonder why a man is so cold, so unfeeling, unattached. What if that man were covering up how he really felt? What if he couldn't let it out how he really felt because it would lead to the destruction of everything he cared about? To the possibility of the death of the one person who matters more than anyone he's ever known? He has to act as if he doesn't care, has to be taciturn and callous and disconnected. Mr. Wallender, my apologies. You're a better man than I took you for. Ahem. Now. What about...Marple? I have someone who's fully aware of the particular connections I am looking for, their post will be on that blog address I mentioned a while ago as soon as possible. It might take a while, but trust me, they are VERY thorough. They don't miss a thing. http://majorgeek187.blog.com, in case you've forgotten.

Ahh, here we are. Someone clever enough to point out the connections between myself and Adrian Monk as well as connections to myself and The Doctor. http://majorgeek187.blog.com That is brilliant, that is gorgeous! This is beautiful, I love this!

An off day? My brain rotting from boredom? NO. I am not having an off day and my brain is most certainly not rotting from boredom. In fact, if I wanted to be bored I'd talk to Anderson, Lestrade, Mycroft, Molly, practically everyone else I know of low intelligence. If I were bored, I'd take it out on the wall. It had it coming.

There was a time when I thought I needed an audience. When I wanted to show my brilliance to everyone, to impress them. But you take one look at The Reichenbach Fall and you will see just what that thought led to. I don't care about an audience anymore. Don't care about anything quite frankly, except my work. The point of being? Sharing my existance? There is no point in being. I am not being anything but doing my job. I was alone before I met John and I'm alone now that he is out of my life and I am out of his. I didn't even share what you call "my existance" with him when he was in my life. He was just there. And I am actually quite relieved that he isn't there now. I said he was my only friend, but do you know what? I lied. I utterly loathed him, could not stand him, and I'm glad he's gone. Now. Where were we? Seeing me...Let me think. Several references throughout various media streams. Other mystery series, even things that aren't mysteries. Connections that are connections. Keep this going, this is interesting.

"Appears". And you say that disguise is always a self-portrait. Hmm. Interesting choice of wording. Appearing to be/do something, basically the synonym for disguise; isn't it? But in this case again, you got ahead of yourself. What I "appear" to do, is not in fact what I actually do. Getting teary-eyed is for low intelligence people who, in their stupidity decide to have emotions and care. I however, neither have such emotions nor care at all. I know better. Emotions and caring get in the way of what really matters. My work. That is the only thing that matters to me and without that, my brain rots. Please do quote me on that, I'd appreciate it. Or better still, don't say anything. I prefer it that way. The answer's no. Saving you the trouble of asking.

Really? The last time I checked I was "Damaged, delusion, and believed in a higher power. In my case it was myself." Both statements of yours, however, are demonstratably untrue. Even you have no idea who I really am. You can stop pretending as well, because as much as you claim to; you do not know ANYTHING about me. DO I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR? OH, perhaps I DON'T. NO ONE knows ANYTHING about who I really am, and anyone who says they do is a complete moron who doesn't know what they are talking about. Anyone who thinks they know what they are talking about does NOT. They have no brain whatsoever and nothing better to do then to try to make themselves look clever, when in fact they are the most brainless person in the universe. Anyone who thinks they can find out who I really am is equally brainless. Not even Mycroft knows who I really am and he's my older brother. My father and mother weren't around for long enough to have known and still they wouldn't have fully known. IF that isn't clear enough, I will be more than happy to elucidate to a point at which my statement is transparent.

This reminds me of the conversation between John and myself. "Me: It's either this or Cluedo. John: No, we are never playing that again. Me: Why not? John: Because it's not actually possible for the victim to have done it, Sherlock. That's why. Me: It was the only possible explanation. John: It's not in the rules! Me: Well, then the rules are wrong!" I was going to play it the other day when I realized that I don't have anyone to play it with.

Oh, please. You think you're all so clever, entering competitions for knowledge about me. But let me tell you this: You don't know anything about who I really am! None of you! Stop trying to act like you do because you don't! John...John was the closest anyone has ever come to getting to know who I really am. But all of that has passed. So no one knows anything. NO ONE. And no one ever will.

Ahem. Excuse me for my sudden absence. Miss Adler, don't be ridiculous. Of course I'm not becoming sentimental. You know my feelings about sentiment, I'm not in the habit of repeating myself unless I have to. How could I feel anything for that maudlin, average brained doctor? He meant nothing to me. Absolutely nothing. Anyway, on a more important note, there are apparently even similarities between me and The Doctor from Doctor Who. There is no way Kurt Wallender and I could ever be similar. He's the sentimental one, Miss Adler, as you may care to note. Possibly as maudlin as John. And that is saying something.

Bond? Double 0 seven, double 0 seven, double 0 seven, double 0 seven, something. Something, double 0 seven, double 0 seven. What? Double 0 seven, double 0 seven. Double 0 seven. Double 0 seven, what? What, something, what? While I go through my mind palace trying to remember, this reminds me of when John and I had our James Bond night. When I...still had a John...Excuse me. (leaves computer)

Your grammar is actually quite excellent, Eden. I commend you for it. You just forgot the s on the end of series. Do you know, petite-serie is actually the French way to say mini-series? That's what came to mind when I saw you put in serie. I hope your grammar continues to be as good in your after posts. And I share your loathing of that wretched CBS...Ahem. Excuse me. But of all the versions of myself I deplore, that has to be the one I deplore the most.

John complaining? What has he to complain about? And if he has complaints, why go and inflict them on others? He should be able to take them himself as any man should. But then he has an average brain and the emotional state of a little girl. I often swear that he is a little girl if he isn't John Watson. When will he realise that no one cares? If he has complaints; that's his problem. He should be able to brace them, he was a soldier. A rather stupid one at that. I sincerely apologize for him inflicting his unecessary emotions on you, Miss Adler. He needs to face his own problems and stop whining about everything. Nobody wants to hear what he has to say and the sooner he realises that, the better.

Good God. It's not enough that there are several versions of myself, but now other detectives start trying to impersonate me. Adrian Monk, Dirk Gently...There's a large list. Can't they just be themselves? Why do they have to try and be me? Why would they...want to be me?

I think you may care to note, aely, that it was Miss Adler's text to me. "Till' the next time, Mr. Holmes." So really it was Miss Adler that got her punctuation wrong, not me. (Really, I'm the Head of the Grammar Police....) I simply took what she said and re-arranged it so it fit my post. I was hoping someone would be clever enough to catch that, but it appears I was mistaken.

(I read that after I posted this...I know now...) Oh. That's all right. I understand your statement, Miss Adler. I am not the Sherlock Holmes that everyone seems to expect, but I do my best. And I'm not a vicar with a bleeding face. The only fraility I've seen of you so far is sentiment. Anyway...I am bored. And suffering insomnia again. Oh, and thank you Miss Adler. Insomnia might be as heartless as James Moriarty and that is saying something... KEEP CALM IT'S A THREE PATCH PROBLEM

Oh, please. I am most certainly not sentimental. You could ask John yourself since from your statements you've been talking to him a lot. He would tell you what I am. The chemistry of love is simple, but destructive. And caring about people is for those who hardly use their mind to realize that caring about others does not help save them.

This coordinates with a Tweet I found on Twitter. @BBCGeek said "Well, James Moriarty is dead. Now what about James Moriarty?" Sadly, most everyone has no idea what she meant. So I am not only doing this for Sherlock Forum, but for BBCGeek who actually knew that that was there. It may sound completely confusing, and I must admit this whole dilemma managed to have me nonplussed and baffled as well. What we both mean is that there is the one James Moriarty, Professer James Moriarty. My arch-enemy (even if the modern one wasn't exactly a professer) on all accounts. So both original wise and modern wise, Moriarty is there; he and Sherlock Holmes (me) have their meeting (just at different points in the story; have their conflict; and their final meeting. Now, in the original; The Final Problem; Moriarty and Sherlock have their first and last meeting and the whole huge conflict and the finale all in one story. BBC seperated it into different parts; first meeting The Great Game; conflict throughout the rest; and the massive conflict and conclusion The Reichenbach Fall. Personally, I thought that did go a bit smoother. But the original was still really good. Anyway, so big thing. Sherlock and Moriarty at the final moment. If you don't know what happened, and if you don't want it spoiled; then here. And that is the last mention of the first James Moriarty. BUT at the beginning of The Final Problem, Dr. Watson mentions ANOTHER James Moriarty. Colonel James Moriarty, the brother of Professer James Moriarty. He mentions that Col. Moriarty put in his own version of the story, and that's why Watson goes out and tells the whole true story; not the reason BBC inputs. This is the only point in which I found any reference of Col. James Moriarty. Now, going off of this (this is only my thoughts, not actual fact), I'd say that James Moriarty and James Moriarty were identical twins. Not only looking and being exactly alike, but sharing the same name. So my question as well as BBCGeek's is: Will they introduce or even mention the other James Moriarty in the BBC version? Or will he remain a non-entity? You were right, whoever that was who said "How would they seperate their children?" I think either variations of the first name or their middle names. MY assumption is that the 1st James's full name is James Isaac Moriarty, because he is by all accounts a genius. I'm still pondering the second... And they could call the one either Jim or James and the other Jamie or Jimmy or something... Jim Jim Jimmy Jim Jim Jim Jim...