Zain

He had a major setback in his recovery, and it took him much longer than what would be considered usual to be discharged. Setbacks are rather serious with injuries like these. I've read a meta essay that described possible complications Sherlock could have suffered. Which would have prolonged his hospital stay: Coma, pneumonia with a very weakened immune system and thus one of the diseases most dreaded in such cases, inflammations, embolism, decreased heart function due to damage, then the muscle degradation. Just to name a few things that I remember, there was more. No, I did not get the impression he faked it. He had a major operation, and he was running around when he was only just allowed visitors other than close family. He likely forgot to take his medicine with him, too. But if that is how your friend interprets the scene, nothing to argue about. They never told us for certain what happened. While it may be heavily implied that he suffered a setback, there's no "definite" answer given to the audience. Which makes it fair game.

That's what I really do not get about her, either. It's not a choice: Shoot Sherlock or don't shoot him. It shouldn't be a choice. The answer is just... it's not something you have to explain to someone. Even small children know that answer. Don't harm. It was a deliberate action, not out of surprise. That bullet tore through skin, through veins, and it bore itself into his body until it hit something that it didn't manage to shatter and rupture into shreds of tissue, and until it hit something that did not give way for the bullet to tear and to burn another hole into Sherlock's already weakened body. It drew blood. It caused pain. Not only to Sherlock, mind you. I cannot really see her love for either of them, John or Sherlock. Even with this shoddy explanation of "you would have never died, I am such a crack shot, you hypochondriac", she deliberately caused all this. Thought it fitting. She put a lasting brand mark on Sherlock's chest. Scars can hurt just as much as the actual injury did. And they are long-lasting, if not permanent. They may fade, but they are there. They do not disappear after 90 minutes of HLV. He'll have that scar in s4, too. And in s5, if Moftiss will give us another season. I can't see how that is much better than the prison guards which tortured Sherlock in the beginning of TEH. They probably left their marks on his body, too. And they most likely thought he could be a danger to their plans. They hurt him just as deliberately as Mary did. Maybe that's why he could forgive her so easily. Because he was used to being hurt. Who knows. Okay. Dangerously approaching my ranting mood again. Mary always gets me riled up...

That would have been just as fine with me. Sure, she still would not be my favorite person, but to me, it is this refusal of Mary's to take responsibility for her actions that completely repels me. She just continues the way she did. I can't see any kind of character development. And thus, no wish to repent. Or to make it up to the people she wronged. If she had truly made this decision to confess and the choice to give her freedom up so that she would no longer pose a threat to John, Sherlock, and the baby, then she would be different from the person she was before HLV, the one that lied and manipulated and endangered the people around her to protect herself. There'd be some sort of development. Some sign that she feels guilty. But I can't really see any semblance of guilt in her demeanor in HLV. Smugness, yes. A guilty conscience... not really. In a way, I think she should be punished, yes. But if she was willing to bear punishment, truly willing, then I would be completely fine with it if she was let off the hook. But I am not fine with the end of HLV, because she was let off the hook when she was still wriggling to escape the consequences of her actions. Just like Bakerstreet Irregular, I believe in second chances. Or more, even. But you can only give someone a second chance if that person wants a second chance. If that person knows that they have to do better next time. If that realization is missing from their conscience, then it is a carte blanche to be selfish and to act out again. You then are not offering a second chance.

I thought nobody was allowed to keep their gun after serving? Or does that depend on which country one is talking about, for example, does England handle this differently? I thought they had strict(er) gun control, too. To me, this was always the writers asking us for some willing suspense of disbelief. Just like with John's gun, and the off-switch on the bomb.

I'd have Mary take responsibility for her behavior. That's something I could respect her for. If she told John that she cannot run from her past any longer, and that it is unfair to their child to put it in this danger. I'd either have her ask Sherlock to get Mycroft to quietly "remove" her to be led away to prison, or to leave as a direct consequence of shooting Sherlock and endangering and lying to John. It is kinder than to ask them to further endanger them just because she'd rather stay. That's one of the things that make her seem so selfish. It is not like she even considers to inconvenience herself for the sake of Sherlock, John, and her baby. Yes. Instead of pressuring and manipulating John into taking her back, I'd have her go with her head held high, out of her own decision. On her own conditions. That is something I could respect her for. Then I could see some sort of repentance in her. In hindsight, I cannot find as much fault with John's decision as I did in the beginning. She was clearly manipulating him. And he gave in.

Yes, I've heard about that shift before. It's brilliant what you can find out about how people spoke centuries ago. And, in a way, millenia. Just mind-blowing at times, how much we seem to know about ourselves, and yet we, know nothing at all. Thank you for the link, I had forgotten a lot of details! Like some particular steps. It is actually quite possible to "hear" a lot of Germanic properties once you go back this much. Nowadays, few words sound like their Germanic roots, though they are very much noticeable in the written form. One of the most intriguing things about English is, in my opinion, the combination of so many other languages, like Celtic, Germanic, and Latin. Then there's the French influence, too. It just adapted so much, and in a way, it got richer through those influences.

I am not American, but I'd say British English is more of a problem than American English to most foreigners, too. Whenever I watch a British show, I get this first few seconds in which I need to mentally adapt. It's just a different pronounciation of the vowels than what would appear "natural" to me. Which, of course, depends on one's own language. In linguistics, you distinguish vowels by characterizing the level of roundedness of your lips, as well as the position of the tongue. I'd say - without consulting any source! Might be complete BS - British English, or at least most British accents, have a high level of roundedness of the lips in a lot of vowels. American English's vowels are less rounded. And because most languages depend on the clear enunciation of vowels to distinguish similar semes, i.e. meaning carrying sequences of speech, it can be harder to understand it when your own language vowels are on average less rounded. You have to get used to the phonological difference, otherwise it is more difficult to connect the utterance to its semantic properties.

Yes. All of those make sense. I personally love the theory that the thumbdrive was empty. Fits very well with "A.G.R.A" being an empty treasure. And they have gone to a great length to connect the thumbdrive with these initials. It would be quite cheeky. I love writers who make these steps. Who at least try to fool the audience instead of painstakingly telling the audience how everything is supposed to be understood. That is what I dislike most about the Mary resolution. It's like telling the audience "No. We already did the thinking for you. So STOP thinking." I desperately hope there is more to that. Otherwise this has become my Blind Banker. I felt like in a bad movie the first time I watched it. Until the airfield, I was telling myself every few seconds "There must be more to it. There must be more to it." I mean, if Mary managed to get the empty thumbdrive past John and Sherlock, it would be 3:0 for her. 1:0 I managed to lie you into the face for months. 2:0 I made you blow out the brains of an enemy of mine without putting myself into too much of a danger. 3:0 I conned you again! That's more of a villain than Magnussen was. At least in my opinion. He didn't seem very impressive to me.

No right or wrong answer there One of those puzzles we'll never solve. I prefer to think of all those mind scenes as coping strategies. Mycroft is for reason and composure. He ensures with his words that Sherlock has got a guide in his state of mental disarray, and his authority may make Sherlock feel like a child, but he takes pressure from him, because he is the one who guides him to the next step. Molly's for caring. She redirects his attention, gives him purpose to stay connected to his physical body. Because she cares about his well-being. Redbeard's for countering solitude. When he is about to die, he seeks out those memories of a companion waiting on "the other side." And Jim, well, I like to think of him as the reason to continue fighting. Instead of letting go. The purpose, in a way. And that is what Jim is doing. Reminding Sherlock of the reason why he needs to continue the fight. In a way, very close to your thoughts, Slithytove. And in my little headcanon theory, John is not there, because the thought of him leads to thinking of Mary. That does not help in that particular situation. But I like your interpretations just as much.

The KGB background is interesting, indeed. Especially because we got at least part of the file in Cyrillic. Though, as we have established, it is not possible at this point to determine the language. I've gone back to it once again, but I neither can say with certainty that there is a қ nor that there is not. Maybe Jane's eyes are keener than mine, but just from the bad quality, I could not say with determination that it must be this letter. While I value her opinion, I would rather say that the analysis is for nought. It is true that it could be this letter, but I simply can't tell no matter which filters I apply. The second row of the letters is even less legible than the first. Where it is at least possible to decipher a couple of letters. More or less. The rest is guess work already, and the second row... well. KGB makes some sense, though. One more reference to Eastern Europe, and a confirmation that we are looking in the "right area."

I don't see any credible reason for Magnussen to lie on this matter. In contrast: if Mary had come clean before Christmas, or if John had looked at the thumbdrive, John could have easily spotted the lie. Magnussen would have risked his entire "credibility" in one move. His threat to Mary would have lost power, too, in that case. Because he would appear to be bluffing. Magnussen could not have known whether Mary had come clean to her husband or not. He probably thought she did, because there was no reason for John and Sherlock to come to Appledore if they had no clue about Mary's past. It is more likely Magnussen overestimated their knowledge instead of underestimating it. Also, his threat to Mary only makes sense if there was no powerful party which would condone all of her actions. if, by chance, she had only been working for the CIA, then she would have leverage due to the thumbdrive. She would have some sort of protection by blackmailing them into helping her. But it is not as if Mary proposed to "seek protection" by her former "employers." Why though? Most likely because they would not protect her. Thus, the material on the thumbdrive cannot be more damaging to the CIA than it is to Mary herself. I do not see the logic behind doubting Magnussen's word at this stage of the "game." He at that point has got the upper hand. And thus, he has more to lose than to gain. Just does not make sense to me. Taunting someone with the truth, not nice. Taunting someone with a lie, and one that does not serve any other purpose and can be revealed this easily, that's a forfeit of the game. Just because he's nasty, that does not make him into a liar by default. In my experience, the nastiest people are often the worst of liars, and the honest of all. They like to boast about their own nastiness too much to bother with made-up facts. And they know that nothing hurts more than the truth. Those files might be more essential than we think. Not just because of the content, but because of the three main questions: Who created them? For whom where they created? (Which will give it a purpose: Ordered hit, observation subject, employée file, file on a suspect?) And through which person did they get into Magnussen's possession? Not even sure if he ever saw the "real deal." Might be a photocopy, might be a picture someone took with their phone. But it is very likely that there's a third party. One that was all too willing to leak it to Magnussen.

Seriously? Gallbladder? Haven't heard of that trend here. But they do love to advise that people laser their eyes. And if you got too much time, better get your moles removed. After all, "could be dangerous." Do you know by any chance if that nurse consciously recognizes the difference between before and after, Carol? And is it a feeling of loss, of less than before, or are you not able to recognize it anymore?

Skimmed it. Wikipedia's a great institution, and it offers up so much quick information. But if you really want to understand something, usually books work better. Or, what I've discovered for myself, online courses. It's brilliant what you can learn from right at home. Sure, you get less material and often, it is more difficult to go deeper into a topic than if you took "proper" classes, but it's much more transparent than normal education. Broader, too. Usually, once you chose a "direction", you rarely get to look into other directions. If you study economics, you will not have time to study literature, too, and so on.

Sorry, but as I understand it, a lobotomy would take away his emotions and his intellect, but not his memories (and results are unreliable in any case). I suppose he'd be less interested in hurting people if it was no longer any fun, and he'd be less capable of elaborate scheming -- but he'd still know who did what to whom, and might tell, especially if asked. Nasty business, lobotomies. Wouldn't wish them on anyone. Completely going off-topic, but now that you mentioned it, does anybody know how a lobotomy supposedly functions? Or how it is properly done? I have no idea whatsoever. To take away someone's intellect, would you destroy the neuron pathways? But could you not "recover" them spontaneously due to the brain's ability to "circumvent" problematic areas?

No, I am not perfect by far. I try to live by my principles as best as I can, but I disappoint myself far too often for my liking. That does not mean that I feel justified to kill someone if they were blackmailing me. My life is a tad too boring to find horrible skeletons, however, assuming I had something hidden away, then could I begrudge someone that they made my crimes public? If it is horrible and affected other people that I wronged, then I think it should be made public. For the sake of the people I wronged. Like with Mary who killed other people. Or Lord Smallwood who had some sort of relationship with a minor. Both are offenses that should be made public. Even if Lord Smallwood truly was as innocent as Lady Smallwood claims that her husband claimed, this should be investigated for the sake of the minor. It is a serious matter. That's what I am saying. Magnussen's blackmailing is wrong, however, the fact that he found out other people's truths is not by default wrong. If he was an honest citizen, he would instead go to the police. It's his dishonesty and self-interest that I condemn. And I just cannot see how this justifies killing him to keep those secrets hidden away. Would it not be much more efficient to take away his ammunition? If Lord Smallwood was as innocent as Lady Smallwood states, why not "stand up to Magnussen" and go public with it? It takes away all blackmail material he has on them. And if Lord Smallwood is innocent, then that girl could testify in his favor, too. If Magnussen left a trace of his blackmail, it would even be possible to get him convicted for it! Not by adding to your skeletons in the corner. Sure, it might have a negative effect on your reputation... but is it not much more of a relief than to keep hoping your blackmailer will not reveal the truth in a year, in two, in a decade? If you mention that you were blackmailed, you may not be allowed to name the blackmailer without proof in public, but you can make enough allusions. And you might even get some sympathizers. It makes you look less guilty, too, to openly allow for an investigation. It makes you look a lot less guiltier. I find myself dazzled by the north once again. Seems like it's not just our different accents that make communication hard at times I suppose the "criticize Americans" trend is fairly recent. Two years, now, maybe. Just a general disappointment and a feeling of being insulted and thought of as inferior, I suppose. I've noticed, too, that people are very dissatisfied with how these international scandals have been handled. But politics is not really something where people ever will agree on. I prefer not to take a stance in such matters. One of those topics where it is wiser to consider one's words very carefully. With politics, people tend to become more radical about their views than on any other topic. Which is not a bad thing per sé. It is an important topic, and certainly more important than some rumours about celebrities. But I agree. There's a very dissatisfied majority. And one may argue that it is justified, or one may argue that it is not. Both have their valid arguments. The thing is, we sadly do not get to see Magnussen blackmail someone with something they did not do. I would prefer it if they had him make something up. Then I would find it much easier to condemn all his actions. But because both incidents which are portrayed are true, and are based on crimes, I cannot condemn him for finding out those truths that will affect other parties, innocent ones, too. I only can condemn him for the blackmail. I think it's good that he found out those truths. But it is bad that he did not go to the police. It is bad that he blackmailed other people. I cannot really condemn him for the fact that these truths hurt other people, as well. If he had gone to the police, Lady Smallwood would also have been affected. So it boils down, in my opinion, to the blackmail, and that is the only crime he committed. Being loathsome is not a crime in itself. I agree with you in almost all your major points. I simply have this problem with defining his crimes. Sure, he used other people's mistakes to get to innocent people. And that is despicable. But is that truly only his fault, and is it alright to only have him suffer the repercussions? If those people had not hidden their crimes, their loved ones would not have been left this vulnerable. Again, if Mary had been properly charged with murder, John would have suffered, too. And when she hid her crimes, she risked his vulnerability. She made not only herself, but also those around her vulnerable. So these people are as much to be blamed for the suffering of their loved ones as the blackmailer. Because it is not like their loved ones would not suffer if the crimes were made public through official channels. That is why I cannot really understand why only Magnussen should be punished this severely. He is fully to blame for the blackmail, but only partly for hurting innocents. I just think that it is difficult. Both cases involve incriminating truths, and both deserve to be brought to the police's attention. Both would also have other people be hurt. If there was at least one case in which Magnussen used a hidden secret that was not a crime itself, or that would only destroy a person's reputation and not have them undergo a police investigation, then it would be easier to fully condemn him and be content with the outcome. But in the end, he is the one that is killed, and there are no lasting repercussions to the other party that is to be blamed. Lord Smallwood took his life instead of facing the truth, and Mary chooses not to face the consequences.

Have them not be stupid and hide their dirt just because they fear the consequences of their immoral and criminal actions? I certainly do not condone blackmail, in no circumstances, but it is not like he is directly preying on the blameless and innocent. To our current knowledge, at least. He isn't making up stories. He uses the ammunition given to "him." If you hide, say, your illegal hand gun in your cupboard, you risk that someone will one day find it, even if they only wanted to find something else, like... candles. It is a risk you take that someone finds out your secret. However, Magnussen is no "hero" that publishes truths. He doesn't do it to fight against people that got away with their crimes. But it must be mentioned in the same breath that he is not despicable for finding out those secrets. He is a despicable person, because he blackmails those people, and because he uses those truths to get to other people. Though I suppose this could be rather a cultural issue, too. I dare not step on anybody's toes, but I believe to have once read that it is very much ingrained in, for example, the American culture to not mind other people's businesses. Which was studied in social psychology a lot after there was a much higher ratio of cases in America compared to other nations in which victims of a crime died simply because neighbours and witnesses feared to misinterpret the situation, and they did not want to poke their nose into another person's business. While, for example, Germans are very much known for sticking their nose into things that are anything but their business. It's like a curse, we just always seem to have an opinion we desperately feel will make all the difference.... even when subconsciously knowing no, it's really not that important. It's why we got so much insight to offer about foreign economics *cough* Back to the topic on hand: I think we must not forget that if Magnussen had simply gone to the police with whatever evidence he once had seen, or with the sources of information he obtained, few would find any fault with him. And nobody would talk about "saving people" from CAM. I just wonder if that is, at the core, not essentially a question of motivation/intention vs. action. For example, we almost universally agree that Sherlock had good intentions, and that he was motivated by the drive to help John/Mary. Yet I dare say his action is not the best one he could have taken. Some say that the good intention/motivation does not make up for the chosen path. Others say that because he had good intentions, the murder was the only solution and justified. On the other hand, Magnussen is the complete opposite. His actions, reducing them to the collection of truth and confronting the affected parties, while deliberately ignoring the blackmail part which belongs onto the motivation side, that itself is not immoral. The execution, however, is. And that execution is motivated by his bad intentions to get to others, to use those truths to his own gain. Some argue that everything about him is inexcusable, and that because his intentions were bad, all his actions were, too. Others argue that his intentions were wrong, but the fact that he looked through other people's dirty laundry is not. The question seems to me... Is any action justified if one is driven by the right, or let's call it the "good" motivation? If one intents to help others? Does that justify any and every action? And, logically following the previous question, does the wrong motivation then mean a person cannot do any good at all? Because every action is tainted by their selfish motivation? Not that I am saying that Magnussen was doing any good. His motivation was incredibly selfish, and it led into a downward spiral of bad actions. Instead of revealing the truth with the intention to sell more newspapers (which is a selfish motivation but combined with an underlying good action), he kept the truth to himself and used it for his own gain. It is a difficult topic, indeed.

Oh, it was not really a serious comment. Don't worry, just an off remark a teacher made, not really something one needs to know. Most things aren't, sadly. Just, England was rather late to introduce the Gregorian calender, and they were "behind" a few days. They were a very important trade partner, and the Hanse were obviously running on a different date than their partners until then. A ship thus would either arrive "before" it even sailed, or it took "ages" for the ship to cross. Not literally, of course. Well, in a way literally. On the paper.

Yeah, and let's not get started on the calender date until the mid 18th century It's charming, in a way. And I thought it was hilarious in school when I first heard about it. Poor merchants.

And you are completely right. I cannot believe I fell prey to cultural misperception. Of course, in England, everything but clocks runs the other way....

Um, just because it was wrong that Magnussen got away with his crime, does not mean that it justifies letting Sherlock off, too. It's like saying, well, Paul threatened my sister, and nobody prosecuted him, so why are you picking on me when I only shot him in the head in retaliation? No crime is ever... justified. That's like... advocating vigilante action. At least that's how I understand it. Essentially, Magnussen did not kill anybody. Blackmail is a crime, of course. But can you really compare it to murder? While his blackmail led to Lord Smallwood's death, that is a consequence of his blackmail, but it does not qualify as murder. Even if it did... it does not justify killing him, and neither does it mean you get a carte blanche to commit whatever crime you want just because you are a victim of a crime yourself, or because you know a victim. In fact, Caya is quite right. Both her and me have been discussing this more often than the others probably would have liked us to We think Mary and Sherlock both should be punished for their crimes. I know it's a bit confusing, the discussion is spread over so many pages and it started and stopped and started again a couple of times. If you want to, you can try the search function. I've lost sight of some posts, too, and I had to use it a few times. This thread just... exploded. It's amazing, in a way, isn't it? And I completely agree that any other interpretation is valid, too. As I said, I was merely attempting an in-story explanation. Not fighting your points, especially not on Mary's physique. Concerning your questions, yes, John could be renting the house, but Mycroft would have had to give him Sherlock's money for that. He was having issues paying for the bills in TBB after all, and GPs are not the best paid doctors out there. Not even when working full time. Seems like quite a pay rise when he suddenly can rent an entire house in the suburbs. The car is actually referred to as "Mary's" if I am not mistaken. She says "my car" at some point. And John can't drive, can he? Bit confused. I was rather certain he couldn't, but your question made me realize that I do not specifically remember why I thought so... At least we never saw him drive. And even when he headed out in the beginning of HLV, he walked straight towards the passenger seat. No intention whatsoever to take the driver's seat. The wedding reception could be paid for by Sherlock, yes. Would be quite rude to accept that huge a gift, it's rather... enormous, even for your wedding. But John also accepted Sherlock's "gift" when Sherlock told him to forgive Mary for shooting him. So... who am I to judge whether this is excessive or not.

You're too kind. My prediction was wrong when it comes down to the conclusion. I picked up on the clues, but I failed to make the proper connections. On the other hand, that is what I love about this series. It manages to still surprise me. Always has. That's why I fell in love with this show. (Apart from Cumberbatch's voice and eyes) I often get this, well, "off vibe" when I watch movies or read books. Then I go back to the scenes that made me frown and have a closer look. To find out what set off my inner alarm clock. So, in a way, yes, I re-watched it, but only those scenes. So, probably the same thing many people do Nothing really special about it. That is a question I've asked myself a few times. It's one of the reasons why I do not believe in a "Mary ran from her bad superiors that forced her to do despicable things" scenario. If one thing is clear, then that she has a lot of money, and she probably did not get it by working as a part-time nurse. It is Mary's car, it is her house, and then there's this rather expensive wedding. It is also unlikely that she just saved up a bit, or that she loaned money from the bank. Her credentials would not be sufficient, her papers do not go back more than five years. She does not have any "relatives" that could become bail for her. So she has a lot of money from her past identity. When she ran, she took a lot of money with her. She did not simply leave in the hope to never be found. She took money, and someone that takes money with them either stole it and risks that they will persecute her even more, or that person was given the money for some taken action. Probably not for updating a data base. Or a dull office job. Satisfactory, um, no. Sorry. I believe they just wanted to include Mary in some way or another. Otherwise she would have been sidelined, and they were desperate in s3 to include her in everything. But, if I had to attempt an in-story explanation... Well, maybe Magnussen wanted to check both Mary and Sherlock's priorities. He cast John into the flames. It was Sherlock who saved John, while Mary stood on the side line. Mary also did not go save John, she risked a delay by contacting Sherlock first. If she had gone without Sherlock, she would have had to explain to John how she figured everything out. A risk to her secret. Keeping her secret tops rescuing John. It tests both their priorities, in a way. Mary cares to keep her secret to protect herself, and Sherlock cares about John. The code serves the purpose of making it harder for Mary to choose. If she went to save John, she would have to show him the message, and she would have to explain that it was a skip cipher, and that she recognized it. MIght raise suspicion, why would his perfect little housewife part-time nurse know about something like a skip cipher? So she contacts Sherlock. While she does not care for John more than she wants to keep her secret, she still is worried sick and tells him the solution, in case he otherwise wastes even more time to figure it out. She already wasted a lot of time by contacting him. Sherlock is too worried about John to think about this, and besides, he sometimes has trouble realizing that other people know less than he does. Magnussen then knows that Mary definitely will play the game, her secret is enough to own her. He does not have to go through John, because John is not her weakness. However, John is Sherlock's weakness. That's why he then contacts her at the wedding. That's a more or less reasonable in-story reading. But I suspect it was just to include her. Hope you liked it Because... murder is murder, and murder is wrong?

Probably because there were so many people, and to remember a specific room number is quite a feat. Carol, I just looked up my post from TEH, the first one where I had a closer look at Mary. Of course, the information is much outdated, and it is a bit embarassing to dig it up Well, it teaches humility. Anyway, here's what I noticed back then already, and most people agreed that there was something very fishy about Mary. That's what I meant. It didn't take us by surprise that Mary had some sort of secret that endangered our "heroes." So, I'd say Moftiss did not really try to make it "the big reveal" in HLV. It wasn't "OMG, I cannot believe she was one of the bad guys" but rather "Ah, that is what she did." Actually, that part bothered me, too. And made me, against my will, interested in Mary. It also made me review all scenes that include her. There's something going on there beneath the surface. Why contact Mary? Magnussen reviews the footage of the bonfire, his focus is clearly on Sherlock, not Mary. The camera is following Sherlock's movements while he saves John. The messages while they ride the bike are addressed to 'Mr Holmes'. The reason Mary's shouts stand out is that he plays the same scene over and over again. To me, it looks like Magnussen observes Sherlock's "performance". I'd like to think of it as such; Magnussen's flat contains several items that normally belong to magicians. The Guy Fawkes incident is not about the riddle; too plain. Magnussen isn't interested in baiting Sherlock, unlike Jim did. His footage shows that he is interested in Sherlock's "performance". He made him 'dance'. If he were interested in Mary, the footage would show her constantly, at least in the background if the camera wasn't centered on her. That is not the case. The camera also follows Sherlock's movements. That's why I think Magnussen's interested in Sherlock. Which makes the entire incident rather suspicious. Again; why contact Mary? The first message does not tell her to show her phone to Sherlock. There's no mention of him. She could easily have dismissed the message. Magnussen must have made sure that she understood the code. Or that she knew to show it to Sherlock. Throughout the Guy Fawkes Incident, the messages are well-timed. Even if Magnussen knew that Mary would show the message to Sherlock, there was no certainty that she wouldn't be delayed. What if she first called John on his phone? To check whether he was alright? Or what if she drove home to check whether he was there? Mary clearly deduced the code - she knew that time was of the essence. While it sure is smarter to have 'back-up' - why would she waste precious time getting Sherlock's second opinion? I also noticed that she did not ask whether John was at Sherlock's. Instead of asking first, she rushes into the house, past Mrs Hudson who might alleviate her worries, and states that he was taken. Mary seems very sure of that fact; she also does not mention that she tried to call him,. Wouldn't it strengthen the point she wants to make? "I can't reach him, and I got this message. Look". I don't think she even tried to. She knew he had been taken. There was no real doubt. I find her behavior more than suspicious. Besides, where did Magnussen get her phone number? Let's assume he's almighty, someone like Mycroft - why would he bother texting Mary, then, instead of Sherlock himself? Or Mrs Hudson, who is more likely to go to Sherlock? If Magnussen doesn't have the connections to get Sherlock or Mrs Hudson's phone number, how did he get Mary's? Mary does not state that she received the message from John's phone - which would have shaken her more. I assume they didn't get the number from his contacts, then. Why bother using another phone if they had his? It would have driven the message home much more efficiently. Mary doesn't have a very active role, and yet she appears to be heavily involved in the Guy Fawkes Incident which overall doesn't make sense without theorizing a lot while knowing next to nothing. It begins with John's abduction - why in front of Baker Street? This is far from practical, especially in daylight, besides: an abduction in the open. If John was followed, there must have been at least one alley, one place that would invite less witnesses (which could interfere!). No. Baker Street is symbolic. Not practical. Which makes this even more mysterious. How would Magnussen know that John was to visit Baker Street on that day? I doubt the bonfire was chosen on a whim. It requires at least some preparation - you have to smuggle the body in there. The bonfire is rather far from the place of abduction, Baker Street. 20 minutes by car, according to Sherlock. No. Magnussen must have thought of it before the actual abduction. The question is: How would he know that there was a high chance John would visit Baker Street before the actual Bonfire, and on that exact day? ]Of course John and Sherlock are friends; but if John was under surveillance, and he must have been to some degree, Magnussen was aware of their fight. It was likely that he would visit Sherlock - but it was Mary who told him twice to go to Baker Street after work. Coincidence, maybe. Probably? After evaluating everything, this made me suspicious. It's a bit convenient that John was abducted right in front of Baker Street. There were only two people who knew with some certainty that John would head there. John himself who made the decision, and Mary who spoke to him about it. She encouraged him to go. I don't doubt they would have taken John elsewhere if he hadn't gone to Baker Street. But it probably was rather convenient for Magnussen that he did. Symbolism and all that. That's why I think Mary is a key player. And there's more to her than what we got in "The Empty Hearse". She has got a secret. And she's a liar. I believe she's one of Magnussen's "agents." I don't think her to be full of malice and hatred, no. But I think she was placed at John's side. One of Magnussen's "girls". Because every magician needs girls to cover up his game. To assist him. Magnussen has proven to rely on manpower. It's how he plays his games. The people abducting John. And even the camera footage was recorded by a person. The camera is shaking. When Sherlock returned, something Magnussen anticipated, he saw through Sherlock's "magic trick", the plan was set into motion. Mary was to show this message to Sherlock. I don't know whether she was told about the actual plan. Probably not. I think she's being blackmailed, and that's her secret. She figured out the message and worries about John. He has become dear to her, though she had other reasons to become close to him, and, finally, to get inside knowledge on Sherlock. She encourages John to make up with Sherlock, that way, she has a link to him. Yep, so that's a lot deduced from nothing Looking forward to other ideas. Now that I dug this up... I am fully prepared to be mocked

Would be interesting to know, indeed. Only thing I can think of is to raise tension. If I remember correctly, by the end of TEH we already knew Mary wasn't who she pretended to be. So the revelation in HLV wasn't shocking in the regard that she caught us off-guard. It was merely a question of what kind of dark secret she had. Back then, I could even imagine her in lieu with Magnussen. Turned out to be wrong, but the clues were blantantly there. Then there's the problem that the climax of HLV is rather at the end, so the middle part lacks some sort of, well, tension, to keep the audience's level of interest high. I could see how the idea "Oh, let's have her almost kill Sherlock, that will rile them up" crossed their minds. But I could see multiple other scenarios as well.

Do real-life soldiers or police intentionally shoot to merely disable a person? I believe I've heard that they don't, simply because it's hard enough to just hit the person you're intending to hit (who is often a moving target). If you aim at a knee, for example, you're likely to miss altogether. So my impression is that they simply don't shoot unless they feel justified in probably killing the person. This may be different in the other countries, of course, or I may be misremembering. It has been a long time, and sorry for going completely off-track, but I finally have a definite answer for you, Carol. Before, I was only recollecting what I knew and once had heard. But right now, there actually is a halfway big case going on which is just about this: A police officer shot a fleeing criminal (I think it was drugs and possibly gun possession) and hit him in the head. Because he did not shoot at the legs, or let's say, extremities, he is accused of murder by negligence and faces severe charges. So, yes, they do shoot to merely disable a person. If you shoot, you have to aim at extremities. Otherwise it is a crime. Back to the original discussion; But comparing someone to a machine is not really praise, is it? A machine is not really perfect, is it merely... functional. Hollow. Lacking. It exists to be used for its one function, and afterwards it is put away. Not really needed but for that one function. Something that can be replaced. I do not really get how this is John idealizing Sherlock. To me, this is a very cruel comparison... Lacking any sort of respect for his character and attitude. It compresses his entire being into... one function. Or action. As if nothing else about him was noteworthy.

I see That's where I misunderstood you. You see, superhuman means to me, too, that it is "better than human." But to me, the "machine perfection" is less than human, because it lacks emotion, therefore it is lacking. That's why I was confused. I thought you were arguing that John was viewing Sherlock as something better (in a praising way), while I saw his "Sherlock should function" attitude more like an insult to Sherlock's "humanness." If it was, I would be anything but impressed. That'd make it planned and thus intentional. I can see Mycroft's smug face behind the Christmas incident itself (laptop, punch, Magnussen's testimony, GPS tracker), but not behind Magnussen's death. Too messy, requires too much cleaning up and too much is left to chance. I can see how he was willing to go to greater risks in TRF when it was about other people's lives, and people he probably did not care (much?) about. But in this case, it is not only his brother but also his own integrity and his position in the political hierarchy that was on the line.