Zain

Well, have your pick. Flow chart, spread sheet, mind map, cluster, or would you rather go for the mind palace?

Keep your friends close, but keep your enemies closer? Sadly, I think he truly wants her to have good intentions. Otherwise he'd have to break it down to John, and he already has a rather weak standing after the fall. I doubt he would risk losing John again. Sherlock has become rather dependent of him. So much that it impedes his judgement.

Or some of the "R" rubbed off in his pocket? It looks so similar otherwise ..... I still can't figure out where the dang thing came from. Or more precisely, if it's all that damaging, why it still exists. If I'd been Mary I would've tossed in a blast furnace years earlier. Possible but the G's dot is also slightly off, as well as the A. The strokes are a bit different, too. The thumbdrive in John's hand has a shorter base stroke for the R than the one in the fire. On the one in his hands the R almost looks like a D with a curve to the right. The A at the end is on the thumbdrive in the fire straighter than on the one in John's hand, there's a slight upturn to the right side. Either they used a different thumbdrive for the shots, or it is deliberate. I have to admit that it is easier to tell when you can put both images next to each other and at roughly the same size. Overall, the last A is slightly tilted to the right in the fire, and in John's hand, not so much. Okay, I do not think there's a real reason why she carries the thumbdrive other than as a short cut for the writers. But, if I have to try myself at an explanation with some plot behind it...(beware, this will be highly conspiratorial).: Okay, the thumbdrive basically contains information on her prior life, and thus on her prior work experience, both, freelance and with the CIA. So, it is evidence for both, her even more illegal hits, as well as the assignments she was given by the government. She could have held onto it as a bargaining chip. She could publish the information on the thumbdrive, and it would mean she would suffer dire consequences, but so would those other parties, mostly the CIA. In a way, it's a security blanket. (Which would make her a hypocrite, she keeps onto it for blackmail reasons, and then she tries to kill someone who attempts to blackmail her with the same information...) So, which parties could we be speaking of? Mycroft, for starters. We know he sometimes works with CIA, and Mary worked with them before she became an assassin for hire. Maybe she took some information with her so that she would not be hunted down like you usually would do with someone that goes freelance. It is somewhat strange that her cover is that shallow, and yet nobody found her besides Magnussen. Maybe they did find her, but they did not dare raise attention to it. I've mentioned before that Mary's placement in John's surgery seems to be rather deliberate when we consider her true "vocation" and training(assassin and linguist). So, either she placed herself there because she belongs to the bad guys and kept an eye on John because she was after Sherlock, or she gained something else from getting in contact with John. John does not - no offense - have much she could have profited from. I doubt she had a romantic relationship in mind from the beginning. So, what did she gain from getting close to him? Sherlock was off the table, unless they found out about his fake death around the time she entered John's life. The only other person of interest which would connect her with John is Mycroft, who she must know, either from whispered rumours or personally from the CIA. Maybe she deliberately placed herself in direct view, as both: a warning and blackmail. Mycroft knows she has information that would be a disadvantage to the government, and that is why he cannot touch her. We know that Mycroft did pay her no attention whatsoever, not even when Sherlock was shot. He did not investigate, that itself is strange. What if his hands are tied? If he cannot risk alienating Mary? So: She placed herself near John as a reminder to Mycroft that they better leave her alone about her freelance work. The romantic relationship was an unexpected benefit. The reason she carries the thumbdrive at her body at all times is because it is what keeps her out of prison. Her bargaining chip. Just an attempt. Like I stated above, I very much believe that the thumbdrive was simply a method to circumvent the necessity to give a proper explanation. But it was fun making all that up

Actually, John is having the right thumbdrive at the beginning of the scene. But the one in the fire has got the other initials. So it's not something Sherlock pulled without John's knowledge. Either a genuine mistake or this is John's doing. Oh, and could you maybe give me the link to those meta essays? I haven't encountered them yet, and it sounds rather promising. Or, well, interesting at least.

Thank you for the compliment I suppose I just love a bit whump in my stories, so that kind of carried over. And, I guess I cannot imagine a carefree s4 after what they pulled with s3. Actually, I would feel quite cheated if they went for that. I would feel like the writers thought me stupid and a mindless viewer. There are too many unresolved issues, and it would not feel real to me if suddenly everything was sunshine, bubble baths and baby talk. Injuries like Sherlock's are prone to cause further post-operative problems, then there's the matter of John and Mary's marriage which is basically footed on a lie, there's the matter of Sherlock's exile, the references to Eastern Europe were too prominent not to be part of s4, yeah, then there's the matter of drugs. Even if Sherlock quit drugs, he was given morphine due to the operative procedure, he took some drugs in the beginning of HLV, too. It is unlikely he'll just go back to being clean at all times. Just to name a few things. Not that happy....

I also thought he would investigate it, but do you really think Mary would be alive if he knew about her involvement? No matter if she has some sob story waiting to be revealed or not. I doubt Mycroft would be impressed in the slightest. Who knows, maybe he is setting up a fall for her. Bargaining with the Americans to trade her off or something. Or he really is oblivious for once. Or Sherlock and him are collaborating once again (which would be a tad boring and repetitive... I am saying this as someone who has identified certain things that are odd with the Christmas scene, so....). I got a special treat for you. Just looked the scene over again because of your post, and I cannot but share this with you. I apologize for the quality. I wanted it to be close enough to be easy to see. Look at the R in both pictures. Thumbdrive John shows Mary at Christmas. Thumbdrive John throws into the fire a few seconds later. Maybe John did grow a backbone... Either that or I found another mistake, just like with the punch glasses.

Thank you for your answer. I cannot say it clears up the mystery, but I think your reasoning is sound. And it is very interesting to hear about your personal experience. Yes, fear drives people to do horrible things. Not that it is any justification. It is very sad, though.

I hope many Americans feel that way too, but the area I live in is heavily military/spy/homeland security. Hardly a representative cross-section of the population! -- you get a really skewed picture of human nature living here. I've heard people argue vociferously in favor of torture, it's a weird feeling to be in the same room with them. Yet these same people will cry like a child if their pet dog falls ill. Humans are endlessly fascinating...... How come that so many soldiers argue in favor of torture in the US? I cannot say that I have many contacts which work in military, it's not exactly our main working sector. I know that soldiers see a lot of horrible things, and some take this as a reason to voice extreme opinions. I'd say, though, that on average, soldiers here are not more in favor of what I'd call inhuman treatment and a differenciation belonging into the 19th/20th century, an "us-them" attitude. Sure, there is an "enemy" in their minds, but it is not like they only fight and kill. Often, soldiers help to build public facilities, or they communicate with locals to find out their needs and problems, to get information, and so on. I just wonder why many soldiers in the US (as you described, I am taking your information at face value, I have almost no knowledge in that regard) turn away from a humanitarian attiude. Should their experience not teach them to value life and frown upon causing pain, emotionally and physically? And yes, I am a horrible idealist. I know But it has gotten me through life quite well so far...

Well we do have her own words that John will no longer love her once he's read up on her former life on the A.G.R.A. stick. That doesn't exactly make her sound like the assassin equivalent of Robin Hood . And, while we do not know that Mary does not have a sympathetic motive, we are not given one. If she had a good reason, why would she keep silent at all times? If we keep HLV in mind, everything surrounding her motive and possible "good intentions" is recounted by Sherlock and at no time confirmed by Mary. Even when he asks her if he is right. She deflects. To me, that is highly suspicious. Sure, I am inclined to think badly of her, because I am upset about her role and her attitude. I suppose someone else might be inclined to see the good in her, or at least to expect the good to be there. However, it is indisputable that she offers nothing in her defense whatsoever. Nor does she collaborate with Sherlock. Even when he helps her, and even when he provides her with some sort of good intention behind her actions, she refuses to pick up on it. One may read whatever one wants into this.

Mycroft hasn't just been shot, so it's only natural that his head would be working better than Sherlock's at that point. I started to post just that much, but then I realized -- Where is Mycroft's helpful hint about the mirror actually coming from? Since (as you mentioned earlier) we're apparently seeing inside Sherlock's mind palace -- isn't "Mycroft" is a manifestation of Sherlock's own intellect, merely a technique that Sherlock uses to help himself focus? We're working with a lot of layers here! Interesting remark. Mycroft appears, to me, to be some sort of higher instance in Sherlock's mind. Sherlock asks him for advice, he is a child in front of him, Mycroft corrects Sherlock's conclusions. Like a judge that looks down from his seat to the witness box. Maybe it's a case of "What would Mycroft do", a case of Sherlock unconsciously attempting to emulate his older and "wiser" brother. Because his older brother always knows what to do, even when Sherlock does not. Not that I share this belief. But I could imagine that their childhood left some sort of imprint on Sherlock, some sort of inferiority complex. While we do see Sherlock openly reject Mycroft and question him, he still seems to look up to him as if Mycroft held a universal solution to everything. When he is in trouble, he asks Mycroft for help, too, like with Moriarty.

But Irene did not shoot Sherlock. And, in the end, she admitted defeat and asked Sherlock to help her. Mary just assumes that she deserves that everybody falls over themselves to please her. And when they don't, she is enraged. "But I am pregnant." "If you love me, don’t read it in front of me", "People like Magnussen should be killed." ( Oh, yeah, because how dare he blackmail you with your wrongdoings, that certainly deserves capital punishment), "It’s what you like." (No, it definitely is not her fault at all. John likes that she is a lying murderer. So how can he act all angry...what a hypocrite.), and my favorite: MARY: So, have you read it? JOHN: W-would you come here a moment? MARY (shaking her head): No. Tell me. Have you? Because, no, why should she have to feel like a beggar and come to him? She is not the one that wants forgiveness, right? She never gets that this is not just about her. I always thought Sherlock could at times need a tubmle from his high horse. But Mary is way above that. I cannot see any humiliation in there... she certainly is not the one that feels humiliated, she is the one that does not relinquish any control. Even when she gives John the thumbdrive, she still sets the terms. As if everything was a game to her. Maybe it is. Back to Irene (to come full circle): She accepted that he would not help her. She knew she had not much redeeming points. And she was ready to accept the consequences of her actions.

I agree with your entire post, I just had to pick up on this particular paragraph. The alternative explanation is very sad indeed. All you said, it is completely true. And it means that Sherlock deluded himself, that he let his heart rule his head. He does not want John to be sad, and that is why he is trying to much to redeem Mary in John's eyes. Even making it look like shooting him was no big deal. This is not about liking Mary. Not in my eyes. It is about John. And the tragic thing is: John does not realize this.

A thought that just hit me. What if Mycroft and his colleagues are not on the same page concerning their knowledge about that mission in Eastern Europe? We know that his colleagues offered Sherlock the mission at Christmas. They had no particular reason to want him dead. Mycroft told Sherlock in private not to take the mission, because it would result in his death. After Sherlock killed Magnussen, Mycroft proposes to send Sherlock off to Eastern Europe, and he is accused of nepotism. They think it is a less severe punishment than Sherlock deserves. Apparently, his colleagues are not aware of the fact that it is a suicide mission. Lady Smallwood makes a comment that it is somewhat harsh, but nobody ever mentions that it might lead to Sherlock's death. I believe she thought it harsh, because it was a difficult and long-term mission. That reminds me: Mycroft seems to have more inside knowledge into matters in Eastern Europe. He is already interested in Eastern Europe around the time Sherlock was shot. That is months away from Christmas, from the time his associates wanted Sherlock to be sent there. It is possible that Mycroft knows more about the occurences in Eastern Europe than his colleagues think he does. Maybe he has got a spy there, or at least a contact person. The only important person to have been connected to Poland in canon is Irene Adler. She was an opera singer in Warsaw. There have been some hints at her possible return already, and this connects both things rather nicely. Remember what Sherlock did with those napkins in TSoT? An opera, and a swan. The swan connects it with Mycroft's mission. The name of that particular mission (located in Poland) is "Ugly Duckling", which we all probably know was actually a swan that got misplaced as an egg.

So what? John is still angry. I've read this sentence more times than I care to remember, but what does that even mean? He may have told her that the matter was not yet over, but let's face it. It is. Unless the writers make a boomerang plot out of it (the bad things come straight back to Mary), there's nothing to go on with. He destroyed the thumbdrive. Didn't look at it (unless boomerang plot...). Nobody seems to particular care that she shot Sherlock, and Mary apparently does not either. Sherlock did not get Mycroft to remove her. Her actions had no consequences for her. "John is still angry" is not a consequence for her, it is a consequence for him, it leads to an altered state of his emotions. Not hers. Okay, she may have to deal with his bad mood from time to time, so, what, bake a cake, or remind him "Oh, but I am pregnant" with a frown because how dare he bring that up again.... There's no permanent change, no consequence. If it had broken up their relationship, yes, that's a consequence. If he had told her that they needed to start from the very beginning and moved out, but kept in contact (with the intention to give it a chance), that'd be a consequence. Going back is just that. Going back. If he had insisted that she went to talk to the police and at least admitted to shooting Sherlock, that'd be a consequence. Even if Sherlock would not ask for a trial. She would have to face the consequences of her actions. Or if she had to hand over all of her assassin attire, as a gesture that said she was done for good.

I wish I could share your belief, Bakerstreet Irregular. To me, though, it seems like they just wanted to keep Mary around, and it is much easier to do so when you deflect the problems at hand, id est her past and her motivation. The only thing I can hope for is some sort of interesting twist coming our way. Although I am not holding my breath for that.. If John and Sherlock had properly dealt with her and the issues, then it would have taken much more screen time, it would have given off the impression that her actions were as serious as they were. Due to the time skip, the audience is kept out of any process of accepting the facts. We get the problem, then the problem is resolved. The matter is smoothed over, in a way. To me, that looks like textbook manipulation to shift the audience's focus on another matter (back to Magnussen).

May I say that I am fully with you? I think you put it quite nicely. I want, or rather need both characters to show remorse. With Sherlock, I can at least somewhat interpret it into his actions at the end of the HLV. Not satisfyingly, but it is a start. With Mary, I really see no remorse. That's what repels me. Even if she showed remorse in s4, I probably would not feel like it "redeems" her, it would, however, be a start. And I could grudgingly accept her (while still looking forward to her disappearance). I, too, believe in mercy. But not in mercy given for the sake of having been merciful. I believe a person can only be granted mercy if they do not expect it. Someone that expects to get off lightly like Mary and who then is granted mercy goes against everything I believe in. It's not true mercy then, for me, it is more like letting them have their way. That's why I cannot see any mercy in Sherlock and John not judging her for her past. If she had truly asked them to look at that thumbdrive, and if she had apologized and said that she did not expect to be forgiven because it was unforgivable, I probably would see it as mercy if John then forgave her. If he took her back It would be kindness. But giving in to her is anything but kindness to me when it is exactly what she wants. I believe that someone that wants to be forgiven needs to reach out to the person who is supposed to forgive them. And they have to want to do something that is not to their own advantage. Like asking John to read the thumbdrive without manipulating him into a direction (telling him he will be the bad guy if he does look at it in front of her? Making demands in her situation...?). Or to offer him a way out of their fake marriage. It is not so much about John accepting those offers. It is about wanting to do something to her own disadvantage for another person's sake. I cannot think of any moment in which she stepped back for another person. No instance in which she accepted personal loss for another person's gain or perceived gain. Does Sherlock get any mercy? Maybe. In a way. Mycroft calls him back, but I wonder if John truly forgave him. Maybe he is not comfortable with Sherlock's choice, and that is the reason why he seemed somewhat detached at the airfield. Mycroft, on the other side, is not the kind of person that would take much offense with Sherlock's actions (imo). So it is quite hard to talk of mercy in his case, I believe. It's more like a mixture of family ties that make him call Sherlock back, and the fact that it is to Mycroft's own advantage. I suppose we will get to see in s4 if Sherlock is forgiven or if the story will yet have to unravel.

But does it not encourage violence if the law does not protect people from it? How can people believe in the idea of justice if there are gaping loopholes like that? I mean, every law has got loopholes. And there will never be a society which is ruled by justice. There are always people that get away like Mary. But do we not at least have to try to reassure those around us that if something happened to them, we would try the utmost to prosecute the culprit... and not stand back. Maybe I am just unable to see the justification behind that loophole. I am a bit confused right now. Is it some kind of protective function?

Seriously? And if that person fears the person too much to file charges? Like in cases of domestic abuse?

I agree that people too often get away with crimes. I also feel with the murdered woman from the story you told. But I believe that just because some get away, we must not let the ones that can be prosecute get away. The problem, Debbie, is that Sherlock is a TV show. Fiction that is aired, fiction that is watched by lots of people. If it advocates vigilante action and tells you that you can get away with it as long as the person is horrible and blackmails people, that is wrong by itself. If it tells you that it is okay to shoot a defenseless person because that apparently is not as bad as lying - that is worrying, too.

Are you both saying that shooting someone is neither morally nor ethically wrong? Because Arcadia is right. Sherlock is alive, and it is difficult to prosecute her for murder. But she did cause grievous bodily harm. That itself usually is worth a prison sentence as well. I really cannot condone the way the show gave her a carte blanche. It is irresponsible to let vigilante action go without consequences. Just because a victim is not willing to take the case to court does not mean society does not have the responsibility to prosecute the criminal. Everybody is to be treated the same, no matter if they are pregnant or not. There is one simple question to be asked: Is she blameworthy? Did Mary hurt Sherlock on purpose, was she aware of the fact that her action would cause him bodily harm? Was she conscious and not inhibited by drug abuse or a medical state? Is she not retarded? I would dare say so. Unless she keels over in the beginning of s4 with a brain tumour, she is very much blameworthy. Hurting Sherlock falls under the category of malum in se, a universally accepted truth that hurting a person is wrong by nature like murder, rape, theft, and so on. It is not just prohibited. These are common law concepts. They are basic, and they are the core of our society. The core of humans living together.

Wonder if that is foreshadowing, too? If there's no bees in the country waiting for Sherlock, does that mean he will not live to retire? Just a thought.

Well, Sherlock took care of that. He had her picture projected on the house front. Which is funny, in a way. Claiming that she is a harmless kitten, but he does think it necessary to have a safeguard to protect John. Seems like he was not that sure of her intentions.

This will, most likely, be very long. I apologize in advance. Okay. When did Magnussen state that he keeps hard copy files when he does not? Yes, he implies that he kept records. The details he is able to recall, e.g. from Lord Smallwood's letters add to that, as well as the "fake copies" he carries with him. But does that make him a liar? I do not think so. Omission is not lying by default. Let's say a police officer tells a suspect that they have video coverage of the crime scene, and they do, but the camera was not functioning properly. If you say the police officer lied by omission, then the suspect goes free even if he confessed to the crime. There's a difference between misleading someone and lying to someone. I am not defending his character. I doubt there's anybody who truly liked his character... I am simply saying that 1. His death was not deserved, and 2. He was not the threat himself. He only acts as a conductor. By choice, yes, but that does not make him the cause of the "catastrophe." You state "they do not care if it is true." Well, Magnussen seemed to care. He does not enjoy simply humiliating a person, otherwise he'd just print whatever he can think of. Instead, he keeps tabs on people to use the truth against them. I state again: The fact that he prints those truths is not a criminal act. If a reporter found out those facts, and printed them, it would not be a criminal act either. Because it is not slander. The despicable thing about Magnussen is that he holds the truth over his victims. Not that he finds out a person's dirty secret. But it is criminal of him to keep the information to himself instead of reporting it to the authorities. Yes, it proves what CAM says. That he could print everything he wanted. But he doesn't. And Janine goes to a rival of his. Because that rival prints those lies. There's a certain half truth about it, and still Magnussen is not interested in it. He didn't pick up on it either, apparently. So how can that be proof that he is a liar? When he does not print lies or half-truths like Janine is spreading? Oh, a hopeful thought. Thank you, yes, someone might still have the information on Mary. I believe this time we saw Sherlock from Mycroft's perspective. In Sherlock's mind palace, we got to see that Sherlock thinks of himself as a child when in Mycroft's presence. When he runs towards Redbeard, Sherlock "grows" up. Mycroft remains an adult, Sherlock becomes a child. It implies that he feels like a child compared to his brother. Maybe because his brother does not see him as an adult and keeps treating him like a child. At the end of HLV, we get to see Sherlock in child-form after Mycroft gets a close-up from the camera. To me, that seems to imply that this is his perspective, especially because we at first see child-Sherlock from Mycroft's direction, then the camera shifts to behind child-Sherlock, but not directly behind him, which would indicate that we are in the character's perspective. So it's more of an overview camera position, the camera "pulls back" to reveal the context of the scene: That way we get to see the helicoptor for causality, it explains the tears that follow in the next shot. The audience is kept in that position when the camera switches to a close-up of child-Sherlock's face and the tears. Even then, the camera has a left angle, indicating audience, not introspection (a confrontational close-up would be better for introspection, I think. But my knowledge of camera work is far from adequate). Basically, I think that the camera viewpoint could indicate that it is Mycroft's perspective. But like anything else, this is very much up for debate. A lot to reply to, so please bear with me. And of course, I respect your opinion, too I agree with you in one particular argument: Magnussen is a villain. His actions are deplorable. But, and here, I disagree with you: It is not the act of collecting dirty secrets, but the act of holding them over a person. With Lord Smallwood, I'd like to point out one very essential question: Where does a much older man meet a 15 year old girl in such a context that leads to sexually charged letters? Lady Smallwood claims he did not know, and he did not see, and anyway, he is innocent of anything. Yes, girls can look older than they are. But it seems like he does not have much to defend himself with. The girl apparently would not make a case against him, but why would the Smallwoods not refuse to play Magnussen's game if the girl could confirm this "innocent" nature of the affair? The fact that Magnussen can hold a few letters over Lord Smallwood with such force indicates that no, it was not such an innocent mistake. Would it have harmed his reputation? Yes. But I doubt that is the reason why Lord Smallwood killed himself. He had nothing to defend himself with. That's my conclusion. Doesn't change that Magnussen had no right to hold it over Lord Smallwood. But they way the "story" is told does not indicate that he was this innocent. Would it not have been much more efficient to get Sherlock to find that girl and convince her to help them go public with the truth before lies could be printed? Instead, Lady Smallwood wants the letters to disappear. The allegedly innocent truth. If it is this innocent, why is it essential to make it disappear? And no, not at all. It is not John's fault that he married an assassin. But he is responsible for the way he deals with it. Magnussen isn't justified. Again, we agree on the basic "theory." I never claimed he was. Lady Smallwood is, to a degree, responsible. To the same as John at the end. She knows about her husband's dirty secret, and she agreed to keep mum about it. That's a decision. A person is always responsible for one's own decisions. If my brother stole a car, and told me about it, I am responsible, too. Because I know about it. If I stick up for him and do not report him, but then the police catches him, I am liable for aiding him. Because I am responsible for my own action, or in this case, inaction. Does that mean Lady Smallwood deserves to be blackmailed? Of course not. That's Magnussen's vile action, he holds it over those people. If he simply printed the story, then yes, Lady Smallwood had it coming, so to speak. Just because you were not involved in the act does not mean you are automatically not liable for it. Again, yes, Magnussen is a sadist. He is not justified in his behavior. But, and here I disagree: He does not, as you stated, ruin those people's lives. They did that themselves with their actions, and their actions following their actions. Even if Lord Smallwood really was as innocent in the matter as his wife stated, he hid this affair. He did not visit the girl's parents and apologize and explain. That is a decision he is liable for. As you said, everybody makes mistakes. But the way you deal with them is important. Hiding your mistakes to avoid deserved consequences, that is highly immoral, too. Yes, his pressure points are a person's weakness. But he does not use those against the people, he uses those weaknesses to dig further until he finds something he can publish, like with Mycroft, he went for Mycroft's weakness, Sherlock, then he went for Sherlock's weakness, John, and John's weakness is Mary, and Mary is the last chain. Magnussen is not threatening John and Sherlock for the sake of it, he is using them like tools to get to Mycroft. He is not interested in slandering people. He is interested in seeing people stumble over their own mountains of accumulated dirt. Again, I do not despise the fact that he looks for immoral acts. But it is despicable that he enjoys it, and that he holds it over them instead of rightout publishing it. It is not about righting a wrong for Magnussen. And that's why he is a villain. I respect your opinion but I fear I cannot relent in any point of my "morality discussion." Otherwise I'd endanger the integrity of my own principles of morality. With principles, it's always the same. Never make any exception, otherwise exceptions become the rule.

Or it's part of s4. I always considered it rather odd that Mary's best friend is Magnussen's secretary. It's one thing for Sherlock to get close to Janine because she's his secretary. Another that he already knows her because she is Mary's friend. I suppose Mary milked Janine for information. Do we know how long they have been friends for? To me, it seems like Mary became acquainted with Janine as a precaution, for a time she would need to get close to Magnussen. Magnussen could have sent Janine to befriend Mary, too, but I am not too sure about that. He already had dirt on her, and he must have known that any such connection would be a liability as soon as he expressed his "interest" in Mary's past to Mary's face. Janine is a way "in." It is not especially practical. And, if Janine was aware of such a plot, she certainly would have been a bit more suspicious of Sherlock's advances.

I know that some people agree with the decision to kill Magnussen. I do not. You say he is vile. Yes. You say he is dangerous. I am not so sure about that. He definitely is doing wrong things, too, but he does not make up things to hurt people. He says he could, but we know that he is not using fake stories against people. He digs up their dirty secrets from whereever they may have hidden them. I do not consider him dangerous because those people endangered themselves when they decided to hide their immoral secrets away. They risk that their secrets can be used against them. I do not say they deserve to be blackmailed or anything. But they accepted the odds that their dirty secrets may be revealed, and of course things get even more dangerous when you first try to hide from the deserved consequences of your own actions. If I commit hit-and-run, I risk that someone saw me. If that person blackmails me, shame on that person, but I am certainly no innocent victim. I risked that, especially when I ran away and hid from the police. I cannot just moan that I deserve better. The way I behaved, I do not deserve any better. Magnussen is not putting more danger on people than they put on themselves in the first place. He may hold that over them, and that is immoral, but he is not the decisive factor. Not the danger itself. Mary tries to hide from the consequences of her actions. Out of cowardice, she assaults a defenseless man. To me, that certainly cannot be justified in any way. Besides, if we begin to judge which death is justified and which is not, where will we stop? I stand by my opinion. Magnussen's murder was immoral and wrong. It is only right that Sherlock suffers repercussions, even if he did it out of less abominable reasons than Mary. He, however, at least knows it was wrong. Mary lacks any feeling of guilt. She neither feels guilty for shooting Sherlock, nor for lying to John, nor for ambushing a defenseless person or killing those people in the past. Nor does she seem to feel guilty for endangering her child, by the way. Mary runs from the consequences of her actions. Like a child. Even Sherlock is more of an adult and faces the consequences of his actions without complaints. Concerning the second part, it is an interesting thing, yes. But I wonder if Sherlock truly is committing murder because he thinks he is allowed to play god and executioner. To me, it seems like he murders Magnussen because he is desperate and cannot think of any other solution. When Mycroft arrives, Sherlock is running out of time. A stressful situation which pressures him to make a decision. Snap judgement. I doubt he thinks of himself as a hero at the end of HLV. He certainly does not complain about being "treated wrongly" like Mary did. He is aware of the fact that he took a life, an action that deserves punishment.