Moriarty is a Woman

[Julia Mae]

LOL....thank you Carol! I'll take it. Hmmm....I wonder if I am emotionless?  Here goes a test.

 

 

Well isn't that the strangest thing! They work until I submit the post and then they stop working. Curiouser and curiouser.

 

They work fine on my screen - it's a hug!  What does this look like: 

 

 

HEY!!!  IT WORKS!!!!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Oh, good, looks like they're fixed! They were actually posting just fine all along, just not displaying properly for regular members, so I assume that any emoticons that you've used over the past few days should show up normally now. Thanks, Undead Medic!

 

Medical doctors in Great Britain, or at least in England from what I read, are commonly not called "Doctor," but addressed as "Mr."  (Unless they are female, in these modern times.) Except sometimes, which seems to depend on advanced training or position or something that confused me, when they are "Doctor," or "Professor."   I also wasn't sure if the source meant in the modern world or at some time in the past.  I'll try to do more research today.

I don't recall coming across the "Mister" thing, but I have read that most British doctors nowadays do not have a doctoral degree, just a bachelor's or master's in medicine. I'm assuming this does not mean their training is inferior to what American doctors get, just that the terminology is different, and better reflects the level of training that a particular doctor has. Though it seems odd to Americans, the modern John Watson is probably not an MD (even though he is a very good doctor).

 

I'm also wondering if we can consider anything in a shooting script that doesn't make it on air as BBC Sherlock Canon?  In any case, this would be the second time they have put the words in her mouth that she does PMs.  In detective fiction, writers find ways to both leave the clues for the reader (viewer in our case) and disguise the clues so as to not make it obvious.  This would explain her being a doctor, but that fact being obfuscated.

I would consider a shooting script to be more of a hint toward what may be going on, rather than as actual Sherlock canon. As to how any of this applies to Molly, I have no idea!
 
 

Doesn't he say, "This way!" or something as they enter the candy factory?  Hardly a line of note, I suppose, so yes, we have.  But Mycroft will have someone inside, too.  Someone not so obvious as Lestrade. 
 

Thanks for that collage. You've raised an interesting question. I've heard it conjectured that the "this way" line is addressed to either the children or whoever has been keeping an eye on them -- i.e., that the mystery man says that in his role as kidnapper rather than police officer, so I'm still leaning toward that fellow being an actual baddie.  Also, when Jim mentions "three bullets," we see this man (as well as Mrs. Hudson's handyman).  Is that supposed to be us seeing Jim's thoughts?

I would assume (and hope) that Mycroft was telling John the truth about the three or four assassins he mentioned at the Diogenes Club (especially if he realizes that it was John who shot the cabbie!). But now that you mention it, at least some of the other supposed assassins could very well be Mycroft's people. Which would explain one point that's been bugging me in "Reichenbach" -- judging by the angle that the one fellow has on John outside St. Bart's, he should have been able to see everything that happened on the sidewalk, including any fakery.  (And I don't recall him being shown during Jim's dialog.) Hmmm.

 

[Undead Medic]

I believe the Doctor/Mister thing is used here mainly to differentiate between doctors, (Doctor) and surgeons (Mister) aely may be able to confirm or correct this however.

 

[Julia Mae]

I believe the Doctor/Mister thing is used here mainly to differentiate between doctors, (Doctor) and surgeons (Mister) aely may be able to confirm or correct this however.

 

 

I found my original source, here's a quote:

 

In the US, medical doctors, no matter their specialty or status, are usually called Dr. [surname]. In the UK, there's a kind of reverse snobbery, in that GPs and more junior specialists are called Dr [surname], whereas surgeons and other consultants go back to being Mr or Mrs or Miss--though I've only met men in the consultant role so far, so I can't vouch for the actual use of Mrs and Miss. (Note that BrE tends not to put a (BrE) full stop/(AmE) period at the end of title abbreviations like Dr, Mr or Mrs, while AmE almost always does.)

 

Here is the post, it's a long and very interesting article on the different types of and names of doctors in the UK:

 

Separated By a Common Language

 

 

(And thanks so much for fixing the emoticons!)

[bborchar]

I guess I'll throw in my two cents.  I am taking these people at face value- Molly is really a coroner, and the assassins are really Moriarty's people  Why?  Because the easiest explanation is usually the correct one.  I think that if they started adding in twists like Molly is really Moriarty, then it cheapens the story- it is possible to get TOO clever (M. Night Shyamalan, anyone?).  Sherlock already has one love interest betray him, it would feel repetitive to have another (possible one) do the same.  And Moffat has said several times that Moriarty is gone, and he wouldn't want to resurrect him because he's lived out his purpose in the story (which, I think, was to "humanize" Sherlock and make him realize that he wasn't as cold-hearted as he thought himself to be).  I really hope we move onto fresh new stories, because there are a ton of them out there in the canon that will make great drama, and I just don't want to rehash the story that already took up the past two series.

[Julia Mae]

 

Doesn't he say, "This way!" or something as they enter the candy factory?  Hardly a line of note, I suppose, so yes, we have.  But Mycroft will have someone inside, too.  Someone not so obvious as Lestrade. 

 

Thanks for that collage. You've raised an interesting question. I've heard it conjectured that the "this way" line is addressed to either the children or whoever has been keeping an eye on them -- i.e., that the mystery man says that in his role as kidnapper rather than police officer, so I'm still leaning toward that fellow being an actual baddie.  Also, when Jim mentions "three bullets," we see this man (as well as Mrs. Hudson's handyman).  Is that supposed to be us seeing Jim's thoughts?

 

I would assume (and hope) that Mycroft was telling John the truth about the three or four assassins he mentioned at the Diogenes Club (especially if he realizes that it was John who shot the cabbie!). But now that you mention it, at least some of the other supposed assassins could very well be Mycroft's people. Which would explain one point that's been bugging me in "Reichenbach" -- judging by the angle that the one fellow has on John outside St. Bart's, he should have been able to see everything that happened on the sidewalk, including any fakery.  (And I don't recall him being shown during Jim's dialog.) Hmmm.

 

OK.  I have the episode up as I am typing, so let's see if the sequence provides us with any clues:

 

Sherlock has Jim backed over the wall, and he's just said, "Three bullets, three gunmen, three victims.  There's no stopping them now.  Unless my people see you jump."

 

Sherlock pulls him back upright and more dialogue ensues. Now, here's what I find interesting:  He doesn't say, "Unless they see you jump" - referring to the gunmen, he says "my people."  Indicating others have eyes on the situation? I mean, whoever is with Lestrade can't see Sherlock jump, so I guess that was obvious.  

 

Anyway, I'll see how long it takes between Moriarty saying "three gunmen" and the shots of the three guys in the pic I posted. .............. 

 

Okay, Netflix timestamps by countdown to the end - so, we are 15:15 from the end when James says "Three bullets" and at 10:50 when we see the gunman on the stairs.  In the interim, they talk, Sherlock mounts the wall the first time, gets down, James kills himself, Sherlock freaks out a bit.  They cut into Sherlock's freak out to show us the three guys then back to him, after that he mounts the wall again.  

 

It just occurred to me that if we  try to match up the three guys with the killers Mycroft says Moriarty sent, it doesn't make sense, because two of them were killed and one was a woman.  Besides, he didn't send them, supposedly the people interested in getting the computer code from Sherlock sent them, not Moriarty.   It always seemed obvious to me that Mycroft brings John to his club as part of his secret plan with Sherlock to bring down Moriarty and his operatives.  (Journey to Reichenbach 3)  But, which of the three we see did we see in the files Mycroft showed John? 

 

I have to go back and look some more now......

 

[bborchar]

 

 

It just occurred to me that if we  try to match up the three guys with the killers Mycroft says Moriarty sent, it doesn't make sense, because two of them were killed and one was a woman.  Besides, he didn't send them, supposedly the people interested in getting the computer code from Sherlock sent them, not Moriarty.   It always seemed obvious to me that Mycroft brings John to his club as part of his secret plan with Sherlock to bring down Moriarty and his operatives.  (Journey to Reichenbach 3)  But, which of the three we see did we see in the files Mycroft showed John? 

 

I have to go back and look some more now......

 

 

 

We see three of the four assassins that Mycroft shows John- all three men.  Two of them are killed and the third one is the guy trained on John at the end.  The only assassin we DON'T see in action at some point is the female.  However, there's a fifth assassin that Mycroft doesn't mention- the repairman.  However, when we see the "surveillance" web of people watching Sherlock, there are 5 networks (Estonian, Russian, Czech, Spanish and Albanian).  So I don't know why we don't see the woman (although John says he recognizes her), but the fifth person could well be an important person in the next episode, because Mycroft mentions that she has taken the flat across from them...which, in the canon of "The Empty House" is important when Sherlock and John watch from the flat across the street and meet up with Moran.  This is all pure speculation, of course, but I doubt the writers would leave a clue like her hanging around without some reason for it.

[Julia Mae]

 

We see three of the four assassins that Mycroft shows John- all three men.  Two of them are killed and the third one is the guy trained on John at the end.  The only assassin we DON'T see in action at some point is the female.  However, there's a fifth assassin that Mycroft doesn't mention- the repairman.  However, when we see the "surveillance" web of people watching Sherlock, there are 5 networks (Estonian, Russian, Czech, Spanish and Albanian).  So I don't know why we don't see the woman (although John says he recognizes her), but the fifth person could well be an important person in the next episode, because Mycroft mentions that she has taken the flat across from them...which, in the canon of "The Empty House" is important when Sherlock and John watch from the flat across the street and meet up with Moran.  This is all pure speculation, of course, but I doubt the writers would leave a clue like her hanging around without some reason for it.

 

 

Okay, how do we know there's a "fifth assassin?"   We are assuming that because of what Moriarty says.  Even if there are more assassin's, they don't work for Moriarty.  Also, there's a "sixth assassin" the guy at Scotland Yard.  Look below at  how similar these men look.  That tattooed guy is purposely made to look like the Albanian killer in the Mycroft file. 

 

Why would the guy on the stairs be working for Moriarty when he wasn't sent by Moriarty?  According to the plotline, the four killers were hired by their governments or other groups looking for the computer code.  Now he's just going to watch Sherlock die?  He was supposed to be protecting him.  Moriarty is already dead, if Sherlock dies, he never gets the code.  He's illogical if we are taking things at face value. 

 

I admit the guy on the stairs looks like the guy in the file, but not more than the guy at Mrs. Hudson's looks like Albanian killer.  Why does the guy at Mrs. Hudson's  illogically want to get to his gun right away when he has no way of seeing if Sherlock jumps?

 

After Sherlock's "body" is taken away, we see a site trained on John that moves up, we cut to the guy taking the gun out of the window.  Was he really trained on John or just covering the scene in case someone tried to interfere?  Or did we look through the killer's site and then cut to a defender pulling back?

 

 

I don't want you to think that I believe I have all the answers - I just have a lot of questions.

[Julia Mae]

I would assume (and hope) that Mycroft was telling John the truth about the three or four assassins he mentioned at the Diogenes Club (especially if he realizes that it was John who shot the cabbie!). But now that you mention it, at least some of the other supposed assassins could very well be Mycroft's people. Which would explain one point that's been bugging me in "Reichenbach" -- judging by the angle that the one fellow has on John outside St. Bart's, he should have been able to see everything that happened on the sidewalk, including any fakery.  (And I don't recall him being shown during Jim's dialog.) Hmmm.

 

I think the results show Mycroft was telling the truth as he knew it, he asked, "If not Moriarty, who?"  And I'm also curious as to how that guy on the stairs doesn't see everything going on. 

 

My thinking is: When that scene begins, when Sherlock hit the ground, the open bed truck with the laundry sacks is in the way.  By the time John gets to the position where the sniper site is trained on him, the body is surrounded and only stays for less than a  minute before they scoop it up and run into the hospital with it. The sniper couldn't see him land, couldn't see whatever hocus-pocus they did to pull off the fake death, because it was blocked by that truck.  After, well, he could see what John could see, and that looked consistent. It fooled John close up.

 

[bborchar]

 

 

We see three of the four assassins that Mycroft shows John- all three men.  Two of them are killed and the third one is the guy trained on John at the end.  The only assassin we DON'T see in action at some point is the female.  However, there's a fifth assassin that Mycroft doesn't mention- the repairman.  However, when we see the "surveillance" web of people watching Sherlock, there are 5 networks (Estonian, Russian, Czech, Spanish and Albanian).  So I don't know why we don't see the woman (although John says he recognizes her), but the fifth person could well be an important person in the next episode, because Mycroft mentions that she has taken the flat across from them...which, in the canon of "The Empty House" is important when Sherlock and John watch from the flat across the street and meet up with Moran.  This is all pure speculation, of course, but I doubt the writers would leave a clue like her hanging around without some reason for it.

 

 

Okay, how do we know there's a "fifth assassin?"   We are assuming that because of what Moriarty says.  Even if there are more assassin's, they don't work for Moriarty.  Also, there's a "sixth assassin" the guy at Scotland Yard.  Look below at  how similar these men look.  That tattooed guy is purposely made to look like the Albanian killer in the Mycroft file. 

 

Why would the guy on the stairs be working for Moriarty when he wasn't sent by Moriarty?  According to the plotline, the four killers were hired by their governments or other groups looking for the computer code.  Now he's just going to watch Sherlock die?  He was supposed to be protecting him.  Moriarty is already dead, if Sherlock dies, he never gets the code.  He's illogical if we are taking things at face value. 

 

I admit the guy on the stairs looks like the guy in the file, but not more than the guy at Mrs. Hudson's looks like Albanian killer.  Why does the guy at Mrs. Hudson's  illogically want to get to his gun right away when he has no way of seeing if Sherlock jumps?

 

After Sherlock's "body" is taken away, we see a site trained on John that moves up, we cut to the guy taking the gun out of the window.  Was he really trained on John or just covering the scene in case someone tried to interfere?  Or did we look through the killer's site and then cut to a defender pulling back?

 

I don't want you to think that I believe I have all the answers - I just have a lot of questions.

 

 

I highlighted the reason above.  There are 5 networks on his computer, all in different languages- corresponding to each assassin.  The Albanian assassin Sulimari is killed, and it's probable that the Estonian is killed (he has the accent most closely like it).  The Russian is obviously the female Ludmila (sp?), and therefore, there are two more- the Czech and the Spaniard.  We know that both of them live near 221B, and the repairman and John's sniper are the two we see who live there.  The policeman is also Moriarty's assassin; however, he is not one of the assassins who is trying to get the keycode from Sherlock- those would be the five assassins who are living nearby.  I don't know why Mycroft would leave one assassin out when he's talking to John- there's a possibility that the repairman ISN'T an assassin, but someone working for Mycroft and protecting Mrs. Hudson from the female assassin for all I know (it's plausible).  But he is definitely watching Sherlock's flat for whatever reason.  But my best guess is that he is one of five assassins around 221B who are bad guys hired by Moriarty.

 

I will say that the guy in the file looks EXACTLY like the sniper watching John, though- I have the blu-rays and a huge hi-def tv and there's no doubt of it to me.  He also looks suspiciously similar to Sherlock, and it wouldn't surprise me if he were the kidnapper for whom the girl mistook Sherlock when she screamed.  The dead assassin is also definitely Sulimari (John IDs him definitively when they take him away).

 

Also, I don't take everything at face value- hence the 5th assassin theory.  However, I do try to draw plausible solutions given the information we have.  It's fine if I'm wrong, and I'm fine with debating theories until the episode comes out.  For me, really, the only two murky mysteries in this episode are Mycroft's involvement and the identity of both of the kidnappers.  The assassins and way Sherlock survives are pretty easy to guess.  Even Sherlock surmises that the assassins are there to get the key code and also Moriarty's way of further smearing his name- I am taking that at face value as Sherlock is rarely wrong when it comes to those types of deductions.

[Carol the Dabbler]

... the easiest explanation is usually the correct one.  I think that if they started adding in twists like Molly is really Moriarty, then it cheapens the story....

Thank you. Yes, I think that's my main objection to this sort of thing, too, and to stuff like the Rhododendron ponticum theory. Just too convoluted to be really clever. I don't mind something like that occasionally, but a little goes a long way.

 

When you say "the easiest explanation is usually the correct one," you may mean on television, but then again you may be intentionally paraphrasing a classic rule of thumb known as Occam's Razor -- though the full version specifies that the explanation must account for all observed phenomena.

 

Every time I hear that famous Holmesian saying (variously worded but to the effect that once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth), it sounds to me like a (not wholly successful) attempt to reinvent Occam's Razor.

[bborchar]

 

... the easiest explanation is usually the correct one.  I think that if they started adding in twists like Molly is really Moriarty, then it cheapens the story....

Thank you. Yes, I think that's my main objection to this sort of thing, too, and to stuff like the Rhododendron ponticum theory. Just too convoluted to be really clever. I don't mind something like that occasionally, but a little goes a long way.

 

When you say "the easiest explanation is usually the correct one," you may mean on television, but then again you may be intentionally paraphrasing a classic rule of thumb known as Occam's Razor -- though the full version specifies that the explanation must account for all observed phenomena.

 

Every time I hear that famous Holmesian saying (variously worded but to the effect that once you've eliminated the impossible, whatever remains must be the truth), it sounds to me like a (not wholly successful) attempt to reinvent Occam's Razor.

 

 

Usually, what happens in Sherlock or other mystery stories/books/shows is that when we see the final solution the problem, it's usually one that we smack our head and say "OHHH, how did I miss THAT?"  Sherlock is especially like that- they WANT you to figure it out, and they throw out all (or almost all) of the clues for you to follow.  All of the information that I've picked up about the show I definitely didn't pick up on the first few viewings- I watched it quite a bit, pausing, slow-motioning, etc., to try to see what I was missing.  It's like a puzzle, and the writers have given you the edge pieces and are expecting you to fill it in.  That's what I loved so much about that episode...they didn't make the mystery "did he live?!?", but "HOW did he live?!?"  But for me, if the middle doesn't fit into the edge pieces, then it ruins the puzzle.  I would consider Molly a huge part of the puzzle- and if you try to make her evil, it just doesn't look right anymore.  That's how I feel, anyway

[Julia Mae]

  However, when we see the "surveillance" web of people watching Sherlock, there are 5 networks (Estonian, Russian, Czech, Spanish and Albanian).

 

I highlighted the reason above.  There are 5 networks on his computer, all in different languages- corresponding to each assassin. 

 

Well, this is precisely my point, Mycroft identifies 4 killers to John.  You assume that there are those four and some other one.  The five networks are just wifi connections.  And, Mycroft only IDs two of the people in the folders: Sulimani and Ludmilla.  He says only "Four top international assassins relocated within spitting distance of 221B..."   He says nothing about the other two.  And, all we see is photos, not case file papers.  For all we know, the other two are British top assassins.  Or not.  There's just no information here. 

 

What is in doubt, is why they are there and for whom they work. Mycroft says, "It's not hard to guess the common denominator, is it?"  When John suggests he is thinking Moriarty, he doesn't exactly confirm that but asks, after John objects to the idea, "If not Moriarty, then who?"  But the obvious common denominator is Sherlock, really. 

 

 

So, here's Assassin #3.   I had to enhance the shot from the stairwell, the clearest moment of him, to see any real features, but I am quite willing to agree this is the same unidentified guy in the file Mycroft handed John. 

 

Problem is, he doesn't work for Moriarty.  Moriarty himself confirms this to Sherlock on the roof. "I told all my clients, last one to Sherlock is a sissy."  These four people don't work for Moriarty, they work for the clients, they are trying to save Sherlock's life.

 

So, my question is: What is he doing in a stairwell, supposedly aiming at John Watson's head in order to kill him if Sherlock doesn't die?  

 

  The policeman is also Moriarty's assassin; however, he is not one of the assassins who is trying to get the keycode from Sherlock- those would be the five assassins who are living nearby.

 

I know this is a commonly held belief and very possibly correct.  But again, this is assumption.  I don't have a problem with him being there to kill Lestrade or not - I don't know anything about him.  No one has convinced me that the quarter profile shot of the man who entered the school is this guy.  I'd like to be able to demonstrate it is him, but so far, I can't.

 

But he is definitely watching Sherlock's flat for whatever reason.  But my best guess is that he is one of five assassins around 221B who are bad guys hired by Moriarty.

 

Once again, I want to point out: Moriarty did not hire them and no one in the episode ever said he did.

 

 

Even Sherlock surmises that the assassins are there to get the key code and also Moriarty's way of further smearing his name- I am taking that at face value as Sherlock is rarely wrong when it comes to those types of deductions.

 

But they don't work for Moriarty:

 

Sherlock in the apartment before Lestrade shows up:

 

"Four assassins living right on our doorstep, but they didn't come here to kill me, they have to keep me alive.  I've got something that all of them want."

 

After the 2nd assassin is shot:

 

Sherlock says:  "That's why he left that message, telling everyone where to come, "Get Sherlock."

John asks: "Why plant it on you?"

Sherlock answers: "It's another subtle way of smearing my name. Now I'm best pals with all those criminals."

 

Moriarty told his clients to get Sherlock, the assassins work for the clients.  Why is Mycroft's 3rd killer on a stairwell aiming at John Watson?  He doesn't work for Moriarty.

 

At any rate, we are of course far off topic (as all interesting threads are wont to be) and so to veer back a bit: what woman wrote Sherlock's name on the envelope in TGG with the Parker Duofold pen with the iridum nib?

 

(BTW, I don't think it's at all murky that Sherlock and Mycroft have planned the takedown of Moriarty and are working closely together from the scene where Mycroft tells John Adler is dead in SiB to Sherlock's body being wheeled into Saint Bart's.  Journey to Reichenbach 5)

[bborchar]

 

At any rate, we are of course far off topic (as all interesting threads are wont to be) and so to veer back a bit: what woman wrote Sherlock's name on the envelope in TGG with the Parker Duofold pen with the iridum nib?

 

(BTW, I don't think it's at all murky that Sherlock and Mycroft have planned the takedown of Moriarty and are working closely together from the scene where Mycroft tells John Adler is dead in SiB to Sherlock's body being wheeled into Saint Bart's.  Journey to Reichenbach 5)

 

 

It's murky to me because I can easily make several different assumptions as to what happened with Mycroft and the kidnapping.  I personally don't think Sherlock and Mycroft were in on this whole thing together the entire time because I saw no evidence of it, so that opens up several other possibilities.

 

Anyway, on-topic: 

 

It's incredibly easy to explain the woman's handwriting- Moriarty has a woman write it because he "doesn't like to get his hands dirty".  Actually, the point of that scene had absolutely nothing to do with the pen (it was just a random deduction that had no explanation- the writers said that they do that all the time because it makes for fun dialogue) - the point of the scene was about the paper.  I will take the words straight from Mark Gatiss's mouth on the commentary on the third episode blu-ray:

 

Mark Gatiss: "Mrs. Wenceslas here, this is part of a little "Czech" thing, a light motif.  Which is a huge red herring, really.  The Bohemian stationary, she's got a Czech name, little things meant to actually distract, which in the ultimate resolution are shown to be a red herring.  Except we cut it, so that's what it's about.  It's not just a mistake."

 

Therefore, the pen doesn't factor into it- neither does the woman's handwriting.  It was all part of a red herring that was supposed to throw Sherlock off until revealed in the final resolution (notice how he tells Ms. Wenceslas that the whole case has a "decidedly Czech feel to it"), but was edited out before it aired.

[Julia Mae]

It's murky to me because I can easily make several different assumptions as to what happened with Mycroft and the kidnapping.  I personally don't think Sherlock and Mycroft work together, and I saw no evidence of it, so that opens up several other possibilities.

 

That's interesting.  I don't see any way they can not be working together unless the writing and editing is sloppier than can be credited to these folks.  I suppose it's possible, they do seem to present us with impossible realities at a fairly steady rate..

 

 

It's incredibly easy to explain the woman's handwriting- Moriarty has a woman write it because he "doesn't like to get his hands dirty".  Actually, the point of that scene had absolutely nothing to do with the pen (it was just a random deduction that had no explanation- the writers said that they do that all the time because it makes for fun dialogue) - the point of the scene was about the paper.  I will take the words straight from Mark Gatiss's mouth on the commentary on the third episode blu-ray:

 

Mark Gatiss: "Mrs. Wenceslas here, this is part of a little "Czech" thing, a light motif.  Which is a huge red herring, really.  The Bohemian stationary, she's got a Czech name, little things meant to actually distract, which in the ultimate resolution are shown to be a red herring.  Except we cut it, so that's what it's about.  It's not just a mistake."

 

Therefore, the pen doesn't factor into it- neither does the woman's handwriting.  It was all part of a red herring that was supposed to throw Sherlock off until revealed in the final resolution (notice how he tells Ms. Wenceslas that the whole case has a "decidedly Czech feel to it"), but was edited out before it aired.

 

Well, this is what makes it so difficult to discern "fact" from production error from writer ignorance or laziness on TV shows, movies and books.  It's why all "How Sherlock Survives the Fall" theories are unprovable: nothing matches the reality we see.  It's why fans spend so much time, and have with this character for over 100 years, explaining away the discrepancies.  We spent years doing it for Jo Rowling.

 

Though I have to wonder how anyone on the staff was even familiar with a pen that was only produced for about 9 years, from 1921 to 1932 and only in the United States.  Of course, they couldn't be bothered to Google Clostridium botulinum, either, or look at Partita #1 (either one), so  perhaps someone found a reference and wasn't concerned to know as much as the character they created is supposed to know about these things.

 

So, anyway, why is the killer on the stairwell when he doesn't work for Moriarty?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Usually, what happens in Sherlock or other mystery stories/books/shows is that when we see the final solution the problem, it's usually one that we smack our head and say "OHHH, how did I miss THAT?"

Right, the best kickers are the ones that have been hiding in plain sight.

 

 

So, here's Assassin #3. I had to enhance the shot from the stairwell, the clearest moment of him, to see any real features, but I am quite willing to agree this is the same unidentified guy in the file Mycroft handed John.

Thank you. I stand corrected, the fellow in the stairwell IS one of the assassins that Mycroft warned John about. So that leaves my quandary intact -- how did he miss seeing the fakery? Even if the truck was parked between him and the activity, if he could see over the one-story building, he could surely see over the truck.

 

Alternatively, he could have missed seeing the big picture because he was looking through his gun sight at John the whole time. But why would he do that? It would be tiring, and if the order came through to shoot, surely there would have been no huge hurry. He would have been better off keeping a naked eye on John, in which case he surely could have seen the shenanigans.

[Julia Mae]

 

Thank you. I stand corrected, the fellow in the stairwell IS one of the assassins that Mycroft warned John about. So that leaves my quandary intact -- how did he miss seeing the fakery? Even if the truck was parked between him and the activity, if he could see over the one-story building, he could surely see over the truck.

 

Alternatively, he could have missed seeing the big picture because he was looking through his gun sight at John the whole time. But why would he do that? It would be tiring, and if the order came through to shoot, surely there would have been no huge hurry. He would have been better off keeping a naked eye on John, in which case he surely could have seen the shenanigans.

 

 

Well, again, I think first we have to address the question: what's he doing there?  The assassins didn't work for Moriarty, they were sent by Moriarty's clients.

 

As for the angle, reality isn't very important to TV writers.  I think I put somewhere here, shots from the show that prove Sherlock jumped off the roof in two different places.  Two different roofs, actually.  You can't make binary code from Partita #1, either for violin or keyboard, no rests of any consequence.  We want the show to be as smart as the hero, but in reality, it's only as smart as the writers are and the producer insists they be.  

 

[bborchar]

 

Though I have to wonder how anyone on the staff was even familiar with a pen that was only produced for about 9 years, from 1921 to 1932 and only in the United States.  Of course, they couldn't be bothered to Google Clostridium botulinum, either, or look at Partita #1 (either one), so  perhaps someone found a reference and wasn't concerned to know as much as the character they created is supposed to know about these things.

 

So, anyway, why is the killer on the stairwell when he doesn't work for Moriarty?

 

 

Actually, there's usually an explanation to these things- for instance:

 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used the Parker Duofold to record the adventures of Sherlock Holmes

 

 

http://www.dalyspenshop.com/peninfo/parker-duofold.html

 

The writers throw in lots of fun little stuff like that.  For instance, in the first episode, John has a bad limp, but he says he was shot in the shoulder- that's not an error, that was put there on purpose because Conan-Doyle himself messed up Watson's injury (saying that it was in the shoulder in some stories, and in the leg in others).  The writers absolutely love putting in lots of little easter eggs to be found if you where to look.

 

I think the killer on the stairs works for Moriarty because I think he was also one of the kidnappers.  It's impossible to gauge his line of sight because they used two different roofs for the shots on the roof- that's why the scenery, size of roof, etc, doesn't line up.  So the building we see when we see Sherlock jump are not the actual buildings.  However, if I had to take a stab at it, the killer probably can't see Sherlock because of the lorry in the way, even if he can see over the garage, he woudn't be able to see what happens behind the lorry because he's obviously looking from straight across the street.

[Julia Mae]

 

 

Though I have to wonder how anyone on the staff was even familiar with a pen that was only produced for about 9 years, from 1921 to 1932 and only in the United States.  Of course, they couldn't be bothered to Google Clostridium botulinum, either, or look at Partita #1 (either one), so  perhaps someone found a reference and wasn't concerned to know as much as the character they created is supposed to know about these things.

 

 

Actually, there's usually an explanation to these things- for instance:

 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used the Parker Duofold to record the adventures of Sherlock Holmes

 

 

http://www.dalyspenshop.com/peninfo/parker-duofold.html

 

The writers throw in lots of fun little stuff like that.

 

I'm aware. But he didn't use an iridium nib fountain pen to do it.  

 

 

 

I think the killer on the stairs works for Moriarty because I think he was also one of the kidnappers.

 

 

Well, he doesn't seem to appear in the scenes anyplace and that would mean the others were sent by the clients and one was sent by Moriarty in order to justify his being on the stairs? 

 

 So the building we see when we see Sherlock jump are not the actual buildings.

 

At least one of them seems to be, unless they Photoshopped in the engraving identifying it as the Pathological Laboratory of Saint Batholomew's Hospital.  But then they shop out whole limbs and shop in whole universes, I suppose. 

[bborchar]

 

 

 

Though I have to wonder how anyone on the staff was even familiar with a pen that was only produced for about 9 years, from 1921 to 1932 and only in the United States.  Of course, they couldn't be bothered to Google Clostridium botulinum, either, or look at Partita #1 (either one), so  perhaps someone found a reference and wasn't concerned to know as much as the character they created is supposed to know about these things.

 

 

Actually, there's usually an explanation to these things- for instance:

 

Sir Arthur Conan Doyle used the Parker Duofold to record the adventures of Sherlock Holmes

 

 

http://www.dalyspenshop.com/peninfo/parker-duofold.html

 

The writers throw in lots of fun little stuff like that.

 

I'm aware. But he didn't use an iridium nib fountain pen to do it.  

 

 

 

I think the killer on the stairs works for Moriarty because I think he was also one of the kidnappers.

 

 

Well, he doesn't seem to appear in the scenes anyplace and that would mean the others were sent by the clients and one was sent by Moriarty in order to justify his being on the stairs? 

 

 So the building we see when we see Sherlock jump are not the actual buildings.

 

At least one of them seems to be, unless they Photoshopped in the engraving identifying it as the Pathological Laboratory of Saint Batholomew's Hospital.  But then they shop out whole limbs and shop in whole universes, I suppose. 

 

 

I don't know the terminology of pens because I'm not a pen collector or really care about pens- as far as I'm concerned, it's just an inside joke about a fountain pen Donan-Coyle used and a red herring that went nowhere.

 

I think he is one of the kidnappers because he is very similar to Sherlock in height, build, hair style and color, and he also has a very angular face.  They are very careful not to show too much of him for very long; and really, unless you are paying attention, it's very easy to miss him completely.  The girl screams at Sherlock because he reminds her of the killer- that means someone that looks like him.  The only person we see that remotely resembles Sherlock at all during that entire episode is that particular assassin.  I think the policeman assassin was also in on it, by moving the children where Donovan would find them first and then poisoning Donovan against Sherlock.  Now, this theory assumes that we have met all of the players at one point or another, and that the filmmakers gave us all of the information we need about it.

 

The buildings and background are not shopped- it's just the use of clever editing.  Heck, unless you're really paying attention, you wouldn't even notice that the roof they talk on is significantly smaller than the roof he falls from.

[Julia Mae]

 

 

I don't know the terminology of pens because I'm not a pen collector or really care about pens- as far as I'm concerned, it's just an inside joke about a fountain pen Donan-Coyle used and a red herring that went nowhere.

 

 

I wouldn't know about pens, either, except for watching Sherlock, which caused me to research this one. (Parker Duofold Iridium nib)  You'd be amazed at the pen culture out there, though. 

 

I think he is one of the kidnappers because he is very similar to Sherlock in height, build, hair style and color, and he also has a very angular face.  They are very careful not to show too much of him for very long; and really, unless you are paying attention, it's very easy to miss him completely.  The girl screams at Sherlock because he reminds her of the killer- that means someone that looks like him.

 

That's a possibility.  What we can be sure of is that Moriarty set that up.  I think someone who resembles Sherlock is a less sure way to imprint terror on  children in less than 24 hours than say, showing a picture and convincing them that guy was going to kill them if he found them.   When they get to the place where the children were eating candy,  Sherlock finds that the candle "was alight moments ago."  It's quite possible it was the children themselves that blew out the candle and ran away to hide.  Sherlock makes the point that the killer can be far away and still murder them by their own actions of eating the candy.  It wasn't necessary for any adult to be present.

 

Other theories include life masks of Sherlock, though I'm not fond of that because we've never seen it done in the show before.  Another is that they were transported in a cab and shown a movie like the one Moriarty showed Sherlock, only with Sherlock reported by the "Storyteller" as a murderer who is threatening the children of the Ambassador.  They can have convinced the children they were being taken for their own protection. In any case, no one of these theories is supported by very substantial evidence. 

 

 

The buildings and background are not shopped- it's just the use of clever editing.  Heck, unless you're really paying attention, you wouldn't even notice that the roof they talk on is significantly smaller than the roof he falls from.

 

 

 

I wasn't seriously suggesting they were.  I have a file of over 140 pictures of the three falls, the rooftop, the angles of the shoot.  There's no theory of the fall that can be supported when compared to what we see.  I would have preferred much cleverer editing.

 

 

[bborchar]

 

That's a possibility.  What we can be sure of is that Moriarty set that up.  I think someone who resembles Sherlock is a less sure way to imprint terror on  children in less than 24 hours than say, showing a picture and convincing them that guy was going to kill them if he found them.   When they get to the place where the children were eating candy,  Sherlock finds that the candle "was alight moments ago."  It's quite possible it was the children themselves that blew out the candle and ran away to hide.  Sherlock makes the point that the killer can be far away and still murder them by their own actions of eating the candy.  It wasn't necessary for any adult to be present.

 

Other theories include life masks of Sherlock, though I'm not fond of that because we've never seen it done in the show before.  Another is that they were transported in a cab and shown a movie like the one Moriarty showed Sherlock, only with Sherlock reported by the "Storyteller" as a murderer who is threatening the children of the Ambassador.  They can have convinced the children they were being taken for their own protection. In any case, no one of these theories is supported by very substantial evidence. 

 

 

I think that's where the bad policeman comes in.  He's one of the first people to rush into the sweets factory, and then we hear, very faintly in the background, "hurry now, quiet! quiet!" as everyone is looking around and right before Sherlock finds the candle.  I think that he probably moved the children so Sherlock wouldn't be the first person to find them (because he would have been since he found the candle first).  Now, another theory could be that it was the policeman who kidnapped the children, but I think it would be too risky for him, considering that the girl could see him at the Yard.  Still, I'm convinced he moved the children in that sweets factory so that Donovan would find them first.

[Julia Mae]

 

I think that's where the bad policeman comes in.  He's one of the first people to rush into the sweets factory, and then we hear, very faintly in the background, "hurry now, quiet! quiet!" as everyone is looking around and right before Sherlock finds the candle.  I think that he probably moved the children so Sherlock wouldn't be the first person to find them (because he would have been since he found the candle first).  Now, another theory could be that it was the policeman who kidnapped the children, but I think it would be too risky for him, considering that the girl could see him at the Yard.  Still, I'm convinced he moved the children in that sweets factory so that Donovan would find them first.

 

 

I do hear the "quietly, quietly" being whispered, and I hadn't before, not hearing the hurry bit - but yes, it does seem someone is moving the children, obviously the cops aren't being quiet at all.   This is the only pic I could get of the two guys together just before they enter the building:

 

People tend to think the guy in the yellow circle is the cop watching Lestrade at the end (probable assassin in most minds) and think he is the first in.  But, if you can catch it (maybe you can get frame-by-frame, I can't on Streaming video)  you'll see the guy with the red arrow passes yellow man and is actually the one who enters the building several strides ahead of the others.

 

Neither of these guys is the sniper on the stairs, though.  (Thanks for the tip on the sound, it puts to rest the kids did it in their own theory.  I do love eliminating theories.)

 

[bborchar]

 

 

I think that's where the bad policeman comes in.  He's one of the first people to rush into the sweets factory, and then we hear, very faintly in the background, "hurry now, quiet! quiet!" as everyone is looking around and right before Sherlock finds the candle.  I think that he probably moved the children so Sherlock wouldn't be the first person to find them (because he would have been since he found the candle first).  Now, another theory could be that it was the policeman who kidnapped the children, but I think it would be too risky for him, considering that the girl could see him at the Yard.  Still, I'm convinced he moved the children in that sweets factory so that Donovan would find them first.

 

 

I do hear the "quietly, quietly" being whispered, and I hadn't before, not hearing the hurry bit - but yes, it does seem someone is moving the children, obviously the cops aren't being quiet at all.   This is the only pic I could get of the two guys together just before they enter the building:

 

People tend to think the guy in the yellow circle is the cop watching Lestrade at the end (probable assassin in most minds) and think he is the first in.  But, if you can catch it (maybe you can get frame-by-frame, I can't on Streaming video)  you'll see the guy with the red arrow passes yellow man and is actually the one who enters the building several strides ahead of the others.

 

Neither of these guys is the sniper on the stairs, though.  (Thanks for the tip on the sound, it puts to rest the kids did it in their own theory.  I do love eliminating theories.)

 

 

 

No, the guy on the stairs is definitely not the policeman.  However, even if the bad policeman is behind the other guy, he's the only one who would know where the kids are, so as long as he was at the front of the pack, so to say, he could easily have reached them before everyone else did.  I was only able to catch the whispering because we had the surround sound turned up when we watched it (my husband and I watched it after the kids went to bed, so we could pay attention ^_^).  If I recall correctly, the closed captioning also denotes it, but it's been a while since I watched it on CC.

[Julia Mae]

Hey!  I just managed to get a split-second snip of the entry moment. (I have to click over and over - I can now split a second of film into five snips!) Guess what?  That guy who passes the supposedly bad cop and enters the building first?  It's Lestrade!  Your stairway guy as kidnapper theory is back in play - he had to already be inside. 

 

 

BTW, be careful of CC - the Netflix video CC is wrong in a few places.  Maybe the DVD is done by the producers and is better?