Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

But Mrs. Hudson does accept Sherlock...fusses over him...makes his tea every morning....as if he didn't know.....right.  He was willing to almost kill the American goon for her....so yeah. There is something pretty darn deep there.

[T.o.b.y]

It still baffles me where the decision to have Mary shoot Sherlock came from. I'm fine with it, I love that scene, actually, but until His Last Vow, every plot twist and character development in Sherlock made sense to me, from an, um, how shall I say, "artistic" point of view. I could always understand them either as references to the original, or from within the Sherlock story. But when Mary put a bullet in Sherlock's chest, I just sat there going ?!?!????

 

I fully expected Mary to become a target of Magnussen's. And for that she'd need a blackmail-worthy secret. So I guess the "assassin" reveal makes sense, in a way, even though it does seem a bit far fetched. But at what point did the writer sit down and go, hey, I think it'd be really cool if we had a scene where Mary shoots Sherlock, and he dies, but then he comes to life again, for, like, the second time in three episodes.

 

Sure, the confrontation at Leinster Gardens is a version of the Moran plot in "The Empty House", and a pretty good one at that, but the initial shooting in Magnussen's office? Why, why, why?

 

I don't know, for some reason, this question won't let go of me. I wish someone would ask Moffat this in an interview some day instead of "what actor do you think resembles their character the most" or stuff like that.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I wonder if he responds to Tweets or what ever. A fan letter? 

[Zain]

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. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I've found sites that say that Mark does open and read the letters he gets. Ian even helps him. So if someone really wants to know....what can be the worse that could happen by writing and asking?

[Carol the Dabbler]

It still baffles me where the decision to have Mary shoot Sherlock came from. I'm fine with it, I love that scene, actually, but until His Last Vow, every plot twist and character development in Sherlock made sense to me, from an, um, how shall I say, "artistic" point of view. I could always understand them either as references to the original, or from within the Sherlock story. But when Mary put a bullet in Sherlock's chest, I just sat there going ?!?!????

 

I fully expected Mary to become a target of Magnussen's. And for that she'd need a blackmail-worthy secret. So I guess the "assassin" reveal makes sense, in a way, even though it does seem a bit far fetched. But at what point did the writer sit down and go, hey, I think it'd be really cool if we had a scene where Mary shoots Sherlock, and he dies, but then he comes to life again, for, like, the second time in three episodes.

Unfortunately, I think most of us expected Mary to be one of Magnussen's victims. And of course she was, but since we were already expecting that, they had to up the ante. And Moftiss said they'd always thought Watson's story about some anonymous woman shooting Milverton was just a cover, and that Holmes had actually shot him -- so of course they wouldn't let Mary shoot Magnussen. But that's as far as I get with understanding their decision.

 

I'd be a bit happier if they'd even had Sherlock make a grab for her gun, which then goes off during the struggle.

 

 

... 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.....

Well, Sherlock's floating deductions did include the word "Liar" -- but that wouldn't need to refer to anything major -- Sherlock doesn't seem to have bothered investigating it. And she recognized the skip code -- but maybe she reads a lot of spy novels. Moftiss seem to think her remembering Sholto's room number is suspicious -- but hey, she's been deeply involved in all the planning, so why couldn't she just happen to remember that?

 

I may well be forgetting something, though.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Moftiss seem to think her remembering Sholto's room number is suspicious -- but hey, she's been deeply involved in all the planning, so why couldn't she just happen to remember that?

 

  Maybe because he was a last minute show so the room assigned to him would have been kind of very last minute....unless John insisted they hold him a room because he was so sure he would come. But yeah, really, there is no reason why Mary wouldn't remember in either case. In the first she might remember the room number in case he was actually a no show and someone else needed it.

 

 In the second case, she would most likely remember because it would have been a scramble to find an empty room and so it would be fresh in her mind.

[Zain]

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."

 

 

 

Watching it again, and paying particular notice of the part where John asks Sherlock again why the person came after him and put him in the bonfire. 

 

In line with that, it's also strange that they contacted Mary instead of Sherlock directly. Obviously, they knew she would go to Sherlock for help (and directed further communications on her phone to him directly), but why text her in the first place when they could have just texted Sherlock? 

 

Then, at the end, the bad guy is playing that clip over and over of them pulling John out of the fire.  It is made to look like he's focusing on Sherlock, but what if he's actually focusing on Mary? He repeatedly plays the bit of her saying "John!" "John!" "John!" over and over. I'm starting to wonder if there is a connection between Mary and this bad guy, and if threatening John was a way to get at her, and not Sherlock. 

 

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

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Mofftiss don't know the female mind very well......do he?

[Carol the Dabbler]

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."

 

 

 

Watching it again, and paying particular notice of the part where John asks Sherlock again why the person came after him and put him in the bonfire. 

 

In line with that, it's also strange that they contacted Mary instead of Sherlock directly. Obviously, they knew she would go to Sherlock for help (and directed further communications on her phone to him directly), but why text her in the first place when they could have just texted Sherlock? 

 

Then, at the end, the bad guy is playing that clip over and over of them pulling John out of the fire.  It is made to look like he's focusing on Sherlock, but what if he's actually focusing on Mary? He repeatedly plays the bit of her saying "John!" "John!" "John!" over and over. I'm starting to wonder if there is a connection between Mary and this bad guy, and if threatening John was a way to get at her, and not Sherlock. 

 

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

 

 

Normally, I'd edit that down to just the parts I'm directly responding to -- but since we're on a different page now, I shall include your entire post in all its glory!  You had thought of all that by January 2nd?  Good heavens, the last thing I'm likely to do is mock you!  What did you do, record the episode and stay up all night re-watching it?

 

One last comment on the room-number question -- maybe Sholto was just about the only wedding guest who was planning to stay the night, in which case that'd be only one room number for Mary to remember (other than her and John's).  I am conveniently ignoring the venue mentioned on the invitation (which was nowhere near London), the fact that the reception lasted till well after dark (in May, when it stays light fairly late in England), and the apparently sloshed condition of many guests (who would be in no shape to drive home till morning at best).  Digression:  If the guests all stayed over, who's paying for their rooms?  (And in any case, where did John and Mary get the money for that fancy reception???)

 

 

 

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.

 

See, I never thought of that -- and I've had months to think about it!  OK, maybe Mary was too distraught to think of simpler explanations.  But still, a very thought-provoking point.  (Yes, I presumably read your original post, but that would have been a few days later, after I'd been able to watch the episode, so I kinda blazed through several pages of posts in full catch-up mode.)

 

As for the kidnappers knowing John was on Baker Street, he may well have been tailed.  In any case, they nearly botched it.  The one guy was way down around the corner while John stood and looked at #221 for quite some time.  If John had just marched right on in, they'd have missed him!

 

Now that we know more (though not enough!) about Mary, do you have a satisfactory explanation for why Magnussen texted her rather than Sherlock or Mrs. Hudson?  All I can think of is that he wanted to be sure she'd come with Sherlock.  Barbecuing John may have been at least in part a way of demonstrating to her that he meant business.  But then why the code?

 

So far, Mary doesn't appear to have been one of Magnussen's agents, but I still wonder if she may turn out to have been planted by somebody.

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Since Sherlock seems to have a bottomless bank account, he could have popped for it. None of John's family showed.....the one we know about...and she probably wouldn't have had the money either. So it was one of Sherlock's wedding gifts? Besides the waltz.

 

As for the code, I think you're right. Magnussen wanted Mary to go to Sherlock and for them to try to rescue John together.  I think it.could  have been Magnussen's way of putting Moriarty's theory to the test about burning Sherlock's heart out of him?  See how far he would go for John?  At some point he would reveal himself to Mary......and it had to be before the reception, letting her know that he could and would threaten not only her but John as well....he already had.

 

It's what Magnussen said to Lady Smallwood: It's not blackmail, it's ownership.

[sfmpco]

Sherlock's loathing of CAM is never really explained but it certainly seems to be a factor in his murder, judging by the expression on Sherlock's face. He has told John that CAM repels him more than the serial killers he has dealt with, and he offers Mycroft an explanation of his hatred on the grounds that CAM uses people's differences against them, but it still isn't clear why CAM tops the league table of villains. Is he, for instance, more repellent than Jim Moriarty who terrorises and then blows up a blind old lady and her neighbours, or kidnaps and poisons two young children?

 

To me, it appears that Sherlock is gripped by a very powerful emotion when he shoots CAM, even though he is ostensibly committing the crime to save Mary. I wonder if we will ever know if there was a personal reason why Sherlock hated CAM so much. Judging by the number of issues throughout the series remaining unresolved, I very much doubt it.

 

Of course, it would be typical of Moftiss to tell us in the next episode that the killing of CAM had been planned by Sherlock & Mycroft all along.....

 

Although it's hard to project exactly what is going on with the whole "Did you miss me" thing at the end of HLV, I think it's fair to say that in many ways Sherlock is a changed man... like his inner demons have been awoken, and now that that horse has left the barn, there's no reining it back in.  Not only that, but he is now on Mycroft's leash, and that can't be a comfortable place to be.

 

I'm trying to project the logical emotional development in a fanfic I'm working on, but it is like getting blood from a stone (lots of metaphors here, sorry!).  Plus i would think that maybe John might be slightly standoff-ish.  I mean, wouldn't you take a step back from you best friend if you saw them murder someone.  Yeah, I'd take a step back. and have to re-evaluate how close I wanted to be with that person.

 

Sherlock will have Mary on a leash in a way but whether he ever jerks that leash or not will remain to be seen, but she owes him big time, and she knows it and he knows it.... and John knows it.

 

i can't see that logically Sherlock could be the same old Sherlock, because letting that demon rage out that would murder someone would weigh on your psyche.  So I expect him to start unraveling a bit.  Perhaps even Mycroft will jerk his chain a little with something like, "You've been pardoned once, don't expect it to happen again."

 

I guess I'm looking to see him go slightly unhinged, but I want to see the character development.  Honestly, if he was still the same Sherlock as in ASiP, I think we might have grown slightly bored with him.  

[jesskayding]

How cone Sherlock gets so much flack for shooting CAM, A straight up terrorist in my mind, but everyone seems so quick to forgive Mary for shooting the Heroe of the story, because Sherlock forgave her, so why shouldn't we, right.

 

Well the writers, & the British government have decided to forgive Sherlock, so why shouldn't we? I just don't understand the controversy over this.

[Zain]

 

 

 

Normally, I'd edit that down to just the parts I'm directly responding to -- but since we're on a different page now, I shall include your entire post in all its glory!  You had thought of all that by January 2nd?  Good heavens, the last thing I'm likely to do is mock you!  What did you do, record the episode and stay up all night re-watching it?

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

 Digression:  If the guests all stayed over, who's paying for their rooms?  (And in any case, where did John and Mary get the money for that fancy reception???)

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now that we know more (though not enough!) about Mary, do you have a satisfactory explanation for why Magnussen texted her rather than Sherlock or Mrs. Hudson?  All I can think of is that he wanted to be sure she'd come with Sherlock.  Barbecuing John may have been at least in part a way of demonstrating to her that he meant business.  But then why the code?

 

So far, Mary doesn't appear to have been one of Magnussen's agents, but I still wonder if she may turn out to have been planted by somebody.

 

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

 

 

 

How cone Sherlock gets so much flack for shooting CAM, A straight up terrorist in my mind, but everyone seems so quick to forgive Mary for shooting the Heroe of the story, because Sherlock forgave her, so why shouldn't we, right.

 

Well the writers, & the British government have decided to forgive Sherlock, so why shouldn't we? I just don't understand the controversy over this.

 

Because... murder is murder, and murder is wrong?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

What I'm not seeming to get why Sherlock is not to be forgiven for one bad decision in the defense of others and yet Magnuseen can cause all kind of murder and mayhem, blackmail and enslavement....as he said to Lady Smallwood:  This isn't blackmail....it's ownership.  And yet is to be regarded as an innocent victim?  I'm not seeing it.

 

 Of course murder is wrong....but if the likes of Mycroft and M16 or the CIA or who ever can protect  Magnussen from prosecution,  then there is no reason why someone couldn't do the same for Sherlock.  At least Sherlock had stood trial...had been sentenced and was going to pay the highest price. Something that should have happened to Magnussen years ago not aided and abetted by people with political and military clout.

[jesskayding]

Exactly Bakerstreet! Magnussen is the bad guy here... I'm sorry I prefer Sherlock alive over him.

 

And you didn't completely answer my question Zain. Murder is wrong. So why forgive Mary (the person who killed for a living @ some point) & not Sherlock? A little hypocritical of everyone... No?

[Caya]

You assume that everybody has forgiven Mary. I can assure you that this is very much not the case .

[jesskayding]

Woooh Caya. Tell us how ya really feel.

[Caya]

I've done so, frequently and at great length and detail , and so has Zain, incidentally. Let me therefore just point out that I have yet to hear even one compelling (for me) reason to forgive Mary.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

 

You mean, you didn't come to the same conclusions that Moftiss did.  So what?  Surely more than one inference is possible from the same set of [incomplete] data.  And inferring all of that (most of which may turn out to be correct) in the first 24 hours -- while I was still blithely enchanted by Mary -- well, I'm still impressed!

 

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.

Good point about her credit history!  But do we actually know that she paid for the wedding?  (I kinda like Fox's idea that Sherlock gave them a literal "wedding present.")  Likewise, I don't believe we know whether the house is owned or just rented.  We see John in that same living room in "Many Happy Returns" -- with no mustache -- so maybe he was already renting it when he met Mary, and she moved in with him.  As for the car, is it ever referred to as Mary's?  Maybe John bought it when he moved to that house -- you kinda need a car when you live in the suburbs.  Not saying that your interpretation is wrong, just that it may not be the only interpretation that fits the current data.

 

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.

To be fair, Mary is kinda petite, and some of that firewood is kinda big and heavy.  For all we know, if she'd been alone she might have dived right in and rescued John (people can do amazing things under pressure).  But she wasn't alone.  Not only was big strong Sherlock with her, he was already in manic mode, so staying out of his way may have been simply the logical thing to do.  Again, not saying I think you're wrong, just that other interpretations are possible at this point.  And even though she recognized the text as a skip code, maybe she didn't understand the reference to St. James the Less -- which could explain why she needed Sherlock.

 

[jesskayding]

Well I forgive everyone, except the villains. So if Sherlock had some mind erasing power, & could delete CAM'S memory, I'm sure he would have. We'd all love that. There are some consequences that are far more cruel than murder.

 

CAM was very aware of that. To the point where he ruined lives & caused people to feel no other way out except thru suicide. Or in Mary's or Sherlock's case homicide. Would we wrather have seen it end with Mary & Sherlock blowing their brains out or Magnussen's. I vote Magnussen's. ( picture my left hand raised in the air.)

[Zain]

 

 Of course murder is wrong....but if the likes of Mycroft and M16 or the CIA or who ever can protect  Magnussen from prosecution,  then there is no reason why someone couldn't do the same for Sherlock.  At least Sherlock had stood trial...had been sentenced and was going to pay the highest price. Something that should have happened to Magnussen years ago not aided and abetted by people with political and military clout.

 

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.

 

 

Exactly Bakerstreet! Magnussen is the bad guy here... I'm sorry I prefer Sherlock alive over him.

 

And you didn't completely answer my question Zain. Murder is wrong. So why forgive Mary (the person who killed for a living @ some point) & not Sherlock? A little hypocritical of everyone... No?

 

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?

 

 

 

Good point about her credit history!  But do we actually know that she paid for the wedding?  (I kinda like Fox's idea that Sherlock gave them a literal "wedding present.")  Likewise, I don't believe we know whether the house is owned or just rented.  We see John in that same living room in "Many Happy Returns" -- with no mustache -- so maybe he was already renting it when he met Mary, and she moved in with him.  As for the car, is it ever referred to as Mary's?  Maybe John bought it when he moved to that house -- you kinda need a car when you live in the suburbs.  Not saying that your interpretation is wrong, just that it may not be the only interpretation that fits the current data.

 

 

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.

[T.o.b.y]

 

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.

Good point about her credit history!  But do we actually know that she paid for the wedding?  (I kinda like Fox's idea that Sherlock gave them a literal "wedding present.")  Likewise, I don't believe we know whether the house is owned or just rented.  We see John in that same living room in "Many Happy Returns" -- with no mustache -- so maybe he was already renting it when he met Mary, and she moved in with him.  As for the car, is it ever referred to as Mary's?  Maybe John bought it when he moved to that house -- you kinda need a car when you live in the suburbs.  Not saying that your interpretation is wrong, just that it may not be the only interpretation that fits the current data.

 

Money just never seems to be an issue in Sherlock's world, except in The Blind Banker (another reason to like this episode). Not even Magnussen wanted money, and in the original, that was basically all he seemed to want.

 

I don't really like the idea of Sherlock as being rich enough to afford throwing money around like that. Sure, the Holmes must be pretty well to do, and I guess Mycroft does help out now and then, but Sherlock Holmes just wasn't a rich man. Not the young Sherlock Holmes, anyway. Later, he seems to have acquired some fortune.

 

For some reason, I have always associated Mary Morstan with money. I know she never really got her inheritance in the original, but she was technically an heiress. Maybe "our" Mary, who claimed to be an orphan, had a lot left over from her pay during her active days, and claimed it was an inheritance.

 

 

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.

To be fair, Mary is kinda petite, and some of that firewood is kinda big and heavy.  For all we know, if she'd been alone she might have dived right in and rescued John (people can do amazing things under pressure).  But she wasn't alone.  Not only was big strong Sherlock with her, he was already in manic mode, so staying out of his way may have been simply the logical thing to do.  Again, not saying I think you're wrong, just that other interpretations are possible at this point.  And even though she recognized the text as a skip code, maybe she didn't understand the reference to St. James the Less -- which could explain why she needed Sherlock.

 

 

Mhm, I don't think Mary knew where to go. Sherlock had to explain to her that St. James the less was a church. And besides, Mary couldn't know that "all" she would have to face would be a fire. John could have been kidnapped by a whole gang of people whom even she might not have wanted to face on her own.

 

 

 

[sfmpco]

I don't get the impression that Sherlock ever stood trial but rather was dealt with privately.  They never would have wanted the national hero on trial.  I think we may see in S4 that CAM's death has been covered up as somethng other than murder - maybe  death by unknown intruder or something.  Mycroft can pull any strings he wants to.  And who knows if Mycroft isn't even behind the fake Moriarty thing at the end - after al, he seemed to be able to control all the security cameras and phone booths in ASIP.  

 

I do agree that CAM was a very, very bad person, and I personally don't have a huge problem with him being dead.  The heroes always take out the villians.  That's what they do in fiction.  It was, however, the way Sherlock did it... just point blank shot him for no other real reasons than he'd been out-played and out-thought and was now owned by CAM as well.  Even if he hadn't shot CAM, his punishment for trying to trade government secrets would have been just as severe.  It never would have solved a host of problems that CAM would have created not the least of which is the ownership deal.  So... 

 

Remember too that Lord Smallwood has just committed suicide at Christmas (it's the headline on Sherlock's paper in the Christmas scene).  This likely means that CAM had leaked the contents of the letters while Sherlock was convalescing in hospital.  CAM was not above pulling puppet strings any time he wanted, and he had Sherlock on puppet strings at the end... so much so that Sherlock did not intervene when John was having his face flicked.  No, he said, "Let him."  He had lost the game.  It was at that point he knew he had to take final action.

 

Not making too much sense, sorry.  Brain fried after a hot, 30-mile bike ride.

[jesskayding]

Hmm. I like the idea of Mycroft putting Moriarty's face all over England. He never really wanted to send his brother on that mission.