Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[jesskayding]

 

....Regardless of CAM's accusations or Sherlock's deductions, Mary herself knows that there is enough evidence against her to send her to prison for life. Prison in Britain, presumably, unless it's a case of extradition. So it is either something illegal here or in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. I don't know much about extradition but I can't imagine we'd be packing her off to Iran, for instance, for violating sharia law.

Not in the real world, no, but I can see Moftiss using some semantic hijinks to "explain" that this is what Mary was thinking. That is, I think they're capable of making the words they use mean something other than what we think they mean. If that makes any sense.

 

If S4 just ignores these issues and expects us to swallow something which makes no logical sense, I want a full explanation, in writing, from Stephen Moffat.

Me too, but I'm not holding my breath!

 

I don't even care if it makes logical sense, as long as it makes sense for the character of Sherlock. The more I think about it, the more it doesn't make sense he would shelter a murderer of "innocents" -- that makes him a criminal too, which is not a label I would've thought anyone would attach to Sherlock Holmes. So I go back to thinking there must be something we don't know yet. Which means placing my faith in Moftiss.... *sigh*

 

Although that still leaves Sherlock a criminal, as he most certainly did shoot CAM.... *sigh again*

 

Those of you who know the "canon" -- is there a story that could be adapted to cover a situation like this? That is, where a character appears to be a "baddie" but Holmes protects him/her, because he knows something the reader doesn't?

 

Here's my latest theory, btw -- that's not Sherlock!!! Sherlock's still in prison somewhere in Serbia! That guy we think is Sherlock is an imposter, that's why he's acting different!!! Hey, what are those men in the white coats doing here.... ?

They answered that already. Mary wasn't a murderer of innocents. "That's why there are people like me" implies that she only killed those who needed to be killed. In CAM' s case it definitely was a benefit to the nations of the " Western world " to murder him.

 

Now Sherlock wanted to imprison him for the rest of his life, but since wasn't paper files, like he originally deduced, had to go another way. Doesn't pay to be a blackmailer.

[Arcadia]

And what's this latest thing that BC has said in ELLEUK about how Sherlock would be in bed???  Is that a clue for S4?

Dunno, what did he say?

[Caya]

 

They answered that already. Mary wasn't a murderer of innocents. "That's why there are people like me" implies that she only killed those who needed to be killed.

 

Mary thinking that some people needed a good hard killing doesn't necessarily make her right about this. Even accepting that some people deserve to die (which is another can of worms), she's neither infallible nor all-knowing. We simply have no knowledge at this point whom she killed, apart from Sherlock, and how innocent or guilty her victims were.

 

[jesskayding]

I'm sure none of them were innocent.

[Caya]

Based on which evidence, if I may ask? Even states, with all their power and resources at their disposal, have sentenced innocent people to death.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, strictly speaking, nobody is innocent. Which was kind of Magnussen's point, I guess. Of course I wouldn't go so far as to share Sweeney Todd's conclusion ("we all deserve to die" - and by the way, if anybody has remotely my sick kind of taste and has not yet seen Johnny Depp sing that, go and do so).

 

No, but seriously, you're both right. The line with "that's why there are people like me" does seem to have been written into the episode to make us believe Mary's killings were justified, but we have no evidence that she was right about that. And "the government said he / she had to go" is not really a good reason for killing anybody, by the way. What about the kind of government that condemns political opponents to death? Or people belonging to unpopular minorities?

 

Personally, I just prefer to believe in Mary as another dragons slayer because it would be way too painful for me to accept her as a villain. But, but, but - she shot Sherlock. And Sherlock most certainly should not be killed. Of course she didn't mean for him to die, but she was definitely willing to take that risk, and what's more, he did die. The episode makes that very clear, and that he only survived because of a miracle. Why show us that scene where he flatlines and the doctors give up on him, if not to make clear that he was truly killed and therefore we can't just write Mary off as the laudable defender of justice they try to paint her as later? Her character is obviously meant to be ambiguous.

[Arcadia]

Speaking of the cabbie. Why are we having this big discussion about heroes killing villains now and not years earlier? I am sorry, I really do not see any difference, morally, between what John did in the first episode and what Sherlock did in His Last Vow. Because John would not have had to kill Jeff Hope to save Sherlock. But he did. Sherlock points out that John didn't fire until he was in immediate danger. But the cabbie wouldn't have had to be killed to stop Sherlock from risking his life with that damn pill.

Because, as far as John could tell, Sherlock's life was in imminent danger. He was about to put the pill in his mouth. All John knew was that everyone who had done so to date had died. Maybe he wasn't shooting to kill, and missed; but it doesn't matter, because he was responding to immediate, mortal danger. To use a term I've never heard before, but is implied by this discussion, that is accepted as a "moral killing." ......... ? ? I believe the U.S. courts use the term "justifiable homicide."

 

Sherlock, on the other hand, was responding to a verbal threat when he shot CAM. Mary may have been in mortal danger, but there is no proof of that, just CAM's threat. Nor was it "imminent danger." Lethal force was not required to save her at that point in time.

 

 

Those of you who know the "canon" -- is there a story that could be adapted to cover a situation like this? That is, where a character appears to be a "baddie" but Holmes protects him/her, because he knows something the reader doesn't?

Well, Holmes of course protected clients whom he deduced were innocent while Lestrade or other officers of the law thought they had proof of their guilt. But he also let a murderer go free in "The Devil's Foot", on the morally very questionable grounds that he had "only" taken revenge on the death of his beloved, with the added statement that Holmes himself would probably have acted the same way in his shoes. He also refused to prevent the killing of Milverton, and even though he later found out the identity of the shooter, he never shared that information with the authorities either.....

 

So, that's a "no", then? Rats. What I get from that is; in all likliehood we've heard all we're going to hear about CAM. Oh well, we'll probably be so bewildered/hurt/shocked after S4 airs we won't even remember who CAM was. I barely did after HLV ended!

[T.o.b.y]

in all likliehood we've heard all we're going to hear about CAM.

 

I devoutly hope so! If series 4 ends with a video of Magnussen going "did you miss me", I will throw something very heavy at the screen and pretend the series ended with His Last Vow. I really hate Magnussen. Moriarty creeps me out, and I am afraid of him (I am, he's really scary!), but I do enjoy having him on screen, while Charles Augustus merely makes me want to puke.

 

 

[Zain]

 

 

I'm sorry to bring up such a hackneyed example, but I guess my nationality comes into play here. Imagine you live in the 1930s or '40s and, by some chance, you get the chance to kill Hitler and get away with it. Would you hesitate, on moral grounds? Sorry, but sometimes, imagining extremes helps me to understand a problem (this is, by the way, the only thing math classes ever taught me).

 

 

 

 

 

On this notion, I have to strongly disagree with you. It may be regionally different, but from my experiences, it is due to this ugly part of our history that Germans are very, very, VERY wary of anything and everything that leaves someone dead at the end of the day. Such as capital punishment, terminating pregnancies, aiding in ending a terminally ill patient's life, war, deaths due to lack of gun control, and government sanctioned kiillings.

 

Sure, most people will agree that in theory it may be better for some pregnancies to be terminated. If it comes down to it, though, such a decision will be met with suspicion. Because someone is judging who deserves to live and who doesn't.

I would even go so far as to say that soldiers here have a hard time. Their job is burdened with the image of killing, and when they state their occupation, it is not something people will just nod at and stop thinking about it. There's this moment when people go "Oh" and consider if they are either very left wing or right wing, or if they had some childhood traumata, before people accept that they may be in for the money. Because any other motive is not something broadly accepted. The soldiers do not deserve this, sure, but there is a general distrust of anything related to killing. A heritage of that ugly, horrible stain on our past, the one we cannot shake off. I remember how cautious everybody was back in 2006, when we hosted the Soccer World Championships. Suddenly people started raising the national flag on the roofs of their houses, and I remember how strange a feeling it was to see the national flag raised in public without any political context such as a speech from the Chancellor. Before 2006, it was something only few people did. Even for sports events. Since then, it has become completely normal. Nobody raised an eyebrow in 2014 during the World Championships in Brazil. But I remember quite clearly how people in 2006 suddenly dared to raise a flag, despite the associations to Nationalism and so on. I am not much of a patriot or anything, but it was one of the most amazing things I remember from the first decade of this millenium. You could feel the change in our nation, a sudden desire to make this daring step in front of the cameras. In front of the world which had seen us at our worst, and which often still judges us on that. There's still that part in most of us that is ashamed of what our nationality represents, but it was a very strong symbol. It showed that it was okay to stop apologizing for what we did not do. We aren't our ancestors. I doubt we will stop feeling bad for those crimes anytime soon. That topic is haunting us, and in school, children year after year are faced with that past, and they have to watch recordings which either force you to bleed in sympathy and drown in your own tears or go completely face blank. It is important to know about what happened, but often I feel like we raise every generation since then to feel like a horrible being for something they did not do, and for being born to a family that already lived in Germany at the beginning of the last century. God. How did I even get here from the original statement? Sorry....

 

Anyway, just because you wish certain things had not happened, it does not mean that you wish death on all the people which were involved in those atrocities. Every death is such a waste of potential, and I think it is quite possible to feel bad for every death, be it on one's own side, or be it on the opposite side of the front lines. Or at the other end of the world, like, in Syria. For example, I do think Stauffenberg was one of the bravest men there were, and I feel horrible for what happened to him and his family, as well as his associates. If he had succeeded, maybe a lot of things wouldn't have happened. I feel bad he did not succeed. But do I wish he had? I do not feel that I have the right to wish death on anybody. That would involve acting as a judge over who deserves and who does NOT deserve to live. To simply think of having to make this decision... it makes me shake. I am not that brave to become either, judge or executioner.

[Arcadia]

.... Why show us that scene where he flatlines and the doctors give up on him, if not to make clear that he was truly killed and therefore we can't just write Mary off as the laudable defender of justice they try to paint her as later? .....

Because it was more dramatic that way?

 

I don't think that scene was in any way about Mary. I think it was about Sherlock's inner demons.

 

I know this isn't a popular point of view, but I seriously do not think we were supposed to believe Sherlock died. The point of that scene as I see it is to demonstrate that he was on the verge of dying ... and due to the piece of him that is most like Moriarty, he was considering just letting go. Life is hard, and full of misery, what a relief to be free of it; until he remembered that he had a reason to live. (And it makes me soooooo sad that he thought he had no other reason to live except protecting John! )

 

The hospital scene was in no way realistic. (Impressionistic, yes.) Even as I watched it the first time I knew that, and knew that I wasn't supposed to believe Sherlock was dead. We were watching his decision whether or not to live, not his death.

 

To put it another way: the point of that scene -- I believe -- was to show that Sherlock was brave enough to fight back against the pain of living, and survive. I don't see a miracle; I see an iron will and a whole lot of courage. I think that's the main reason I still love HLV; I can't resist good old fashioned heroism.

 

All of this presumes that Moffat can be a really subtle writer. And I could be entirely wrong. But the Emmy judges seem to think the HLV script was pretty good, so I'm still sticking to my theory!

[T.o.b.y]

 

Anyway, just because you wish certain things had not happened, it does not mean that you wish death on all the people which were involved in those atrocities. Every death is such a waste of potential, and I think it is quite possible to feel bad for every death, be it on one's own side, or be it on the opposite side of the front lines. Or at the other end of the world, like, in Syria. For example, I do think Stauffenberg was one of the bravest men there were, and I feel horrible for what happened to him and his family, as well as his associates. If he had succeeded, maybe a lot of things wouldn't have happened. I feel bad he did not succeed. But do I wish he had? I do not feel that I have the right to wish death on anybody. That would involve acting as a judge over who deserves and who does NOT deserve to live. To simply think of having to make this decision... it makes me shake. I am not that brave to become either, judge or executioner.

 

What if you had the chance to kill one person and thereby prevent the deaths of thousands?

 

I am really sorry I brought the German thing up, and I do mostly agree with everything you said about "our" attitude towards war and killing, and I certainly share it. I am one of those people who look at soldiers askance, and it was very awkward for me at unit to interact with those who had chosen to join the army to afford university.

 

What I was really trying to get at is that there are situations, even in real life, where lives are stacked against each other. Now, I fully understand people who say you can't do that. You can't decide "this life has to be sacrificed for that, this one is more important than those". I am probably one of those people. But on the other hand, if I picture myself in a situation where it's either I kill a murderer or he murders innocent people, and if I refused to act because I wouldn't abandon my firm belief that killing is never justified, wouldn't I feel responsible for the deaths of the murderer's victims?

Sherlock faced with Magnussen could only lose. If he let him live, Magnussen would have cheerfully gone on to ruin John and Mary's future. If he carried his threats through, Mary and the unborn child might well have been killed. Maybe John as well. And Magnussen would most certainly have gone on blackmailing his way into more and more political power, driving the likes of Lord Smallwood to suicide and such like. Sure, there was no immediate danger when Sherlock shot Magnussen. But it was his last chance to do so. If he waited until the immediate danger was there, he'd have already been in prison. This argument would never hold up before a judge, but I still think it makes sense. There was only one logical thing to do, and no right thing. Whatever Sherlock chose would have ended in disaster.

 

The end of His Last Vow (minus Moriarty and Sherlock's return) is truly tragic. It's beautiful. I love it.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

I know this isn't a popular point of view, but I seriously do not think we were supposed to believe Sherlock died. The point of that scene as I see it is to demonstrate that he was on the verge of dying ... and due to the piece of him that is most like Moriarty, he was considering just letting go. Life is hard, and full of misery, what a relief to be free of it; until he remembered that he had a reason to live. (And it makes me soooooo sad that he thought he had no other reason to live except protecting John! )

 

 

Wow. I have to admit, I never saw Sherlock as being suicidal (I'm sure some of you would love to insert a Reichenbach joke here), but I suppose that's not quite what you had in mind either. Moriarty does try to push Sherlock into giving up "Pain, heartbreak, loss. It's all good. It's all good." Hadn't quite thought about that until now, to be honest... Excellent point, really. Still, I don't think Sherlock would have given up if he hadn't already been so weak. It's true that it was his will to protect John that finally made him fight! That doesn't make me sad at all. I don't see it as Sherlock believing he only has one reason to live; rather that he found the strength to fight.

[jesskayding]

 

.... Why show us that scene where he flatlines and the doctors give up on him, if not to make clear that he was truly killed and therefore we can't just write Mary off as the laudable defender of justice they try to paint her as later? .....

Because it was more dramatic that way?

 

I don't think that scene was in any way about Mary. I think it was about Sherlock's inner demons.

 

I know this isn't a popular point of view, but I seriously do not think we were supposed to believe Sherlock died. The point of that scene as I see it is to demonstrate that he was on the verge of dying ... and due to the piece of him that is most like Moriarty, he was considering just letting go. Life is hard, and full of misery, what a relief to be free of it; until he remembered that he had a reason to live. (And it makes me soooooo sad that he thought he had no other reason to live except protecting John! )

 

The hospital scene was in no way realistic. (Impressionistic, yes.) Even as I watched it the first time I knew that, and knew that I wasn't supposed to believe Sherlock was dead. We were watching his decision whether or not to live, not his death.

 

To put it another way: the point of that scene -- I believe -- was to show that Sherlock was brave enough to fight back against the pain of living, and survive. I don't see a miracle; I see an iron will and a whole lot of courage. I think that's the main reason I still love HLV; I can't resist good old fashioned heroism.

 

All of this presumes that Moffat can be a really subtle writer. And I could be entirely wrong. But the Emmy judges seem to think the HLV script was pretty good, so I'm still sticking to my theory!

 

 

 

I've never looked @ it like that. I love your point of view concerning this scene.

[Arcadia]

Wow. I have to admit, I never saw Sherlock as being suicidal (I'm sure some of you would love to insert a Reichenbach joke here), but I suppose that's not quite what you had in mind either. Moriarty does try to push Sherlock into giving up "Pain, heartbreak, loss. It's all good. It's all good." Hadn't quite thought about that until now, to be honest... Excellent point, really. Still, I don't think Sherlock would have given up if he hadn't already been so weak. It's true that it was his will to protect John that finally made him fight! That doesn't make me sad at all. I don't see it as Sherlock believing he only has one reason to live; rather that he found the strength to fight.

Oh no, I don't think he's suicidal. But sometimes he does and says things which make me think he doesn't place much value on his life. He was willing to take the pill; he takes drugs for a case; he drops remarks like "what utility do I have?" He's bored out of his mind half the time. To me that sounds like someone who finds life difficult. It's part of the darkness that Moriarty represents, I think. After all, it's not Moriarty that tries to push Sherlock into giving up; it's Sherlock himself. Moriarty is just the face he puts on that part of himself. And yeah, in a weakened state, death might seem like a release to a lot of people.

 

Urgh, this is dark. Maybe that's where they're going with S4; into the darkest corners of Sherlock's mind? I think I'd like that better than death, violence and betrayal, though. Maybe. Or maybe not.

[Arcadia]

 

I'm sorry to bring up such a hackneyed example, but I guess my nationality comes into play here. Imagine you live in the 1930s or '40s and, by some chance, you get the chance to kill Hitler and get away with it. Would you hesitate, on moral grounds? Sorry, but sometimes, imagining extremes helps me to understand a problem (this is, by the way, the only thing math classes ever taught me).

 

 

On this notion, I have to strongly disagree with you. It may be regionally different, but from my experiences, it is due to this ugly part of our history that Germans are very, very, VERY wary of anything and everything that leaves someone dead at the end of the day. Such as capital punishment, terminating pregnancies, aiding in ending a terminally ill patient's life, war, deaths due to lack of gun control, and government sanctioned kiillings.

 

Sure, most people will agree that in theory it may be better for some pregnancies to be terminated. If it comes down to it, though, such a decision will be met with suspicion. Because someone is judging who deserves to live and who doesn't.

I would even go so far as to say that soldiers here have a hard time. Their job is burdened with the image of killing, and when they state their occupation, it is not something people will just nod at and stop thinking about it. There's this moment when people go "Oh" and consider if they are either very left wing or right wing, or if they had some childhood traumata, before people accept that they may be in for the money. Because any other motive is not something broadly accepted. The soldiers do not deserve this, sure, but there is a general distrust of anything related to killing. A heritage of that ugly, horrible stain on our past, the one we cannot shake off. I remember how cautious everybody was back in 2006, when we hosted the Soccer World Championships. Suddenly people started raising the national flag on the roofs of their houses, and I remember how strange a feeling it was to see the national flag raised in public without any political context such as a speech from the Chancellor. Before 2006, it was something only few people did. Even for sports events. Since then, it has become completely normal. Nobody raised an eyebrow in 2014 during the World Championships in Brazil. But I remember quite clearly how people in 2006 suddenly dared to raise a flag, despite the associations to Nationalism and so on. I am not much of a patriot or anything, but it was one of the most amazing things I remember from the first decade of this millenium. You could feel the change in our nation, a sudden desire to make this daring step in front of the cameras. In front of the world which had seen us at our worst, and which often still judges us on that. There's still that part in most of us that is ashamed of what our nationality represents, but it was a very strong symbol. It showed that it was okay to stop apologizing for what we did not do. We aren't our ancestors. I doubt we will stop feeling bad for those crimes anytime soon. That topic is haunting us, and in school, children year after year are faced with that past, and they have to watch recordings which either force you to bleed in sympathy and drown in your own tears or go completely face blank. It is important to know about what happened, but often I feel like we raise every generation since then to feel like a horrible being for something they did not do, and for being born to a family that already lived in Germany at the beginning of the last century. God. How did I even get here from the original statement? Sorry....

 

Anyway, just because you wish certain things had not happened, it does not mean that you wish death on all the people which were involved in those atrocities. Every death is such a waste of potential, and I think it is quite possible to feel bad for every death, be it on one's own side, or be it on the opposite side of the front lines. Or at the other end of the world, like, in Syria. For example, I do think Stauffenberg was one of the bravest men there were, and I feel horrible for what happened to him and his family, as well as his associates. If he had succeeded, maybe a lot of things wouldn't have happened. I feel bad he did not succeed. But do I wish he had? I do not feel that I have the right to wish death on anybody. That would involve acting as a judge over who deserves and who does NOT deserve to live. To simply think of having to make this decision... it makes me shake. I am not that brave to become either, judge or executioner.

 

I found this very moving, Zain. I don't really feel qualified to comment on it, but I really appreciate that you shared it with us.

[Slithytove]

The question regarding Hitler is a difficult one, I think. On one hand, I don't think anyone has a right to usurp the role of judge and jury, and condemn people without trial. On the other hand, I do believe that if you do have to kill someone to save your own life or the lives of others, then you have no choice but to do it. For that reason, I agree that John's killing of the cabbie can be justified, whereas Sherlock's killing of CAM cannot be, because he believed the man was forcing Sherlock to swallow poison under duress. (He couldn't know it was down to Sherlock's own pride and love of danger.) He shot Hope in the shoulder, I think, so maybe he didn't intend to kill. Having Sherlock stand on the wound couldn't have helped. Incidentally, the fact that the wound was fatal illustrates the fact that you don't have to go for a "kill shot", e.g. through the head, to take a life. The-bullet-as-surgery? A very weak explanation, Sherlock. Please tell me you had an ulterior motive for suggesting it.

 

To return to Hitler, he was actively ordering the deaths of millions of innocents, so you would be saving those lives by killing him, theoretically - though not in practice, I think, as I doubt that the death of one man, however powerful, would have brought the whole war machine to a halt.

 

I suppose the situation would have been different for myself, compared to T.o.b.y. and Zain. I'm English, so it would have been my "patriotic duty" to kill him if the opportunity arose. ( Hard to imagine that it would have done!). It might even have been legal, as war had been officially declared between our countries. Morally? I suppose that if I really could have saved six million Jewish people, including millions of other people on both sides, it would have been morally right. I would rather have captured him, though, and brought him to justice.

 

I never realised, till I came on this forum, how strongly I believe in the rule of law! You learn something new about yourself all the time....

 

I don't agree that CAM should have been shot because he was going to ruin John and Mary's lives. Okay, so maybe he was going to reveal the truth about her past, but the truth was that she had done things which would put her in prison for life. No doubt that would have ruined things for her, and maybe for John too, but that's what happens when you commit crimes and go to prison. You can't go around killing people to stop them exposing criminals. CAM was pretty vile, I agree, but as Zain has pointed out, it was his use of the truth - i.e. as a way of blackmailing people - that was bad, not his willingness to reveal it. If you were going to kill people to stop them exposing secrets that could send people to prison, there wouldn't be an investigative journalist left alive.

 

Also, suppose it had been Lestrade, rather than CAM, who had discovered the evidence which would send Mary to jail. Would it have been okay to shoot him, to stop him from ruining John and Mary's lives?

[Arcadia]

I've never looked @ it like that. I love your point of view concerning this scene.

Thanks! I guess I've been influenced a lot by this idea of "impressionistic writing", because it seems to explain so much about S3 in general and HLV in particular. In case anyone's interested in visiting/revisiting the idea, my original post about impressionism is here. (Hey, Carol, look, I did it! )

[Arcadia]

Sherlock faced with Magnussen could only lose. .... There was only one logical thing to do, and no right thing. Whatever Sherlock chose would have ended in disaster.

 

The end of His Last Vow (minus Moriarty and Sherlock's return) is truly tragic. It's beautiful. I love it.

I agree ... the way the story was written, failure of one kind or another was inevitable. And I agree with your assessment of it; beautiful and tragic. It wasn't a detective drama, it was a character study. I think my main frustration is that the story wasn't resolved; we don't know how Sherlock, or anyone else, was affected. (Well, I guess we know how CAM was affected!) I guess that's why its feels rather disappointing to think they might not revisit the ending in S4.

[Arcadia]

Also, suppose it had been Lestrade, rather than CAM, who had discovered the evidence which would send Mary to jail. Would it have been okay to shoot him, to stop him from ruining John and Mary's lives?

It dawned on me earlier, that's why Moffat had CAM threaten to reveal Mary's location to those who would harm her. Blackmail in itself was not enough of a reason for Sherlock to kill CAM; but a threat to Mary's life was a different matter. I still don't agree with the solution but I see the reasoning.

 

If it had been Lestrade who had the evidence, he wouldn't have used it to endanger Mary's life; he would've arrested her (we assume.) So, the reason to kill him wouldn't have existed.

 

Sherlock said "Tell Mary she's safe now," not "Tell Mary she's free now." I think the difference is meant to be significant.

 

Wow, for a second there I almost talked myself into believing CAM's murder was justified....

[jesskayding]

Sorry Slithytove. The Lestrade comparison holds no water.. Per like Arcadia just responded & per a previous post I made, Sherlock didn't shoot CAM to keep people out of jail, but he did it to save @ least 3 lives from possible death. 

 

 There was also an unattended Bonus for CAM's death is that  entire nations governmental decisions would be made by elected officials versus a blackmailing journalist.    

[Arcadia]

I think that's one thing we can all agree on -- there's no downside to the demise of CAM! The downside is how it happened and what it cost Sherlock. In a perfect world, CAM would've chosen that moment to drop dead from a heart attack, and good riddance.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Something happened with the quote I took from Slithytove above.

 

The end-quote code got messed up.  All fixed now.

 

....Whilst I agree about the flexibility of fictional law vs real life law, insofar as the latter is frequently bent to serve the demands of the plot or poetic justice, there is one inescapable fact. Regardless of CAM's accusations or Sherlock's deductions, Mary herself knows that there is enough evidence against her to send her to prison for life. Prison in Britain, presumably, unless it's a case of extradition. So it is either something illegal here or in a country with which we have an extradition treaty. I don't know much about extradition but I can't imagine we'd be packing her off to Iran, for instance, for violating sharia law.

She may have been from somewhere in Eastern Europe, judging by the Greek or Cyrillic writing in her file.  So I wouldn't entirely rule out something of that sort.  I doubt that the UK restricts its extradition agreements to only those countries whose laws are in complete agreement with theirs.

 

Her character is obviously meant to be ambiguous.

I seriously hope it's intentional!  But I also hope that she's not meant to be perpetually ambiguous.

 

You could feel the change in our nation, a sudden desire to make this daring step in front of the cameras. In front of the world which had seen us at our worst, and which often still judges us on that. There's still that part in most of us that is ashamed of what our nationality represents, but it was a very strong symbol. It showed that it was okay to stop apologizing for what we did not do. We aren't our ancestors.

While it was presumably a good thing for Germany to experience an attitude readjustment right after WWII, the people responsible are virtually all gone now, and it's surely time for the current generation to chart their own way.

 

I suppose there are people in every country who feel they must apologize for who their ancestors were, but I've never been one of them. I think each of us has quite enough of a challenge just being who we are.

 

Sure, there was no immediate danger when Sherlock shot Magnussen. But it was his last chance to do so. If he waited until the immediate danger was there, he'd have already been in prison. This argument would never hold up before a judge, but I still think it makes sense. There was only one logical thing to do, and no right thing [emphasis added].

 

I think that sums it up very nicely.

 

The-bullet-as-surgery? A very weak explanation, Sherlock. Please tell me you had an ulterior motive for suggesting it.

I too am hoping for an explanation (though not holding my breath).

 

[jesskayding]

I think that's one thing we can all agree on -- there's no downside to the demise of CAM! The downside is what it cost Sherlock. In a perfect world, CAM would've chosen that moment to drop dead from a heart attack, and good riddance.

 

 

 

But then we wouldn't have that Sherlock line "Merry Christmas!"

[Arcadia]

Sure we would!  CAM croaks, Sherlock turns to John and says "Merry Christmas!" I would've loved it.

Hey -- why did he say that anyway? Are we all on the wrong track? He didn't shoot CAM to save Mary, he did it as a Christmas present for Mycroft???? Eeep.

[Arcadia]

I suppose there are people in every country who feel they must apologize for who their ancestors were, but I've never been one of them. I think each of us has quite enough of a challenge just being who we are.

That's okay, Carol, I have enough white middle class guilt to cover both of us!