Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Arcadia]

Honestly, I'm still not convinced that CAM doesn't have vaults somewhere, no matter what he claimed. Sure, he wouldn't have to access them very often due to his mental vault. But regardless of how powerful a media mogul he is, he can't possibly print stuff willy-nilly without any physical evidence. Great Britain does have libel laws, rather harsh ones iirc. He'd be sued into oblivion if he couldn't prove his claims, and his mind palace doesn't exactly constitute proof.

 

The whole thing smacks of Underpants Gnomes logic, really......

Now THERE was a pop culture reference that sent me scrambling to Wikipedia!!!

 

Nevertheless he himself stated that he didn't need proof all he had to do was put something in priby and people automatically believed it.

I think that's the answer right there. CAM didn't have to prove anything, he just had to insinuate it, and leave it vague enough to provide himself some "deniability" in case someone dared to confront him. Take Lord Smallwood, for example; according to his wife, he wasn't really guilty of much, but publish a couple of excerpts from the letters -- out of context -- and his reputation is smeared. Enough so that he thought his only way out was suicide. Heck, CAM didn't even have to publish the letters, he just had to imply to the public that they existed.

 

If Smallwood had chosen to fight back instead of suicide, CAM could have printed a retraction -- which protected CAM, but now that the information was out there, Lord Smallwood would still be under suspicion .... because where there's smoke, there's fire, right? Political commentators pull that trick on a daily basis, why not CAM.

 

Also, CAM did say he knew where the hard evidence was kept. So there may in fact, be vaults of information, just not his. All he has to do is send one of his investigative reporters in to obtain it. Or drop an anonymous tip to the police; then it doesn't even look like it's coming from him.

 

.....if it is a real threat, [Mary] would be safe enough behind bars.

Maybe it's different in Britain, but in America prison is not a safe place to be. They're filled with criminals! Who can be contacted and hired to do a "job". And Mary seems to assume she wouldn't qualify for protective custody. But I agree, in the real world, that would have been her best course of action; give herself up, maybe try for a plea bargain and witness protection.

 

Thank you, all of you, for your support over the past days. Family landed safely in Madison on Friday and we Skyped with them yesterday. They are all very excited and the kids seem to love the place, although our 16 year old granddaughter had to go off for a cry whilst we were talking to her. We miss them very much but Skype did help. I was sceptical that it would, but it did make them seem much closer to us. Thanks again.

Glad to hear it! I would have suggested Skype but didn't know if you had the capability. That made a huge difference when my nephew was in Afghanistan, to be able to see that he was healthy and intact. Glad you seem to be doing better now.

[Arcadia]

But how can Sherlock resolve the problem on the spot? I'm not sure he can, because all the writing leads him to that point. All he could do, unless Mary leaps out of the shadows and gives herself up, would be to allow himself to be arrested. It would have been easier for Mycroft to get him off the treason charge than a murder charge, given that the evidence for the former is more questionable than the latter. He did commit murder in front of plenty of witnesses, yet he's still not going to jail, so couldn't his brother have got him off the hook over the laptop? Then they could then have put those great minds together to work out a way to silence CAM now that they know he doesn't actually have evidence against anybody for anything. When you think about it, doesn't this lack of material evidence strengthen Mycroft's hand, rather than weaken it?

Good point.

 

 

 

It occurs to me that another way to get at CAM would be to feed him false information, information that could only have been obtained from illicit sources, then prosecute him for obtaining this information. A long game, too boring for Sherlock but Mycroft would be well suited to it, I think. He could even have been engaged in something like that already, that's why he didn't want little brother barging in and spoiling his play?

 

It all comes down to that, doesn't it ... Sherlock goofed. He underestimated his opponent and underplanned his strategy. I blame the drugs.

[Slithytove]

If CAM didn't have actual vaults somewhere, he is the world's worst blackmailer. After all, he gets his information somewhere, somehow, so why not acquire it in the form of material evidence? He has evidently got enough influence and enough money to do so. In fact, Sherlock accepts the "Mind Palace vaults" straightaway, at face value, and it never seems to occur to him that CAM might be lying. Maybe his vaults aren't at Appledore - why did Sherlok think they were? - but they could still exist. Maybe Sherlock should have pushed CAM a bit over that claim.

 

I'm not convinced by CAM's assertion that he doesn't need evidence. Newspapers do smear people all the time but a serious accusation like murder would have to be backed up by evidence. You can allege that Brad Pitt is leaving Angelina Jolie and get away with it, but say that Brad killed someone and you'd have to prove it.

 

I think Mary would be pretty safe in a maximum security prison. I'm not saying the prisoners never get attacked - of course they do - but there are plenty of Class A prisoners who are loathed, by the outside world and their fellow inmates, but remain secure. For instance, the notorious child killer, Ian Brady, has been locked up for nearly 50 years and lots of people, including relatives of his victims, have wanted to kill him but have never managed it. I think the safest, and most appropriate, place for Mary would be jail.

[T.o.b.y]

If CAM didn't have actual vaults somewhere, he is the world's worst blackmailer. After all, he gets his information somewhere, somehow, so why not acquire it in the form of material evidence?

 

Yes, but why keep that evidence all in one place, that can then be broken into or destroyed (by accident or design)? Magnussen has an excellent memory, so he doesn't need physical "vaults" to access information for his own use. The only reason for him to be interested in any actual documents and such like is showing them to others as means of proving his stories. And he says himself that if he needs such things, he sends out for them. I am sure he knows plenty of different sources.

 

Also, it seems that Magnussen doesn't often make something up entirely. He uses true information, mostly, and probably only twists it around in his publications to make grey appear black. This means that all he would need to do in most cases is draw attention to a rumor, get other people to ask certain questions. The proof he needs is probably often just lying around for anybody to find, as long as he gives the incentive to look for it, and he can turn it against the victim by offering an incredibly negative interpretation of the data in question.

 

Concerning the laptop: The original plan, if I understood correctly, was that Sherlock would offer the password to Magnussen in return for a tour of the vaults. Then when they were inside the vaults, Mycroft was supposed to appear with his men and "discover" all sorts of classified information in Magnussen's hands, so Magnussen could finally be charged with something worthy of an arrest on the spot. What Sherlock did with Mycroft's property would still count as attempted treason, but it would look justified if they could later claim it was just a ruse to get Magnussen to "show his hand". As things stand at the end of His Last Vow, however, there's still the treason thing plus negligence on Mycroft's part for leaving the laptop lying around (ha, ha, as if he'd do that by accident) and they have nothing to show for it that would excuse their actions. It's only because Sherlock shot Magnussen before he could blab about their deal and created a huge distraction by committing that murder that the Holmes boys and John didn't all get into serious trouble, just Sherlock himself. I bet it was very easy for Mycroft or one of his more trusted assistants to sneak in during all the commotion and take the computer back before anybody knew it had ever been at Appledore.

 

I totally agree that it makes no sense John was able to hold on to his gun in Magnussen's house. What about Magnussen's security staff? But then, maybe by that point Magnussen was so overconfident that he simply didn't care any more what John did. He could have probably walked in there with a flame thrower and Magnussen wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

 

Magnussen thought himself perfectly safe. He never expected Sherlock or anybody to kill him right out in the open, in front of witnesses and probably his own security cameras as well. He thrived on the hidden sins and concealed crimes of thousands, he wasn't used to anybody taking responsibility for their actions.

 

Come to think of it, in a way, Sherlock did win against Magnussen, if you look at it that way...

[Arcadia]

I'm not convinced by CAM's assertion that he doesn't need evidence. Newspapers do smear people all the time but a serious accusation like murder would have to be backed up by evidence. You can allege that Brad Pitt is leaving Angelina Jolie and get away with it, but say that Brad killed someone and you'd have to prove it.

Well, there's two methods at play here. At least two.

 

In Lord Smallwood's case, CAM knows where the physical evidence is. In the girl's possession, perhaps. He publishes a headline: "Smallwood letters reveal underage lover." The statement is not incorrect, but it's also a half-truth; Smallwood apparently did the "right thing" when he found out how young the girl was, and broke contact with her. But the damage to his reputation has already been done, many will believe the worst because that's what people DO. He can deny it, but CAM obtains the hard copies from wherever they are and publishes them; they're lurid enough to convince most people that Smallwood did something a bit not good.

 

In Mary's case, CAM's job is even easier; she's actually guilty of something, we're told. So all he has to do is alert the authorities, or her enemies, to her presence; they'll take care of her from there; unless John agrees to do as CAM says. The only facts CAM needs in Mary's case is her current name, and her enemy's phone number. He has the advantage because he knows she's vulnerable, not because he has proof of her deeds. If she has enemies who want to kill her, it doesn't even matter if she's guilty of something or not. Which come to think of it, would have been a far better story for Mary; innocent of wrong-doing, but has deadly enemies. But noooooo, she had to be a killer........

 

Then there's the guy with the disabled daughter (????? - working on memory here.) Found guilty of something? That could have been either method, or a 3rd......

[Carol the Dabbler]

The only thing I can think of is that CAM deliberately fed that information to the world as camouflage. Sherlock seemed awfully sure of it right from the start, almost like it was common knowledge.

 

Now that I think of it, wasn't he reading information about Appledore from a website? Like a Wikipedia page or something, which CAM could have planted.

 

Another thing that puzzles me is that Sherlock states (I think) that CAM doesn't keep computer records .... yet he thinks CAM's glasses are connected to a computer. (?)

The scene where Sherlock tells John about Appledore strikes me (in hindsight) more as Sherlock attempting to manipulate John into believing that there were physical vaults, and that said vaults were at Appledore -- thus pre-justifying their later foray.

 

As for the glasses, does he really think that? Or is he just fishing -- like he strung Moriarty along by pretending to believe there was a "key code"?

 

Honestly, I'm still not convinced that CAM doesn't have vaults somewhere, no matter what he claimed. Sure, he wouldn't have to access them very often due to his mental vault. But regardless of how powerful a media mogul he is, he can't possibly print stuff willy-nilly without any physical evidence.

I fully agree that his properties should be searched very thoroughly -- though I wouldn't be surprised if his vaults weren't on his property at all -- maybe in a numbered safe-deposit box somewhere. But I agree with Magnussen that he doesn't need evidence, he just needs to word his accusations very carefully, as Arcadia suggests below. 

 

Thank you, all of you, for your support over the past days. Family landed safely in Madison on Friday and we Skyped with them yesterday. They are all very excited and the kids seem to love the place, although our 16 year old granddaughter had to go off for a cry whilst we were talking to her. We miss them very much but Skype did help. I was sceptical that it would, but it did make them seem much closer to us. Thanks again.

That's good news! Thanks for updating us!

 

I totally agree that it makes no sense John was able to hold on to his gun in Magnussen's house. What about Magnussen's security staff? But then, maybe by that point Magnussen was so overconfident that he simply didn't care any more what John did. He could have probably walked in there with a flame thrower and Magnussen wouldn't have batted an eyelash.

 

Magnussen thought himself perfectly safe. He never expected Sherlock or anybody to kill him right out in the open, in front of witnesses and probably his own security cameras as well. He thrived on the hidden sins and concealed crimes of thousands, he wasn't used to anybody taking responsibility for their actions.

 

Come to think of it, in a way, Sherlock did win against Magnussen, if you look at it that way...

Hmm, you're right, Magnussen was so damned sure of himself that it wouldn't surprise me at all if he assumed he was safe merely because of the pressure points. And having them searched at Baker Street was just another arbitrary flick in the eye, like pissing in the fireplace. OK, I think that hangs together. I'll buy it (at least for now).

 

And then Sherlock called his bluff.

 

[Slithytove]

But why was it necessary to murder CAM to stop him revealing the truth about Mary? If she really killed people, and he really has that evidence, isn't it right to expose her? Not to blackmail her, I agree, but to tell the truth and put the whole thing into the hands of the police. If there are extenuating circumstances, they will be brought up by the defence at her trial. How can it be right for Sherlock to murder someone with the deliberate intention of perverting the course of justice? That's what I don't get.

 

As for the vaults, if CAM can send for evidence when he needs it, then they do exist, even if they are not in one place. I don't see how he can print serious allegations against people based entirely on information stored in his mind. Well, he can try, of course, but he'll soon run up against the law of defamation.

 

For instance, there was a case here, a few years ago, where a young woman turned out to have been murdered by a man in a neighbouring flat, but the police had previously arrested her landlord on suspicion. The newspapers, without actually saying he was the killer, had a real go at him because he was a rather odd-looking, eccentric man and they implied that he was a sinister, creepy character who was up to no good. He successfully sued several newspapers for libel. And the poor parents of Madelaine McCann, the little girl who disappeared whilst on holiday in Portugal, had to sue 11 newspapers plus a Portuguese former detective for suggesting they had possibly killed their child by accident and covered it up. Their friends also sued for libel the same newspapers, who implied that they were involved in the cover up. The point is that newspapers do sometimes suggest that people have committed serious crimes but, without evidence, they are very likely to be sued for libel and forced to print grovelling apologies, as they did in both these cases.

 

If CAM's allegations are true, they need evidence to support them and Mary, for one, clearly believes such evidence exists and could put her away for life. Maybe she wouldn't have been so easily convinced that it was all in CAM's head.

[Arcadia]

The scene where Sherlock tells John about Appledore strikes me (in hindsight) more as Sherlock attempting to manipulate John into believing that there were physical vaults, and that said vaults were at Appledore -- thus pre-justifying their later foray.

 

As for the glasses, does he really think that? Or is he just fishing -- like he strung Moriarty along by pretending to believe there was a "key code"?

Yeah, both of those very well could be true. I think it depends on how far in advance you want to believe Sherlock knew he was going to kill Magnussen. It's been suggested that the scene with the glasses was just Sherlock ruling out the possibility of computer files, and the visit to Appledore was just to rule out the possibility of physical files. He knew well before Christmas that the real danger was CAM's mind, and the solution was to kill him. (Too bad he didn't think of that when he found Mary in CAM's office..... "Oh, pardon me, Mary. Didn't mean to interrupt. Carry on.")

 

That's too dark for me, so I prefer to believe Sherlock was genuinely outmanuevered by CAM and acted out of desperation. It's less logical, but it makes for a better character arc, so that's the one I'm going with. But it would not surprise me in the least if Moffat came out one day and stated that Sherlock had figured out the truth and planned CAM's murder while he was lying in the hospital. You have to admit, that theory fits better in a lot of ways.

 

I'm going to have to try and track down another interview with Moffat, where he said something to the effect that Cumberbatch had requested that Sherlock show emotional growth from season to season, or something like that. I wasn't able to really hear it due to a faulty speaker at the time, I may not have heard it correctly. But I keep wondering if that wouldn't account for some of the confusion; the actor is putting something into the character that the writer doesn't really care about; so he writes it vaguely enough that they're both satisfied? Something like that. Those two do genuinely seem to hold each other in high regard. That's another thing I like about this show; the key players do seem to have genuine respect for each other.

[Carol the Dabbler]

If CAM's allegations are true, they need evidence to support them and Mary, for one, clearly believes such evidence exists and could put her away for life. Maybe she wouldn't have been so easily convinced that it was all in CAM's head.

All I can say at this point (i.e., what's done is done) is that I sincerely hope Magnussen was telling the truth, and there are no physical vaults. Otherwise, Sherlock put his life and reputation on the line for nothing. But yeah, I see no reason (other than hope) to believe that.

[Caya]

All I can say at this point (i.e., what's done is done) is that I sincerely hope Magnussen was telling the truth, and there are no physical vaults. Otherwise, Sherlock put his life and reputation on the line for nothing. But yeah, I see no reason (other than hope) to believe that.

 

Even if Magnussen didn't have any physical proof of Mary's questionable past stashed away somewhere, that doesn't mean that nobody has. The CIA, for starters.

 

[Zain]

Well, if anything's clear then that HLV is an incomplete episode. There are too many holes and rough patches to ignore them. The episode has got its moments, but until it is brought to completion, I'd rather not "pass my verdict" on it. I feel like there are now more unresolved issues than there had been in February. It seems like no theory fills all of those holes at the same time. Maybe we are in for a brilliant revelation, or maybe the episode is just weak on the logical side.

By the way, we've heard a lot about Moffat's intentions, but does anybody have information on what Gatiss thinks of that particular scene? He's part of this just as much. And it seems like he's the one doing the subtle patching, while Moffat is in charge of the big guns and special effects. Both is needed for a great outcome. But for now, maybe we are too fixated on Moffat?

[Caya]

Gatiss seems decidedly less interview-happy than Moffat. I found this one with both of them - they seem to be in agreement about most issues.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Even if Magnussen didn't have any physical proof of Mary's questionable past stashed away somewhere, that doesn't mean that nobody has. The CIA, for starters.

I'm now clinging to a new theory, namely that while every bit of Magnussen's data can also be found elsewhere (otherwise where did he get it from?), he is nevertheless the only one who has put it all together, and -- most important -- the only one who has seen a certain overall pattern (whatever that may have been). Barring the arrival of another evil genius (which shouldn't happen till S4E3 at the earliest!), Mary should be more or less safe.  (Besides, the CIA ain't talking!)

 

Well, if anything's clear then that HLV is an incomplete episode. There are too many holes and rough patches to ignore them. The episode has got its moments, but until it is brought to completion, I'd rather not "pass my verdict" on it. I feel like there are now more unresolved issues than there had been in February. It seems like no theory fills all of those holes at the same time. Maybe we are in for a brilliant revelation....

Yes, let us hope! You're right, this is half an episode, like "Reichenbach." Right now I'm feeling the way I would have felt at the end of "Reichenbach" if I had already known what would be in "Empty Hearse."

 

It occurs to me that so far in Sherlock "Scandal" may have the most satisfying cliffhanger resolution.

[sherlockandjohn]

I hesitate to quote "the Lord of the Rings", as I'm a fan but I know a lot of people aren't, but Gandalf's remark in "The Fellowship of the Ring" seems appropriate. When Frodo says that it was a pity that Bilbo didn't kill Gollum when he had the chance, the wizard replies:

 

"Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand. Many that live deserve death. Some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them, Frodo? Do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement."

 

I'm not saying that CAM should be pitied but I do agree that we can't give life to many who deserve it and shouldn't be too keen to sentence people to death. It applies to Sherlock, and perhaps even more to Mary who appears to feel no remorse for anything.

 

Sorry if I'm babbling. Family flew out to the USA this morning. Want to crawl into a small hole and die.

 

That is a lovely quote, and thank you for using it!

 

The way I see it, various pieces of fiction have their own universe, and speaking in those terms, I'd rather not apply too much of the ethics from one fictional universe to another. That being said, I love it when my favorite stories resonate with things I believe in, and I definitely believe in that LoTR quote.

 

Wishing you better days ahead, Slithytove. Can't imagine what you must feel right now.

 

 

 

As I said somewhere else once before, this is a hell of a load to put on a piece of pop-culture fluff like Sherlock.

 

I know... we're a mean set, aren't we. But thankfully, the writers don't seem to care two straws for our fussing, so I think we can go happily on as long as we please... I love overthinking stuff. It's fun. For some reason, though, if a book or a film or a series goes and does the overthinking on its own, I often turn away in disgust. I hate it when something is self-consciously intellectual. Or even worse, preachy. I don't look to entertainment to be my moral compass, thank you very much.

 

 

Yes, Sherlock really is pop-culture, and as such I wouldn't rely on it for moral guidance. But as I said above, it's nice to be able to relate to a film or episode. I also like being challenged in my perspective, and Sherlock certainly does that from time to time. Most of all, though, I love being moved, and that mostly happens when my perfectly flawed characters do something utterly wonderful for someone else, something extraordinary. That happens all the time on Sherlock. No wonder I love it so much!

[Zain]

Gatiss seems decidedly less interview-happy than Moffat. I found this one with both of them - they seem to be in agreement about most issues.

 

 

Thanks

 

Had a look at it. And it looks more like they are spouting whatever comes to their mind instead of giving some hard facts. Which seems to be their policy anyway. I mean...

 (from the article)

Gatiss: And the telegram from C.A.M. – there’s a lot of stuff there. It’s nice, isn’t it? No one has actually said, ‘I guessed it. I called it.’

 

Ehm, yes. We did. Yes, we did call it. It didn't come as a surprise that CAM was Magnussen, or that he was blackmailing Mary. There's even hard fact, I'd love to send them a link to the first few pages of the 3.2 thread... Okay, we did not guess she was a rogue hitman on the run from the authorities and living under a false identity, but the clues that were in there were picked up fairly early into the game.

[sherlockandjohn]

 

It occurs to me that so far in Sherlock "Scandal" may have the most satisfying cliffhanger resolution.

 

 

In all fairness, that was a pretty simple resolution. There was a heck of a lot more to deal with in The Empty Hearse. And so far, there have only been those two cliffhanger resolutions

 

I am reminded of this little video, which was a series 3 fan teaser:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0I8AP1fnIhs

 

"Maybe this cliffhanger won't be resolved with disco music" - my point exactly!

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

Good. No more disco! Bring in the rock 'n' roll! 

[Arcadia]

The local PBS station just screened this episode (complete with breaks for pledging, ugh). The idiots cut it off as Sherlock's plane flew away. I am soooooooo glad this is not the fist time I saw it.

 

The music composer thought CAM's shooting was tragic, not triumphant, too.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Gatiss: And the telegram from C.A.M. – there’s a lot of stuff there. It’s nice, isn’t it? No one has actually said, ‘I guessed it. I called it.’

 

Ehm, yes. We did. Yes, we did call it. It didn't come as a surprise that CAM was Magnussen, or that he was blackmailing Mary. There's even hard fact, I'd love to send them a link to the first few pages of the 3.2 thread... Okay, we did not guess she was a rogue hitman on the run from the authorities and living under a false identity....

... nor did we guess that John would turn out to actually be a pastel unicorn.    We're just really dense sometimes.

  

It occurs to me that so far in Sherlock "Scandal" may have the most satisfying cliffhanger resolution.

 

In all fairness, that was a pretty simple resolution....

Simple is good sometimes. Simple works. That's Moftiss's problem -- they always want everything to be clever. 

 

[jesskayding]

 

3. I'm sorry but this is one of those scenes where my mind HaS not been changed. Arcadia, I LOVE Die Hard, so yippi kye yay @#%#@*#@%*%#. Or in Sherlocks words, Merry Christmas! I am very grateful & appreciatibe of the gift thst he gave us all.

Hey, I get that. Die Hard is a pretty enjoyable movie. I used to like it a heck of a lot. And the second one too. And Lethal Weapon. But now -- I don't know if it's because the world has changed, or because I have, but the attitude towards violence that kind of movie embodies no longer works -- for me. I've seen an awful lot of movies, maybe it's just getting stale.

 

I still enjoy Die Hard to some extent, mostly because, hey, Bruce Willis -- and it's clever -- AND, his adversaries are armed. It was a kill or be killed situation, unlike Sherlock vs. CAM, so it's easier for me to go with the flow.

 

Anyway, I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I'm just trying to explain my point of view -- to myself, as much as to anyone here. At least, I hope that's what I'm doing. When things bother me my brain niggles at me until I figure out why.

 

It's a hard subject to discuss because you start mucking about with moral standards, which are not universal. So there's bound to be disagreement. But not, I hope, offense???

 

Not offended. On several points I've been able to see others point of view. See, even to me the CAM & Sherlock thing was a kill or be killed situation... Or even worse than death.

 

 

Also you have the right to express yourself!

[Carol the Dabbler]

Here's a thought; maybe they weren't searched for weapons because they were "invited guests"? CAM might have been just arrogant enough to assume there was no physical threat from them, and told his security to wave them through?

And here are Moftiss on the same subject (from the Empire article that Martina found):

 

Gatiss: It would be like a Roman emperor, where they just didn’t even acknowledge that the servants were there. They just put their hand out for something.

 

Moffat: That sense of entitlement... It’s what brings him down of course, that it doesn’t occur to him that Sherlock Holmes might just shoot him. He hasn’t factored that in. He doesn’t think people can do that.

 

Great minds, and all that!

 

[jesskayding]

If everything else in the episode remains the same, no. That's why it was written that way, imo. Sherlock was set up to lose no matter what he did.

 

The only other course of action I can think of would be for John & Sherlock to surrender, and be arrested for turning over the laptop, or run for their lives, and become fugitives. Neither method would have defeated CAM. Although it might have bought them time to come up with a plan.

 

No, I think for Sherlock to avoid his fate, you'd have to go back a little further than the scene on the patio. If handled a little differently I actually think the laptop trick could have worked. Maybe if Sherlock had forked over the password, logged in, brought up some sensitive files, then Mycroft walks in and finds CAM looking at state secrets ... ??? Don't know enough about how the law would work in a situation like that.

 

Or if you go even further back, and settle the problem of Mary's past differently, so that she ceases to be the pressure point. Give her up or change her identity. But that's obviously not the tale they wanted to tell.

 

 

CAM knew that Sherlock was trying to set him up. He wouldn't have opened theclaotop. He had all the power already because of his mind palace. We needed to see Sherlocks fallacies, how he responds trapped in a corner. But he sacrificed his own life as well to save not only Mary, but the world from CAM.

 

Zain his death was way more pertinent than the Cabby's, and needed far more immediate action.

[Arcadia]

But why was it necessary to murder CAM to stop him revealing the truth about Mary? If she really killed people, and he really has that evidence, isn't it right to expose her? Not to blackmail her, I agree, but to tell the truth and put the whole thing into the hands of the police. If there are extenuating circumstances, they will be brought up by the defence at her trial. How can it be right for Sherlock to murder someone with the deliberate intention of perverting the course of justice? That's what I don't get.

Exactly. If she's really that terrible -- a cold-hearted murderess of innocents -- why is Sherlock protecting her? Wouldn't he want justice for her victims instead?

 

Which is why I end up thinking there has to be something else. We've either been misled by what someone has said, or we haven't been told everything yet.

 

I hope. Lord, I really don't want to find out the dragon-slayer is defending the dragon.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I believe that there is far more to this story arc then what we have seen so far. Mycroft may be conniving and devious but hardly all together stupid. He knew that John had (moved on) knew everything right down to where he was dining and no doubt with whom. In" A Study In Pink" Mycroft upgrades the surveillance on not only Sherlock but Dr John Watson as well. "He could be the making of my brother or make him worse".....something along those lines anyway....if he is keeping such a close eye on him did he really ignore John's fiance? Somehow I doubt it, very much. Sherlock would protect John from all dragons including one imposter named Mary Morstan.

[Bendydoodle Cantaloupe]

 

Exactly. If [Mary's] really that terrible -- a cold-hearted murderess of innocents -- why is Sherlock protecting her? Wouldn't he want justice for her victims instead?

 

Which is why I end up thinking there has to be something else. We've either been misled by what someone has said, or we haven't been told everything yet.

 

I hope. Lord, I really don't want to find out the dragon-slayer is defending the dragon.

 

Maybe she isn't a dragon. Maybe she's the wolf that instinctively bites back when cornered.