Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Caya]

Schmuck bait as in the stick being nothing but a trick meant to fool John into thinking she entrusts that information to him, the part about "you won't love me when you've finished" meaning to ensure that he won't actually call her bluff and read it. We never get to find out if the contents of the stick are the real deal or if it's empty or even booby-trapped, after all.

 

 

[Redbeard]

Interesting I never thought for a second that Mary could have been tricking John in some way with that.  Another thing I took at face value, which perhaps I shouldn't. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Here in the US anyway.....even if there are witnesses such in the case of the missing baby....like I stated above.....there were four adults and at least two other children in the house where.....Baby Jane disappeared. All of them.....every single one of them.....and one is the child's grandmother...say that they know nothing. The baby was put in her crib, everyone went to bed in the morning she was gone and that has been the end of it. No charges of any sort has been brought against anyone for 2 years and a half.

 

Yes the police have not given up the search for the baby because they know that if and when they do find Baby Jane....dead or alive....they are hoping that what ever she can tell them even if it's only through forensic evidence that the person who made her disappear can be finally prosecuted.

 

Yes, cases have been tried when there has been no body ever found and the person or persons responsible prosecuted but not so in this case so far even though a substantial amount of her blood was found in her father's bed room.

 

In the case of the woman who disappeared from the dance and later found brutally murdered. It is believed that there was at least one other person present. But since these potential witnesses never came forward. The person was never brought to justice.

 

 

 

 

[Arcadia]

Interesting I never thought for a second that Mary could have been tricking John in some way with that. Another thing I took at face value, which perhaps I shouldn't.

I never think of things like that either, I must be really gullible!

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

If we are to take this all at face value I think Sherlock's defence of her makes no sense.  That it is hypocritical of him to go after some criminals but not Mary.  The original canon Holmes did let some people get away with their crimes - if they had good reasons/motivations that he could sympathize with, etc.  But we get none of that with Mary.  There is no explanation, no justification.  Unless there is and we are just not being told it yet.  That is why I hope we discover that there is a further explanation, a bigger story that will reveal and change everything.  I hope so.  Because if that is all there is, I can't comfortably buy it.

 

    Exactly....face value it doesn't make any sense which is why I'm watching Sherlock. His actions and reactions to what is going on around him. I did say I didn't have to like Mary. Or even trust her.....but what is Sherlock doing through all of this. He doesn't trust her completely.....not at first after waking up in the hospital. She is there and she is more then just a little bit creepy and threatening. So he takes a runner. Where does he go?

 

 We know that he has contacted Billy, sets up the projection of Mary on the front of  the empty house.... and he throws the threat back in her court. "If I die in this house you're toast" but he has also had some time to do some research on her. Contacted Mycroft perhaps? No doubt she has become one of his goldfish besides John...and he finds out something besides the fact that she is a trained assassin. Something that makes him want to take her case....again even though he very nearly died. And he has put John in the forefront by placing him in that chair in the half light.

 

  Sherlock isn't trusting her completely....but what has convinced him that she will not shoot him again....on sight?  Yes, heaven help him, Sherlock has been wrong before...and if he is wrong this time....it is John who will suffer.

 

 There is so much we are not being told here.  Months go by before we see them all again at the Holmes homestead at Christmas. John claims he hasn't read the A.G.R.A files.  Bluff?  She shoot Sherlock and John witnessed what went down at the empty house. And he's still madder then hell at her for what she did to Sherlock. He had to be madder still witnessing Sherlock shoot CAM for his and Mary's sake.  It would take a stronger person then most of us not to have looked at it. I'm in the same camp that says that Sherlock surely did.

 

  Mad at her....yes.  But I want to know what Sherlock knows. I want to know why she is worth the saving as he clearly believes her to be even after all he has gone through for her sake....being sent to what is to believed...as certain death. And not only Sherlock but Mycroft as well. He admitted this mission would break his heart. Yet he too has agreed to protect Mary.....I want to know the why of all that. And since we are being told to wait......then okay.

 

This all harks back to canon and Holmes's own sense of justice.  If she was a villain....such as Moriarty and all of the other criminals he had chased down over the years. The five years he worked with Lestrade and all the years working John since.....then why would he bother protecting her? 

 

It only follows...at least for me.... that there is something about her that sparks that sympathy. The feeling that she had motivations that he can agree with.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

... if the A.G.R.A. stick contained genuine information (and this is a very big if) as opposed to being schmuck bait for John (though wouldn't it have been funny if Sherlock swiped it and got a virus that proceeded to melt down his laptop for his trouble? ) ...

 

 

Schmuck bait! 

 

 

Like Fox, I'm virtually certain that Sherlock did read the stick -- but presumably he would have been very wary of any potential booby traps.

 

[Zain]

I wish I could share your belief, Bakerstreet Irregular. To me, though, it seems like they just wanted to keep Mary around, and it is much easier to do so when you deflect the problems at hand, id est her past and her motivation. The only  thing I can hope for is some sort of interesting twist coming our way. Although I am not holding my breath for that..

If John and Sherlock had properly dealt with her and the issues, then it would have taken much more screen time, it would have given off the impression that her actions were as serious as they were. Due to the time skip, the audience is kept out of any process of accepting the facts. We get the problem, then the problem is resolved. The matter is smoothed over, in a way. To me, that looks like textbook manipulation to shift the audience's focus on another matter (back to Magnussen).

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No, I don't think the problem is resolved. To much is still happening. I don't think anything is smoothed over. John said that he was still angry at her.....I can't see how any of that would have settled into blind acceptance. It didn't through all the months that we didn't get to see....so I see no reason why Mofftiss would fudge it now.

[Zain]

So what?

John is still angry. I've read this sentence more times than I care to remember, but what does that even mean?

 

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

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

John cared that he shot Sherlock he said as much.  We don't know that there won't be. There certainly was for Sherlock. As for Sherlock not having Mycroft remove her.......back to canon.....he had his own sense of justice....of right and wrong. And he only let those criminals go that he could see the reasoning behind their actions.

 

 In the case of "The Devil's Foot"...he understands why a man would revenge the death of the woman he loved when she dies at the hand of her own brother.

 

  If....if.... he is letting Mary get away with all that she has done, there has to be a reason. A very good reason.

 

  Consequences can come in all kinds of forms not just through regular channels like courts and police.  She's under the very watchful eye of a certain member of "The British Government". We don't know what is in store for her. There could be conditions she has to meet to remain free. There's plenty of people who want her...all Sherlock, John, and Mycroft have to do is withdraw their protection....just as Mycroft did to Irene.

 

 Set her free and not care how long she lasts.

[Arcadia]

John would have had to face a bit of legal trouble as well after the shooting of CAM just for being there in the first place.  Although it wasn't his idea to trade Mycroft's laptop for Mary's file in the Appledor vaults, he was certainly an accessory to the crime of theft.   He also had a gun in his coat, so although he didn't shoot CAM, a case could be made for intent.  Obviously, though, Sherlock took the complete fall for everything that happened.  John probably got a slap on the wrist. .....

Mmm, I don't know, I'm willing to bet Mycroft covered up the murder; either framed some random criminal, or just had CAM mysteriously disappear, something like that. Anyway, I imagine he made pretty darn sure there was no court case.

 

Good thing CAM's dead, or he'd really have a pressure point on Mycroft now!

[sfmpco]

Yeah, somehow I get the idea that it got swept under the rug, covered up, but there were a lot of special forces witnesses.  The death/disappearance of someone like CAM would not go unnoticed, though.  

 

I always wonder too just how much MI6 training Sherlock actually has, because that wouldn't seem to be his cuppa entirely.  Yet MI6 seems to want him.  it took him 2 years to unravel Moriarty's network, but staying in the homeland and getting "high" from solving cases seems to be his milieu.  

 

Just rewatched the short "Many Happy Returns" and noticed the newspaper at the end with the CM initials, so perhaps that was a slight wink to what was coming in season 3.  

[Arcadia]

Here's what I think are Sherlock's character traits according to what we've been shown: dysfunctional, slightly autistic, probably a touch of aspergers, childish, impatient, possibly bi-polar, drug addict, nicotine habit, some OCD, probably ADHD, genious IQ probably greater than Einstein which puts Mycroft way up off the charts.  He's musically gifted, has studied some classical dance - probably to the horror of Mycroft.

 

I suspect that he may have had a hard time focusing his natural abilities and that drugs calmed his mind that didn't know how to shut off.  I suspect that the geniousness of Mycroft and Sherlock naturally isolated them from other children.  Mycroft did some bullying to Sherlock in their youth as Sherlock tried to live up to something.  Sherlock never wanted to disappoint as a child "Mummy and Daddy will be so disappointed..." (Mycroft in Sherlock's mind palace)... I think the two Holmes boys stuck together mostly.  Everyone else was too boring and dull.  Goldfish.  Their mother was a mathematical genious, father claims he was a moron, but somehow I get the feeling he was very intelligent also.

 

Sherlock's creative talents largely are for himself because he would have had to put those aside to devote full time to being a detective where he had to block out all sentiment and focus on facts.

 

But there is pain in his soul that he keeps well guarded.  Molly sees it.  She sees beyond all his bull.  But what created the sociopath label?  When we see Sherlock as a young boy, we don't sense it there.  I suspect it was a persona he developed as a coping and protecting mechanism.

 

Just rambling.

Ramble away! I've had similar thoughts but haven't bothered to put them down .... now I don't have to! But I think I've ultimately concluded he doesn't have any particular "disorder;" he's just Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

I always wonder too just how much MI6 training Sherlock actually has, because that wouldn't seem to be his cuppa entirely.  Yet MI6 seems to want him.  it took him 2 years to unravel Moriarty's network, but staying in the homeland and getting "high" from solving cases seems to be his milieu.

None, I hope! I really don't like the idea of Sherlock, Super Spy at all, I like him fine as just a detective. I don't know if it's MI6 that wants him, so much as it's just Mycroft trying to corral him.

 

That reminds me, I've been puzzled about the "offer" from MI6 to send Sherlock "back into Eastern Europe". "Back"  -- is that a reference to the "hiatus"? Implying that Sherlock was working for MI6 while he was dismantling Moriarty's network? Urgh, I hope not, I like to think of him as doing things on his own initiative. And is MI6 in the habit of asking private citizens to go undercover into certain death? What, are they short-handed? 

[sfmpco]

yeah, not sure what Mycroft was referring to, but the only time we know of Sherlock being in Eastern Europe for "work" was when he was dismantling Moriarty's network, so it has to be a reference to that.  MI6 was somehow involved and he with them, but I don't want to see the Sherlock super spy either.  Not sure he's cut out for it, but apparently MI6 thought they should offer him a 6-month impossible stint that Mycroft wanted him to turn down.  Perhaps MI6 figured Sherlock was the only one for the job, but Mycroft clearly thought it was a death sentence, even for Sherlock.  So really, at the end of HLV, for Mycroft to send Sherlock on that mission is really like capital punishment in the secret service way.  Just send a guy on a mission that there's no hope of getting out alive.  

[Zain]

A thought that just hit me.

What if Mycroft and his colleagues are not on the same page concerning their knowledge about that mission in Eastern Europe?

 

We know that his colleagues offered Sherlock the mission at Christmas. They had no particular reason to want him dead. Mycroft told Sherlock in private not to take the mission, because it would result in his death.

After Sherlock killed Magnussen, Mycroft proposes to send Sherlock off to Eastern Europe, and he is accused of nepotism. They think it is a less severe punishment than Sherlock deserves. Apparently, his colleagues are not aware of the fact that it is a suicide mission. Lady Smallwood makes a comment that it is somewhat harsh, but nobody ever mentions that it might lead to Sherlock's death. I believe she thought it harsh, because it was a difficult and long-term mission.

 

That reminds me: Mycroft seems to have more inside knowledge into matters in Eastern Europe. He is already interested in Eastern Europe around the time Sherlock was shot. That is months away from Christmas, from the time his associates wanted Sherlock to be sent there.

It is possible that Mycroft knows more about the occurences in Eastern Europe than his colleagues think he does.

 

Maybe he has got a spy there, or at least a contact person. The only important person to have been connected to Poland in canon is Irene Adler. She was an opera singer in Warsaw. There have been some hints at her possible return already, and this connects both things rather nicely. Remember what Sherlock did with those napkins in TSoT? An opera, and a swan.

The swan connects it with Mycroft's mission. The name of that particular mission (located in Poland) is "Ugly Duckling", which we all probably know was actually a swan that got misplaced as an egg.

[Arcadia]

Annnnndd, the debate goes on! I love this stuff, I hope no one minds if I hop in here and stir it around some more...
 

 

So I will withhold any judgement on this woman at this time....because really....I have nothing to judge her on. Morally or ethically.

Wait, what? Why not? We can judge characters in several ways - by what they say, what they do, what other characters say about them etc..... There is no explanation, no justification. Unless there is and we are just not being told it yet.

 

I agree, we can judge her by all the evidence you mention, but my problem is, I find the evidence contradictory. Briefly.....

What she says:
She says she won't risk losing John. Yet she does risk it; she leaves Sherlock alive; she gives John the thumb drive.

What she does:
She shoots Sherlock to silence him. Yet the victim himself points out that to do the job right, she should have shot him in the head.

What others say about her:
CAM says she's wicked, a bad girl. Sherlock says she can be trusted.

I know there are more instances but you get the idea where I'm heading. To me the message is: I do not know what Mary is yet. So, I wait, and hope I get more information before I decide about her.

And I'm really NOT going to take CAM's word over Sherlock's!
 

*sigh* Much as I hate writing this ...

But good for you for writing it anyway! And a really good point, I hadn't thought of the thumb drive thing in quite that way. I've been responding more to her body language; she looks to me like she's prepared to have her life shattered.
 

Exactly....face value it doesn't make any sense which is why I'm watching Sherlock. His actions and reactions to what is going on around him.... I want to know why she is worth the saving as he clearly believes her to be even after all he has gone through for her sake.....
It only follows...at least for me.... that there is something about her that sparks that sympathy. The feeling that she had motivations that he can agree with.

Yes, I'm afraid that in the end this is at the heart of my forbearance... I am witlessly following Sherlock, wherever he may lead. If he trusts Mary, I will too. Because I have no will of my own, apparently. (I can hear my mother now: "And if he jumped off a building, would you jump too?")
 

I wish I could share your belief, Bakerstreet Irregular. To me, though, it seems like they just wanted to keep Mary around, and it is much easier to do so when you deflect the problems at hand......

Well, I have to agree with you; I rather suspect this is the "real world" explanation. But look at all the fun we're having trying to get it to make sense "in story!"

When I first saw this episode I assumed Moftiss had said all they were going to say on the subject of Mary's past. Now I'm not so sure .... there's so much material to be mined there. But it would steal some of the spotlight from Sherlock, I don't get the impression they want to go that way. And so I go, round and round like a teddy bear...
 

...There's no permanent change, no consequence...

Again, we'll see ... either there will be, or there won't. I'm not sure how I feel about this .... as I said before, I'd at least like to know that she regrets her actions and admits she was wrong. I do think we might get some of that, but only in subtext ... which means ... arghghg!!! ... no one will agree on it. 

Consequences, however ... if it only affected her, maybe. But it wouldn't, she's got a husband and a kid. John's suffered enough, I say let him be happy with her, at least for awhile. Even if it means she gets away with ... well, whatever anyone thinks she got away with. Good grief, we can't even agree on what she's guilty of!    Mofffftissssss!!!!

[Arcadia]

You're probably all getting pretty tired of me by now ... last post on this topic for tonite, promise! (Hey, it's the weekend, I find this relaxing ...)
 

... So really, at the end of HLV, for Mycroft to send Sherlock on that mission is really like capital punishment in the secret service way. Just send a guy on a mission that there's no hope of getting out alive.

"There is always Hope." Surely if anyone could beat the odds, it would be Sherlock. And don't call me Shirley.
 

A thought that just hit me.
What if Mycroft and his colleagues are not on the same page concerning their knowledge about that mission in Eastern Europe?

.... The only important person to have been connected to Poland in canon is Irene Adler. She was an opera singer in Warsaw. There have been some hints at her possible return already, and this connects both things rather nicely. Remember what Sherlock did with those napkins in TSoT? An opera, and a swan.
The swan connects it with Mycroft's mission. The name of that particular mission (located in Poland) is "Ugly Duckling", which we all probably know was actually a swan that got misplaced as an egg.

Zain, sometimes I just love the way your mind works! I would never in a million years make a connection between the napkins and ... well, anything. I love it, I hope it turns out to be right!


And this seems as good a time as any for the Big Reveal of my Amazing Theory ... I know you all have been breathlessly awaiting this ever since I mentioned it, uh, several posts ago.... hopefully no one's passed out from the suspense......

Okay. In that final scene with Lady Smallwood, Mycroft, and some other people, there's a bit of dialogue that's always seemed out of whack to me.

What if .... Mycroft and Lady Smallwood have colluded to save Sherlock? After all, he did get rid of Magnussen for her, even if it was too late to save her husband. So she and Mycroft work up this plan to pretend that Moriarty has come back, so Sherlock can be recalled "to duty", so to speak. The others in the room don't know of this plan; they think Mycroft is talking about sending Sherlock into exile (and as Zain pointed out, perhaps they don't know it's a suicide mission). But Lady S. knows Mycroft is really talking about keeping Sherlock in England.

This requires some interpretation of the dialogue....

1. MYCROFT (introductory remark): "As my colleague is fond of remarking, this country sometimes needs a blunt instrument." (He now shifts to arguing why Sherlock should NOT be sent away). "Equally, it sometimes needs a dagger – a scalpel wielded with precision and without remorse. There will always come a time when we need Sherlock Holmes."
(This is the out of whack part. If Mycroft thinks we'll always need Sherlock, why would he in the next moment be proposing to send him into exile?)

SIR EDWIN (He's not in the know, so he objects to Sherlock "merely" being sent away): If this is some expression of familial sentiment ...

MYCROFT: Don’t be absurd. I am not given to outbursts of brotherly compassion. You know what happened to the other one. In any event, there is no prison in which we could incarcerate Sherlock without causing a riot on a daily basis. (All this is for the benefit of the other people in the room, so they will continue to think he's talking about exile. But now he switches to talking only to Lady S. again.) "The alternative, however, would require your approval." (He is now referring to their scheme of pretending Moriarty has returned.)
LADY SMALLWOOD: Hardly merciful, Mr Holmes. (Sherlock will be going up against Mycroft, who is pretending to be Moriarty. She thinks this will be humiliating for Sherlock.)
MYCROFT: Regrettably, Lady Smallwood, my brother is a murderer. (Translation: "Sherlock doesn't deserve mercy." Also remember, Mycroft does seem to enjoy seeing his little brother suffer....)

Then later, when the gif appears, both M. and Lady S. act surprised for the benefit of anyone who might be watching/listening.

The beauty of my little scheme is that I would get to see the Holmes boys trying to outsmart each other, and hopefully Sherlock winning and wiping that damnable smirk off Mycroft's face. YEAH.

Okay. Now that I've thoroughly embarrassed myself, I will return you to your regularly scheduled forum. Be kind, it's my first attempt at trying to "out-Moftiss Moftiss."

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good job, Arcadia!  It certainly makes as much sense as anything else.  Meaning of course that Moftiss will make so much hash of it within the first five minutes of Series 4.  But will their explanation make as much sense as yours (or any other fan explanation, for that matter)?  Heck no, because they'd rather "fool" us by changing premises between series.
 
Are we masochistic, or what?
 
 

... if the A.G.R.A. stick contained genuine information (and this is a very big if) as opposed to being schmuck bait for John (though wouldn't it have been funny if Sherlock swiped it and got a virus that proceeded to melt down his laptop for his trouble? ) ...

I've had some additional thoughts on this matter. You were apparently joking about the virus, but that doesn't seem to fit Mary's style anyhow. It would be sheer vindictiveness, and Mary seems to be a highly pragmatic person. If she did include any malware on the drive, I'd bet it was a Trojan horse, so she could monitor John's (or as we're guessing it turned out, Sherlock's) computer activity.

 

[Caya]

It was a joke, yeah. But I could see her putting something on the stick that sends her a clandestine warning SMS or something that it's been accessed, so that she knows it's time to scram - if the stick wasn't in fact the real deal.

[Arcadia]

But will their explanation make as much sense ......? Heck no, because they'd rather "fool" us by changing premises between series.

Oh well, if they explained everything clearly, what would we have to talk about?

[sfmpco]

Just noticed that the staircase he goes down and crawls back up when he is dying  is the same staircase he goes up to see the dead woman wearing pink in "A Study in Pink."

[Arcadia]

Is it the same? I thought it looked the same, but I couldn't think of any reason why it would be, except that it just looks neat. But on reviewing I thought maybe it was just similar .... my problem is, I can never take my eyes off Sherlock long enough to notice any details!

[T.o.b.y]

I've struggled with myself not to come in on this discussion because I've stated my viewpoint a few times already and I'm not going to improve on it this time ... BUT ...  

 

Personally,  I think I'm pretty civilized.  In real life, so much of what everyone is saying is right.  Murder is wrong.  People are bound by laws and responsibilities ... thousands of years of living beside and among other people has taught us that nobody is a world unto himself (herself) and anarchy is the necessary result of lawlessness.

 

However, Sherlock is entertainment.  Personally, I find it a catharsis.  For 90 minutes an episode, it's possible to pretend that normal rules don't apply and people like Mary, who have dark histories, can be redeemed by the love of a good man ... with a few stumbles along the way !  You can almost believe that there is somebody in the "Big Brother" of government like Mycroft who can solve just about every problem.  As for CAM, he 's a monster who can destroy any individual he wants to just for fun and profit ... and he doesn't have to send out an army or shoot somebody to do it ... because he can ruin a person's reputation.  Shakespeare said it best:

 

Good name in man and woman, dear my lord,

Is the immediate jewel of their souls.

Who steals my purse steals trash. 'Tis something, nothing:

'Twas mine, ’tis his, and has been slave to thousands.

But he that filches from me my good name

Robs me of that which not enriches him

And makes me poor indeed.

 

Personally, I applaud Sherlock for shooting him.  In the world of fiction, he should be able to eliminate such evil by whatever means at his disposal.  And Sherlock, bless his cute, curly head ... who do we know in real life who is anything like him  ? ... nobody thinks like him or acts like him or gets away with the things he does ... hell, I don't know anybody who even looks like him ! 

 

Personally ... and you'll note I'm really stressing this is my own opinion and I respect all opinions I've read so far ... when the 90 minutes of fantasy is up, I'm ready to go back and face the stress of real life and responsibilities, knowing I have 8 other episodes I can disappear into ... where the world is a little less structured and vigilante "justice" can work.

 

Debbie

 

Thank you. This is pretty much my point of view exactly and I've been trying to express it, I think... You found the right words quicker.

 

To change the topic rather abruptly: I was watching A Scandal in Belgravia again the other night and I noticed how "six months" are the time given to both Irene Adler and later Sherlock until they are predicted to be dead if left to fend for themselves "out there" in the big bad world without their usual means of "protection". Probably just a coincidence, but I like that little touch anyway.

 

[Slithytove]

The more I think about the whole Mary business - and evidently I think about it too much! - the more I hope Sherlock's behaviour is all a bluff. I want him to have known all along that she was a baddie. I want him to acknowledge that all that stuff about "surgery" was so much rubbish. I want him to admit he was pretending to trust her. And, more than anything, I want him to be biding his time and waiting for her to fall into his trap.

 

If not, what is the alternative explanation? Both he and Mycroft were too slow or too careless to realise that an assassin, under a false identity, was marrying John and getting close to Sherlock? Sherlock's knowledge of anatomy and gunshot wounds is so vague that he believes you can inflict that type of injury without a very high risk of death? He trusts, and wants John to trust, someone who lied and successfully decieved them both about her identity, and very nearly killed him without remorse? And the man whose whole life is spent bringing killers to justice believes it is all right to aid and abet a murderer to evade justice, because his best pal is in love with her?

 

Too right it is hypocrisy, from both John and Sherlock. They are helping a criminal avoid prosecution and, frankly, it doesn't matter what was on the A.G.R.A. drive. Even if Mary did work for the CIA, and if CAM was lying about her freelance killings, there is no such thing as officially sanctioned murder. Mycroft & co might be able to hush it up - though his colleagues didn't seem to be falling over themselves to help Mycroft's brother avoid a prison sentence - but John and Sherlock have no excuse for not reporting her to the police. The same goes for her shooting of Sherlock. It was at least grievous bodily harm, and I think it would probably be classified as attempted murder. Serious crimes are prosecuted ex officio, i.e. regardless of the victim's wishes, and Mary would certainly stand trial if Lestrade learned the truth about her. Whether he liked her or not, he would have no choice.

 

I know that the original Holmes allowed killers to escape justice on a few occasions. I'm not sure he was right to do so but he was motivated by pity, because the killers had suffered greatly because of the actions of those they killed. Even if that applies to Mary's past ( and I suspect it will, to somehow justify the murders she committed), it doesn't apply to the shooting of Sherlock. He and John know she will ruthlessly harm an unarmed person, not because they are threatening her but to preserve her freedom and her marriage. What makes her different from the other killers whom they track down and hand over to the law?

 

And on the subject of Irene Adler.....Sherlock seems to have trusted her when he should not have done. Could the supposed misogynist actually be a bit dim where women are concerned?