Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Damn straight it was intentional!

 

So we can discuss S3 till the cows come home, but we'll never know what "really" happened (or why) till S4 airs -- and then we'll have a whole fresh set of questions.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I am trying to think of killing which is not classified as murder, and all I can come up with is casualties of war, capital punishment, and euthanasia in countries where it is legal.

 

I suspect that if we're to agree on this, we'll have to agree to disagree.  I suppose the universal definition of "murder" is "killing of which I do not approve," and you choose to approve of only certain government-sanctioned killing, while I choose to approve of other cases such as some self-defense, and to disapprove of others such as some capital punishment.  Our definitions overlap considerably, but are not identical around the edges.

 

In my understanding, Moftiss basically admitted that Magnussen was a straw man, created to be so utterly vile that it would be a relief when Sherlock pulled the trigger.  That sort of thing happens so rarely in real life that we don't need special laws to deal with it, we just call it murder.  But this is fiction, so I think we're allowed to cheer when Sherlock returns.

 

As for what Mary did, I will need more data before I can have much idea what I think of it.  Meanwhile, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, for John's sake if nothing else.

 

[Arcadia]

 

Be very careful what you wish for -- Steven Moffat may be listening! But you're absolutely right, we know hardly anything about Mary's past so far, unless we choose to believe Magnussen's implications and Sherlock's inferences.

2. "As far as we know, Sherlock killed one person." While it's true that we could not actually name anyone else he's killed, I personally suspect that he used some seriously extra-legal means to "dismantle" Moriarty's network over the past two years.

 

Don't think so. Moftiss were careful to show us, in Many Happy Returns, that he always worked with the system. Whether he infiltrated that monastery, fed intormation to that policeman or managed to get a seat on that jury. Would've been a lot easier just to kill them for sure, but that evidently isn't how he rolls.

 

 

And it just occurred to me that at the end of Sign of Three, they kinda make a point of showing that Sherlock just figures out who done it, but leaves the arresting/etc. to the authorities. I thought that little snippet was a bit odd at the time, now I think I see why it's there.

[T.o.b.y]

Damn straight it was intentional!

 

So we can discuss S3 till the cows come home, but we'll never know what "really" happened (or why) till S4 airs -- and then we'll have a whole fresh set of questions.

 

U-huh - and still no answers. Series 3 really didn't answer most of the questions left open by series 2 either. I love wondering and theorizing for two years, but in the end, I would like to know whether I "got it right."

 

Oh well. Maybe they leave a lot open so as not to loose viewers. I guess as long as everybody has their own (conflicting) favorite ideas and is allowed to cling to them, the lowest possible number will lose interest in the show.

 

(Still, what good is a riddle with no answer? Like Sherlock, I don't particularly like "the unsolved ones").

[T.o.b.y]

In my understanding, Moftiss basically admitted that Magnussen was a straw man, created to be so utterly vile that it would be a relief when Sherlock pulled the trigger.  That sort of thing happens so rarely in real life that we don't need special laws to deal with it, we just call it murder.  But this is fiction, so I think we're allowed to cheer when Sherlock returns.

 

If that was his intention, it certainly worked on me! (I cheered long before the plane scene, I must admit). Did he say that during an interview or is it on one of the DVD extras or...?

 

[Slithytove]

 

I am trying to think of killing which is not classified as murder, and all I can come up with is casualties of war, capital punishment, and euthanasia in countries where it is legal.

I suspect that if we're to agree on this, we'll have to agree to disagree. I suppose the universal definition of "murder" is "killing of which I do not approve," and you choose to approve of only certain government-sanctioned killing, while I choose to approve of other cases such as some self-defense, and to disapprove of others such as some capital punishment. Our definitions overlap considerably, but are not identical around the edges.

 

In my understanding, Moftiss basically admitted that Magnussen was a straw man, created to be so utterly vile that it would be a relief when Sherlock pulled the trigger. That sort of thing happens so rarely in real life that we don't need special laws to deal with it, we just call it murder. But this is fiction, so I think we're allowed to cheer when Sherlock returns.

 

As for what Mary did, I will need more data before I can have much idea what I think of it. Meanwhile, I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, for John's sake if nothing else.

Essentially, I accept the legal definition of murder as unlawful killing with malice aforethought. I do not approve of state-authorised killing, except for euthanasia for those who wish to end their lives due to terminal illness. I listed war, capital punishment and (in some places ) euthanasia as the only legalised intentional killing which came to mind. It doesn't mean I approve, but the fact that I think war and and capital punishment are both morally abhorrent doesn't change their legal status.

 

I suppose that self-defence is another case of killing allowed by the law in certain circumstances, though that one is less clear-cut - you do have to prove that you really believed your life was endangered and that you had no other way to protect yourself. I am not sure how far this extends to killing in defence of others, so I don't know if it would be arguable that John's killing of the cabbie was necessary to save Sherlock. I doubt it, as Sherlock was partly responsible for accepting the challenge to choose the right pill. Clearly the killing of CAM would not be legally defensible because no-one was in immediate danger. I am prepared to cheer Shetlock's return, because he believed he was killing to save a life, but even Mycroft doesn't try to pretend it is anything but murder.

 

If Mary murdered CAM, it would not have been self-defence because she was killing to protect her freedom and her marriage, not her life. If Sherlock had died, it would have been a clear-cut case of murder. If she was caught, I assume she would be charged with his attempted murder.

 

To be honest, I don't think there is a fuzzy line where murder is concerned. To misquote Gertrude Stein, a murder is a murder is a murder. You may feel that some murders are a case of choosing the lesser of two evils - which is presumably how Sherlock saw the murder of CAM - but it doesn't alter the fact that it is murder. I don't see how Mary's killings can fall into any other category.

 

At 221B, Sherlock said that Mary was on the run from something and I doubt the writers will waste such an obvious plot line. I suspect Mary will have a backstory designed to make us sympathise with her and feel her actions were justified. Given the telegram reference to her family, and the fact that she seems to be wholly alone (because they are dead? or because she is in deep cover?) I wouldn't be surprised if she has killed to protect or avenge her loved ones. Judging by her reaction at the airfield, I also wouldn't be surprised if the something she is running from is Moriarty. I think it will be designed for us to see her more as a victim than a perpetrator.

 

Of course, it will be difficult to convince those of us who feel she went over to the dark side forever when she shot Sherlock.

[T.o.b.y]

 

At 221B, Sherlock said that Mary was on the run from something and I doubt the writers will waste such an obvious plot line. I suspect Mary will have a backstory designed to make us sympathise with her and feel her actions were justified. Given the telegram reference to her family, and the fact that she seems to be wholly alone (because they are dead? or because she is in deep cover?) I wouldn't be surprised if she has killed to protect or avenge her loved ones. Judging by her reaction at the airfield, I also wouldn't be surprised if the something she is running from is Moriarty. I think it will be designed for us to see her more as a victim than a perpetrator.

 

That is pretty much what I see her as already, or rather what my impression so far is. Which is why I feel for her the most during the scene at Baker St and also later at Sherlock's parents' house. Nobody ever asks her why she acted like she did, do they. Sherlock has at least tried to figure it out on his own, but John isn't even interested and he treats her quite harshly, in my humble opinion, considering that he knows nothing about her motives or background. Doesn't he even want to make sure she's not in immediate danger from somebody? Wouldn't it be a relief to him if he found she had some kind of justification for what she did?

 

Sorry, some people had better take a deep breath before they read this, but I personally find John's behavior towards Mary at least as egocentric as her actions have been called. All he seems worried about is what the discovery that his wife was an assassin says about him and all he seems interested in keeping is the woman Mary should have been to please him and his idea of himself. It's all about him and his wrongs.

 

Ahem. Sorry again. I am sure this was not the impression the writers wanted to create at all. And I do still love John very much (I've never wanted any character to be perfect, anyway. I hate saintly people, at least in fiction).

 

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

Good point about John, T.o.b.y -- but in his defense (which I assume you won't mind!), don't we all become terribly ego-centric for a while when we get a nasty surprise?  (I'm thinking of the time I was accidentally kicked smack in the face at an office party....)  And he does seem to get over that attitude by Christmas.

 

Slithytove, if we are using "murder" in the strictly legal sense here, then I have to say that I consider some murders to be justifiable.  I tend to use the term a bit more loosely myself (more in keeping with my own opinions), so perhaps you and I aren't disagreeing quite as much as we've thought.

 

[Slithytove]

 

 

At 221B, Sherlock said that Mary was on the run from something and I doubt the writers will waste such an obvious plot line. I suspect Mary will have a backstory designed to make us sympathise with her and feel her actions were justified. Given the telegram reference to her family, and the fact that she seems to be wholly alone (because they are dead? or because she is in deep cover?) I wouldn't be surprised if she has killed to protect or avenge her loved ones. Judging by her reaction at the airfield, I also wouldn't be surprised if the something she is running from is Moriarty. I think it will be designed for us to see her more as a victim than a perpetrator.

That is pretty much what I see her as already, or rather what my impression so far is. Which is why I feel for her the most during the scene at Baker St and also later at Sherlock's parents' house. Nobody ever asks her why she acted like she did, do they. Sherlock has at least tried to figure it out on his own, but John isn't even interested and he treats her quite harshly, in my humble opinion, considering that he knows nothing about her motives or background. Doesn't he even want to make sure she's not in immediate danger from somebody? Wouldn't it be a relief to him if he found she had some kind of justification for what she did?

 

Sorry, some people had better take a deep breath before they read this, but I personally find John's behavior towards Mary at least as egocentric as her actions have been called. All he seems worried about is what the discovery that his wife was an assassin says about him and all he seems interested in keeping is the woman Mary should have been to please him and his idea of himself. It's all about him and his wrongs.

 

Ahem. Sorry again. I am sure this was not the impression the writers wanted to create at all. And I do still love John very much (I've never wanted any character to be perfect, anyway. I hate saintly people, at least in fiction).

 

I agree that there is something off about John's character in this episode. I think many of us have sensed it, though we attribute it to different reasons.

 

I don't actually blame him for being unable to focus on Mary's needs and preoccupied by his own pain. If I discovered that everything my spouse had told me was a lie and that he had actually been a professional killer - which, when I think of my husband, is pretty hilarious - I would be more than upset. Hysterical, terrified and appalled wouldn't even begin to cover it. And, yes, I would want to know why he was a killer and whether his deeds could be justified - which is what I've said, all long, about Mary. John needs to stop hiding from the truth. Maybe she killed only in defence of others, or maybe she went round massacring orphans. John doesn't want to know, which seems weak and selfish to me. Those are not characteristics I would normally associate with John Watson.

 

However, even if Mary was proved to have been a saint, I will never be able to see her as a victim because she shot her friend. Not only was he innocent, unarmed, trusting and offering to help, he was more than a friend - he was practically family. In fact, to John, he was family.

 

Clearly John does have relatives and friends (no problem filling his side of the church) but the two people he loves most in the world are Mary and Sherlock. In some ways, though he has better social skills, he seems almost as lonely as Sherlock. We rarely see him with friends, except the occasional girlfriend, nor do any Watsons ever turn up. At least Mycroft visits. Then Mary nearly destroys the other person he truly loves, the person whose previous loss broke his heart, and he's fine with that?

 

It seems to me that something went wrong with John's characterisation in HLV. Whether you think he is unfair to Mary or forgives her too easily, he just doesn't seem to be the character developed in the previous episodes. Of course, characters can surprise us, they can baffle us and do something which seems uncharacteristic, but they should never make us have a gut reaction of, "He would never do that.". Usually it happens when a character is forced to jump through a hoop for the sake of the plot. I think this happens with John, which is why many of us feel he has disappointed us.

 

It seems that the writers have moved John quite a long way from ACD's Watson. The original Watson was a sort of boy's adventure hero, brave, loyal and always ready to accompany Holmes into danger, but I doubt he had a subconscious wish to marry a killer. In general, I think the updating is good - I quite like Sherlock being a bit ruder, a bit crueller, a bit more manipulative than Holmes, and John being a bit more outspoken and a bit more angry than Watson - but John is now supposed to be so addicted to danger than he seeks out violent situations and can only form meaningful relationships with psychopaths and wannabe psychopaths. Hmm. Not sure how far they can push that idea without eroding the central core of the character. He is already beginning to look a bit thin around the edges.

[Carol the Dabbler]

It seems that the writers have moved John quite a long way from ACD's Watson. The original Watson was a sort of boy's adventure hero, brave, loyal and always ready to accompany Holmes into danger, but I doubt he had a subconscious wish to marry a killer. In general, I think the updating is good - I quite like Sherlock being a bit ruder, a bit crueller, a bit more manipulative than Holmes, and John being a bit more outspoken and a bit more angry than Watson - but John is now supposed to be so addicted to danger than he seeks out violent situations and can only form meaningful relationships with psychopaths and wannabe psychopaths. Hmm. Not sure how far they can push that idea without eroding the central core of the character. He is already beginning to look a bit thin around the edges.

Thanks for the "boy's adventure hero" characterization, Slithy -- I hadn't been able to put that into words, but that's Watson -- straight out of the stack of old Boy's Life magazines that my grandmother kept on hand for us grandkids.  (I don't think they make adventure heroes like that anymore.)

 

I've spoken against the "adrenaline junkie" view of John often enough that I don't need to repeat my reasons here -- but yes, that particular aspect of this episode was especially irksome to me.  And whose word do we have for it?  Mycroft, Sherlock, and Mary -- three paragons of normality!  Feels like they're kinda beating us over the head with the idea.

 

[Slithytove]

It is impossible not to love Watson. However much he ages and however many terrible things he witnesses, he has a sort of youthful enthusiasm, an innocence and optimism in the face of everything. I think that that is why Holmes loves him too.

[Caya]

Copying&pasting this from tumblr (source) cause all I could think was yes! when I read it: (formatting in progress, bear with me)

 

thescienceofjohnlock:

  

ughbenedict

:

     

songofages

:

        

ughbenedict

:

            ok but sherlock’s face after mary says “there is nothing in this world i would not to to stop that happening”

           

            this is a face of a man who actually did

everything

for john watson and still isn’t able to stop “that” happening: stop john leaving him

            happening, stop john not seeing his devotion happening, stop john being in love with somebody else happening

         bitch don’t talk to me about love. I jumped off a building for that man.

      i let my reputation and career fall apart for that man. i let people i despised humiliate me for that man. i spent two years completely alone for that man. i survived tortures because the thought of meeting him again kept me sane. i ran into fire without hesitatation for that man. i backed away for that man’s happiness. i came back to life for that man. and now i’m standing here, bleeding internally, trying to help a woman who almost killed me because she is the one john chose and i wouldn’t dare to argue with his choice because his happiness is the most important thing to me.

   leaving dudeufugly’s tags because yeah

#sherlock#mary just cannot win with me anymore#she will never reach that be like that deserve that#this hiatus feels like looking behind the mask that is mary#and with every single day I dislike what I see more and more#nothing she did matches up#it’s - like someone said: me me me#i dont believe a single word she says#be it that she loves him or the tears in front of the fireplace#she doesnt deserve John#bring it s4 - fix it or bring her down (dudeufugly’s tag, because I agree with thescienceofjohnlock)

 

eta: given up on the formatting, sorry!

[Slithytove]

Make that another "Yes!"

[Arcadia]

Mmm, sorry, "no" from me. But I can understand why some will like it.

[Slithytove]

A few questions about HLV:-

 

After being shot, Sherlock had 3 seconds of consciousness. How did he know it was 5 minutes before John found him?

 

Sherlock deduced Mary had called an ambulance before John did. When John called, why didn't the dispatcher tell him that an ambulance was already in its way? That would be normal practice and John, as a doctor, would know it.

 

Sherlock says Mary can't kill CAM because John would be a suspect. (Presumably that would also apply if she killed both of them.) So did she keep him alive to exonerate John? Seems a risky tactic, given CAM's personality. John was probably more use free, as he was Sherlock's pressure point who was Mycroft's pressure point, but Mary did not know that. She could expect that he would store up the information about the shooting, to use against her, instead of telling the police but how did she know he would speak on behalf of John? And, if he wouldn't, what was the point of leaving him alive?

 

Lestrade, unsurprisingly, doesn't think John was the shooter. Is this because CAM vouched for him, or just because Lestrade has got some common sense?

[Arcadia]

No way to know what we haven't been shown, but here's some shots in the dark for your entertainment:

 

Question 1. John or someone told him after he woke up in the hospital?

Question 2. Different dispatcher? Just came on duty? Drunk? Or maybe John wasn't listening?

Question 3. She left them both alive because then there would be no murder to investigate? And she gambled that both Sherlock and CAM, for different reasons, would keep quiet about her presence? (In which case, as it turns out she was only partly right.)

 

[Zain]

 

 

After being shot, Sherlock had 3 seconds of consciousness. How did he know it was 5 minutes before John found him?

 

Okay, let's think it through.

The question is, did he truly know it or is it an educated guess?

Let's assume it's an educated guess: Based on what?

Magnussen's estimation how long he was out.

Blood loss. Even with a sort of "bullet cork" blood still escapes as far as I know. The amount of blood loss could be an indicator.

Let's assume they know how much time passed:

The 5 minutes might describe the time frame between when John and Sherlock parted ways, and when John called the ambulance instead of the time frame between Sherlock's collapse and John's arrival.

 

In any case the police would have asked for a rough estimate. If I go by logic, John's estimation would be more valuable since Magnussen was out of it. It is likely that Sherlock was filled in with the necessary details concerning his "accident." He had already had visitors, so I suppose the police had already talked to him when he talked to Janine. If he was well enough to receive visitors, the investigators would have gotten his statement asap.

 

 

 

 

 

Sherlock deduced Mary had called an ambulance before John did. When John called, why didn't the dispatcher tell him that an ambulance was already in its way? That would be normal practice and John, as a doctor, would know it.

 

 

Well, again I see two possible paths:

Either Mary hadn't called an ambulance (and thus there was no way they could have informed him about it), or it's an issue that calls for willful suspension of disbelief for the sake of the show. While I like complex schemes and faulty deductions by Sherlock better, I fear the latter's more probable. I guess it's just more dramatic that way. And they probably hoped to redeem Mary somewhat. She already had a wonky stance with lots of the fans.

 

 

 

 

Sherlock says Mary can't kill CAM because John would be a suspect. (Presumably that would also apply if she killed both of them.) So did she keep him alive to exonerate John? Seems a risky tactic, given CAM's personality. John was probably more use free, as he was Sherlock's pressure point who was Mycroft's pressure point, but Mary did not know that. She could expect that he would store up the information about the shooting, to use against her, instead of telling the police but how did she know he would speak on behalf of John? And, if he wouldn't, what was the point of leaving him alive? 

 

Well, that's a bit tricky, I think. Many possibilities, and since I got a favorite theory, I fear I won't be as objective with these theories as with the last ones.

Let's tackle it nonetheless. And from the very beginning.

The question is: Are Sherlock's deductions right?

He states that Mary acted to exonerate John. It is clear in the show that she fears his reactions, but it is never explicitly stated that she would feel bad to see bad things happen to him. Her speeches feature the repercussions to her rather than to John. We don't really know how she feels about this, it's merely guessing on our and Sherlock's side. Mary never stated that Sherlock's deductions were right, so it's a bit tricky to rely on that. 

Let's assume she truly wanted to keep John from being a suspect. Let's have a walk through:

Mary kills Magnussen and leaves Sherlock alive. He and John would be major suspects, especially since they are not supposed to be there.

Mary kills both, Magnussen and Sherlock. John is still a major suspect. There's no witness to exonerate him, and while it seems unlikely that he'd kill Sherlock, it could be staged as an accidental killing while struggling with Magnussen. Then there's the possibility that Magnussen killed Sherlock, then John arrived and revenged his friend. John would be taken in for the time of the investigation. 

Gets us back to the last option, Mary doesn't kill either of them. While they still weren't supposed to be there, the could only be charged with trespassing, and that depends on whether Magnussen reports it. I doubt he'd do that, and even then the chances are slim he'd achieve something. Officially, they did not break in. Janine let them in. If Magnussen wanted to have their heads, he could have accused them of being the attackers. But then he'd have to explain Sherlock's wound. He'd gain nothing by lying but becoming a suspect himself. Magnussen's statement exonerates John, just like Sherlock's statement  establishes that there was another attacker. Their statements concur. 

In a way, yes, keeping both alive does protect John from becoming a suspect.

 

Now let's assume Sherlock's deductions are a bit off:

Mary could have other reasons to keep Sherlock alive.

I think it's established that she only cares for herself and maybe for John. So her actions must protect herself in some way or another.

Time to buy her time to flee the scene - as long as there was still a person to be saved, the chaos of paramedics would stall the police investigation, just like John would not leave Sherlock's side. He'd treat him instead of chasing after the culprit.

 

That's where my objective reasoning fails me. Since the last theory is my favorite, I have a hard time coming up with a competing theory. Maybe you guys have more luck.

 

 

Good questions, btw. Liked them. Some food for thought.

 

 

[T.o.b.y]

The question is: Are Sherlock's deductions right?

He states that Mary acted to exonerate John. It is clear in the show that she fears his reactions, but it is never explicitly stated that she would feel bad to see bad things happen to him. Her speeches feature the repercussions to her rather than to John. We don't really know how she feels about this, it's merely guessing on our and Sherlock's side. Mary never stated that Sherlock's deductions were right, so it's a bit tricky to rely on that. 

Let's assume she truly wanted to keep John from being a suspect. Let's have a walk through:

Mary kills Magnussen and leaves Sherlock alive. He and John would be major suspects, especially since they are not supposed to be there.

Mary kills both, Magnussen and Sherlock. John is still a major suspect. There's no witness to exonerate him, and while it seems unlikely that he'd kill Sherlock, it could be staged as an accidental killing while struggling with Magnussen. Then there's the possibility that Magnussen killed Sherlock, then John arrived and revenged his friend. John would be taken in for the time of the investigation. 

Gets us back to the last option, Mary doesn't kill either of them. While they still weren't supposed to be there, the could only be charged with trespassing, and that depends on whether Magnussen reports it. I doubt he'd do that, and even then the chances are slim he'd achieve something. Officially, they did not break in. Janine let them in. If Magnussen wanted to have their heads, he could have accused them of being the attackers. But then he'd have to explain Sherlock's wound. He'd gain nothing by lying but becoming a suspect himself. Magnussen's statement exonerates John, just like Sherlock's statement  establishes that there was another attacker. Their statements concur. 

In a way, yes, keeping both alive does protect John from becoming a suspect.

 

Now let's assume Sherlock's deductions are a bit off:

Mary could have other reasons to keep Sherlock alive.

I think it's established that she only cares for herself and maybe for John. So her actions must protect herself in some way or another.

Time to buy her time to flee the scene - as long as there was still a person to be saved, the chaos of paramedics would stall the police investigation, just like John would not leave Sherlock's side. He'd treat him instead of chasing after the culprit.

 

That's where my objective reasoning fails me. Since the last theory is my favorite, I have a hard time coming up with a competing theory. Maybe you guys have more luck.

 

 

Good questions, btw. Liked them. Some food for thought.

 

 

I know Sherlock isn't as infallible as he thinks, but I always believe his deductions are correct until I am proven wrong (and then sometimes I continue to believe him anyway).

 

So I think your first theory is probably the "right" one.

 

Of course, Sherlock might just project his own motives onto Mary. I have a favorite theory of my own that he had the idea to shoot Magnussen right after they found out the "vaults" only existed in his mind, but waited until he had Mycroft and the police as witnesses so that it was absolutely certain John would not be implicated in the killing in any way. Which would explain why Sherlock lets Magnussen do what he likes until the witnesses arrive - he'd already thinking "you just wait"...

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

If what the audience was shown after Sherlock falls, was exactly the truth, then yes, Mary did call 999. We hear the sirens right then.

 

As for John not knowing, he could have gone all military, called 999, gave the information and that was it not giving the operator the opportunity to say that one had already been dispatched to that address. He was upset so may not have been listening closely if he had been told.

[Zain]

 

 

Of course, Sherlock might just project his own motives onto Mary. I have a favorite theory of my own that he had the idea to shoot Magnussen right after they found out the "vaults" only existed in his mind, but waited until he had Mycroft and the police as witnesses so that it was absolutely certain John would not be implicated in the killing in any way. Which would explain why Sherlock lets Magnussen do what he likes until the witnesses arrive - he'd already thinking "you just wait"...

 

 

 

 

Exactly my thoughts.

I second that. I think it's also the most likely scenario.

[T.o.b.y]

 

 

 

Of course, Sherlock might just project his own motives onto Mary. I have a favorite theory of my own that he had the idea to shoot Magnussen right after they found out the "vaults" only existed in his mind, but waited until he had Mycroft and the police as witnesses so that it was absolutely certain John would not be implicated in the killing in any way. Which would explain why Sherlock lets Magnussen do what he likes until the witnesses arrive - he'd already thinking "you just wait"...

 

 

 

 

Exactly my thoughts.

I second that. I think it's also the most likely scenario.

 

 

Likely or not, I confess I just have to believe in it because it is too painful for me otherwise the way Sherlock says his defeated "let him John... just let him". I have to believe he already knows he's going to kill the man at that point or I just can't stand that scene. I want to reach into the TV, grab Magnussen and slap him, anyway.

 

 

[Zain]

If what the audience was shown after Sherlock falls, was exactly the truth, then yes, Mary did call 999. We hear the sirens right then.

 

As for John not knowing, he could have gone all military, called 999, gave the information and that was it not giving the operator the opportunity to say that one had already been dispatched to that address. He was upset so may not have been listening closely if he had been told.

 

Just rewatched the scene to be absolutely sure, and I think you misunderstood me.

The audience is shown how Mary calls 999 when Sherlock makes his deduction. He reconstructs what's happened. Doesn't mean it is a reliable scene. The sirens are heard in the reconstruction.

 

When I opened up the possibility that the deduction could be wrong, I implied that this scene was not reliable. Just like I opened up the possibility that the deduction was right.

 

Yes, John could have not given the operator the opportunity. We don't know that. It's a possibility, just like that he did to coordinate where exactly in the building they were. And it's just likely as the possibility that Mary did in fact not call an ambulance. All theories are equally likely, which is the beauty in it. Everybody can choose their favorite idea. And maybe we'll get the truth in season four, or maybe not. They like keeping us on our toes. Best way to do that: Don't give proof. They're great at that.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

All theories are equally likely, which is the beauty in it. Everybody can choose their favorite idea. And maybe we'll get the truth in season four, or maybe not. They like keeping us on our toes. Best way to do that: Don't give proof. They're great at that.

 

  Yes, they are. I can totally agree. Which makes this show such a joy. It never gets old.

[Carol the Dabbler]

If what the audience was shown after Sherlock falls, was exactly the truth, then yes, Mary did call 999. We hear the sirens right then.

 

As for John not knowing, he could have gone all military, called 999, gave the information and that was it not giving the operator the opportunity to say that one had already been dispatched to that address. He was upset so may not have been listening closely if he had been told.

 

Also, perhaps one reason that Sherlock knew the first 999 call had been from Mary rather than from John is that when the police questioned him, they referred to the call as being from an anonymous female.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

Also, perhaps one reason that Sherlock knew the first 999 call had been from Mary rather than from John is that when the police questioned him, they referred to the call as being from an anonymous female.

 

  A very good point.