Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[sherlockandjohn]

I have taken the liberty of moving the following discussion over from the 'Favorite Quotes' thread:

 

You know, I never have understood why that perfume was supposed to be there.  Did Mary drop by and just happen to leave her perfume?  Unlikely.  Did Sherlock buy a bottle and leave it by John's chair as a "clue"?  That makes no sense to me either.  Is it just supposed to be "cool"?  Moftiss being clever?  That's about all I can make of it.  Somebody please tell me I've missed something!

 

You know Sherlock's methods; he's indefatigable! Obviously he just trotted over to John's, broke in, stole the perfume, jogged back to Baker Street, brought John's chair in from wherever he'd put it, put the perfume next to it (yes, as a clue), scampered over to the nearest electronics store, bought a projector, hauled it to Leinster Gardens, broke into someone's flat so he could plug it in and turn it on, took a chair with him on the way out and set it up across the street for when John arrived. Easy!

 

 

The perfume was Lady Smallwood's though. It's the same as the kind she was using in the car when she tells her driver to turn around and head for Baker Street. So.....does Mary use the same kind of perfume?  Or did John recognize the scent from when Lady Smallwood was in the flat and then again when he was bending over the shot Sherlock?  Because when Mary used it at CAM's.......ooooohhhh....was Mary trying to frame Lady Smallwood for CAM's shooting?  Because Sherlock sure thought it was Lady Smallwood at the time. Ouchy.....she could have shot CAM and just left and Sherlock wouldn't have been none the wiser.

 

 Did John think that Sherlock was protecting Lady Smallwood at the time?  Did he know it was Mary that was going to show up at the "Empty House"? Or did Sherlock prepare him for that big reveal. He seemed pretty calm when she did show up.

 

Well, of course I cannot possibly guess if Mary was trying to frame Lady Smallwood - interesting idea, by the way - but we do know that Mary used Clair de la Lune, because John says so, in Magnussen's office:

"Mary wears it."

And Sherlock replies:

"No, not Mary. Someone else."

So Sherlock recognised the scent, but didn't connect it with Mary, for obvious reasons. Then again, isn't it a bit unusual for Sherlock to jump to conclusions? For once, his heart did rule his head, and to the degree that the thought of Mary breaking and entering didn't even occur to him. Not that it's strange for anyone else! It's just that this is Sherlock, after all. I'm inclined to believe that had John brought up any other name, Sherlock would have considered it, before simply dismissing the possibility. Especially considering the other clues he had more or less subconsciously picked up on from before. But because it was someone rather close to him, the possibility was dismissed before it was fully considered.

 

John might have thought of Lady Smallwood, since, as you noticed, she must have been to Baker Street - though that was probably during the month in which Sherlock and John didn't have contact, and therefore John would not have been in Baker Street. (I had to think about that one for a bit. I seem to forget sometimes that he doesn't live there anymore.)

 

I guess Sherlock must have prepared John that Mary was the would-have-been killer. In fact, I think leaving the perfume out for John to see was deliberate on Sherlock's part as the first step of preparing him - the next step was his phone call, which (to my great dissatisfaction) we did not get to hear.

 

 

I always thought it was just a coincidence that Mary and Lady Smallwood used the same parfume but now when I'm thinking about it... you might have a point. So Mary must have been planning shooting CAM for quite a long time. I should have known that nothing is just a coincidence in this show - what do we say about coincidence?    

 

[sherlockandjohn]

Yeah, that is an interesting thought, which hadn't occurred to me - but Mary could have been setting up Lady Smallwood. Though, how she might have found out which perfume the Lady used is anybody's guess...

 

And I just have to dig a little deeper into my previous comment on Sherlock's phone call. No, not that phone call ; the one he made to John apparently to tell him to come to Leinster Gardens - and possibly to tell him that his wife was the person in Magnussen's office who not only was out to get Magnussen, but who also shot Sherlock... Can you imagine that phone call? I guess it has its' own power of mystery that we didn't get to hear it, but now I'm still wishing that we had. Wonder if anyone has written this in a piece of fanfic...

[Arcadia]

I doubt if Sherlock even had to tell him; John had already figured it out. That's why Sherlock put the chair back, so that John would sit in it and notice the perfume and make the connection. Although I assume he didn't want to believe it.

 

I don't know how Mary could have known about Lady Smallwood's problems, but anything is possible. I suppose Janine could have fed her the info ... but that implies Janine was playing Sherlock just as much as he was playing her, which is not supported by the script. But a lot of things aren't supported by the script ....

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Well we do know what the Holmes's thinks about coincidences. But if the perfume was one then Mary wouldn't need to know, that's true enough. Janine did tell the papers a lot of allegedly personal stuff.....but as a PA she may must have been trusted to keep secrets, other wise why would Sherlock feel the need to break in to CAM's pent house when he could have pumped her for information in the form of pillow talk. Maybe even gotten her to try to get those letters and bring them to him?

 

 I doubt Janine would have been a source of information for Mary either.

[T.o.b.y]

Well we do know what the Holmes's thinks about coincidences. But if the perfume was one then Mary wouldn't need to know, that's true enough. Janine did tell the papers a lot of allegedly personal stuff.....but as a PA she may must have been trusted to keep secrets, other wise why would Sherlock feel the need to break in to CAM's pent house when he could have pumped her for information in the form of pillow talk. Maybe even gotten her to try to get those letters and bring them to him?

 

 I doubt Janine would have been a source of information for Mary either.

 

Very good point, Fox, I must say.

 

And I just have to dig a little deeper into my previous comment on Sherlock's phone call. No, not that phone call ; the one he made to John apparently to tell him to come to Leinster Gardens - and possibly to tell him that his wife was the person in Magnussen's office who not only was out to get Magnussen, but who also shot Sherlock... Can you imagine that phone call? I guess it has its' own power of mystery that we didn't get to hear it, but now I'm still wishing that we had.

 

So do I. There are several occasions where I feel like that. Another one is when John comes to after having been pulled out of the fire. I have a theory that Sherlock just walked away after he opened his eyes and left him to Mary and that John didn't know until he saw the video at Magnussen's place what exactly had happened.

 

 

The idea that Mary's motivation was the same - love for John - is pushing it a bit. Mary's motive was to save her own skin. I don't think that anyone could claim that, "My husband would be sad if he discovered I was a murderer, and went to prison for life, so I decided to kill the man who knew the truth" was a good moral argument. Well, you might be persuaded if you were in the Mafia, but otherwise.....

 

T.o.b.y, I respect your opinion but I have to say I strongly disagree. Your argument is basically, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.". That is a compassionate warning against judging each other's weaknesses, but it has limitations. For a start, if no-one cast the first stone, we would have no criminal justice system and the strong would prey mercilessly on the weak. And the fact that we have all done things we are not proud of does not mean that no-one should reveal or condemn another person's wrongdoing. We all have secrets but not all our secrets are equal. Infidelity is wrong and hurtful but it is not as bad as paedophilia. Stealing is very bad and illegal but not as bad as murder.

 

Of course, we all have faults. That does not mean that people who have hurt others in very serious ways - who have maimed or killed or sexually abused others, as that is the type of crime CAM is threatening to reveal - should be allowed to hide their offences or just write them off and start new lives. As Zain pointed out, CAM would not be wrong to ruin Mary's life by revealing the truth. She had ruined it herself by choosing to be a killer. Nor would it be wrong to question Lord Smallwood's relationship with a child. CAM's wrongdoing lay in trying to use the information for his own advantage. I'm not convinced that he deserved to die for that.

 

Don't worry about multiquote, it took me for ever to figure it out (it's quite simple, actually, but not until the penny drops).

 

Hmmm, Mary and her past and her motivations and is it okay to protect her / keep her secret and so on. I'll try to put my argument like this: If Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that do any good? It won't bring her victims back to life, won't restore them to their families. It might of course prevent future losses, but it didn't seem to me as if she was still "working" regularly, and she doesn't strike me as someone who would kill for fun, just because she was bored, or anything. On the other hand, if Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that harm? Her baby, obviously. John. Big time. Herself. And the world would have one nurse less, which would be kind of a loss. It's not like all Mary does with her time is run around in fitted black suits and wield a gun.

Now, if Mary is left alone to continue her "new" life, that is decidedly a good thing for her family. She can still be useful and happy and chances are good nobody will suffer much from her, unless they should threaten to kill her baby or something like that.

 

I didn't get the impression that Magnussen cared much about justice or condemning people... he just wanted to have a good time, in his own sadistic, power-hungry way. And I also don't know whether I think he deserved to die, but killing him certainly solved a big problem and I think that was worth the sacrifice of his life. If there had been another way to permanently silence him, sure, Sherlock should have gone for that. I can't think of one, though, not one that would be feasible in Sherlock's situation, anyway.

 

Even if we say Magnussen only threatened to expose people who "deserved" it, then he's still posing a big threat to other people who definitely don't, like Lady Smallwood and John Watson. Or would you say they are responsible for their spouses' actions? Even though, in John's case at least, they didn't even know about them?

[Caya]

Hmmm, Mary and her past and her motivations and is it okay to protect her / keep her secret and so on. I'll try to put my argument like this: If Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that do any good? It won't bring her victims back to life, won't restore them to their families. It might of course prevent future losses, but it didn't seem to me as if she was still "working" regularly, and she doesn't strike me as someone who would kill for fun, just because she was bored, or anything. On the other hand, if Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that harm? Her baby, obviously. John. Big time. Herself. And the world would have one nurse less, which would be kind of a loss. It's not like all Mary does with her time is run around in fitted black suits and wield a gun.

Now, if Mary is left alone to continue her "new" life, that is decidedly a good thing for her family. She can still be useful and happy and chances are good nobody will suffer much from her, unless they should threaten to kill her baby or something like that.

 

If we go by that argument, we shouldn't imprison people with families at all if they promise they won't do it again. Were I a family member of a victim, I wouldn't consider that particularly just. And if I retributed, *I* would now go to prison because *I* don't have a family, after all, on account of them having been murdered?

 

Besides, it's not as if Mary had repented and sworn off her old life for good. She did kill again, and was prepared to do so a second time.

[T.o.b.y]

 

Besides, it's not as if Mary had repented and sworn off her old life for good. She did kill again, and was prepared to do so a second time.

 

 

There's no denying that, I'm afraid... I do wonder whether she ever seriously considered killing Sherlock. I'm completely buying the "surgery" nonsense, because I think the writers intend me to and besides, Sherlock said it, but that was "sentiment getting the better of her" in the heat of a stressful moment. Afterwards, did her thoughts on reflection tend towards "oh my god, what did I just almost do?" or "Shit, why didn't I manage to kill him and have done with this problem?" ? I have no bloody idea.

 

Then, she brought her gun to the meeting afterwards. Okay, she couldn't know what Sherlock had planned and, as I think Carol pointed out, Sherlock is never harmless, so she might have only been thinking of protecting herself. But I do wonder if she had considered shooting him "for real" this time if she couldn't talk him round. I doubt Sherlock considered that possible, or else he would not have set John up the way he did. I mean, if she had pulled the trigger, she'd have killed John! I refuse to believe Sherlock would risk that.

 

(Imagine that scenario for a moment, though. Imagine Mary had decided to shoot Sherlock and killed her own husband under his very nose. Most horrifying idea I've had in years. Thought, go away, will you?)

 

 

[Caya]

The first thought that popped into my mind was "just desserts" . For Mary, for having deceived her husband and killed her friend, only to lose it all though her own actions, and for Sherlock, now learning firsthand how it feels to hold a dying best friend.

 

Maybe I have been watching too much Game of Thrones lately .

[T.o.b.y]

The first thought that popped into my mind was "just desserts" . For Mary, for having deceived her husband and killed her friend, only to lose it all though her own actions, and for Sherlock, now learning firsthand how it feels to hold a dying best friend.

 

Maybe I have been watching too much Game of Thrones lately .

 

Maybe! And what about John, huh? Or would you say he shouldn't complain, at least he had a quick and easy death?

 

Gah, I must stop thinking about this really fast now. It's truly appalling. I am so glad that is a level of drama the Sherlock writers do not seem eager to achieve.

 

Of course, if you imagine the shot failing to kill again, then you have all the ingredients for one really sappy fan fiction. I bet someone has already written that, come to think of it.

 

Gach, this is getting worse and worse. Thank god Mary didn't shoot anything but a coin. I still twitch, though, when I hear her say "how badly do you want to find out?"

[Zain]

 

 

Then, she brought her gun to the meeting afterwards. Okay, she couldn't know what Sherlock had planned and, as I think Carol pointed out, Sherlock is never harmless, so she might have only been thinking of protecting herself. But I do wonder if she had considered shooting him "for real" this time if she couldn't talk him round. I doubt Sherlock considered that possible, or else he would not have set John up the way he did. I mean, if she had pulled the trigger, she'd have killed John! I refuse to believe Sherlock would risk that.

 

(Imagine that scenario for a moment, though. Imagine Mary had decided to shoot Sherlock and killed her own husband under his very nose. Most horrifying idea I've had in years. Thought, go away, will you?)

 

 

 

 

Well, Sherlock took care of that. He had her picture projected on the house front. Which is funny, in a way. Claiming that she is a harmless kitten, but he does think it necessary to have a safeguard to protect John. Seems like he was not that sure of her intentions.

[sherlockandjohn]

And I just have to dig a little deeper into my previous comment on Sherlock's phone call. No, not that phone call ; the one he made to John apparently to tell him to come to Leinster Gardens - and possibly to tell him that his wife was the person in Magnussen's office who not only was out to get Magnussen, but who also shot Sherlock... Can you imagine that phone call? I guess it has its' own power of mystery that we didn't get to hear it, but now I'm still wishing that we had.

 

So do I. There are several occasions where I feel like that. Another one is when John comes to after having been pulled out of the fire. I have a theory that Sherlock just walked away after he opened his eyes and left him to Mary and that John didn't know until he saw the video at Magnussen's place what exactly had happened.

 

...

 

If Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that do any good? It won't bring her victims back to life, won't restore them to their families. It might of course prevent future losses, but it didn't seem to me as if she was still "working" regularly, and she doesn't strike me as someone who would kill for fun, just because she was bored, or anything. On the other hand, if Mary is killed or sent to prison, whom would that harm? Her baby, obviously. John. Big time. Herself. And the world would have one nurse less, which would be kind of a loss. It's not like all Mary does with her time is run around in fitted black suits and wield a gun.

Now, if Mary is left alone to continue her "new" life, that is decidedly a good thing for her family. She can still be useful and happy and chances are good nobody will suffer much from her, unless they should threaten to kill her baby or something like that.

 

 

I think John knew that Sherlock pulled him out of the fire, seeing as he brings it up. "Last night, who did that?" He remembered that Sherlock had been there, at least, but of course might not have known what he did to save him... Still, I tend to think that Sherlock's actions were at least part of the reason why John came to Baker St. the next day. I have no proof, nor any logical explanation of it; just a gut feeling, you might say. I know he was on his way to see Sherlock when he was abducted, so he wanted to see him in any case... but it just seems to big a deal for the writers to go: "Oh, Sherlock saves John, and then John tries to forgive him, but the two are not at all linked."

 

About Mary's fate, it's interesting to consider that John has left her past behind, but she might not have done so herself. I suppose only time will tell. She came close to killing Magnussen, but that was at least partly because he was threatening her.

 

It is doubtful that putting Mary in prison would do anyone any good, and probably wouldn't even lead to her regretting her actions. However, in the larger scheme of things, I believe she should be punished, because if she isn't, justice goes out the window, and other people are going to take advantage of that. Then again, Sherlock should be punished too, no matter how much Magnussen deserved to die (and I kind of think he did), but I wouldn't want that... Not really. And how horrible would it be for John, if his wife, child, and best friend are all sent to prison! I'm feeling glad that we don't have to deal with this issue in real life.

 

 

I do wonder whether she ever seriously considered killing Sherlock. I'm completely buying the "surgery" nonsense, because I think the writers intend me to and besides, Sherlock said it, but that was "sentiment getting the better of her" in the heat of a stressful moment. Afterwards, did her thoughts on reflection tend towards "oh my god, what did I just almost do?" or "Shit, why didn't I manage to kill him and have done with this problem?" ? I have no bloody idea.

 

Then, she brought her gun to the meeting afterwards. Okay, she couldn't know what Sherlock had planned and, as I think Carol pointed out, Sherlock is never harmless, so she might have only been thinking of protecting herself. But I do wonder if she had considered shooting him "for real" this time if she couldn't talk him round. I doubt Sherlock considered that possible, or else he would not have set John up the way he did. I mean, if she had pulled the trigger, she'd have killed John! I refuse to believe Sherlock would risk that.

 

My interpretation is that she did not want to kill Sherlock, but might have been willing to in order to keep John from finding out the truth about her. Of course, I don't necessarily believe her when she says that she "will do anything to stop that happening." People say a lot of things, particularly under pressure. Who knows what Mary would or would not have been capable of? She probably doesn't even know herself. Her bringing a gun might have been to protect herself - again - if she thought Sherlock capable of hurting her.

 

At this point, I'm rather fascinated with that dynamic between Mary and Sherlock. They share an understanding of each other, especially of that cold side to them, but they both care about John more than they care about the other.

 

 

 Thank god Mary didn't shoot anything but a coin. I still twitch, though, when I hear her say "how badly do you want to find out?"

 

 

Yes, that is chilling. Again, it makes you wonder how far she'd have been willing to go.

[Slithytove]

We could debate forever the rights and wrongs of the prison system, but what alternative is there for people who commit very serious crimes? There is capital punishment ( including sending someone off on a one-way ticket to a suicide mission! ) but I don't personally support that, and I doubt whether those who think Mary shouldn't go to prison think she ought to be hanged.....

 

The other option is to let them get away with their crimes, wipe the slate clean and get on with their lives in peace, which seems to be what happens in Mary's case. Where is the justice in that? Why should she get away, literally, with murder? So, it is bad for John and the baby - I don't doubt that it is bad for everyone whose relatives go to prison, particularly for life sentences, but that is not a reason to let people go! Whether or not any individual benefits from Mary's imprisonment, society benefits because it cannot allow murder to go unpunished. I don't see why Mary deserves a "get out of jail free" card, just because she happens to be married to John and he loves her. Plenty of killers have loving spouses, but it is no reason why they should not go to jail for their crimes.

 

I would also suggest that some people might actually benefit from Mary's imprisonment - the people whom she has bereaved. What about them? We are supposed to feel sympathy for John and the baby, but what about the loved ones of the people Mary killed? Don't they have rights too? Don't they deserve justice?

 

Personally, I think that the "did she mean to kill Sherlock or not" debate is splitting hairs. Whether or not she meant him to die - and I would say he did die in surgery - she put a bullet in him in a place where there was a bloody good chance of him dying. She recklessly endangers his life by choosing to shoot him in his upper abdomen, very close to his major organs and with a good chance he will die of blood loss and shock. If he had died, it would have been all the same to him whether her intention had been to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm! I think Sherlock did think there was a good chance she would have another go - hence the projected image on the house - and I believe her remark about being prepared to do anything to avoid losing John meant that she was willing to kill Sherlock to stop him telling John the truth. And she had brought her gun along in case she needed it for that purpose.

 

I wonder if Moftiss intended to spark this sort of debate when they created such a controversial episode. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew exactly what they were doing....

[Redbeard]

I guess I am bothered about Mary also because it makes Sherlock and John hypocrites.  How can they ever solve crimes, murders, etc. and assist the police in putting criminals away?  I mean that is what they are supposed to DO.  Yet, they let her go on with her life as if she's done nothing wrong.  Why do they even solve cases and fight crime then?  Oh Moriarty should be stopped because he kills people and Mary should be...oh well who cares lets have her over for Christmas?? 

 

I know both Sherlock and John have also killed people, but they were (at least somewhat) justified in that they were protecting other people.  Well, each other actually.  Which is kind of sweet.  Their motivations are selfless.   Is Mary justified?  Well we are told nothing about her past so we don't know, but the one crime we did see her commit - shooting Sherlock Holmes! - certainly did not seem justifiable to me. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No, she is not justified in shooting Sherlock....but since he is adamant in protecting her, and if he never goes to the police and makes a complaint then she can not be arrested and charged.

 

  I too used to think that if someone killed someone and the police had a suspect then that person or persons were automatically picked up, arrested and charged with murder. Not so. Several years ago a woman disappeared from a dance. She was later found dead. Beaten and run over, more then once with the same vehicle. The police conducted their investigation and had, to all accounts, they did have a suspect. This person was never arrested. I wanted to know why.

 

 The death was brutal and senseless. She was killed for the retirement money she had gotten that week.  I have been told by those who knew her and the situation that her killer was a family member and the family refused to help the police and refused to file any action suit against him. Ludicrous, stupid and I'll never understand it....but there you are.

 

 As long as Mary is protected by Sherlock, John, and apparently Mycoft, what ever crimes she committed while in the employ of the CIA and later as a rogue and if she is never brought to the notice to the official civil police force, she cannot be touched.

 

 Plus, if any of her hits where never in the public sector but were sanctioned by some government or another she couldn't be touched by a civil court anyway. Her case would have to go before what ever government found and decided to prosecute her....if they didn't decide just to "burn" her and be done with her.

 

  And if Mycroft can protect a sleezball like CAM, Mary should be a piece of cake.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I just had a random (unrelated to the above) thought.  And as I recall, when fans were complaining that Series 3 was "different," Moftiss defended the change in tone by saying "well, you can't go backward" or something very close to that.  And then how does the series end?  With the apparent return of their Series 1 and 2 villain!  This would NOT constitute "going backwards" in what way?

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I suppose "the apparent return" is the operative phrase. We don't really know yet....speculate....yes. Always and forever. But it could be they are planning a complete story arc for Season 4....but then that's kind of like the ending of Season 1 and all through Season 2...Moriarty the key....hhhmmmm.....

 

 Damn that gif anyway.

[Arcadia]

Moffat also said "it's not what you think." As usual, you have to translate Moffateze into actual English .... since he can't know what we're thinking, I interpret him to mean "it's not what it looks like." And, you know, Moffat is so trustworthy, we should believe everything he says....

[Redbeard]

No, she is not justified in shooting Sherlock....but since he is adamant in protecting her, and if he never goes to the police and makes a complaint then she can not be arrested and charged.

 

  I too used to think that if someone killed someone and the police had a suspect then that person or persons were automatically picked up, arrested and charged with murder. Not so. Several years ago a woman disappeared from a dance. She was later found dead. Beaten and run over, more then once with the same vehicle. The police conducted their investigation and had, to all accounts, they did have a suspect. This person was never arrested. I wanted to know why.

 

 The death was brutal and senseless. She was killed for the retirement money she had gotten that week.  I have been told by those who knew her and the situation that her killer was a family member and the family refused to help the police and refused to file any action suit against him. Ludicrous, stupid and I'll never understand it....but there you are.

 

 As long as Mary is protected by Sherlock, John, and apparently Mycoft, what ever crimes she committed while in the employ of the CIA and later as a rogue and if she is never brought to the notice to the official civil police force, she cannot be touched.

 

 Plus, if any of her hits where never in the public sector but were sanctioned by some government or another she couldn't be touched by a civil court anyway. Her case would have to go before what ever government found and decided to prosecute her....if they didn't decide just to "burn" her and be done with her.

 

  And if Mycroft can protect a sleezball like CAM, Mary should be a piece of cake.

 

But that just backs up my point about their hypocrisy.  Sherlock and John are supposed to be "on the side of the angels".  Mary is no angel (we are lead to believe).  However, depending what happens in Series 4 (might depend on what was actually on that drive) everything could turn out just fine, justifiable, and all cool. 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

No it really doesn't prove their hypocrisy. We, the audience, know very well that Mary is no angel by any stretch. She shot Sherlock, who only wanted to help her, for heaven sake. No one sees an angel there. 

 

John and Sherlock deal in the civil arena. They deal with the civil police and courts.  Think Gitmo.  These people, guilty of acts of violence and murder against our military personnel and civilians in their own countries but they are prisoners of war. Rightly to be tried under a Tribunal of our Government not in a civil court.

 

 If Mary never targeted a civilian then she does not fall under Sherlock or Scotland Yards jurisdiction anyway. That is why Sherlock needed her to hire him as her consulting detective. He couldn't touch her case other wise until then.

 

 A goodly lot of people speculate that Sherlock would not have just let that A.G.R.A. thumb drive laying around and unread. He's do much of a nosy parker not to.  If he found nothing in her files that was warranted did his going after her then again he can't touch her other wise.  And for John's sake. If she posed a real threat to John or Mrs. Hudson or anyone Sherlock loved and cared about, he would move heaven and earth to get her out of the way. Even if he had to bide his time to do it, but it would get done.

[Arcadia]

And John and Sherlock are no angels, either, and would be the first to point that out. Well, John's a saint for putting up with Sherlock, but that's something else again.....

 

I actually agree with both sides here. Both Mary and Sherlock have excuses, but not valid reasons, for taking it on themselves to execute people. Neither of them are the law .... although it's perhaps possible that Mary was legally sanctioned by her government at one time. But not to kill CAM (as far as we know.) And of course, not to shoot Sherlock.

 

So we're down to whether their excuses are sufficient to justify their actions. And that's something that no two people are ever going to agree on to the same extent, imo. I tend to say no ... but I like the characters, so I have to find a way to accept their actions in a context that feels right to me. I'm afraid some or all of us are going to be disappointed in the resolution (primarily because I don't think there will be one.)

 

I tend to forgive Mary more quickly because she didn't actually shoot CAM (and we don't know that she actually meant to) ... and whatever you believe about the heart stopping business, Sherlock's Not Dead. So she really doesn't have the same problem he does; her victim survived. Sherlock, on the other hand, shot an unarmed man, who was posing no life-threatening harm, in front of witnesses, to death. (We assume.) And I would like to see him acknowledge that he was in the wrong at the moment, that he was reacting from rage, and impatience, and it was not a noble gesture of self sacrifice, it was a violation of his own code of reason. And I'd like him to feel bad about it. After that Moftiss can come up with any excuse they like for keeping him out of prison (or better still, out of Mycroft's sphere of influence.)

 

So evidently my personal solution to the problem is for the characters to acknowledge their guilt, and then for the victim (or the state) to show mercy. As those on the side of the angels should. Imo.

[Redbeard]

No it really doesn't prove their hypocrisy. We, the audience, know very well that Mary is no angel by any stretch. She shot Sherlock, who only wanted to help her, for heaven sake. No one sees an angel there. 

 

John and Sherlock deal in the civil arena. They deal with the civil police and courts.  Think Gitmo.  These people, guilty of acts of violence and murder against our military personnel and civilians in their own countries but they are prisoners of war. Rightly to be tried under a Tribunal of our Government not in a civil court.

 

 If Mary never targeted a civilian then she does not fall under Sherlock or Scotland Yards jurisdiction anyway. That is why Sherlock needed her to hire him as her consulting detective. He couldn't touch her case other wise until then.

 

 A goodly lot of people speculate that Sherlock would not have just let that A.G.R.A. thumb drive laying around and unread. He's do much of a nosy parker not to.  If he found nothing in her files that was warranted did his going after her then again he can't touch her other wise.  And for John's sake. If she posed a real threat to John or Mrs. Hudson or anyone Sherlock loved and cared about, he would move heaven and earth to get her out of the way. Even if he had to bide his time to do it, but it would get done.

 

I do get what you're saying, but I am not really talking about courts, jurisdictions etc.  I just mean morally and ethically.  In any case, that is okay that you disagree, you don't have to find them hypocritical in their acceptance of Mary, but I do.  It is one of the reasons I am unsettled about this whole storyline with Mary.  I hope they "fix it" somehow in the next series because depending on how they handle it it might continue to bother me or it might not.  (When I say "bother" I mean it in a missing-the-show-with-nothing-to-do-but-think-about-it-and-over-analyse-the-heck-out-of-it kind of way, not in a really bothered way.  Because I love the show with a giddy passion.  And because its Sherlock and John.  And I love them.  Well, mostly Sherlock.  And John.  But mostly Sherlock.)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

I don't find them hypocritical in their acceptance of Mary because really.....at this point in time....we really don't know her motivations. We don't know anything about her at all beyond the point that she was once a CIA operative who struck out on her own....what ever that was supposed to mean.....the word of a person like CAM mean nothing to me....I wouldn't trust anything he said. He could have been simply saying that to further torment John and nothing more.

 

  Because Sherlock....at this point in time.....seems to have cause to forgive her...then I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt. I don't have to like her but John does. After all that she has done.....shooting Sherlock and coming so close to killing him.....for what ever reason they deem this woman to be at least worthy of some modicum of trust.  I trust these two men above all else.

 

  So I will withhold any judgement on this woman at this time....because really....I have nothing to judge her on. Morally or ethically. Every human on this earth is flawed. Our own sense of morality and ethics can be slanted an biased according to life experience. Nothing is ever so black and white, cut and dried or even one size fits all.

[Zain]

 

I tend to forgive Mary more quickly because she didn't actually shoot CAM (and we don't know that she actually meant to) ... and whatever you believe about the heart stopping business, Sherlock's Not Dead. So she really doesn't have the same problem he does; her victim survived. Sherlock, on the other hand, shot an unarmed man, who was posing no life-threatening harm, in front of witnesses, to death. (We assume.) And I would like to see him acknowledge that he was in the wrong at the moment, that he was reacting from rage, and impatience, and it was not a noble gesture of self sacrifice, it was a violation of his own code of reason. And I'd like him to feel bad about it. After that Moftiss can come up with any excuse they like for keeping him out of prison (or better still, out of Mycroft's sphere of influence.)

 

 

 

 

 

  So I will withhold any judgement on this woman at this time....because really....I have nothing to judge her on. Morally or ethically. Every human on this earth is flawed. Our own sense of morality and ethics can be slanted an biased according to life experience. Nothing is ever so black and white, cut and dried or even one size fits all.

 

Are you both saying that shooting someone is neither morally nor ethically wrong? Because Arcadia is right. Sherlock is alive, and it is difficult to prosecute her for murder. But she did cause grievous bodily harm. That itself usually is worth a prison sentence as well.

I really cannot condone the way the show gave her a carte blanche. It is irresponsible to let vigilante action go without consequences. Just because a victim is not willing to take the case to court does not mean society does not have the responsibility to prosecute the criminal. Everybody is to be treated the same, no matter if they are pregnant or not. There is one simple question to be asked: Is she blameworthy? Did Mary hurt Sherlock on purpose, was she aware of the fact that her action would cause him bodily harm? Was she conscious and not inhibited by drug abuse or a medical state? Is she not retarded?

I would dare say so. Unless she keels over in the beginning of s4 with a brain tumour, she is very much blameworthy.

Hurting Sherlock falls under the category of malum in se, a universally accepted truth that hurting a person is wrong by nature like murder, rape, theft, and so on. It is not just prohibited.

These are common law concepts. They are basic, and they are the core of our society. The core of humans living together.

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

True...she did cause bodily harm....no denying that. But Sherlock....for what ever reason....for the time being....seems to think that she should not be prosecuted. The police know he was shot, if neither Sherlock nor John reveal that they know who the shooter is....then they can hunt until doomsday.  And there isn't a darn thing anyone can do about it.

 

  People get away with it every day...right....wrong...what ever....it doesn't change the outcome no matter how we feel about it personally.

 

 

[by the sea]

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