Episode 3.3, "His Last Vow"

[Zain]

I agree that people too often get away with crimes. I also feel with the murdered woman from the story  you told.  But I believe that just because some get away, we must not let the ones that can be prosecute get away. 

 

The problem, Debbie, is that Sherlock is a TV show. Fiction that is aired, fiction that is watched by lots of people. If it advocates vigilante action and tells you that you can get away with it as long as the person is horrible and blackmails people, that is wrong by itself.

If it tells you that it is okay to shoot a defenseless person because that apparently is not as bad as lying - that is worrying, too.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Zain, here in the U.S., assault is not prosecutable unless the victim files charges. Our laws are based on English law, so I assume it's similar in the UK. (In the case of actual murder, it's different, because the government files charges on behalf of the deceased.)

 

 

... Mary is no angel by any stretch. She shot Sherlock, who only wanted to help her, for heaven sake.

I assume that was Sherlock's good-faith intention, yes.  But an offer of help is not generally considered binding upon the recipient.  Goodness knows there have been plenty of times when a friend's idea of help was nothing that I considered useful, so I have (gently, I hope!) turned them down. 

 

Sherlock started out by intruding on Mary's carefully planned private meeting with CAM.  So they were off on the wrong foot, which didn't help anyone's attitude.

 

Then he offered to help, true, but she declined his offer. In fact, she warned him not to come any closer -- at which point, he not only took another step but reached for her gun. In other words, he was threatening to disarm her -- clearly not her idea of "help."

 

 

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.

So we don't even know that much, do we? All that we "know" about Mary is via CAM's thoughts or Sherlock's deductions, neither of which can be trusted 100%.

[Zain]

Zain, here in the U.S., assault is not prosecutable unless the victim files charges. Our laws are based on English law, so I assume it's similar in the UK. (In the case of actual murder, it's different, because the government files charges on behalf of the deceased.)

 

 

Seriously? And if that person fears the person too much to file charges? Like in cases of domestic abuse?

[Carol the Dabbler]

Sorry, but I believe that's the case, which is why a number of organizations and government agencies try to provide moral support for abused spouses, encouraging them to speak up.

 

There may be exceptions, of course.  I assume that the government may also prosecute on behalf of an assault victim if the victim is a minor or otherwise not legally capable of filing charges.

 

[Carol the Dabbler]

I should also point out that unless the victim files charges, there is often no conclusive evidence as to who did the assault -- which as Fox said is apparently the case with Mary shooting Sherlock (unless CAM had reported it).

 

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Exactly right about abuse cases and the filing of complaints.

 

 There are any number of women in my local town who are abused and afraid of the person. They may leave them but for the life of me I cannot understand it....they refuse to leave permanently. They will go back to their tormentor time after time after time. They can call the police but after awhile even they have to give it up. Because once they arrive the woman....or even man....will refuse to file a complaint or refuse to leave. The cops hands are tied....there is nothing they can do until the person finally winds up in the hospital or a body bag.

 

 There was one case where a woman had MD....some days she couldn't get out of bed. Her husband refused to accept the fact that she was ill. He verbally and physically abused her accusing her of just being lazy and neglectful of her family. She went to her minister seeking help. His advise to her was to go home to her husband and try harder.

 

 But even in the case of minors being hurt can be frustrating for the cops and the courts. We have a child who has been missing for two years. Her blood was found in her father's bedroom. The police know that the child did not crawl out of her crib and wander off. They have pulled other types of evidence out of the house.  But since none of the other three adults and two children that were in that house that night are talking......the police continue to search but no charges are being brought.

[Zain]

But does it not encourage violence if the law does not protect people from it? How can people believe in the idea of justice if there are gaping loopholes like that? I mean, every law has got loopholes. And there will never be a society which is ruled by justice. There are always people that get away like Mary. But do we not at least have to try to reassure those around us that if something happened to them, we would try the utmost to prosecute the culprit... and not stand back. Maybe I am just unable to see the justification behind that loophole. I am a bit confused right now. Is it some kind of protective function?

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

There are public funded agencies....as Carol pointed out....that are put in place to try to fill those gaps....but they can only do so much. They are not the police nor are they given any kind of real power to intervene. It is up to the victims to grow a backbone and to stand up and say what needs to be said in a court of law.

 

 I have heard it said....even as recently as last month that abuse cases.....are victimless crimes.  "WTH" does that even mean!?!   If you have a victim then of course you have a crime!  If the victim doesn't separate themselves from the situation and engage the legal system.....there is nothing to be done.....legally.

[by the sea]

 

 

The problem, Debbie, is that Sherlock is a TV show. Fiction that is aired, fiction that is watched by lots of people. If it advocates vigilante action and tells you that you can get away with it as long as the person is horrible and blackmails people, that is wrong by itself.

If it tells you that it is okay to shoot a defenseless person because that apparently is not as bad as lying - that is worrying, too.

 

You have a valid point, Zain.  Of course, Sherlock is meant to be viewed by the general public and clearly, as we show on this forum, everybody interprets things in a personal way.  Personally ... there's that word again ... I learned a long time ago that certain actions are wrong ... illegal, immoral ... and seeing Sherlock murder somebody in cold blood, if you will, is not going to persuade me that murder is OK if you think you have a good enough reason to eliminate somebody.  However, I'm sure there are viewers who might see it exactly that way ... well, Sherlock did it, so I guess I can too !  I'm hoping there aren't too many of them out there    and I'm sure it's not the writers' intentions to promote criminal behaviour in those fans who have a dangerously underdeveloped (or non existent) sense of right and wrong ... but based on history, it seems that people grasp onto a lot of fictional work and twist it to fit their personal interpretations.

 

Debbie

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

 

and I'm sure it's not the writers' intentions to promote criminal behaviour in those fans who have a dangerously underdeveloped (or non existent) sense of right and wrong ... but based on history, it seems that people grasp onto a lot of fictional work and twist it to fit their personal interpretations.

 

  And sadly....not just works of fiction. How many people site the Bible to back their actions. "An eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. "  Vengeance is mine.....sayeth the Lord".....conveniently leaving out that last half.

 

 But as anyone who knows their Sherlock Holmes already knows that he often puts himself above the law if he deems the situation worthy of it. In "The Adventure of Charles Augustus Milverton"  the real killer is known but protected by Dr. John H. Watson and Holmes's silence on the matter.

 

 At least in "HLV"  Sherlock does take responsibility for his own actions and is willing to face the consequences manfully.

[by the sea]

 

 

 At least in "HLV"  Sherlock does take responsibility for his own actions and is willing to face the consequences manfully.

 

 

That's right and the implication was that it was unlikely he would return ... so the story was headed in the direction of his paying the price for his action.  Then Jim came to the rescue.  Go Jim !!  

 

Debbie

[Arcadia]

 

Zain, here in the U.S., assault is not prosecutable unless the victim files charges. Our laws are based on English law, so I assume it's similar in the UK. (In the case of actual murder, it's different, because the government files charges on behalf of the deceased.)

 

 

Seriously? And if that person fears the person too much to file charges? Like in cases of domestic abuse?

 

 

 

Sorry, but I believe that's the case, which is why a number of organizations and government agencies try to provide moral support for abused spouses, encouraging them to speak up.

 

There may be exceptions, of course.  I assume that the government may also prosecute on behalf of an assault victim if the victim is a minor or otherwise not legally capable of filing charges.

 

 

Exactly right about abuse cases and the filing of complaints.

 

Clearly you folks know more about the law than I do (never had much need to, thank goodness) ... BUT...

 

Aren't the cases you cited due to the fact that the victim is the only witness? That is, if someone assaults me, and I'm the only witness, I would have to file charges in order for the perpetrator to be arrested, or whatever.

 

But if my sister witnesses the assault, can't she file charges instead of me? Even if I don't want her to? Or am I wrong about that?

[Caya]

In Britain, the Crown Prosecution Service does not need a victim's consent to prosecute. If it is "in the public interest to prosecute", they will.

 

Short answer by a British barrister

 

Official statement on CPS policy

 

[Arcadia]

 

I do get what you're saying, but I am not really talking about courts, jurisdictions etc.  I just mean morally and ethically. 

Yes, this is me too. It's not the legality of these actions that concern me, it's the morality.

 

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.

 

  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.

 

Well, I think we have something to judge her on; she did decide to shoot Sherlock, which was going to hurt him like hell even if it didn't kill him. Her motivation doesn't matter much, imo, she shouldn't have done it, period. But beyond that, I agree, I simply don't know what she has/has not done in her past, so I don't feel I'm in a position to judge her for her past. And since Sherlock forgives her for what I DO know about her ... which is, she harmed him ... then I'm willing to forgive also. That doesn't mean it's okay that she did it; it just means I'm willing to move on from this point with her. If she does hurts him again, however, she's dead meat.

 

 

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?

No, I'm not saying that at all, and in fact I quite agree with you ... vigilante action is wrong. And I think both Mary and Sherlock are blameworthy.

 

Actually, I had to dash off to work before I really finished formulating my thought, and the thought was coming to me as I was typing it, so it's not very complete. But I realize now that, for me at least, what would satisfy me is to see both Mary and Sherlock acknowledge that they failed in their tests of humanity, and show genuine remorse. Justified or not, legal or not, Mary had no right to shoot Sherlock, and Sherlock had no right to kill CAM. They both resorted to the level of the beasts to get their way, and I don't find that acceptable.

 

Having said that, I also suddenly realized that I believe very strongly in mercy. I very much admire stories in which someone does wrong, but nevertheless receives the gift of mercy. They may or may not deserve it, but that's not the point ... the point is that those who give mercy are ... well, they're on the side of the angels, for lack of a better term. It's not hypocrisy, it's decency.

 

It seems to me both Mary and Sherlock got the mercy without showing the remorse, though. In Mary's case, Sherlock not only shows her mercy, he forgives her; heck, he defends her. But I would have preferred to see her acknowledge she was wrong, and apologize first. Same with Sherlock. His actions after the shooting showed that he knew he was legally in the wrong, yes, but does he have enough of a heart to now regret his decision? Moffat said "no", and that bothers me. But it doesn't bother me that the plane turned around and came back, quite the contrary. Because I believe we are at our best when we show mercy.

 

Actually, I'm not sure the plane turning around WAS an act of mercy, but I'll leave that for another post. Certainly it was a reprieve, which is close enough for now.

 

...The problem, Debbie, is that Sherlock is a TV show. Fiction that is aired, fiction that is watched by lots of people. If it advocates vigilante action and tells you that you can get away with it as long as the person is horrible and blackmails people, that is wrong by itself.

If it tells you that it is okay to shoot a defenseless person because that apparently is not as bad as lying - that is worrying, too.

Yes, a thousand times yes. I know morally ambiguous stories are sometimes popular but I frequently have trouble with them, I often don't like what they say about our culture . I don't think this show advocates vigilantism, but just the fact that the protagonist resorts to it, without apparent consequences to himself, I find inherently disturbing. And again, I don't mean legal consequences; I mean consequences to what we call "the heart." Or "the soul", if you prefer. Or perhaps "humanity" is the word. Killing someone strips away some of your humanity; killing without remorse strips away too much, imo.

 

 

 At least in "HLV"  Sherlock does take responsibility for his own actions and is willing to face the consequences manfully.

Yes, he does. But I still want the remorse. I doubt if I'm going to get it, though, unless Moffat was *ahem* lying.

[Redbeard]

In Britain, the Crown Prosecution Service does not need a victim's consent to prosecute. If it is "in the public interest to prosecute", they will.

 

Short answer by a British barrister

 

Official statement on CPS policy

 

Canada too, at least in Ontario anyway, and in the case of domestic assaults at least.  I used to work for the Metropolitan Toronto Police Service, the laying of charges was not up to the victim, it was up to the Crown and police. 

[sfmpco]

I don't think Sherlock has remorse for killing CAM, and although I am not condoning his actions, he was between a rock and a hard place - either face the consequences of trying to barter national secrets, which didn't eliminate the threats to his friends, or murder CAM and make sure his friends were safe.  I'm sure a lot of people were relieved that CAM was out of the way.   

 

So no remorse for shooting him, but he was quick to defend his actions with the "I'm a sociopath" - and a true sociopath has issues being able to experience empathy and true remorse.  By this moment in all the episodes, however, his character HAS  developed and he shouldn't be leaning on that self description as much.  So for him to keep calling himself a sociopath almost is like a crutch when he doesn't want to be accountable for his behavior.  

[Zain]

 

But I realize now that, for me at least, what would satisfy me is to see both Mary and Sherlock acknowledge that they failed in their tests of humanity, and show genuine remorse. Justified or not, legal or not, Mary had no right to shoot Sherlock, and Sherlock had no right to kill CAM. They both resorted to the level of the beasts to get their way, and I don't find that acceptable.

 

 

 

Having said that, I also suddenly realized that I believe very strongly in mercy. I very much admire stories in which someone does wrong, but nevertheless receives the gift of mercy. They may or may not deserve it, but that's not the point ... the point is that those who give mercy are ... well, they're on the side of the angels, for lack of a better term. It's not hypocrisy, it's decency.

 

It seems to me both Mary and Sherlock got the mercy without showing the remorse, though. In Mary's case, Sherlock not only shows her mercy, he forgives her; heck, he defends her. But I would have preferred to see her acknowledge she was wrong, and apologize first. Same with Sherlock. His actions after the shooting showed that he knew he was legally in the wrong, yes, but does he have enough of a heart to now regret his decision? Moffat said "no", and that bothers me. But it doesn't bother me that the plane turned around and came back, quite the contrary. Because I believe we are at our best when we show mercy.

 

 

May I say that I am fully with you? I think you put it quite nicely.

 

I want, or rather need both characters to show remorse. With Sherlock, I can at least somewhat interpret it into his actions at the end of the HLV. Not satisfyingly, but it is a start. With Mary, I really see no remorse. That's what repels me. Even if she showed remorse in s4, I probably would not feel like it "redeems" her, it would, however, be a start. And I could grudgingly accept her (while still looking forward to her disappearance).

 

I, too, believe in mercy. But not in mercy given for the sake of having been merciful. I believe a person can only be granted mercy if they do not expect it. Someone that expects to get off lightly like Mary and who then is granted mercy goes against everything I believe in. It's not true mercy then, for me, it is more like letting them have their way. That's why I cannot see any mercy in Sherlock and John not judging her for her past.

If she had truly asked them to look at that thumbdrive, and if she had apologized and said that she did not expect to be forgiven because it was unforgivable, I probably would see it as mercy if John then forgave her. If he took her back It would be kindness. But giving in to her is anything but kindness to me when it is exactly what she wants. I believe that someone that wants to be forgiven needs to reach out to the person who is supposed to forgive them. And they have to want to do something that is not to their own advantage. Like asking John to read the thumbdrive without manipulating him into a direction (telling him he will be the bad guy if he does look at it in front of her? Making demands in her situation...?). Or to offer him a way out of their fake marriage. It is not so much about John accepting those offers. It is about wanting to do something to her own disadvantage for another person's sake. I cannot think of any moment in which she stepped back for another person. No instance in which she accepted personal loss for another person's gain or perceived gain.

 

Does Sherlock get any mercy? Maybe. In a way. Mycroft calls him back, but I wonder if John truly forgave him. Maybe he is not comfortable with Sherlock's choice, and that is the reason why he seemed somewhat detached at the airfield. Mycroft, on the other side, is not the kind of person that would take much offense with Sherlock's actions (imo). So it is quite hard to talk of mercy in his case, I believe. It's more like a mixture of family ties that make him call Sherlock back, and the fact that it is to Mycroft's own advantage.

 

I suppose we will get to see in s4 if Sherlock is forgiven or if the story will yet have to unravel.

[Arcadia]

I don't think Sherlock has remorse for killing CAM, and although I am not condoning his actions, he was between a rock and a hard place - either face the consequences of trying to barter national secrets, which didn't eliminate the threats to his friends, or murder CAM and make sure his friends were safe.  I'm sure a lot of people were relieved that CAM was out of the way.   

 

So no remorse for shooting him, but he was quick to defend his actions with the "I'm a sociopath" - and a true sociopath has issues being able to experience empathy and true remorse.  By this moment in all the episodes, however, his character HAS  developed and he shouldn't be leaning on that self description as much.  So for him to keep calling himself a sociopath almost is like a crutch when he doesn't want to be accountable for his behavior.

I think it's been a crutch from the start, don't you? It was a funny line in the first episode, mostly because it was so out of left field, and it was a funny line in TSo3, mostly because of BC's delivery. But it's never been believable.

 

I wish I were good at plots, I'd love to come up with an alternative solution to the CAM problem, just to show it could be done. I'm relieved he's gone, too, but I'm not relieved that the writers resorted to such a hackneyed method of getting rid of him. To quote Sherlock: "Dull."

[sfmpco]

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.

[Arcadia]

May I say that I am fully with you? I think you put it quite nicely.

 

I want, or rather need both characters to show remorse. With Sherlock, I can at least somewhat interpret it into his actions at the end of the HLV. Not satisfyingly, but it is a start. With Mary, I really see no remorse. That's what repels me.................

 

I, too, believe in mercy. But not in mercy given for the sake of having been merciful. I believe a person can only be granted mercy if they do not expect it. Someone that expects to get off lightly like Mary and who then is granted mercy goes against everything I believe in. It's not true mercy then, for me, it is more like letting them have their way. That's why I cannot see any mercy in Sherlock and John not judging her for her past.

If she had truly asked them to look at that thumbdrive, and if she had apologized and said that she did not expect to be forgiven because it was unforgivable, I probably would see it as mercy if John then forgave her. If he took her back It would be kindness. But giving in to her is anything but kindness to me when it is exactly what she wants. I believe that someone that wants to be forgiven needs to reach out to the person who is supposed to forgive them. And they have to want to do something that is not to their own advantage. Like asking John to read the thumbdrive without manipulating him into a direction (telling him he will be the bad guy if he does look at it in front of her? Making demands in her situation...?). Or to offer him a way out of their fake marriage. It is not so much about John accepting those offers. It is about wanting to do something to her own disadvantage for another person's sake. I cannot think of any moment in which she stepped back for another person. No instance in which she accepted personal loss for another person's gain or perceived gain.

Yes, I would agree with that ... but I do think Mary was fully expecting to be shown neither mercy nor forgiveness. She as much as said so to Sherlock ("I would lose him forever.") Why she showed no emotion at Baker Street I'm not sure (but I have theories!) but I thought that was why she started crying at Christmas; she had no expectation of forgiveness; just the opposite. Yet there it was. But I agree, if the writers truy intended us to accept her, it would have been more satisfying if she had been allowed a scene where she showed remorse.

 

Does Sherlock get any mercy? Maybe. In a way. Mycroft calls him back, but I wonder if John truly forgave him. Maybe he is not comfortable with Sherlock's choice, and that is the reason why he seemed somewhat detached at the airfield. ...

I thought of that, but I'm not one who fully believes John was all that detached. Repressed maybe, but not detached. But it did make me wonder how he felt about Sherlock's choice to kill CAM. "Grateful" or "relieved" seems inappropriate under the circumstances. Guilt, maybe? Guilt that Sherlock sacrificed himself to protect Mary, and John wasn't able to stop him or return the favor? If he were feeling guilty, that might help explain his reservedness at the airport.

[sfmpco]

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.  

 

Sherlock has genuine affection for Mary, though not in a romantic way.  When his last words after shooting CAM are "Give my love to Mary.  Tell her she's free now."  Yeah, he really loves her.  He has completely forgiven her for the shooting.  

[Carol the Dabbler]

Aren't the cases you cited due to the fact that the victim is the only witness? That is, if someone assaults me, and I'm the only witness, I would have to file charges in order for the perpetrator to be arrested, or whatever.

 

But if my sister witnesses the assault, can't she file charges instead of me? Even if I don't want her to? Or am I wrong about that?

 

Maybe it depends -- maybe it's like Martina said applies in the UK, if it's "in the public interest" they will prosecute anyhow.  I don't know.

 

Or maybe they need the jail space for all those potheads they keep arresting -- so there isn't any room left for mere assault-and-battery perps.

 

[Redbeard]

 

  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.  Given that there is plenty to judge her on.  If you don't want to, that is a different thing.  But to say there is nothing?

 

We have CAM's descriptions of what she did (which she never denies) which sound particularly awful, we see her shoot Sherlock, threaten to shoot him again, at least threaten CAM, lie to John, conk Janine on the head, and also her own words in saying that if John knew the truth he would stop loving her which to me is an admission that CAM was not lying.

 

Now if Sherlock does not want to hold any of this against her, okay.  If you don't want to hold any of this against her, okay.  But you can't deny there is a lot there to judge her on.  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. 

 

I do, however, trust the show.  It hasn't let me down yet. 

[Caya]

*sigh* Much as I hate writing this, it occurred to me that 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? ) ... then Mary was in fact prepared to accept the consequences of her actions. And no, I'm not talking about John being angry with her -_-.

 

The key here is that she did not hand over the information and bail. No, she apparently returned to the Watsons' home or some other place where she could be found, for she made that statement about "months of silence" and obviously could be reached to be invited for Christmas. So if the information on that stick is the real deal, John and Sherlock could have chosen to do whatever with it. Hand it over to Scotland Yard, give the people she's on the run from (who can probably easily be deduced from the stick's content) a pointer, etc. Now the boys apparently chose not to, and that's a different kettle of fish (on the side of angels much these days?). But they could have, and Mary chose to remain and take the potential fallout.

 

I still find the whole situation and especially its resolution six degrees of f***ed up, but I may have to retract my statement that Mary was never prepared to face the music.

[Redbeard]

And you're right Caya.  But I don't know what you mean by schmuck bait?  Can you elaborate?

 

Also wanted to add I could have totally understood their decision not to turn over the stick to Scotland Yard, for example, but what they did goes beyond that.  They didn't just let her go, they actively kept her in their circle, as wife and good buddy.  I can't get my head around Sherlock Holmes and John Watson doing that!!!  Is there a really confused smiley.  Wait,  is that one?