Jump to content
MrsMiggins

Irene Adler plothole?! and hello ;)

Recommended Posts

Hi there! I'm new and have joined because I am a new viewer (binge watched on Sky, then got the bluray box set for S3)

 

Adore it of course, but have a critics mind and something is driving me bananas.

 

Having just watched A Scandal in Belgravia; I'm wondering how Adler managed to text Sherlock just before her 'beheading'.

Mycroft had her phone, she was set free, ended up in hot water... we know mycroft had the phone the whole time as he handed it over to John in the café, and John said it had been wiped clean.

If she had a new phone or a new number then her goodbye message would not have had her personalised ringtone on it when Sherlock received the message.

 

I can't be the only person who has noticed this surely...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy moly!!!  I'm trying to see a flaw in your reasoning -- haven't found one yet.  I've seen this episode how many times over the past three years (?) -- and nope, never wondered about that.  Until now.

 

Oh -- and welcome to Sherlock Forum!  :welcome:  Looks like you'll fit right in!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh -- wait a minute -- maybe she had a new phone from one of those companies that lets you keep your old number.  Does that cover everything?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She had two phones. The one that contained the info, and the one she used to call Sherlock with at the power station, remember? I can't remember all the specifics but I know they established that she had two phones.

 

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh -- wait a minute -- maybe she had a new phone from one of those companies that lets you keep your old number.  Does that cover everything?

 

 

She had two phones. The one that contained the info, and the one she used to call Sherlock with at the power station, remember? I can't remember all the specifics but I know they established that she had two phones.

 

Oh, and welcome to the forum!

 

I thought Carol's answer was plausible until Arcadia mentioned the 2 phones (and went duh).  It had to be her 2nd phone that did the texting the whole time or she entered both numbers in his phone to have the same text alert so no matter what phone she had (between the 2 phone numbers), he would hear that sound. (which still makes Carol's answer a plausibility if she had to change the other phone for any reason.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the two phones make sense...
But before I read that, the first thing that popped into my mind was that Sherlock could easily(?) get the phone from Mycroft. I mean, Mycroft also said
"It would take Sherlock Holmes to fool me and I don't think he was on hand..."
and yet, he was... ;)

And welcome to the forum! :smile:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She had two phones. The one that contained the info, and the one she used to call Sherlock with at the power station, remember? I can't remember all the specifics but I know they established that she had two phones.

 

Hey, you're right -- that was established!  When Irene meets John at the power station, she tells him, "I sent something to Sherlock for safe-keeping and now I need it back...," clearly referring to the camera phone that we (but not John) saw Sherlock find on his mantel. Then she texts Sherlock -- obviously on a different phone -- and we all hear her personalized text alert from the next room.

 

And it would make sense that she'd want a plain old phone for communication purposes, so as to protect her precious camera phone.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello all and thanks for your replies :-)

I re watched the episode and came to the conclusion there MUST be two phones,

She sent him her phone for Xmas, and texted him to tell him it was on the mantelpiece *doh*

Also that finally answers my burning question of why they kept calling it 'camera phone' when all phones are camera phones these days.

They MUST have been trying to say that she had two, the camera phone with the sensitive pictures and data, and a personal phone for communication.

 

Darn it, one of these days I'll find an unsolvable flaw hehe.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She sent him her phone for Xmas, and texted him to tell him it was on the mantelpiece

 

:facepalm:

 

Also that finally answers my burning question of why they kept calling it 'camera phone' when all phones are camera phones these days.

They MUST have been trying to say that she had two, the camera phone with the sensitive pictures and data, and a personal phone for communication.

Moftiss will be relieved to read that! According to their DVD commentary, they've been feeling like idiots for using that term. When they drafted the episode, phone cameras were a relatively recent innovation, so they felt the need to specify Irene's phone as such. But by the time it aired, as you say, they were commonplace.

 

Darn it, one of these days I'll find an unsolvable flaw hehe.

Try "Blind Banker"!  ;)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, Mrs. Miggins!

 

I'm really glad you brought the subject up, even if the combined wisdom of the group seems to have solved the mystery, because even with multiple viewings I didn't realize there were two phones.  I'm so busy with that episode determining who's fooling who, who's using who, and who's the most sexually attracted to who, I lost track of the multiple phones!

 

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing to add, but hello Mrs. Miggins.  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome, Mrs. Miggins!

 

I'm really glad you brought the subject up, even if the combined wisdom of the group seems to have solved the mystery, because even with multiple viewings I didn't realize there were two phones.  I'm so busy with that episode determining who's fooling who, who's using who, and who's the most sexually attracted to who, I lost track of the multiple phones!

And apparently the two phones is the only thing I can keep track of, as I'm still completely buffaloed by the rest of those things! :D

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there! She had multiple phones. Going into her flat she has a Blackberry while the "infamous" camera phone is locked in her strongbox. She has the same (or another Blackberry ) in her scene with Dr Watson, and she personalised the text alerts on Sherlock's iPhone4, where they reside until he calls up the screen again right at the end, although he does a final twiddle with the camera phone before putting it away and closing the drawer and the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Irene had two phones. But just recently I stumbled on another peculiarity: In SiB Sherlock finds the phone wrapped as a Chrismas present on the mantelpiece. He finds it because seconds before Irene had texted him. We hear this orgasmic text alert when Sherlock kisses Molly and wishes her a Merry Chrismas. Molly immediately says it wasn't her who made the sound. So, if Irene texted Sherlock at that very moment, WHY does he conclude immediately that Irene is dead??? In the next scene he phones Mycroft in order to tell him that Irene is dead. Sure, she said if she is separated from her phone, she will be dead quickly - which is apparently not quite true. And why did she text Sherlock in the first place? He would've found the phone on the mantelpiece eventually. By texting him, she signalled him that she's very much alive at that very moment, thus blowing her cover. Since Irene isn't dumb and knows that Sherlock isn't dumb either, I deduce ;) that she wanted to let him know she's alive. And since she's right about Sherlock being pretty good, I further deduce that Sherlock knew she wasn't dead, when he went to the morgue with Mycroft to see the corpse. And since the corpse with the bashed in face obviously can't have been Irene, and Sherlock HAD seen her stark naked, he must've seen immediately that it wasn't her. His visual memory is excellent and he had looked at her hard enough to register her measurements (which is fridge logic at it's best btw). So he must've guessed that Irene had a good reason for faking her death. He certainly wouldn't spoil that plan. Which means the whole grieving and moping period wasn't real. But unlike John, Sherlock is actually very good in hiding his true feelings. At the end of SiB it becomes clear that Mycroft had also realized, Sherlock was lying when he said the body isn't Irene's. That's why he said there was no Sherlock around this time to help her pulling off a second faked death. Instead Irene might've given Sherlock a few good ideas about the art of death-faking. Maybe that's the reason, why it was never fully explained how exactly she pulled that off. We can only assume that some "confidant" who had access to bodies and the morgue, had found a corpse similar in size and age and the dna-report was faked by said confidant. At least this helper had the good sense to bash in the corpse's face, unlike Moriarty or his henchman, who according to Sherlock killed the look-alike, only to have him wind up quite unspoiled in a morgue instead of burying this incriminating body deep in the woods or some other place where it wouldn't turn up for quite some time. That was one of the more preposterous elements of the Lazarus narrative.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Sherlock finds the phone wrapped as a Chrismas present on the mantelpiece. He finds it because seconds before Irene had texted him. We hear this orgasmic text alert when Sherlock kisses Molly and wishes her a Merry Chrismas. Molly immediately says it wasn't her who made the sound. So, if Irene texted Sherlock at that very moment, WHY does he conclude immediately that Irene is dead??? In the next scene he phones Mycroft in order to tell him that Irene is dead. Sure, she said if she is separated from her phone, she will be dead quickly - which is apparently not quite true. And why did she text Sherlock in the first place? He would've found the phone on the mantelpiece eventually. By texting him, she signalled him that she's very much alive at that very moment....

Interesting conjectures. I have my doubts about Sherlock's apparent shock being an act, because we see him on the street, alone -- who would he have been faking FOR at that time? And I don't believe Sherlock told Mycroft that Irene was already dead, but rather that he feared she soon would be:

 

SHERLOCK: I think you’re going to find Irene Adler tonight.

MYCROFT: We already know where she is. As you were kind enough to point out, it hardly matters.

SHERLOCK: No, I mean you’re going to find her dead.

Of course we know that the message was intended to mislead Sherlock, so your question basically boils down to, did she succeed? I'm not sure. Anyone else care to jump in?

 

At least this helper had the good sense to bash in the corpse's face, unlike Moriarty or his henchman, who according to Sherlock killed the look-alike, only to have him wind up quite unspoiled in a morgue instead of burying this incriminating body deep in the woods or some other place where it wouldn't turn up for quite some time. That was one of the more preposterous elements of the Lazarus narrative.

I suspect it was simply an idea that Moftiss were very fond of, so logic be damned.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Irene had two phones. But just recently I stumbled on another peculiarity: In SiB Sherlock finds the phone wrapped as a Chrismas present on the mantelpiece. He finds it because seconds before Irene had texted him. We hear this orgasmic text alert when Sherlock kisses Molly and wishes her a Merry Chrismas. Molly immediately says it wasn't her who made the sound. So, if Irene texted Sherlock at that very moment, WHY does he conclude immediately that Irene is dead??? In the next scene he phones Mycroft in order to tell him that Irene is dead. Sure, she said if she is separated from her phone, she will be dead quickly - which is apparently not quite true. And why did she text Sherlock in the first place? He would've found the phone on the mantelpiece eventually. By texting him, she signalled him that she's very much alive at that very moment, thus blowing her cover. Since Irene isn't dumb and knows that Sherlock isn't dumb either, I deduce ;) that she wanted to let him know she's alive. And since she's right about Sherlock being pretty good, I further deduce that Sherlock knew she wasn't dead, when he went to the morgue with Mycroft to see the corpse. And since the corpse with the bashed in face obviously can't have been Irene, and Sherlock HAD seen her stark naked, he must've seen immediately that it wasn't her. ...

Hmmmm, good point! I wondered too at one time if Sherlock wasn't just pretending he thought it was her in the morgue. But somebody convinced me he did think it was her, I can't remember now what the reason was. But you make a very good point indeed! Rats, now I'm even more confused... :D
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arcadia and Carol, indeed Sherlock doesn't say to Mycroft on the phone, that she's dead already. I made a slight mistake here. Thanks for pointing that out. But he seems to be very cool at the morgue, even if he seems to mope later. And I stick to my guns that he knew she wasn't the body lying on the table. Sherlock knew for certain that she was alive at the time she texted him. When he phoned Mycroft,he says to Sherlock that they found her already - which means she's dead and probably in the morgue. And Sherlock knew exactly what she looked like naked. So, unless Irene found a perfect dead replicant, Sherlock of all people should've been able to tell the difference. And Mycroft last remark about Irene, that in Karachi no Sherlock was around to fool anybody, implies to me he knows now about Sherlock's first deception in the morgue.

Please tell me if I made a logical mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sherlock could get Irene's measurements, when she was alive, he should be able to assess the corpse in the same way. Now, how likely is it that Irene found some woman's dead body with exactly the same measurements? The universe is rarely so lazy...I have to do some more thinking about replicant bodies...

All this might tie in nicely with my ideas about RF. I definitely will start a thread to lay it all out, so that you can poke holes into it. I might call it 'My Theory Of Everything', lol!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, this way I will have my 10 posts very soon... ;)

I rewatched the scene and it's very clear. Sherlock phones Mycroft immediately after he unwrapped the phone in a separate room. The door is open though and you can see John in his Chrismas jumper. The phonecall happens just a few minutes after the text alert. So, if Mycroft tells Sherlock that they found her already, thus implying she's dead. Sherlock simply must know that this can't be true...

See, I'm as compulsive about the whole thing as probably many of you here. So I definitely should fit in...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, this way I will have my 10 posts very soon... ;)

I rewatched the scene and it's very clear. Sherlock phones Mycroft immediately after he unwrapped the phone in a separate room. The door is open though and you can see John in his Chrismas jumper. The phonecall happens just a few minutes after the text alert. So, if Mycroft tells Sherlock that they found her already, thus implying she's dead. Sherlock simply must know that this can't be true...

 

Why? Someone else could be using her phone. Her assistant, for example. Just because you get a text from somebody's phone, that does not mean they have to be alive.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Sherlock could get Irene's measurements, when she was alive, he should be able to assess the corpse in the same way. Now, how likely is it that Irene found some woman's dead body with exactly the same measurements? The universe is rarely so lazy...I have to do some more thinking about replicant bodies...

 

I certainly hope we'll never see replicants or "instant clones" or any other such sci-fi (and I use that term advisedly) concepts in Sherlock.  This is not Doctor Who!

 

OK, you're forcing me to come up with an alternative explanation.  How's this:  The body did not "just happen" to be in the morgue.  Years ago, Irene had searched for and found a woman who was her near-double (except for her face, of course).  She employed this woman, and if necessary had some plastic surgery done to fine-tune the resemblance (with the excuse that the other woman could be her stand-in with clients).  No, I don't like where this line of reasoning is going either, but it's either that or huge coincidence.  (The dead woman would have to be a fairly close match, even if Sherlock was playing dumb.)

 

Alright, this way I will have my 10 posts very soon... ;)

I rewatched the scene and it's very clear. Sherlock phones Mycroft immediately after he unwrapped the phone in a separate room. The door is open though and you can see John in his Chrismas jumper. The phonecall happens just a few minutes after the text alert. So, if Mycroft tells Sherlock that they found her already, thus implying she's dead. Sherlock simply must know that this can't be true...

See, I'm as compulsive about the whole thing as probably many of you here. So I definitely should fit in...

 

I thought that was later.  *scurries off to check Ariane DeVere's transcript*  Yup, there appears to be a time interval (of indeterminate length) between the phone call and the morgue scene.  It's about half to two-thirds of the way down that page.  Sherlock tells Mycroft that he's likely to find Irene dead that night, and we see/hear no more of the phone call (but Mycroft seemed to know nothing about any body, and it would surely have taken him some time to have all the morgues searched).  Then next we see, we're at the morgue.

 

Yup, compulsive is good!  ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, yeah, the body double... That has always bothered me a bit. I mean, the master of observation is supposed to not have noticed that this was not in fact the same body that had told him the code to open Irene's safe? In the case of a normal man, I'd have said, well, you know, he must have been emotionally a bit shaken, and he expected it to be her, and expectation does odd things to the brain. But this is Sherlock Holmes!

 

So either Irene had an identical twin whom she had killed for the purpose of playing dead herself (not likely - I wouldn't put it past her to kill people, mind you, but twins are not that common and that is such a horrible idea for a story), or Sherlock really didn't look all that closely at her battle dress after all. Maybe she was right about him all along... :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

T.o.b.y, that thought occurrred to me, too. But we still have the baffling fact, that Sherlock knew the exact measurements of Irene's body, but was apparently not able to see that the body in the morgue was not Irene's. And Mycroft also seems to think later that Sherlock fooled everybody.

I think Sherlock really cares for Irene, but from what we see it's not clear at all that he's grieving. We see him composing elegic tunes and not eating. That he'grieving is John's and our interpretation. He might as well be wrapped up in deep thoughts what all this is about. And who knows anyway, what's going on in this funny old head of his, as Mrs. Hudson remarks so aptly when she and John watch him playing the self composed tunes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So either Irene had an identical twin whom she had killed for the purpose of playing dead herself (not likely - I wouldn't put it past her to kill people, mind you, but twins are not that common and that is such a horrible idea for a story), or Sherlock really didn't look all that closely at her battle dress after all. Maybe she was right about him all along... :P

 

Wouldn't have to be an identical twin -- the face was irrelevant, and as long as the skeletal structure was very similar, plastic surgery could account for basic curves as well as details such as moles.

 

Or else, like littlefoot says, Sherlock was cooperating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Carol, Sherlock opened the safe with her measurements! He has not only looked closely, he must've made mental notes. I think the simplest explanation is really that he knew it wasn't her.

With clones and evil twins we in "The Prestige" territory (the movie from Ch. Nolan about two competing magicians and how they double themselves up onstage) btw.

This is really interesting. Another possibility popped into my mind. I have to think some more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of UseWe have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.Privacy PolicyGuidelines.