Irene Adler plothole?! and hello ;)

[littlefoot]

Ok, good night fellow Sherlockians, it's 2:30 am here. I'm off, but this has been fun. Thank you! I will dream of evil twins and body replacement surgery ;)

[T.o.b.y]

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.

 

Indeed. You never know with Sherlock.

 

it just occurred to me, though, that Sherlock might have simply deduced that the code to the safe was composed of Irene's measurements, because she said she had "told" him already, and she had walked into the room naked. He could theoretically have known beforehand what those measurements were - from her website, for example.

 

Not that I think that's what the writers were going for. I mean, it's much cooler if he just looked at her and knew the precise inches.

[Carol the Dabbler]

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.

 

I agree that it's a simple explanation, but why set up an explanation and then never do anything with it, or even reveal it?  They did a whole lot with the idea that he really was heartbroken, and never made it at all clear that he was not.  (Not that this show always makes things totally clear, but there's usually some sort of unambiguous evidence, somewhere.)

 

Ok, good night fellow Sherlockians, it's 2:30 am here. I'm off, but this has been fun. Thank you! I will dream of evil twins and body replacement surgery ;)

 

Hey, you've got your ten posts -- congratulations!     And see you later.

 

Sherlock might have simply deduced that the code to the safe was composed of Irene's measurements, because she said she had "told" him already, and she had walked into the room naked. He could theoretically have known beforehand what those measurements were - from her website, for example.

 

Not that I think that's what the writers were going for. I mean, it's much cooler if he just looked at her and knew the precise inches.

Cooler, maybe, and leave it to a couple of men to see it that way. But how would it even be possible? I may be repeating myself from a few years ago, but it's hard enough to know what one's own measurements are. There's a lot of leeway, depending on precisely where and how one holds the measuring tape -- plus the bustline is supposed to be measured over a bra, which Irene wasn't even wearing at the time.

 

I like your website explanation. Irene may have engaged in a bit of hyperbole there, but at least there would have been specific numbers (rather than depending on what type of bra she wasn't wearing).

 

[Arcadia]

Hmmmm, where have I seen a conversation like this before? Oh yes, it was over in the "How would you fix HLV" thread. To quote Toby:

 

...I think His Last Vow has a lot in common with A Scandal in Belgravia...

I've come to that same conclusion myself recently, mostly because they both baffle me in similar ways. And let's see, who wrote both episodes? Why, it's the Master of Misdirection himself, Mr. Moffat.

 

I thought Sherlock was heartbroken about Irene, and emotionally confused about her reappearance ... until someone pointed out that he looks and acts the same way when he's in deduction mode. Heck, in the script John even says as much. I've watched it a few times since then, and sure enough, you can interpret it either way. When he's composing "her" song, he could be mourning her ... or it could be exactly what he says it is, composing helps him to think; because a moment later he thinks he's figured out the code to her phone. When he's approaching the door to 221B after learning she's alive ... he could be in a haze because he's emotionally confused, or he could be in his head, trying to deduce what the heck she's up to now. Heck, he could even be both at once.

 

And what I think is that Moffat does it on purpose. For whatever nefarious reason, there IS no definitive answer. You're free to choose one, or make up your own ... or you can be stubborn like me, and refuse to decide. After all, if the writer can't be arsed to settle on one answer, why should I? :D

 

I think it's the same in the case of her body ... maybe he thinks it's her, maybe he's helping her hide. We'll never know because there is no answer. Sherlock's feelings or lack thereof are meant to remain a mystery. It's called impressionistic writing, and I think Moffat is guilty of it in spades! And heaven help me, but I kinda like it......

[Inge l-w]

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...

Before I start on my theory, please understand that nothing is meant to offend anyone personally.

Sherlock gets the text message from her phone because she has personalised her text alerts on HIS phone, we discussed it above. There is absolutely NO indication that she sends it, it can very well be the trusty assistant who comes to fetch John on New Year's Eve. Irene certainly needed more time to set up the whole body double thing to HAVE to text him herself. It is one word only, compared to her other messages, which you will find at the very end of the episode as he scrolls them down on HIS phone, by the way, (Sherlock or Benedict are walking, talking advertisements for Apple throughout, they should get sponsored).

She had access to the record-keeper, so she could find a body with the exact measurements, after all there are no distinctive marks on her, like birthmarks etc. If she can fake DNA records, she can find a suitable body.

In the morgue scene, he is shaken enough to leave so abruptly that Mycroft is forced into politely thanking Molly and when he rejoins him outside, he is clearly aware of the inner turmoil of his younger brother to stand by him, offer him the comfort of a cigarette as immediate release, warn him that caring is not an advantage and even warn John that Sherlock will be returning home in a peculiar mental state, and when John starts to object, he cuts him off to make sure that someone is there to stand by Sherlock.

[Arcadia]

In the morgue scene, he is shaken enough to leave so abruptly that Mycroft is forced into politely thanking Molly and when he rejoins him outside, he is clearly aware of the inner turmoil of his younger brother to stand by him, offer him the comfort of a cigarette as immediate release, warn him that caring is not an advantage and even warn John that Sherlock will be returning home in a peculiar mental state, and when John starts to object, he cuts him off to make sure that someone is there to stand by Sherlock.

Mycroft also admits he doesn't know if it's a "danger night" or not. So it might not be (and apparently wasn't. Or was it, and at some point during the night John had to intervene? We weren't shown either way, so we'll never know....)

[Inge l-w]

If you are looking for plot holes in Scandal, the one little bit which has never been explained is how his coat, with the modified text alert on his phone in it, is hanging on the hook of his bedchamber, when she so obviously disappears like Fantomas down a safety chute STILL wearing his coat! When he first awakens from his drugged sleep John assures him that she "was never here", but his coat IS.

[T.o.b.y]

If you are looking for plot holes in Scandal, the one little bit which has never been explained is how his coat, with the modified text alert on his phone in it, is hanging on the hook of his bedchamber, when she so obviously disappears like Fantomas down a safety chute STILL wearing his coat! When he first awakens from his drugged sleep John assures him that she "was never here", but his coat IS.

 

Well, John was wrong. Remember how, at the end of the hiker deduction part 2 (where Irene figures out that it must have been a boomerang), she whispers "hush now - I am only returning your coat"? It seems that Irene broke into Sherlock's bedroom at Baker St without John noticing, hung the coat on the door, and talked to Sherlock about the case, who was lying drugged up in bed. How she managed to get in and out unobserved is anyone's guess, but hey, she's Irene Adler, I guess she can just do stuff like that. She and Mary would make one hell of a team as burglerers.

 

[littlefoot]

Inge, you certainly offended no one, but I maybe to blame for starting a controversy, when I just came to this place.

But I feel something of Irene's faked death is very important for understanding what Sherlock did in RF.

I think Carol is right, when she says both versions (Sherlock sees/doesn't see through Irene's trick) are possible. When I watch the scene in the morgue I don't see Sherlock being shaken by something. What I see is bemusement and urgent thinking, like "What the hell is this all about; I need a moment of privacy to think this through¨).

Again, I find the explanation that Irene found or fabricated a body with the exact same measurements highly unlikely even if she had enough time and this is only fiction. But Carol touched another point of interest: Why is it never fully explained to us how Irene faked her death? Yes, they don't explain everything, but this seems to be too important to just skip over it. Also, we're presented with two pretty preposterous statements: Sherlock can scan a woman's body so accurately that he gets her measurements down to the last number, so he can open a safe which is code protected with said numbers.And Irene has the resources to find or fake a body with her exact measurements down to the last number. Because that's what she has to do in order to fool Sherlock. Both tasks seem to be impossible even if we employ fridge logic.

I liked T.o.b.y's explanation a lot: Sherlock might indeed simply have known her measurements from the material he is given in Buckingham Palace. If you look at the sheets shown to him, there's indeed one where he could've gotten the info from. That would be a parallel to TBB, where he bluffs his university friend Sebastion into believing that he could deduce his late travel activities, when he had simply gotten the relevant information from Sebastian's assistent.So maybe Sherlock is good - but scanning a woman for her exact measurements is even beyond Sherlock. Which makes the morgue scene even more interesting: He only looks for a second at the body and immediately says it's Irene's body. He doesn't even examine it. So there are two possibilities. He must've seen something which convinced him immediately that it must be her - or he saw something which convinced him instantly that it's not her, and he lied to protect her. I think he should appear to be a little shaken in both scenarios.

[T.o.b.y]

Why is it never fully explained to us how Irene faked her death?

 

You know what? I bet the writers don't know themselves. They have to write a bunch of characters who are much cleverer than themselves and nearly everybody else in the universe, and that's a hell of a job. I've tried writing people who are only slightly smarter than me, and I can tell you, it is hellish. I guess at some point you just have to say, okay, this character can do this because he / she is awesome, and I don't quite know how it works either.

 

But of course it is a lot of fun to find in-universe explanations for things, and I love doing that. So lets speculate on!

 

[J.P.]

 

She and Mary would make one hell of a team as burglerers.

O God - YESSS!

 

Wow, such a huge "plothole" and so hard to see. There is so much going on on the interpersonal/emotional level, that I've totally overseen it. And it's indeed fun if you see it from another perspective. Sherlock fooling everybody? Would it be out of character? :D

 

I like the explanation that he had the measurements from an extern source. What Irene had to do, was to give S a hint.

 

I think there would be no problem with sending an SMS with a specific delay. But it should at least surprise S. - you usually don't expect peple sending you SMS from inside of a morgue fridge...     wait a minute: are there any time specifications with the SMS-es we see floating in the air? Maybe there was an ifo just like with an email: sent at.... received at...

 

At least I know what I will be watching this evening.

[littlefoot]

T.o.b.y I think you got that explanation right re: the return of the coat. Irene somehow got into the appartment and returned it together with Sherlock's altered phone. When she kind of disappeared with said coat still on, Sherlock could've simply continued to be delirious because of the drugs in his system - or Irene had become such a fan of Sherlock that she bought a second coat for herself, lol! She looks good in it after all. And tied to Irene's break in abilities is the question how the phone got onto the mantelpiece in the first place. Did she use her abilities and put it there herself? ? But I'm inclined to let both questions slide as being not that important.

T.o.by, I also believe that a lot of strange things are simply there because the writers haven't thought it through. It's fiction after all. But in the case of Irene's faked death I don't think so. That was too important. They should've come up with an explanation eventually, even if it was outlandish. I'm inclinded to believe that they knew what they were up to in this case. Mofftiss have repeatedly said how much they rever the Golden Age of Crime Fiction. The mystery writers (Dorothy Sayers for example) had set up ruled about setting up clues, how to disguise them and how to reveal them in the end. Such a mystery writer would've regarded it as a challenge and a question of honor to come up with a plausible and detailed explanation re: faked death. Now, Mofftiss are in no way bound to these rules and may have been simply out to mess with us poor fans, but I don't think, that's the case here.

[littlefoot]

J.P you are probably right that texts can be sent with a delay. But I think the really interesting question is, why Irene texted him at all. Sherlock would've found and opened the present eventually anyway. What did she want to achieve by texting him? Was she so confident that Sherlock would acknowledge the body as hers? Because her fake was so damn good - or because she was sure he would cover her?

[SherlockedCAMPer]

Regarding Irene returning Sherlock's coat, he does check his window in his room and noticed that it was unlocked when his phone went off in his jacket. He noticed the same thing some months later when Irene breaks in and he finds her asleep on his bed. Only the window was in the kitchen the 2nd time.

[Arcadia]

You'd think by now Sherlock would have moved to a more secure location ... :p

 

I thought we did know how Irene faked her death? Same way Sherlock did, apparently; she knew someone who could fake the records, and she knew what he liked. Identifying the body was for Mycroft's purposes, not hers, so she provided one.

 

More of a plot hole to me is why Mycroft didn't insist that Sherlock return the phone after she "died." Yes, I know he didn't know it was a phone, but it was an "item in her possession" and it was personal enough to lead Sherlock to conclude she was dead. You'd think Mycroft would have been more curious about what it was and pushed harder for its return. Of course, if it had been returned that would have been the end of the episode... :p

 

The whole dynamic between the brothers in this episode is fascinating anyway. Mycroft apparently trusts Sherlock more than he does his own security service; but then he tries to bully Sherlock into backing off the case. But then he's actually quite lenient about the location of the phone on more than one occasion; as if he thinks as long as it's with Sherlock, he doesn't have to worry about it. Hmm. Anyway, he's an odd bird, our Mycroft.

[J.P.]

 

J.P you are probably right that texts can be sent with a delay. But I think the really interesting question is, why Irene texted him at all. Sherlock would've found and opened the present eventually anyway. What did she want to achieve by texting him?

 

Good question. Maybe the writers needed a comic relief after they brought Sherlock and Molly into this very emotional corner. They often do that.

[littlefoot]

Arcadia, I think it's only partly explained how Irene faked her death. We know, the records were faked and she or her accomplice provided a body with a smashed in face. But they don't explain at all, why Sherlock identified her body immediately without even a cursory examn. We know it's not her body. We also know Sherlock knows exactly how her naked body looks like. The writers have gone to great length to establish that. And even if Sherlock knew her measurements in advance, he had a look at her. We know that Sherlock has an excellent visual memory. So, how could Irene fool him to the point that he immediately confirmed the identity of the body? If she really fooled him, that is.

Also, even if I'm repeating myself here: Mycroft seems to think later that Sherlock fooled him once, but wasn't around to do it again. That must count for something. And why did the writers even include that statement of Mycroft?

[sittything]

Also, even if I'm repeating myself here: Mycroft seems to think later that Sherlock fooled him once, but wasn't around to do it again. That must count for something. And why did the writers even include that statement of Mycroft?

 

What was the statement Mycroft made?

 

You know, I've always thought Sherlock really thought she was dead.    Hrmmm...  now I'm second guessing everything.

[littlefoot]

Sittything, when Mycroft tells John at the end of the episode about Irene's death in Karachi he says (I'm paraphrasing, so better check it out), that it takes a Sherlock Holmes to fool someone and that he wasn't around this time. So she couldn't pull off a deception again.

J.P. Comic relief is definitely on the surface of the scene, but in this case I believe there's more under the surface.

[littlefoot]

There's also the curious question why Mycroft tells John at all, that Irene is dead. He says to John, he wants Sherlock to believe that Irene got herself into a witness protection program. But if Mycroft really wants Sherlock to believe in that story, why does he tell John of all people that it isn't true and Irene is really dead? That was unnecessary and certainly counterproductive, since John can't tell a lie convincingly. And he is not convincing at all, when he tells Sherlock about the fate of Irene.

Again, I think there's much more subplot in SiB than we're realizing.

[littlefoot]

Correction to my post above: It's of course Mycroft, not Sherlock, who tells John totally unnecessarily that Irene is dead, but that he wants Sherlock to believe she made it into a protection program.

P.S: I edited the above post, so no more correction posts necessary.

Thanks, Carol

[joanneta1]

So, she is a cat burglar as well! Have you not noticed how practically anybody can enter their flat with very little effort? In Scandal it's Irene when she is found sleeping in his bed, so she or her assistant could simply have left the little red box there anytime earlier when Sherlock and his friend were both out getting their little party ready. In SoT, two clients are actually mentioned who came in perfectly normally, if such a thing can be said about the Hollow Client, and the other is Mr Shilcott and his peculiar headgear, which provokes the whole hat theme game lifted from the Blue Carbuncle. In fact, with Mrs. Hudson locked behind the door of her ground-floor flat, anyone can leave and enter their flat, from Lestrade on a drugs bust to Mycroft, who institutes the whole drugs search thing in HLV. Why they keep locking the front door is by now more of a mystery, except perhaps to provide the CIA agent with an opportunity to fracture the flimsy lock.

[Inge l-w]

Concerning her measurements, when the CIA agent is about to call "three" and Sherlock is looking more than a bit worried he looks straight at her and she gives him a very meaningful downward look, a silent reminder of "In fact I have already told you. Think!" And then he turns to the safe, and BECAUSE she has helped him once, he looks to her again as he is about to open it and she glances away, even turning her head slightly, giving him a nod and a wink, so to speak, to shout "Vatican Cameos", their prearranged code of immediate danger so that John can duck in time.

As for the phone in his coat hanging behind the door, it is still puzzling and a definite plot hole.

[joanneta1]

You have a point, because in the scene in his bedroom the sash window is definitely closed and probably fastened, while the one which is ajar is so lengthwise and therefore not a possible means of a clandestine entry, while the one in the kitchen, later on, when he finds her in his bed, is open at the bottom, thus permitting someone from outside to enter clandestinely. Irene may be slim, but she is not a wraith.

[T.o.b.y]

The whole dynamic between the brothers in this episode is fascinating anyway. Mycroft apparently trusts Sherlock more than he does his own security service; but then he tries to bully Sherlock into backing off the case.

 

If you ask me, then Mycroft ordering Sherlock to back off a case is his way of making him stay on it. He knows his contrary little brother too well.