Mary Morstan

[Inge l-w]

Dear TOBY, since when have "wet jobs for the CIA" and "gone freelance", as Magnussen points out ,qualify Mary's redeeming qualities?

Dr Watson was a soldier, Sherlock an undercover agent, both licensed to kill by their government. Since when do assassins and mercenaries deserve the same respect as soldiers? Or should we tear down the Branderburger Tor in the name of pacifism?

She is a former paid assassin, possibly in Moriarty's employment, possibly one of the snipers at the pool and around St. Bartholomew's, where she might have caught sight of Dr Watson, and Sherlock goes through incredible hardship with the whole Leinster Gardens-flat confrontation, a jaunt that earned him some more months in hospital, by the way, to ensure that his friend was fully aware of the dangerous time-bomb in his life.

[T.o.b.y]

Dear TOBY, since when have "wet jobs for the CIA" and "gone freelance", as Magnussen points out ,qualify Mary's redeeming qualities?

Dr Watson was a soldier, Sherlock an undercover agent, both licensed to kill by their government. Since when do assassins and mercenaries deserve the same respect as soldiers? Or should we tear down the Branderburger Tor in the name of pacifism?

She is a former paid assassin, possibly in Moriarty's employment, possibly one of the snipers at the pool and around St. Bartholomew's, where she might have caught sight of Dr Watson, and Sherlock goes through incredible hardship with the whole Leinster Gardens-flat confrontation, a jaunt that earned him some more months in hospital, by the way, to ensure that his friend was fully aware of the dangerous time-bomb in his life.

 

While I like the idea that Mary was later employed by Moriarty, I have not (yet?) come across any indication that this is supposed to be the case in the series.

 

The "free-lance" bit is something Magnussen said to slander her and provoke John. It might still be true, but it neither means that Magnussen must be talking about Moriarty, nor that Mary's jobs were all evil and her victims blameless. That might be the case, but she might just as well be a "dragon slayer", a job that can only be justified in fiction, where there are actually dragons, i.e. villains.

 

"For the CIA" does sound as if she was initially a government employee with a "license to kill", wasn't it? For the record, I don't think that a killing is automatically okay just because your government wants it to happen or "authorizes" it. In real life, killing is never, ever okay. Neither is war. War is organized mass murder in my eyes. In fiction, however, where there is good and bad, the good guys are allowed to kill the bad guys if need be. Sherlock was allowed to shoot Magnussen because Magnussen was a villain (interestingly and laudably enough, His Last Vow did not glorify Sherlock's action, though. It was presented as problematic and "sociopathic".)

 

We simply don't know how "good" or "bad" Mary's past actions were, whether they were justified by any kind of fiction-ethics. We don't know whether she's a "good guy", a "bad guy" or something in between (like Sherlock).

 

All I can say is that as long as I love Sherlock even though he breaks the law constantly, hacks up terrorists, shoots Magnussen, betrays his best friend's trust and lies and manipulates people as often as he sees fit, I find it really hard to hate Mary for the same reasons. Yet I react to her differently than to him, and I wonder why that is.

 

I'm only talking about myself here. And I know that most people don't share my view on warfare. That's okay. I'm never going to change the world, and I understand why things are the way they are and that my ideals will never be reality because they don't match up with human nature. I also understand and accept that not everybody thinks it is right or feasible to draw such a strict line between ethics in fiction and ethics in real life.

[Inge l-w]

Then why, during the flicking scene, does Magnussen threaten Dr Watson and provoke Sherlock by saying that he knows who the people Mary hurt by killing members of their families, that he knows their numbers, and thus can instantly wreak havoc by letting them know that Mary has taken cover under the Mary Morstan-Watson persona? If we accept part of the whole package and leave out the unpalatable bits, we're not committed to the whole concept. I would quite like to pick and choose my favourite bits in this smorgasbord of adventure and emotions, but I refrain from doing so because then I would be negating my admiration for the creators' work, no matter that I prefer another series to theirs. That's personal taste, and neither here nor there.

[Van Buren Supernova]

To be fair, though, Mary doesn't seem to want to share anything about her past with either John or Sherlock. She seems perfectly willing to be Mrs Watson and nothing but that, and if it had been up to her, they would have never known there was anything more to her. But because her stated reason for this is that otherwise, she would loose John's love, I still find that sad and I still feel intensely sorry for her. And angry at John. Gosh, he makes me so angry in His Last Vow. Even Sherlock behaves better towards Mary - and he's supposed to be the unfeeling sociopath who has no time for women.

 

I have read many opinions about HLV, but I don't remember reading something similar to what you have, in fact, it's opposite, that John makes you angry, which makes me curious.

 

While I also thinks that Sherlock is too fast and too kind to Mary, I find the forgiveness scene between John and Mary quite touching. And I think John is very kind there, too kind in fact, but I understand.

 

I think I am not a bad person, but I have a lot of wrath, impatience and lack of emphaty for people who make others miserable, without good upbringing it would be very easy for me to become a horrible person, so I think I could never do what Sherlock and John do, but as I said, I could be a bad person if I was raised differently. (And regardless how many times I play the scenario, I would still shoot Magnussen if I was Sherlock, but unreliably convinced that I would never shoot Sherlock to keep John).

 

It's a lie for life, even when love is the reason. And marriage is not something temporary (ideally) and it's fundamental to know the person you are commiting to share your life with. I would forever question the intention of someone who lied to me.

 

My friend's husband lied to her about possesing a business when he is actually only helping in his uncle's. And that makes her despise him forever. No, she is not gold digger at all and she is ten fold nicer person than everyone I know, but she feels betrayed by someone that she should be able to trust. They didn't know each other for long before they got married. And since then, there is none or little trust because it's difficult to her, it's not helping that there are other tweaked realities.

 

What would you do if you are in John shoes? Wouldn't you be angry too if the person you are married to is not the one that you thought you knew? And put your life in danger by being associated, and tries to kill a person that you care about (which they know for sure it would devastate you because they already witness it once?)

 

Forgiveness is great and I believe great people exist.

 

Bitterness is paralytic, love is much more vicious motivator. Love it too, it's the second quote I worship after the one in the signature.

[Arcadia]

I still think John was not actually "forgiving" Mary ... to me it was more that he was willing to give their marriage another chance, and see where it led. So I tend to withhold judgement from both of them, because I don't think the other shoe has dropped yet. Besides, I'm suspicious enough of the Moftisses to be unwilling to commit myself to a particular outcome, lest they break my heart. (They probably will anyway.)

[T.o.b.y]

Also, do people really believe that if Mary weren't around, Sherlock and John would become a romantic couple?

 

One of my lovely fellow-mods recently pointed out to me that this could sound quite hurtful to the people who do actually exist and believe this very thing. "Would make me feel like a zoo animal" I think were the words she used. So I just wanted to say I am very sorry and I really didn't mean to be insulting or condescending or rude - I was genuinely curious and bewildered.

 

So my question has been answered. And I apologize again. Like Sherlock, it seems I really need people around now and then who will point out when I have said something not good... I can be just as oblivious as he is about all things social sometimes...

[Arcadia]

You are the most gracious of souls, Toby. My hat's off to you. 

 

(Oh dear ... before anyone jumps to conclusions, I am NOT the fellow-mod referred to in Toby's post ... not that I wouldn't be proud to be if I were ... )

[T.o.b.y]

You are the most gracious of souls, Toby. My hat's off to you.

 

:lol: You wouldn't say that if you knew me in real life... But thanks anyway.

 

If I'm so gracious, then why can't I just accept how John chooses to deal with the Mary situation and applaud him for being magnanimous?

 

Van Buren Supernova, you asked me to elaborate on that, I think, and I haven't forgotten. It's just hard for me to put into words (Boton, couldn't you just read my mind and say what I think? You do that kind of thing very well, it seems...)

 

I'll try. Okay. Hm.

 

I guess I assume that Mary has reasons for what she did and what she does. I don't get the impression that she's a villain, I suspect that her story is much more complicated and morally murky and tricky and probably also very sad in parts. I want to know the whys and hows and wherefores before I condemn her. I want to know her side of the story, her point of view, and I guess I'm kind of pissed that we never got to hear it, because the men were talking the entire time, to her, about her, over her head, but they wouldn't for a second just listen to her. (To be fair, she wasn't exactly forthcoming with any information... She just dumped the flash drive on them and sat there tight-lipped. But I bet they could have gotten her to open up if they had wanted to, if they had shown any genuine interest in her motivation for the things she did.) I can forgive Sherlock for that, because, well, he's Sherlock, but John? Okay, he was in shock, he was angry. But that he didn't bother to ask her even after he had six months to think everything through - that's hard for me to accept.

 

I mean, either John assumes that his wife is just a psychopath who chooses to kill and lie all the time and there is no further explanation for her behavior. In that case, it makes no sense for him to take her back. Or he thinks she's inherently a lovable person who made some terrible choices but is willing to atone for them. If so, why the heck doesn't he want to learn more? Could it be that he is indeed afraid of loosing his love for her if he knew all? If the latter were true, I'd say that's the same as not loving her at all but just loving an idea of how he'd like her to be, and if I were Mary, that would not be a love that I would want, and the fact that she's willing to settle for it tells me that she is desperate for any kind of human affection no matter of what quality or how much she has to go out of her way to obtain and keep it, and that is tragic in a way.

 

Of course Mary didn't seem very keen to discuss her past. Maybe John thinks that by burning the information and telling her that it's her business, he is honoring her wishes, but her stated reason for not wanting to talk about it was that John would not love her any more - and to that I can only say, the fact that he doesn't know something happened does not make it less of a fact. Either he loves her with all she is and was, or he doesn't. You can't just conveniently ignore a major part of someone's life and personality, like the rest and call that love.

 

I have a feeling that Messrs. Moffat and Gatiss do not share my view, though. His Last Vow does seem to ask the audience to accept John and Mary's reconciliation as satisfactory closure and see John as even more of a good person than before. If those are the rules they lay down for their fictional universe, okay. I'll try to go along with them and continue to enjoy a story that I have loved to bits until this point. But in this instance, there's really a big difference between what I really feel and what I think I'm being asked to feel - and think.

[Van Buren Supernova]

Shouldn't be here but I'm capable to eat in flash-lightning speed later to compromise.

 

Forgiveness is great and I believe great people exist.

 

Just in case, I want to clarify that above actually means as compliment for you.

Not to criticize that you need to forgive John but because you believe Mary deserves forgiveness.

I do it rarely and poorly that more often than not my compliment comes across the other way around. XD

 

I guess I assume that Mary has reasons for what she did and what she does. I don't get the impression that she's a villain, I suspect that her story is much more complicated and morally murky and tricky and probably also very sad in parts. I want to know the whys and hows and wherefores before I condemn her. I want to know her side of the story, her point of view, and I guess I'm kind of pissed that we never got to hear it, because the men were talking the entire time, to her, about her, over her head, but they wouldn't for a second just listen to her. (To be fair, she wasn't exactly forthcoming with any information... She just dumped the flash drive on them and sat there tight-lipped. But I bet they could have gotten her to open up if they had wanted to, if they had shown any genuine interest in her motivation for the things she did.) I can forgive Sherlock for that, because, well, he's Sherlock, but John? Okay, he was in shock, he was angry. But that he didn't bother to ask her even after he had six months to think everything through - that's hard for me to accept.

 

I mean, either John assumes that his wife is just a psychopath who chooses to kill and lie all the time and there is no further explanation for her behavior. In that case, it makes no sense for him to take her back. Or he thinks she's inherently a lovable person who made some terrible choices but is willing to atone for them. If so, why the heck doesn't he want to learn more? Could it be that he is indeed afraid of loosing his love for her if he knew all? If the latter were true, I'd say that's the same as not loving her at all but just loving an idea of how he'd like her to be, and if I were Mary, that would not be a love that I would want, and the fact that she's willing to settle for it tells me that she is desperate for any kind of human affection no matter of what quality or how much she has to go out of her way to obtain and keep it, and that is tragic in a way.

 

Of course Mary didn't seem very keen to discuss her past. Maybe John thinks that by burning the information and telling her that it's her business, he is honoring her wishes, but her stated reason for not wanting to talk about it was that John would not love her any more - and to that I can only say, the fact that he doesn't know something happened does not make it less of a fact. Either he loves her with all she is and was, or he doesn't. You can't just conveniently ignore a major part of someone's life and personality, like the rest and call that love.

 

 

You don’t need to always read my mind but I think you did good job explaining. (AHA! No misunderstanding is possible with this, by the way, compliment)

 

My blabberings below are really confusing even for myself, I’m arguing for both sides.

I guess many (me too) try to put myself in John's shoes but forgotten to try Mary's.

 

What is fascinating to me, the reasons why you feel sorry for Mary is the very reason why I think John is too kind to forgive her.

 

How could he expect everything to go well from there and that she deserves his forgiveness (but why he doesn't try to really find whether she deserves it).

She mentions that he would absolutely not love her anymore if he knew, and he chooses not to know.

I agree with you that John loving the idea of how Mary supposes to be doesn’t sound like unconditional love, in fact, recipe for disaster. Will he wonder if her laughs and tears are fake;

 

if something started/based on lies will it be true?

 

I would say that you can lie about your past and history, but it would be extremely difficult to fake your personality for a long period of time. A psychopath could.

Part or most of Mary's characteristic would be truly hers, John is aware of that, and he decides that it's enough to try again, and he respects her decision.

But if he really loves her, isn’t it just right that he might want to know and share whatever burden, baggage and scars from her past if he really believe she has turned over new leaf?

 

But isn’t it contradictive that if she really wants to change, she shoots Sherlock?

 

She is using her old way to ensure that her new way stays. Does it make sense? Yes it does, but again, incredibly selfish.

 

Conclusion from my confusing post, I understand where you are coming from and I think your reasoning is solid, but I still can’t sympathize with her. In this situation, I don’t think I can relate to either three of them, although their reasoning all make sense.

I think hurting someone I care about is crossing a one-way line, eventhough the person who does that is also someone I care about, especially for selfish reason.

 

Trying to kill Sherlock to maintain John in relationship based on lies and deception…., no. Honestly, she wouldn’t get a drop of sympathy from me, but I’m open-minded with the power of these two writers.

One thing for sure, Sherlock and John characters are definitely better person than me.

 

 

P.S. As weird as it is, I understand why John chooses not to know. Someone very close to me actually have this view, that he accepts a person the way it is regardless of the past, to the point that he chooses to be ignorant, of course it's in much lighter situations but it works for him.

 

Imho. to certain degree, human seeking for companionship can be quite sad, to the point that they are not looking to love or even like each other, just tolerate each other, that would do.

Sad, isn’t it?

[J.P.]

Well, I don't know... The shooting: Mary didn't choose to shoot Sherlock. It was a decision made under pressure and to her probably the lesser evil. I think I still don't really oversee the plots that seem to knot at that moment. I don't really see why things happen and what were the alternatives. Probably will get there in the HLV thread.

 

IMO part of the dislike towards Mary is because viewers feel betrayed. They are made to like her and then she turnst into a baddie. The clues are very little, and probably Amanda not knowing the background in TSOT is adding to the problem. She had to play two different characters, actually, and they are not fully consistent in my eyes.

[Inge l-w]

Dear Arcadia, no one would ever believe you're the strict moderator: you come across as fun and zesty, always ready to help, and even playful!

As for what J.P. says, that the two Maries seem out of kilter, that's what happens when you don't tell your leading actors what the complete story arc is going to be ^_^. In J.P.'s words, "nasty Moftisses".

But I think that this version of Mary was never meant to be likeable. She is too brazen from TEH "I agree I am the best thing that has happened to you", "Oh, he would have needed a confidant", "You will be there, Sherlock", and we have absolutely NO indication that she would have talked Dr Watson around, especially when she goads him with "I had six months of bristly kisses and then His Nibs turns up."

In SoT, she manipulates both of them superbly, once by ostensibly getting them together on a case; (quite peculiar how when she gives both men the thumbs-up, she is standing so that the horns of the skull seem to come out of her head ) , and then by playing on Sherlock's not very-well controlled emotions in her scene with him when Dr Watson meets Major Sholto : "Mentions him all the time to me, never shuts up about him", just to show him that he doesn't have his friend's full confidence any more, and a bit of a problem in the script, because her remark is absolutely redundant, since the Sholto backstory starts with the Bloody Guardsman, unless it is said on purpose to hurt, and then twists the knife a bit more with "Oh, Sherlock, neither of us was the first, you know!"

No wonder he tells her to stop smiling!

[Inge l-w]

Is it just me being paranoid, or has Mary never told John "I love you" in the series? Not once! British males and repressed feelings notwithstanding, the female of the species can be more sentimental and emotional. Yet she never once utters those three words vital in any meaningful, real relationship. Why?

[J.P.]

Well, they just don't show it to us. John never says it either.

[T.o.b.y]

Well, I don't know... The shooting: Mary didn't choose to shoot Sherlock. It was a decision made under pressure and to her probably the lesser evil. I think I still don't really oversee the plots that seem to knot at that moment. I don't really see why things happen and what were the alternatives. Probably will get there in the HLV thread.

 

IMO part of the dislike towards Mary is because viewers feel betrayed. They are made to like her and then she turnst into a baddie. The clues are very little, and probably Amanda not knowing the background in TSOT is adding to the problem. She had to play two different characters, actually, and they are not fully consistent in my eyes.

 

I am not sure whether I think it was a bad decision or not to leave Ms Abbington in the dark about Mary's true identity and past until she actually had to play the relevant scenes.

 

I mean, when I look at it from my favorite perspective, which is pretending that the people in the series are all real, then of course Mary knows all the time and I get the impression that she's just such a frighteningly good actress she can actually become whoever she wants to impersonate, to the point where I suspect she actually begins to believe in her own fake persona. I bet that for the character, Mary Morstan (now Mary Watson), is more of a real person whom she became than a facade. I have no doubt Mary really loves John, likes Sherlock, wants to settle down and overcome her past and all of that. Mary really is the fun, compassionate, easy-going woman we meet. The problem is, though, that we can't know how much or how little Mary resembles A.G.R.A (if those are really the correct initials) and how far their feelings, plans and scruples (or lack thereof) coincide.

 

If they do want to kill her some day, I think a clever way to do it would be to let only Mary Morstan / Mary Watson die but let A.G.R.A live on. She would just drop that role.

 

I don't feel betrayed at all. It was clear from the start that Mary had a secret. I just expected something more sophisticated than the assassin story.

 

I get a huge kick out of the "nice" Mary of the first two episodes in series 3 now that we know the truth. I like her better as a dangerous, lying, unpredictable psychopath. Especially now that we're beginning to see inside Sherlock's funny old brain, we're getting a new human riddle to ponder. It will be very exciting to see how her story develops.

 

[Inge l-w]

Develops? Preferably in abeyance, in absentia, or if they cannot manage that, six feet under, pushing up the daisies, running for her life like Irene, anything except a meaningful, talking part in S4!

[T.o.b.y]

*Sigh*... poor Mary. Not even I really like her (although she grates a lot less on me since Last Vow - I must be the only person who likes her better after that, mustn't I).

 

It would be a pity, in my humble opinion, to get rid of her when she has so much potential for a few good plots. I want to know about her past and her previous identities first before she leaves or fades into the background. I want some sense of who she really is.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

I like Mary. I can see keeping in the supporting role level similar to Molly/Lestrade with some episodes being more of the Donovan/Anderson level.

[Arcadia]

Is it just me being paranoid, or has Mary never told John "I love you" in the series? Not once! British males and repressed feelings notwithstanding, the female of the species can be more sentimental and emotional. Yet she never once utters those three words vital in any meaningful, real relationship. Why?

Because it's written by boys for boys? :D

 

*Sigh*... poor Mary. Not even I really like her (although she grates a lot less on me since Last Vow - I must be the only person who likes her better after that, mustn't I).

Yup. :D

 

Actually, I like her equally before and after, I just worry that what they do with her will be a bit too melodramatic, even for me. But I like her in the way I like both John and Sherlock -- I see their faults, but their good bits win me over anyway.

 

I like Mary. I can see keeping in the supporting role level similar to Molly/Lestrade with some episodes being more of the Donovan/Anderson level.

 

I'd like to keep her around just for John's sake, if nothing else ... the poor guy's always being dumped on, insulted, kidnapped, lied to or manipulated by someone, would like him to have a happy home life at least!

[J.P.]

But this would bore him to death. I think it's his tragedy. He longs for something he's not made for.

[Arcadia]

You think? Yeah, maybe. I don't know though ... I agree he thinks he wants "normalcy" -- whatever that is -- but isn't really cut out for it. But just to have a wife and kid he loves and who love him back? That's all I meant by happy home life. I think even Sherlock could find a way to live with that.

[Inge l-w]

@SherlockedCamper: you like Mary? Why did you make her disappear in the very first excerpt of the story with the baby we have been helping develop? Are you a Mycroft/Anthea clone? Just so we know!

[sfmpco]

I've been thinking about Mary lately.  I'm going to attempt to explain some thoughts without rambling too much.

 

The first indication we have that she is not who she says she is is the word LIAR, but that's hard to catch except through freeze frame.

 

The second indication is when she says the words "skip code."  Now here's where I hope I don't start rambling.  However, I suspect she knew precisely what was in the skip code but she was being blackmailed by Magnussen, and I think she was told to get Sherlock's help on that skip code because Magnussen was after Sherlock's pressure points, one of them being John...and the other being Mycroft.  Yes, I think when the chips are down, Sherlock would defend Mycroft with his life if he had to.  But the Mycroft part of the equation is still early at the point of the skip code.

 

The third indication is the wedding telegram from CAM where he tells her he's sorry her family couldn't be there... he's bullying her in public knowing the telegram would be read out loud.  CAM knows she is not who she says she is, that of course Mary Morstan could not possibly have family since there is no such real person.  He was putting that clue to the public, and it went right over Sherlock's head at that moment, but it didn't go over Mary's head.  It unnerved her.

 

The fourth indication was her knowing Sholto's room number although I don't place as much significance in that as in the other things.  A room number isn't that difficult to remember.

 

Within a month of the wedding, she was ready to use her skills to take CAM down.  She'd had enough.

 

I don't think CAM had a really good way to get at Mycroft until Sherlock arrived back on the scene after being "dead" for two years.  He couldn't use Mary at that time because there really wasn't a strong connection between John and Mycroft, but with Sherlock back in the picture, now he could work on Sherlock through bullying Mary and John.  I think once Sherlock was back on scene, CAM researched Mary and found her weakness, found the same info on Mary Morstan being in a cemetary in Chiswick.  He knew she was hiding something, and dug deeper until he found her files.

 

I think CAM's ultimate goal was to control Mycroft, and Mary, John and Sherlock were merely pawns to get to that point.  Mycroft clearly wasn't afraid of CAM.  

 

I do think that there is some credence to be given to Mycroft being in on the whole thing with the computer  exchange but I don't think he anticipated that Sherlock would actually kill CAM.  That was not calculated.   I think once Sherlock was shot that Mycroft was probably all over that, especially as it happened in Magnussen's offices.  I also suspect that Mycroft may know about Mary, but that remains to be seen in S4.  He's too clever not to have figured that out. Also, how else could Mycroft have been so quick to arrive with troops at Appledore if he had not been in on it?

 

Enough rambling.  I have to make dinner.

[J.P.]

I've been thinking about Mary lately.  I'm going to attempt to explain some thoughts without rambling too much.

 

The first indication we have that she is not who she says she is is the word LIAR, but that's hard to catch except through freeze frame.

Well, Sherlock overlooked it too. Sentiment...

The second indication is when she says the words "skip code."  Now here's where I hope I don't start rambling.  However, I suspect she knew precisely what was in the skip code but she was being blackmailed by Magnussen, and I think she was told to get Sherlock's help on that skip code because Magnussen was after Sherlock's pressure points,

Okay, this is a new perspective, at least for me, but it definitely makes sense, probably more than anything else.

The third indication is the wedding telegram from CAM where he tells her he's sorry her family couldn't be there... he's bullying her in public knowing the telegram would be read out loud.  CAM knows she is not who she says she is, that of course Mary Morstan could not possibly have family

Another good point. I was thinking more in a way that they knew each other for long already, and him sending the telegram was reminding her that she's still his poppet. And maybe the fact that she had no family was his doing. BTW, it's soo cool that first time you watch it, you oversee her reaction, she is just moved by the words, as a normal person could be.

Within a month of the wedding, she was ready to use her skills to take CAM down.  She'd had enough.

Yes, good observation, even though I don't think she was there to kill him, as it wouldn't improve her situation IF CAM had real vaults at Appledore (and everyone thought he had)

 

I don't think CAM had a really good way to get at Mycroft until Sherlock arrived back on the scene after being "dead" for two years.  He couldn't use Mary at that time because there really wasn't a strong connection between John and Mycroft, but with Sherlock back in the picture, now he could work on Sherlock through bullying Mary and John.  I think once Sherlock was back on scene, CAM researched Mary and found her weakness, found the same info on Mary Morstan being in a cemetary in Chiswick.  He knew she was hiding something, and dug deeper until he found her files.  

 

Well, yes, I haven't think about it. So the theory that CAM actually used Mary to infiltrate Mycroft makes no sense... until he knew Sherlock wasn't dead at all. Which I don't think is entirely impossible. He knew about Redbeard!

I think CAM's ultimate goal was to control Mycroft, and Mary, John and Sherlock were merely pawns to get to that point.  Mycroft clearly wasn't afraid of CAM.  

But he was protecting him, which would indicate he was at least ... cautious. Or just provoking Sherlock to go against him.

I do think that there is some credence to be given to Mycroft being in on the whole thing with the computer  exchange but I don't think he anticipated that Sherlock would actually kill CAM.  

Certainly not. IF the vaults were real, CAMs death would only open a big stinking can of worms.

That was not calculated.   I think once Sherlock was shot that Mycroft was probably all over that, especially as it happened in Magnussen's offices.

Actually he might not notice Mary at first, because after TRF John wasn't of big interest anymore (but honestly - I doubt it)

Also, how else could Mycroft have been so quick to arrive with troops at Appledore if he had not been in on it?

Okay, let's think about it. The Laptop had a GPS, so it was quite easy to find. On the other hand, there was not much time if the whole operation would be improvised... or maybe the cut of the scenes makes that impression?

 

The fact that CAM foreseen Mycrofts action is quite unsetting though.

[sfmpco]

Well, how long were people drugged for?  You would think Billy would make sure they were all sleeping soundly for quite a bit.  Yes, the computer had GPS but Mycroft still had to summon a helicopter, get troops assembled, etc.  It's not like a helicopter was landing in the Holmes' paddock in 2 minutes.  If Mycroft were truly drugged, I suspect he might not have even noticed his laptop was missing when he first came too.  Might have been too woozy.  So, there is duplicity in the act.  Maybe.  We will know in S4.

[SherlockedCAMPer]

@SherlockedCamper: you like Mary? Why did you make her disappear in the very first excerpt of the story with the baby we have been helping develop? Are you a Mycroft/Anthea clone? Just so we know!

Yes I do like her, but like Sherlock, I do have a dark side (whole side of the angels but not one of them thing).