Episode 2.3, "The Reichenbach Fall"

[Carol the Dabbler]

Convict13 mentioned Moriarty already, but right, hopefully those Waters clowns.  (And I hope Athelney Jones didn't get all the credit!)

 

They never caught anyone (alive) from the Black Lotus, did they?

 

[Convict13]

The clowns were all Lestrade.     Moran and the photographer were Season 3.  So right up until The Reichenbach Fall there were no actual arrests, but you really do have to take into consideration that the Taxi Driver and Dr Frankland could not have let themselves die just to be a part of Sherlock's ruse of being a "genius". Watson was there so no matter what "Richard Brooks" said  John knew and knows that Sherlock is the real deal.  

 

But such a clever storyline.  

[sherlockandjohn]

Exactly. If you give it just a little bit of thought, John (and a number of other people) could easily testify to Sherlock's truthfulness. In reality, Sherlock faking and deceiving his way around all the crime solving would have required unbelievably detailed planning and possibly more brilliance than even he possesses. So to say that he pretended to be more clever than he really was, doesn't make sense.

[Carol the Dabbler]

True.

 

Just odd that there were no arrests before "Reichenbach," though.  Oops -- no, wait a minute, there was the guy who went to Colombia and his wife.  Remember, Sherlock told Lestrade, "Go and arrest them.  It's what you do best."  And that was in Series 1 ("Great Game").

 

Added:  And Raul Sanchez (same episode) -- we actually saw him being hauled off by the police.

 

[Slithytove]

Just watched TRF for the God-knows-how-many time, and a question occurred to me. Moriarty is tried at the Old Bailey, in the "trial of the century ", for attempting to steal the Crown Jewels. The judge warns that, if found guilty, he will face a long custodial sentence. But is he guilty?

 

He breaks the display case and dresses up in the Jewels but he never attempts to remove them from the premises. As I understand it, you have only committed a theft if you deprive, or try to deprive, the owner of their property. Moriarty does not make off with the Jewels. Surely he couldn't be charged with robbery, or even attempted robbery. Criminal damage, certainly, but not enough to warrant the trial of the century.

[Convict13]

Just watched TRF for the God-knows-how-many time, and a question occurred to me. Moriarty is tried at the Old Bailey, in the "trial of the century ", for attempting to steal the Crown Jewels. The judge warns that, if found guilty, he will face a long custodial sentence. But is he guilty?

 

He breaks the display case and dresses up in the Jewels but he never attempts to remove them from the premises. As I understand it, you have only committed a theft if you deprive, or try to deprive, the owner of their property. Moriarty does not make off with the Jewels. Surely he couldn't be charged with robbery, or even attempted robbery. Criminal damage, certainly, but not enough to warrant the trial of the century.

 

Interesting point,  so exactly what was he charged with?

[Convict13]

True.

 

Just odd that there were no arrests before "Reichenbach," though.  Oops -- no, wait a minute, there was the guy who went to Colombia and his wife.  Remember, Sherlock told Lestrade, "Go and arrest them.  It's what you do best."  And that was in Series 1 ("Great Game").

 

Added:  And Raul Sanchez (same episode) -- we actually saw him being hauled off the the police.

 

Ahh, well there goes my theory.  

[Slithytove]

 

 

Just watched TRF for the God-knows-how-many time, and a question occurred to me. Moriarty is tried at the Old Bailey, in the "trial of the century ", for attempting to steal the Crown Jewels. The judge warns that, if found guilty, he will face a long custodial sentence. But is he guilty?

 

He breaks the display case and dresses up in the Jewels but he never attempts to remove them from the premises. As I understand it, you have only committed a theft if you deprive, or try to deprive, the owner of their property. Moriarty does not make off with the Jewels. Surely he couldn't be charged with robbery, or even attempted robbery. Criminal damage, certainly, but not enough to warrant the trial of the century.

Interesting point, so exactly what was he charged with?

I think it must have been a charge of attempted robbery, but I don't think they could have convicted him because he didn't try to remove the Jewels. He just wore them. Presumably they could have done him for criminal damage and for assault on the guard, whom he knocked out with the spray, but I don't think they could have locked him up for very long on those grounds.

[Arcadia]

Could they have tied him to the bank vault and prison things too?

 

Also, could it be they presumed that if the police HADN'T showed up, Jim would've made off with the goods? That is, it was only an attempted robbery because they caught him before he got away? The audience knows that wasn't his plan, but the law wouldn't necessarily.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Well, he was just sitting there playing dress-up.  Hardly seems like "attempted grand theft" would stick.  Maybe there's some law like "desecration of national treasures"?

 

But I think you're right about the three crimes being tried together.  So let's see about the other two.

 

At the bank, he caused the vault to unlock itself and open, but as far as we know, nothing was taken, and no one was even apprehended on the premises.  Certainly not bank robbery, and even proving "attempted" might be tough.

 

At the prison, he defeated the security system.  But there was apparently no associated prison break or even attempt.

 

My only explanation for the "trial of the century" label is simple tabloid hype.  As for Moriarty's actual crimes, if British law is anything like American, the judge can choose from a range of allowable prison terms, depending on circumstances.  In extremely high-profile cases like these, they would doubtless throw the book at him, and specify that the terms be served sequentially rather than concurrently.

 

[T.o.b.y]

That's a rather good question, what Moriarty really was on trial for, exactly. My best guess is that once they got him, they threw everything at him for which he could be proven to be in any way responsible (and maybe used the Magnussen take on proof, too), simply because influential people like Mycroft knew he was dangerous and best out of the way.

 

Sherlock's statement about Moriarty being the spider at the center of a web seemed to point in the direction of charging him with being the leader of a criminal / terrorist organization. Could that be made anything of legally? At least in the world of Sherlock, which we have had plenty of occasion to notice is like ours but not exactly the same, it might...

[Convict13]

One question why does Moriarty owe Sherlock a fall?   He says 'I owe you a fall Sherlock, I.O.U',  but why?  I'm just wondering if this perhaps may help with understanding how he survived.

[Carol the Dabbler]

Maybe.  Who knows?  Maybe we'll find out in Series 4.

 

My take on "IOU" is that Moriarty considers Sherlock to be his only serious competition -- and how dare he!

 

[Caya]

Maybe that was even meant in a "friendly" manner (from Moriarty's warped PoV, that is) ... Sherlock has provided him with a bit of relief for his perpetual ennui, and he wants to thank him by giving him a solution to the Final Problem - a fall. He owes him for all the fun they had together .

[Arcadia]

That sounds like Moriarty to me, I'll go with that.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I never thought of that, Martina.  It does sound good -- except that he didn't sound the least bit friendly when he said it.  Can you work that into your theory somehow?

 

[Slithytove]

I think that the authorities would want to punish Jim very severely to make an example of him - to show you don't play with our national treasures - but they would be constrained by the legal definition of the crimes committed. What was Jim actually guilty of, except assault and criminal damage? Much as they might want to throw the book at him, they couldn't charge him with robbery if he hadn't actually committed a theft.

[Arcadia]

Found this: http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/criminal-defense/burglary/the-basics-a-burglary-case.htm
 

Burglary is generally defined as the intrusion or the trespassing into someone else’s property. The act of burglary is generally a statutory offense and is sometimes referred to as breaking and entering and may or may not include robbery or vandalism.

Altho I just assumed (as in, didn't think about it one way or the other  ) that JM was being tried for ... well, for being a consulting criminal.

[Slithytove]

But Jim wasn't trespassing. Presumably he bought a ticket to the Tower of London and paid to see the Jewels. The judge says he will get a long custodial sentence, if found guilty - but guilty of what?

[Arcadia]

Breaking the glass? :-)

[Bakerstreet Irregular]

Desecrating holy ground?  Speaking of the thrown, crown and scepter.....and even if he didn't actually steal anything.....or let any prisoners free could he be charged with compromising national security?  A code like that would certainly be seen as a threat.....yes?  No?  I don't know if in British courts he would be given the chance to speak in own defense....but it seems he wanted to continue the farce that he had a code that could breach all those systems. Wouldn't that be a major crime in it's own right?

 

  To say nothing of the jury tampering...but that wouldn't come to light until after Sherlock's "Fall" I suppose.

[Carol the Dabbler]

I suspect that there are a whole bunch of individually-minor statutes that could be interpreted to apply to what Moriarty did.  And they most certainly would be interpreted that way, in a high-profile case like this with few if any applicable major statutes.  Add 'em all up, apply the judge's discretion to opt for the maximum allowable sentences, and you could get a "very long custodial sentence" indeed.

 

[Dragonslayer]

Can anyone explain to me the entire rooftop conversation?

I did get the basic idea but,

 

1) why did Sherlock say the key code was in his head. And that he can kill Brook and bring back Jim? It makes no sense about the key code.

 

2) What was so radical in what Sherlock said that fully convinced Jim that S will be able to get out the recall code from him and hence forced him to commit suicide?

[Arcadia]

I wish I could! Question 1, that went right over my little head. Question 2 ... my understanding was that Moriarty looked into Sherlock's eyes, and saw that S. could be just as ruthless and unprincipled as Jim himself. Jim knew he'd break under whatever treatment Sherlock dished out, so he decided the only way to defeat Sherlock was to do what he wanted to do anyway, and off himself. At least, that's the logic as I understand it "in show." It sounds a bit preposterous here in the real world, I'm afraid.

 

I myself have a hard time believing Sherlock capable of being that vicious, because we aren't really shown it in the series, except the scene with the cabbie. And that was the first episode, we were led to believe S. had grown as a person since then. But Sherlock seems to believe it of himself, soooo... there.

 

I just this moment realized they used the same solution for the end of S3. Jim sacrifices his life to bring down Sherlock; Sherlock sacrifices his life to bring down CAM. The gun was just aimed in the other direction the second time. Good thing Jim didn't think of that!

[Slithytove]

Re. The key code......Having sussed out that Jim was tapping out the binary code during the visit to 221b, Sherlock thinks he can use it to alter all the faked computer records which document Richard Brooks's existence. I think......

 

And, as Arcadia says, Jim seems to see in Sherlock a darkness like his own, which makes him realise that Sherlock, unlike Mycroft, could break him. I think...,