BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



June 3, 2012 11:37 am  #1


The misidentification.

MOLLY: The face is a bit, sort of, bashed up, so it might be a bit difficult.
MYCROFT: That’s her, isn’t it?
SHERLOCK (to Molly): Show me the rest of her.
SHERLOCK: That’s her.
MYCROFT: Thank you, Miss Hooper.
MOLLY: Who is she? How did Sherlock recognise her from ... not her face?

(from Ariane DeVere’s brilliant transcription)

So, Sherlock Holmes, who regularly berates others for "seeing but not observing" , who prides himself on noticing small but essential details that others miss and who has proven that he has both observed and remembered complex details of Irene’s anatomy, misidentifies some poor, random woman as Ms Adler.

I was very annoyed when I first noticed this. This is a major mistake for Sherlock to make – a failure of one of his greatest talents. And just for a cheap joke at Molly’s expense? I was even more annoyed when I realised with a few tweaks of the script it could have been avoided:

MOLLY: She’s a bit, sort of, bashed up, so it might be a bit difficult.
MYCROFT: That’s her, isn’t it?
SHERLOCK (to Molly): Show me the rest of her.
SHERLOCK: Hmmm… Hard to be sure.
MYCROFT: But consistent? (receives text) Dental records are a match.
SHERLOCK: Yes, consistent. It’s her.
MYCROFT: Thank you, Miss Hooper.
MOLLY: Who is she? How did Sherlock identify her from ... not her face?

(Of course, Moffatt could do it a lot better but you get the idea.)

I considered it might be a way of showing that Sherlock is fallible, but if that was the case then why didn’t someone rub it in later? Particularly Mycroft when he was giving Sherlock his dressing down in the plane?

So, what would it take to find a body double that was good enough to fool Sherlock? We know Irene wanted Sherlock to see the body. Otherwise, why alert him to it with the text on the night she "died" ? Based on what she saw in the safe cracking scene, she would have to assume Sherlock had paid good attention to her body and had perfect recall. She could have had the body burnt or so badly disfigured that it could only by identified by the DNA. As she didn’t, she must have been confident the double was perfect.

But what would finding a perfect double involve? Firstly there’s the obvious stuff: age, height, weight and proportions. There’s also other structural details like sloping/square shoulders, hand and foot shape, muscle tone, skin tones, and err… soft tissue structures (earlobes, belly button, etc…) And, of course, identifying marks such as moles, birthmarks, scars and tattoos (or lack thereof). It would take a lot of research and interviewing to find someone who was even a good match. (To be honest, I think you’d be lucky if even an identical twin was close enough.) Some details could be corrected with surgery but it would need to be done well in advance so the prospective victim had plenty of time to heal. It would also require the expense of a good surgeon to minimise any scarring that Sherlock could notice as out of place. Then there’s personal grooming. The hair and nails would need to be long enough (or grown out). Exercising the victim could achieve the right muscle tones. Any waxing and dyeing would also have to be done before death (or it would be picked up on in the post-mortem).  All of this would require the candidate to be found a considerable time before her death and carefully prepared. If she was kept prisoner and the preparations forced on her, the stress of the situation would show in her body (these are the kinds of things pathologists are trained to look for). So Irene would have had to either ingratiate herself as a friend or employ her in order to groom her for the part. And then have her killed when the time was right. (Again, the body would have to be fresh or it would tip the pathologist off that something was wrong.) This is serious Fridge Nightmare stuff. It isn’t just cold-blooded murder, it’s ice-in-the-veins psychopathy. Even if it was organised by Moriarty, Irene would still have had to stand next to the girl to make sure everything looked right in 3D. Is she really this evil?

The only other alternative I can see, though, is that Sherlock was lying. The victim was a good enough match to fool someone who has seen Irene’s photos from her website but not him. Irene took the chance that she had made enough of an impression on Sherlock that when she asked for his help (sending the phone to him) then presented a body that wasn’t her, he would play along with her game. And he did. (Whether out of affection or strategy is a different question.) This has the advantage that it would also explain Sherlock’s very strange reaction to Irene’s death. Playing sad music, hardly eating, barely speaking, wanting to be left alone to think? Not examining the body for clues, scouring the crime scene, hunting down the killers and bringing down justice / vengeance upon them, whether they be CIA trained killers, mafia bosses or Moriarty himself? That’s how I’d expect Sherlock to react if someone he actually cared about was killed. Something along the lines of what we see a few minutes later when the Americans hurt Mrs Hudson. Surely he would be doing anything he could find to do to avoid thinking and feeling. I certainly wouldn’t expect him to fall into an introspective melancholy. The big issue with this suggestion, though, is that this doesn’t fit with how we first perceive the situation or with how John and Mycroft interpret it.

So, what does everyone else think?

1.    Just a nice snappy line in the script – don’t think about it too much.
2.    It shows that Sherlock is fallible.
3.    Oh, Irene…
4.    Sherlock was lying.
5.    Any other ideas I haven’t thought of?

Last edited by Aurora (June 7, 2012 4:04 am)

 

June 3, 2012 12:31 pm  #2


Re: The misidentification.

It was a dead body.
Irene with the help of Moriarty could have easily found one.
Many bodies don't have moles/markings etc on them & someone of that size and age would most likely be fit & healthy and hence could have a 'perfect' body in the torso. Any small adjustments like colouring, marks etc could be added if need be. Molly isn't the only morgue attendant in town. To some degree, the dead body would be malleable enough to 'mould' to more exactly resemble Irene simply by having Irene as a live model. What do I mean? Things like saline under the skin etc. People do it to themselves live, so on a dead body would be child's play. Sherlock didn't look at feet, hands etc. He looked at a face that was unrecognisable anyway & a torso, that was all. No deep investigating & that was plain to see on screen.
Pre=planning? I doubt it as Irene would not have foreseen it this step being necessary 'months in advance'.

So why the mistake?
Sherlock knew that if he received her phone, it meant her life was in danger. So he knew the possibility of her being dead was quite real. Sherlock himself has said 'You can't kill an idea, once it's been planted'. He deduced she was most probably dead or about to be so; the idea was planted.
Sherlock is not infallible; he makes mistakes ( Harry/Harriet)

Quite simple really. Or really, elementary.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 3, 2012 1:14 pm  #3


Re: The misidentification.

I think Sherlock is lying. He knows exactly that the body isn't Irene's.
Maybe he wants to test how easy it would be to fake his own death if he needed to do likewise one day or another.
He must come to the conclusion that giving up on his phone (throwing it away like he will do on the roof later) and presenting a dead body of quite a good match (not necessarily a perfect one!) will be enough to fool people.
Mycroft apparently trusts Sherlock's judgement (why else would he offer Sherlock a cigarette in order to kind of comfort him?) - but he is fooled. Even months later, when Irene and Sherlock will fake her death for a second time and Mycroft says: "I was thorough this time. It would take Sherlock Holmes to fool me…", he is fooled again.
"DNA tests are only as good as the records you keep", Irene says.
Who, in Sherlock's case, would be his record keeper if the occasion arised? Molly? Good prospects, he must think. He only has to choose St. Bart's for his "performance" where Molly will be at hand.

The point that isn't quite clear to me is: Why does Sherlock seem to be that heartbroken when he supposes Irene to be dead? Is it all good acting in order to make believe? Or is John right when he says: "… but he's Sherlock. He does all that anyway."? To me, Sherlock doesn't seem to be relieved even when he knows that Irene isn't dead. Even John is wondering: "So, she’s alive then. How are we feeling about that?"
Sherlock simply doesn't change his behaviour – whether he is happy or heartbroken. Nobody knows what's going on in his "funny old head".

I think that the whole matter may be about exploring possibilities for future developments.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John: "Have you spoken to Mycroft, Molly, uh, anyone?"
Mrs Hudson: "They don’t matter. You do."


I BELIEVE IN SERIES 5!
http://up.picr.de/25572077rl.jpg



                                                                                                                  
 

June 3, 2012 3:39 pm  #4


Re: The misidentification.

Oh Aurora, good observation!  I skipped right over the "how did she manage the body double" question!  I was just enjoying the show.... Tch.  It does raise some harsh questions.  We know Irene is cold and calculating, but planting a dead body, yikes, that is a bit out of character.  Even if Jim orchestrated it, it takes Irene's game to a nastier level.

And ... Oh hell.  If Sherlock recognized it wasn't Irene, then all that gooey stuff we got to see about Sherlock in pain was a ruse.  When he's composing his sad music, he tells John... "helps me to think.". Sherlock doesn't eat when he's working something out.  John and Mrs. Hudson exchange meaningful looks with each other (and us) but perhaps they (and we) are once again under/overestimating Sherlock.  Irene has fully engaged Sherlock, yes, but not in sentiment.

Still, Sherlock is not entirely clear-headed with The Woman.  He decodes the airline seating message without hesitation... Mycroft is right to scold him for being a show-off.  He doesn't recognize that Irene has used him as a pawn in a larger game.  "Not you, junior.  You're done now" is very possibly one of the coldest lines in the entire series.  I gasped, I did.

And now I will have to watch it again with this new angle of interpretation....!  Thanks, Aurora.

 

June 4, 2012 10:51 am  #5


Re: The misidentification.

kazza474 wrote:

It was a dead body.
Irene with the help of Moriarty could have easily found one.
Many bodies don't have moles/markings etc on them & someone of that size and age would most likely be fit & healthy and hence could have a 'perfect' body in the torso. Any small adjustments like colouring, marks etc could be added if need be. Molly isn't the only morgue attendant in town. To some degree, the dead body would be malleable enough to 'mould' to more exactly resemble Irene simply by having Irene as a live model. What do I mean? Things like saline under the skin etc. People do it to themselves live, so on a dead body would be child's play. Sherlock didn't look at feet, hands etc. He looked at a face that was unrecognisable anyway & a torso, that was all. No deep investigating & that was plain to see on screen.
Pre=planning? I doubt it as Irene would not have foreseen it this step being necessary 'months in advance'.

So why the mistake?
Sherlock knew that if he received her phone, it meant her life was in danger. So he knew the possibility of her being dead was quite real. Sherlock himself has said 'You can't kill an idea, once it's been planted'. He deduced she was most probably dead or about to be so; the idea was planted.
Sherlock is not infallible; he makes mistakes ( Harry/Harriet)

Quite simple really. Or really, elementary.

Hi Kazza,

So, do you think Irene didn't intend to trick Sherlock with the body? She just presented a body that was a rough approximation of herself and got lucky that he didn't look at it properly? Or, was she hoping he'd lie to cover for her and got an added bonus when he fell for it too? You have to remember that Irene can't predict what Sherlock will do when he looks at the corpse. His normal approach when faced with a dead body is to examine it carefully. Certainly she can prime him to expect it to be her, but she can't predict his response. You seem to accept that he had resigned himself to seeing her dead and didn't question it. He could equally have gone into denial and been desperate to prove it wasn't her, or become angry determined to find any clue to bring justice/vengeance on her killer. Given everything else we know about him, I would have thought the latter to be more likely.

I have to disagree with you on "moulding" the dead body too. Anything that involved breaking the skin would have to be done long enough before death for the skin to heal. Otherwise it would be clear to the pathologist doing the postmortem that it was to disguise the corpse rather than cosmetically enhance the living woman. (Eg. the injection site for Connie Prince's botox injection was still obvious on her body.) Evidence the body had been tampered with would raise lots of red flags and lead to a much more careful analysis and a much higher chance of exposure. Likewise with markings. Eg. the freckle on Irene's collarbone which was about 20cm away in Sherlock's line of sight for quite some time. No way he could have missed or forgotten it. Makeup would be obvious in in the PM. Tattooing it on would have to be done before death and would probably be noticed too.

     Thread Starter
 

June 4, 2012 10:56 am  #6


Re: The misidentification.

tobeornot221b wrote:

I think Sherlock is lying. He knows exactly that the body isn't Irene's.
Maybe he wants to test how easy it would be to fake his own death if he needed to do likewise one day or another.
He must come to the conclusion that giving up on his phone (throwing it away like he will do on the roof later) and presenting a dead body of quite a good match (not necessarily a perfect one!) will be enough to fool people.
Mycroft apparently trusts Sherlock's judgement (why else would he offer Sherlock a cigarette in order to kind of comfort him?) - but he is fooled. Even months later, when Irene and Sherlock will fake her death for a second time and Mycroft says: "I was thorough this time. It would take Sherlock Holmes to fool me…", he is fooled again.
"DNA tests are only as good as the records you keep", Irene says.
Who, in Sherlock's case, would be his record keeper if the occasion arised? Molly? Good prospects, he must think. He only has to choose St. Bart's for his "performance" where Molly will be at hand.

The point that isn't quite clear to me is: Why does Sherlock seem to be that heartbroken when he supposes Irene to be dead? Is it all good acting in order to make believe? Or is John right when he says: "… but he's Sherlock. He does all that anyway."? To me, Sherlock doesn't seem to be relieved even when he knows that Irene isn't dead. Even John is wondering: "So, she’s alive then. How are we feeling about that?"
Sherlock simply doesn't change his behaviour – whether he is happy or heartbroken. Nobody knows what's going on in his "funny old head".

I think that the whole matter may be about exploring possibilities for future developments.

Hi tobeornot221b,

I agree he is testing out possibilities. I think the "grief" is all acting. It's just too cliche to be Sherlock's true reaction. It could be quite useful to him, though, to check that his acting skills are good enough to fool even someone as close to him as John.

     Thread Starter
 

June 4, 2012 11:23 am  #7


Re: The misidentification.

- What purpose would there be to a close examination of the body? Did he for instance examine Jennifer Wilson's body in that detail? Dental & DNA records had already identified her, she had sent her phone which meant her life was in danger & it was obvious as to the cause of death & most probably the reason (blackmail turned bad). Her body had been processed in the morgue by Molly, so unless he was looking for something specific no study of the body in detail would have been warranted or fruitful.

- Sherlock going into denial or becoming desperate or seeking vengeance? I doubt that.

- Moulding the body using saline is practised a lot these days. Very often there is little or no blood involved. On a dead body, there would be no blood; in simple terms there's no blood flow.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_cXJpYUj3CY8/SlZ1QdP-GdI/AAAAAAAAFz8/rJkBmEtbXMk/s400/Picture+11.png


Realistically though, there may have been no need to tamper with the body whatsoever. Not hard to find body doubles.

I'm just giving you one possibility as to why Sherlock was fooled. But when it comes down to it, you have to remember Irene would have been smart enough to outwit him, so I tend to believe that simple explanation.

A lot of your ideas are based on the premise that Sherlock had some kind of emotional attachment to Irene. Because that is what viewers were led to believe through most of the show.  And many fans still hold that idea even though we saw and heard how Sherlock cold heartedly took her pulse etc to determine that it was SHE who had the emotional attachment to HIM.
I'm no relationships expert, but you don't do that to someone you have an emotional attachment to.
Again, a seed was planted by Moftiss and it hasn't gone away for many people.

Certainly he respected her, but that doesn't mean emotions are involved.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 4, 2012 11:54 am  #8


Re: The misidentification.

Longsnowsmoon wrote:

Oh Aurora, good observation!  I skipped right over the "how did she manage the body double" question!  I was just enjoying the show.... Tch.  It does raise some harsh questions.  We know Irene is cold and calculating, but planting a dead body, yikes, that is a bit out of character.  Even if Jim orchestrated it, it takes Irene's game to a nastier level.

And ... Oh hell.  If Sherlock recognized it wasn't Irene, then all that gooey stuff we got to see about Sherlock in pain was a ruse.  When he's composing his sad music, he tells John... "helps me to think.". Sherlock doesn't eat when he's working something out.  John and Mrs. Hudson exchange meaningful looks with each other (and us) but perhaps they (and we) are once again under/overestimating Sherlock.  Irene has fully engaged Sherlock, yes, but not in sentiment.

Still, Sherlock is not entirely clear-headed with The Woman.  He decodes the airline seating message without hesitation... Mycroft is right to scold him for being a show-off.  He doesn't recognize that Irene has used him as a pawn in a larger game.  "Not you, junior.  You're done now" is very possibly one of the coldest lines in the entire series.  I gasped, I did.

And now I will have to watch it again with this new angle of interpretation....!  Thanks, Aurora.

Hi Longsnowsmoon,

I think they both believe it's just a game between them. They are both trying to outwit and out-manipulate each other and they are both enjoying the challenge. I think, however, they also both believe they are immune to the charms of the other... And they are both wrong.

Irene does put on the appearance of being attracted to Sherlock and claims it is the case but I think she thinks she is just playing the game. Sherlock correctly diagnoses that she enjoyed the game too much. I actually think he may have overestimated her attraction to him - I believe it was cockiness rather than sentiment that led to her choice of passcode - but nevertheless she overplayed her hand and got caught. She could simply have walked out of 221B after he interpreted the email, collected her riches from Moriarty and disappeared. The temptation to play with this hyper-intelligent virgin was too much for her.

Sherlock also overplayed his hand - in his case by wanting too much to impress her. He probably also thought interpreting the email was just another move, when it was actually Irene's end-game. Of course, this was also partially Mycroft's fault. He failed to remember that the need-to-know level rises with intelligence. He should have warned Sherlock that Irene had something she didn't understand that would be disastrous if leaked - he should have known better.

I think Sherlock might actually have had a warning that he wasn't entirely immune to Irene, though. If he already knew Irene wasn't dead, how can we understand his reaction when he left Battersea? I wonder, if when Irene said "Look at us both" to John, Sherlock's heart didn't do one of those completely illogical little skips "I might have a chance with her". His mind would have immediately responded "No, what rubbish. She doesn't mean it, she's is just manipulating John. And in any case I'm not interested in a relationship, not with her or anyone." I think, though, that the sudden revelation that his heart was not actually a rock is what really shook him up. Luckily he had the distraction of the American which let him convert all these confusing emotions into anger and get them out. Likely he then convinced himself the little attack of the heart didn't really happen - just a skipped beat due to dehydration - didn't mean anything - I really am impervious to her game...

     Thread Starter
 

June 4, 2012 1:10 pm  #9


Re: The misidentification.

I don't think it's as complex as all that really. The whole point was the face was "bashed in" so he couldn't recognize her from her face, which is why he asked to see the rest of her body. He knew her measurements so confirmed it was her from them. He had been called there by his brother whom he had spoken to earlier in the night to say that he expected them to find Irene dead because she had given him her phone, so when he is called in to identify her body he has no reason to look further. All Irene had to do was get a fake body with the same measurements as hers, not too difficult. Yes, Sherlock was duped and tricked, but that's the whole point of the story. She is "the woman who beat him"...THE woman...the one woman who matters...that's why he has respect for her and is intrigued by her. It's canon. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.

Independent OSAJ Affiliate

http://9.asset.soup.io/asset/1715/0057_6c7d.gif
 

June 4, 2012 6:15 pm  #10


Re: The misidentification.

I agree with the boss--it's very simple. It really was Irene on the slab. Molly isn't as dumb as people think--she can bring people back to life and heal all their wounds. Sherlock realized this immediately when he saw Irene was alive, as he could never have been mistaken about who was on the slab. So, he went to Molly and said, "I'm going to die. I need you." Two mysteries solved. So there. 


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Perfectly sound analysis. I was hoping you would go a little deeper."
 

June 5, 2012 3:10 am  #11


Re: The misidentification.

I don't agree it was Irene herself on the slab. Nor do I think that Molly would have had any part of anything Irene was planning.
Molly can bring people back & heal all wounds? I hope you're kidding.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 5, 2012 6:21 am  #12


Re: The misidentification.

kazza474 wrote:

- What purpose would there be to a close examination of the body? Did he for instance examine Jennifer Wilson's body in that detail? Dental & DNA records had already identified her, she had sent her phone which meant her life was in danger & it was obvious as to the cause of death & most probably the reason (blackmail turned bad). Her body had been processed in the morgue by Molly, so unless he was looking for something specific no study of the body in detail would have been warranted or fruitful.

Oh, I get where you're coming from now. You're working on the understanding that the official DNA identification had already come through and Sherlock was just looking at the body out of interest. I saw it the other way around: the body had just been found and Sherlock had gone in to give a preliminary ID. Based on Mycroft saying "she was the only one that matched the description", I understood there must have been nothing at the crime scene to identify her beyond the fact that she's a slender woman around her late 20s. So, when Mycroft asks "That's her, isn't it?" it is a genuine question: is that her or should we be looking for another body?  If she'd already been legally identified, I agree that Sherlock had no need to question it. If that's the case, though, Mycroft's first words are strange.

I'm definitely not an expert on female bodies. My opinion that finding a body double that would pass close scrutiny would be difficult was mostly based on what I've seen in Embarrassing Bodies and Trinny and Sussanah. They indicate that the details of female bodies are very variable and certainly there is a lot of variation amongst the "normal" women willing to be filmed by them. Maybe I'm overestimating it, though. Maybe Sherlock was too, which led him to give a confident identification of a fairly generic body? Are there any doctors, nurses, pathologists out there who have looked at a lot of women in the flesh and can give an expert opinion?


kazza474 wrote:

- Moulding the body using saline is practised a lot these days. Very often there is little or no blood involved. On a dead body, there would be no blood; in simple terms there's no blood flow.

Oh, yes. I don't doubt that body moulding does happen. I'm not worried about blood, but about puncture wounds. In a living patient I would have expected these would show signs of healing, but this wouldn't happen if the work was done after death. Regardless, I think we both agree (if for different reasons) that Irene didn't need to ensure the body double was perfect. 

kazza474 wrote:

I'm just giving you one possibility as to why Sherlock was fooled. But when it comes down to it, you have to remember Irene would have been smart enough to outwit him, so I tend to believe that simple explanation.

Here we differ. Sherlock is, after all, supposed to be the "world's greatest detective". I'm certainly not claiming he's infallible, but I also don't think it would be simple to fool him. Irene is smart but I don't think there's any evidence that she's significantly more intelligent than Sherlock. And he's no novice in this game.

kazza474 wrote:

A lot of your ideas are based on the premise that Sherlock had some kind of emotional attachment to Irene. Because that is what viewers were led to believe through most of the show.  And many fans still hold that idea even though we saw and heard how Sherlock cold heartedly took her pulse etc to determine that it was SHE who had the emotional attachment to HIM.
I'm no relationships expert, but you don't do that to someone you have an emotional attachment to.
Again, a seed was planted by Moftiss and it hasn't gone away for many people.

Certainly he respected her, but that doesn't mean emotions are involved.

Not at all. I'm also arguing that his actions were logical rather than emotional.  Sorry if I gave the wrong impression with the denial/revenge thing. I thought you were implying an emotional reason for not questioning the body, rather than that the ID was already given.

So, you're position is that Irene being dead didn't mean anything to him? The sad music, not eating, etc. were just Sherlock being normal and John was just making wrong assumptions therefore coming up with false interpretations? And the disorientation on the way home was due to shock that he'd make such a massive mistake? Also a valid interpretation.

     Thread Starter
 

June 5, 2012 6:23 am  #13


Re: The misidentification.

Tantalus wrote:

I agree with the boss--it's very simple. It really was Irene on the slab. Molly isn't as dumb as people think--she can bring people back to life and heal all their wounds. Sherlock realized this immediately when he saw Irene was alive, as he could never have been mistaken about who was on the slab. So, he went to Molly and said, "I'm going to die. I need you." Two mysteries solved. So there. 

Awesome.   

     Thread Starter
 

June 5, 2012 7:10 am  #14


Re: The misidentification.

Aurora, you need to watch that scene again. I just did; I always believed this was an 'older' dead body/not fresh as it were.

Sherlock deduces from the gift of the phone that Irene is dead & calls Mycroft. Mycroft said "we know where she is but as you kindly pointed out it hardly matters now'.
The next scene, the brothers meet up at the morgue & Mycroft said that they had looked for a body that fitted her description & had the most likely one brought to St Barts.
So no, it wasn't a new dead body. It has been originally at another morgue.

Molly only pulls the sheet back to the knees. Hard to deduce height from that for a start. Mycroft's question about 'that's her isn't it" isn't so strange. You've just finished saying yourself how bodies can be switched, DNA records changed etc.
Mycroft trusts his brothers sight more than simply taking the written records as gospel.

I doubt any tampering with the body occurred actually. Irene gambled on Sherlock doing exactly what he did.

As for Irene fooling him, she did with the fake phone. Sherlock makes mistakes and Sherlock CAN be fooled and Irene has proven herself to be up to that task.

So, you're position is that Irene being dead didn't mean anything to him? The sad music, not eating, etc. were just Sherlock being normal and John was just making wrong assumptions therefore coming up with false interpretations? And the disorientation on the way home was due to shock that he'd make such a massive mistake?

No.
- I am saying that Irene's death left him with a puzzle to solve.
- The music was called 'sad' by John; it could also be described as reflective or many other words. The choice is yours.
- Not eating is normal for Sherlock when working on a case.
- 'Disoreintation'? Did he get lost? I'm going to answer the rest of that one with a separate post I think.


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 5, 2012 8:08 am  #15


Re: The misidentification.

Author: kazza474
Sherlock's Dictaphone data  :

- Things are strange at the moment.
Irene Adler sent me her phone as a Xmas gift. This phone was her life (her words) and would never part with it. But she has. One could only assume that she was about to lose her life somehow.

- Called Mycroft; he knew of her whereabouts. Explained her gift to me & my deduction. He's looking into it.

- Mycroft called. meeting at St Bart's morgue.

- It's Ms Adler. They had her across town in a morgue. DNA tests confirmed it. Description fitted so Mycroft had her transported to Bart's. Facial features couldn't be used as a visual clue however on further investigation, the body measurements matched those of Ms Adler.

- Had a short talk with Mycroft afterwards; enjoyed a rare cigarette; low tar.

- I am puzzled. Nothing really fits. The government don't have the photos yet. Or her phone. They knew where she was. So why and more importantly WHO killed her? CIA involved again? What reason would they have especially if they don't yet have the phone? With her gone, they know she could have hidden it anywhere; they couldn't find it in her own home without my help. It would be foolish to have killed her before they got what they came for.

- Need to think. I shall compose some music; so much more soothing than trying to 'mind palace'; I don't want a woman in my palace. I need peace, quiet and reflection time. Meanwhile they all think this death has me on the edge. Hope the music soothes them.

- John left 221B with a strange woman in a car. Following them now. What is Mycroft up to?

- Interesting. Ms Adler is not in fact dead. Wants her phone. John made her text me. What game is she playing? Why make me believe she is dead then she contacts me to say she is alive?

- I took my time going home, walked through several streets deep in thought. I'm never fooled. Well seldom anyway. What did I miss at the morgue? Why send me her phone if she wasn't dead? What is she up to? Is someone after her? Or is this something different? Is she gay? Is John gay? Are they both straight? Is one straight and one gay?

- One problem solved. Arrived home to find Mr CIA had tortured Mrs H trying to get information about the phone. Lost cause, so I showed him the door, or rather window. Note to self, buy Mrs H new bins.

OK, the main part I want to point out is in bold. He had a very tricky puzzle on his hands; who; why; how ; when? (ok, maybe not the gay bit) But these unexpected changes bamboozled his brain for quite some time.

Secondly, John called the music sad; Mrs H called it a lovely tune. Sherlock said it helps him think.
But everyone wants to take that as meaning Sherlock's playing sad music because he's heartbroken???? Who made John the decision-maker here???


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 5, 2012 8:50 am  #16


Re: The misidentification.

To quote the Moff: "It's Sherlock Holmes. Sentimentalise him at your peril."

Mwahaha, evil Moff.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eventually everyone will support Johnlock.

Independent OSAJ Affiliate

http://9.asset.soup.io/asset/1715/0057_6c7d.gif
 

June 5, 2012 9:07 am  #17


Re: The misidentification.

Ahh the magic words of Swami Moff
http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/Steven%20Moffat%20newpic.jpg


____________________________________________________________________________________________
Also, please note that sentences can also end in full stops. The exclamation mark can be overused.
Sherlock Holmes 28 March 13:08

Mycroft’s popularity doesn’t surprise me at all. He is, after all, incredibly beautiful, clever and well-dressed. And beautiful. Did I mention that?
--Mark Gatiss

"I know that you believe you understand what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant."
Robert McCloskey
 

June 5, 2012 9:46 am  #18


Re: The misidentification.

kazza474 wrote:

Author: kazza474
Sherlock's Dictaphone data  :

This dictaphone script a great idea. Thanks so much for the work you put into it. It's amazing how differently we think. (Makes for interesting conversations, though.  ) I'll try to put one together as I see it. Need to check that scene again first, though. Unfortunately this means I wont be able to get back to you on it until tomorrow.

     Thread Starter
 

June 5, 2012 10:51 am  #19


Re: The misidentification.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

To quote the Moff: "It's Sherlock Holmes. Sentimentalise him at your peril."

Mwahaha, evil Moff.

I totally agree. 

     Thread Starter
 

June 5, 2012 11:24 am  #20


Re: The misidentification.

I don't think Sherlock was lying because in the warehouse Watson told Mycroft (actually finding it was Irene) that Holmes was mooning around for two weeks playing sad songs on his violin. I don't see any reason for Sherlock to fake the mourning when at least publicly he puts such low value on displays of sentiment. Also he often goes into these trances and is not aware of his surroundings and what he is actually doing at the moment. Then when Sherlock left the warehouse after his phone revealed his presence he had this wonderful happy look and light in his eye as if she had been brought back to him.

My guess is that at the morgue Sherlock was so devastated upon learning she was gone he could not bear to clinically examine the body in detail as he would have for any other victim.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disguise is always a self portrait
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum