Here are a couple of things that I feel like the audience takes for granted as true:

1.  The three killers Moriarty hired to kills John, Mrs. Hudson, and Lestrade are actually hired to kill those three. 

Now, we can infer with near certainty that the sniper who disengages after Sherlock's fall was assigned to kill John.  I'll take that.

But we never see the same with the police mole and the bald-headed fix-it man (with the gun in his tool box) -- how can we be so sure that these two were Moriarty's men?  Could they have been hired by Sherlock?  We don't ACTUALLY know or have closure that these two men got the call to "stand down," so how do we even know that there were supposed to kill Mrs. Hudson and Lestrade? 

Which segues to the next....

2.  The international hitmen were hired by terrorist cells, and Moriarty had a hand in all of it, and/or they had the primary purpose of getting the computer keycode. 

During Mycroft's and John's meeting, Mycroft says "If it's not Moriarty, then who?"  

That should be a tip-off that things may not be what they seem.  They may not be hired by Moriarty, or have any interest in Moriarty at alll.

There's a possibility that it could be John, Sherlock, or even Mycroft who hired those hitmen, to protect Sherlock -- and they had no intention of recovering any sort of key code (even though it was mentioned by the last killed hitman). 

John could have hired them to protect Sherlock.  John was a captain in the military, he probably has the connections to procure international hitmen.  Plus, John was not scared or impressed when presented with the information of the foreign hitmen -- if anything, John was rather ambivalent.  He wasn't surprised that they were there, or surprised about who they are.  Why?

Sherlock could have hired them himself.  Sherlock has proven himself capable of infiltrating terrorist cells -- perh

I have so many questions here regarding this!

1.  How did the forger/painter paint a near-exact copy of the lost painting? 

Hasn't the painting been lost for centuries?  There would be no postcards or other duplicates off of which he could have been painting his version.

2. Why paint the van Buren supernova at all? 

Unless Moriarty intentionally instructed the painter to paint it in -- just to give it a fool-proof signature of its inauthenticity -- then it's a totally random decision, a rather esoteric one at that.  Or, I guess the painter could've just been painting off of the night sky, but that would've required the absolutely coincidental and perfect timing of the forging artist's painting and the original artist's painting, since star positions constantly change throughout the year. 

3.  How does Sherlock know the name of the supernova? 

We never hear the words, "van Buren supernova" at the planetarium (during which Dr. Caanes/Kanz was being choked by Golem).  Are we supposed to believe that Sherlock searched for ALL supernovae that were only visible in the 1800s but not in the 1600s, and luckily and correctly deduce it all the way down to THE one supernova.... all in the matter of literally less than 2 seconds on his phone? 

We already know that Sherlock has virtually no working knowledge of OUR solar system -- but we are to assume that he knows the solar explosions occurring in solar systems literally light years away? 

4.  How did the painting pass all the rigorous authenticity tests? 

I would assume that all sorts of forensic testing would have revealed that the painting was not only not painted 400-500 years ago, but it was painted a few months ago.  Even if they couldn't prove the exact timing of the painting, SURELY they could've found out that it's not 500 years old. 

These "testers" need a new job if they can't tell the difference between a painting painted in the 1600's

Why not throw the bomb in the pool?

There might have been a possibility that the bomb could have short-circuited from the water, setting the bomb off. 

Someone mentioned it earlier, but....

WHY KILL HER?  Because she was "revealing" too much about Moriarty?   It should go without saying that if she were rescued, she would have eventually ended up telling the police the same things.

Moriarty had to have figured that the hostages would have told the police as many details as possible, like the first victim (off-screen, presumably) telling the police that she was receiving instructions via text on a pager, and if she deviated from it at all, she would've been shot. 

So, again, Moriarty surely would've figured that the blind lady would've told the police that "his voice is so soft" anyway.

Who is the "Client"?

Now, I know that they describe the Client as a "young female," and Irene confirms this by telling Sherlock that she might want to see "her again."

So, the very simple answer is that the Client is merely young female royalty whose identity is not relevant or otherwise interesting for such intents or purposes with respect to Sherlock (the TV show).

But that's just so boring 


***SHORT STORY SPOILER BELOW***

Here are my reasons why I believe we actually see the Client in the episode (and also why I love the idea):


1.  Sherlock meets the Client face-to-face in the source material/short story

I can't be the only one who read the A Scandal in Bohemia (the story on which A Scandal in Belgravia is based) AND assumed that the Client's Representative (who walks in saying "...illustrious") was actually the Client when watching the episode. 

Am I?

In the short story, during the initial consultation, the meeting was conducted between Holmes/Watson and some purported representative of the Client (whom I remember to be some sort of duke or baron or something.  Forgive me, it's been a while since I've read it). 

The Representative has covered his face with I believe a handkerchief, masking his identity.  However, Holmes quickly deduces (and reveals to the parties) that the representative is actually the Client himself, rather than just mere proxy for the duke, at which point the duke removes his mask.

So, if Sherlock (the TV show) followed suit, they would have had Sherlock not only actually meeting the Client face-to-face, but exposing the Client's wasted attempt to disguise himself as a mere representative of the Client.  Here, the "mask" would be the "the Client's a young female" mis-direct.

My theories:

1.  The assassins were mercenaries hired by Mycroft to protect Sherlock from Moriarty.  Mycroft clearly leaves it ambiguous as to how and why they're there.  "If not Moriarty, then who?"  Along with Mycroft's guilt, and his resources, I think he's trying to protect Sherlock.

2.  Moriarty knows of the assassins (but not of their purpose), he believes that they're there to attack/kill Sherlock for the "code" that Sherlock "believes" exists, even though Moriarty knows there's no code, and Sherlock knows there's no code (but pretends that he thinks there's one, anyway, to Moriarty).

3.  Moriarty's snipers have been instructed to kill the assassins if they make contact with Sherlock.  Moriarty is ensuring that Sherlock is stayin' alive, otherwise he can't perform his own fall.  If the assassins really wanted to kill each other, they could have already done it.  My guess is that Moriarty instructed his snipers to kill any suspicious person who tries to make contact with Sherlock, as it jeopardizes Sherlock's life.

I agree with those who think that Mycroft's character has somewhat departed from canon.

Sure, Mycroft's does not appear heavily in the canon, but he is described enough in a couple of sentences that demonstrate that the show departs from such characterization.

Sherlock admits that Mycroft is in many ways the superior brainpower, but he's just too lazy and indifferent to details to follow through.  He'd much rather be lazy and wrong than make the effort to be right, quite the opposite from Sherlock. 

I'm certain the writers know this, and they figure that the TV character is a much more interesting character.  A lazy, indifferent Mycroft would severely limit the scope of Sherlock's available government crises to solve. 

My only nitpick is that Mycroft just doesn't seem close to Sherlock's brainpower in the BBC series.  Things like talking about the Bond Air over the phone while Sherlock is around, or being rebuffed by Irene Adler in every attempt to achieve leverage over her phone.  He certainly isn't lazy or indifferent in these instances, he just simply lacks Sherlock's forward-thinking, which I see as a minor, but not bothersome, nitpick.

miriel68 wrote:

Well, it was indeed the case, I think and what is really amazing, is that we have it coming as early as the beginning of the first episode, with Donavan predicting that Sherlock will "cross the line" one day.Quite a wonderful continuity, rarely seen in a TV series. Do you think M & G had already plans for Sherlock's fall at that stage, or they just used cleverly these early lines when RF arrived?  

I absolutely believe that Donovan's forewarning was a planned foreshadowing of Sherlock's fall. 

Donovan was the catalyst for the fraud investigation, and M&G would have been standing on very feeble ground (not to mention, it would have been near the height of lazy shoe-horning-ness) to have Donovan arbitrarily instigate it without any prior hints of motive/motivation (other than her suggestion to John to take up other hobbies, such as fishing). 

At the very least, Donovan's forewarning was meant to lay groundwork for a self-contained episode where Sherlock is the prime suspect. 

At the most and at the writers' best, it was carefully planned and purposefully placed in the pilot with the exclusive intent to use it as the spark that ignites the actual RF by Sherlock.  I'm 99% inclined to believe the latter, based on the show's overall quality, consistency, pedigree, and, well, goodwill.

SusiGo wrote:

Sometimes I think they planned nearly everything. There was a post on Tumblr some days ago where they showed John's mug with the crown, the apple on his desk and the gun in his drawer, all from the very beginning of ASiP. And the crown, the apple and the gun return in TRF. 

I may be wrong, but I think that mug is meant to represent that Watson graduated from medical school, and/or otherwise is involved in the medical field. 

It has the classic Rod of Asclepius (spiraling serpentine symbol used to represent the medical profession), and on the bottom it has the phrase, "In Arduis Fidelis," which translates to "faithful in adversity" in Latin. 

These sorts of Latin phrases -- especially ones expressing faithfullness/loyalty ("Fidelis") -- are common among military units, like "Semper Fidelis" for the United States Marine Corps (meaning "always faithful).

So, you take the Rod of Asclepius medical serpentine and add the Latin expression for faithfullness in adversity, and you get a mug that adds to "medical" + "military."

In my humble opinion, the mug in the opening shots of ASiP represents that John served in the Royal Army Medical Corps.  But that's just one theory.

I do like the idea that it was a foreshadowing device, but more and more I'm inclined to favor the simpler interpretation -- John Watson was a doctor for the British army.

Sherlock was congratulated for the successful capture of Interpol's number one suspect, who had been on the loose for 30 years.

There can't be anyone (in the fictional universe or our universe) that believes that a 6 or 7-year old Sherlock began scheming with this guy in order to set up the ultimate pre-solved crime....3 decades later.