Going back to the dog: I really wondered for quite some time what Sherlock's childhood must have been like for him to become so attached to Redbeard - and so traumatized by the dog's death - that "Redbeard" comes up as one of CAM's "pressure points". Pets die, it's what they do, and im most cases much sooner than their owners. Having - and losing - pets is one of the ways children can learn to cope with death (hopefully before they lose their (grand)parents.). Of course, that requires the parents to not lie about the animals death... (didn't know about that bit before readint this thread).

As Sherlock's parents seem perfectly loving and "ordinary", I can't understand why they couldn't have explained to Sherlock that Redbeard is sick and suffering and would be better off going to Heaven. Of course, the Irish Setter in the mind palace scene does not at all look sick and suffering (but then, Sherlock wouldn't want to remember him that way).

Then a fan fiction writer (sorry, I forgot who) suggested that Redbeard could have tried to defend Sherlock by biting some bully and been put down for that reason. Now that would explain quite a lot of things: Firstly, how CAM knew about the incident (I can see the healidne: "Irish Setter Mauls Kid on Playground"). Secondly it's much easier to accept a sick animal being put down than a perfectly healthy one that was just a bit overenthousiastic doing its job. Thirdly, for this reason the parents lying about having the dog killed also seems more probable to me.

What do you think?

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

......what if those clients he had on the "stag party night" spread the word? ....

I never understood why Tessa even bothered to tell her story to two obviously drunk guys... Just like I don't understand why Sherlock didn't notice that his beer was spiked, or how Molly arrived at the same quantity of alkohol for John and Sherlock, why Sherlock needed her help in the first place (I would have thought he'd have experimented some in his university days - just in the interests of research, obviously), and why he didn' provide himself with a bit of a safety net by eating something beforehand...

And could someone please explain the attraction of binge drinking? For me one hangover was enough...

Unfortunately, very little makes sense... I'm convinced that Sherlock did NOT want Moriarty to commit suicide, for the same reasons as RavenMorganLeigh - Sherlock is too visibly horrified. I was thinking the idea was to arrest Moriarty and then get him to call the snipers off (and I'm not going to think about exactly how Sherlock would have done that...). But Lola Red has a point - the Lazarus plan wouldn't have made any sense whatsoever in that case.

Why did John have to stop Sherlock from explaining all 13 possibilities in TEH? We'd know so much more.... <g> I listened to the DVD commentary to TEH yesterday, and unless Mofiss are flat out lying, the third explanation is the correct one and we won't get another one.

I'll simply stop thinking about TRF, it's by far my least favourite episode.

I didn't see it that way because of the newspaper headlines - I don't think that Andersen would fantasize that level of detail and with that much command of German...

Schmiezi wrote:

The restaurant can have only one kind of St. Emilion on their menu. In that case it would be right to offer "the St.Emilion".

The St. Emilion implies that there's only one to choose from. Meaning when  John is sitting in the restaurant, he could order "the St. Emilion". But when Mycroft, from the outside, talks about the restaurant's wine selection, he should say: "they have a few bottles of a 2000 St. Emilion", or, even better "of the 2000 Chateau Bellecombe" (just picked any one from the list of producers (http://chateaux.vins-saint-emilion.com/) - I don't know the wine). Because even in a region that generally produces good wine - or at least rather pricy ones - there's better and worse ones.

But I suppose Mofiss know as much about French wine as about the German legal system...

Thank you!

Of course, after claiming I'd never watch the episode again, I had to do so, paying more attention to the end: How can Sherlock not notice that Moriarty is armed (on the rooftop)? And why, for heaven's sake, does Moriarty shoot himself instead of Sherlock? It would have been easy enough to to and they were close enough to make it look like suicide (of course we wouldn't have gotten a season 3...)?

Btw, regarding Sherlock in court the "Casebook" (in a "newspaper article" )says: "...Mr Holmes then proceeded to lecture the prosecuting counsel about their jobs before, in response to a dressing down from the Judge, describing, in brutal detail, the Right Honourable gentlemen's bedroom habits and how they involved the clerk of the court, Mr. Lionel Forrester." Now that's so far beyond idiocy that I need to get my dictionary of synonyms...

Reality check (i. e. I'm not worried about continuity or people's behaviour):

The first mistake is before the episode even starts, in the teaser "Many happy returns" (I finally got my series 3 special edition - don't order from Zoverstocks if you live in France and want to receive things quickly): There are no jury trials in Germany.

In The Empty Hearse: The restaurant can't have "the St. Emilion", only "a St. Emilion" - St. Emilion is an AOC (appelation d'origine contrôlé) which comprises hundreds of different wines.

Regarding animal fibres, tensile strength is rarely even mentioned (the individual fibre's strenght isn't important - twist and number of plies determine the yarn's strength). Important characteristics are diameter, crimp, staple length. But the easiest way to distinguish between alpaca and Icelandic sheep (once processed to yarn - nobody could confuse raw alpaca and Icelandic locks) would be to look at the fibre under a microscope - wool has clearly visible scales, alpaca is much smoother.

After all my nitpicking I also have to mention something the show got right: Next to firefighter's or Formula 1 pilot gear, a 100% wool coat is probably the best thing to wear when approaching a fire - wool does not burst into flames and it does not continue to burn once removed from a flame.
 

besleybean wrote:

....
But she can't help being in love with him and I think she always will be.
...

I think Molly fell out of love when she spent the day working with Sherlock. Otherwise, why would she have declined the dinner she originally suggested herself?

(Food is my personal "minimum wage" - I see getting fed after helping out for a day as my due, not the prelude to anything else. I'd only refuse a free meal if I seriously didn't want to spend another half-hour with the person... which might happen with a real-life Sherlock...)