BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » The theory he told Anderson

shylock · January 2, 2014 2:12 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:

It´s not about the makeup - Short before the bicycle "accident" John gets a glance of the lying corpse. And this can´t be real Sherlock for obvious reasons. So for a short moment they needed a body.
The makeup was planted during John´s knockout, not before.

but if John could see the 'body' he would also be able to see the air-bag. which for obvious readons Sherlock would have not got off of.
No, the little building is quite long. We get John´s perspective clearly to be seen from the camera POV - he could see the body, but not the airbag.

I would not think that John would be stupid enough to to accept that the body would land in an area other than directly below where it fell from.

anjaH_alias · January 2, 2014 2:26 pm

shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:

but if John could see the 'body' he would also be able to see the air-bag. which for obvious readons Sherlock would have not got off of.
No, the little building is quite long. We get John´s perspective clearly to be seen from the camera POV - he could see the body, but not the airbag.

I would not think that John would be stupid enough to to accept that the body would land in an area other than directly below where it fell from.

I think for a John in shock this was enough. And, again, the camera offers us his perspective - for a second he can see a body on the pavement, then he is knocked down. If there wasn´t the dead body he had seen nothing. That had been a magic trick then .

shylock · January 2, 2014 2:35 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
No, the little building is quite long. We get John´s perspective clearly to be seen from the camera POV - he could see the body, but not the airbag.

I would not think that John would be stupid enough to to accept that the body would land in an area other than directly below where it fell from.
I think for a John in shock this was enough. And, again, the camera offers us his perspective - for a second he can see a body on the pavement, then he is knocked down. If there wasn´t the dead body he had seen nothing. That had been a magic trick then .

It would have been far easier to set up, and more convincing, if John had been knocked down (exactly were he was anyway) which was before he could see far enough round the building to the point where he would naturally be looking for as where the body should have landed.

Last edited by shylock (January 2, 2014 2:36 pm)

anjaH_alias · January 2, 2014 2:37 pm

shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:

I would not think that John would be stupid enough to to accept that the body would land in an area other than directly below where it fell from.
I think for a John in shock this was enough. And, again, the camera offers us his perspective - for a second he can see a body on the pavement, then he is knocked down. If there wasn´t the dead body he had seen nothing. That had been a magic trick then .

It would have been far easier to set up, and more convincing, if John had been knocked down (exactly were he was anyway) which was before he could see far enough round to building to the point where he would naturally be looking for as where the body should have landed.

Easier yes, but more convincing? John is clever and could have got doubts not having seen him on the pavement close to the fall.

Mrs. Watson · January 2, 2014 2:39 pm

Not to fill my post with quotes:

1. I thought from the beginning that it was super weird that they put the "explanation" in the middle of the underground scene. It was the one thing it really bothered me about the episode.

2. The whole Sherlock/Anderson interview had a not-so-real feeling but I couldn't put my finger at it until the wise and almighty boss of this forum pointed it: Sherlock would never call Anderson by his first name!! I mean, when I was watching it I thought "Sherlock knows Anderson first name?" but it never clicked that OF COURSE HE DOESN'T. That's the kind of information he would delete immediately from his hard drive.

3. Was this how he did it? Maybe. I think that it's mostly true but the snipper part doesn't make sense neither the fake body one. That said, using a stunt bag is a plausible explanation.

4. Of course this is what they wanted! We waited 2 f******g years to know how he did it and the thing is... we still don't know for sure and will talk about it forever and ever. I call that pure genius.

shylock · January 2, 2014 2:41 pm

anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:

I think for a John in shock this was enough. And, again, the camera offers us his perspective - for a second he can see a body on the pavement, then he is knocked down. If there wasn´t the dead body he had seen nothing. That had been a magic trick then .

It would have been far easier to set up, and more convincing, if John had been knocked down (exactly were he was anyway) which was before he could see far enough round to building to the point where he would naturally be looking for as where the body should have landed.
Easier yes, but more convincing? John is clever and could have got doubts not having seen him on the pavement close to the fall.

But he did see him, covered in blood, when he finally got round to the point where he knew he had fallen.

In John's mind, being knocked over by the bike was little more than an unfortunat delay in him getting to where he knew he had to be.

Sherlock Holmes · January 2, 2014 2:43 pm

Oddly enough, I would have accepted this theory and been happy with it, had Anderson not expressed his disappointment. As soon as he said that, I instantly felt disappointed too....

KKKKK · January 2, 2014 2:46 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Oddly enough, I would have accepted this theory and been happy with it, had Anderson not expressed his disappointment. As soon as he said that, I instantly felt disappointed too....

exactly how I felt, I was watching it thinking really? because they had already told us two other ways that he 'could' have faked his death, but anderson's reaction confused me and it made me think if the explanation was real. i know its what the writers want and theyve down a brilliant job of getting us to question how he did it. My question now though is will we ever be certian of how Sherlock faked his death, if the case is that what he told Anderson is not true, then when else will they tell how he faked it and will they at all?

anjaH_alias · January 2, 2014 2:47 pm

shylock wrote:
anjaH_alias wrote:
shylock wrote:

It would have been far easier to set up, and more convincing, if John had been knocked down (exactly were he was anyway) which was before he could see far enough round to building to the point where he would naturally be looking for as where the body should have landed.
Easier yes, but more convincing? John is clever and could have got doubts not having seen him on the pavement close to the fall.

But he did see him, covered in blood, when he finally got round to the point where he knew he had fallen.

In John's mind, being knocked over by the bike was little more than an unfortunat delay in him getting to where he knew he had to be.

We don´t get to a common point here. For me it´s more convincing like this. And we should also not forget that this worked out plan how to survive is one out of 13 , so that means, not everything could have been foreseen. Where exactly will John stand at that moment, how fast will the bicycle driver reach him, yes, and how close can he stand without John is getting aware of him and possibly wondering about that man watching him. Andandand, I think there´s nothing wrong or suspicious with that dead body.

SusiGo · January 2, 2014 2:51 pm

Another point in favour of the explanation in the Anderson scene: it exactly fits with what Sherlock told John in the second restaurant - that Molly, Mycroft, and some members of the Homeless Network were involved in the plan. And there was no need to lie about that at the time.

Sherlock Holmes · January 2, 2014 2:58 pm

SusiGo wrote:
Another point in favour of the explanation in the Anderson scene: it exactly fits with what Sherlock told John in the second restaurant - that Molly, Mycroft, and some members of the Homeless Network were involved in the plan. And there was no need to lie about that at the time.

I don't think that was ever in question though. Everyone knew Molly, Mycroft and the Homeless Network were involved. I mean, they had to be. I know some people doubted Mycroft but everyone was agreed that Molly and the Network were involved.

sj4iy · January 2, 2014 3:19 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Having thought about this more overnight, I'm convinced that the entire scene with Anderson was lies.

The most obvious clue in all this, is the fact that Sherlock CALLS ANDERSON BY HIS FIRST NAME.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE DO THAT? He can't even remember Lestrade's first name, someone he's worked with for many years and whom he has a certain amount of respect for. He's always, always, called him Anderson. Why would that suddenly change now? I think it's more like Anderson's personal fantasy that Sherlock would call him by his first name because now he's Sherlock's number one fanboy.

Then there was the fact that Sherlock basically just disappeared and it was a bit of a weird jump cut that looked like funny editing - or on purpose editing.

Then there was the fact that the entire scene was just stuck rather awkwardly in between the middle of the dramatic train scene.

The whole thing made NO SENSE.

Why would Sherlock go to Anderson? Why would he sit and be recorded for an interview for his ridiculous, idiotic fan club group by a man he spent his entire time with Scotland Yard deriding and making fun of? WHY? Why would he tell Anderson and not John?

This is Anderson's fantasy.

Anderson would love to be able to turn around and tell Sherlock Holmes that how he did it wasn't particularly clever or exciting.

Sorry, I think the whole thing made absolutely perfect sense. Maybe not as 'exciting' or 'thrilling' as some were expecting, but these things rarely are. Any time you see the illusion behind a magic trick, it's disappointing. The big key to take from it is that Sherlock had a codename with every scenario, so he and his brother had worked out all of the details beforehand.

Why would he tell Anderson and not John? Because he respects John enough to think that John can work it out himself. "You know my methods." Anderson? Not so much.

Sherlock Holmes · January 2, 2014 3:39 pm

sj4iy wrote:
Sherlock Holmes wrote:
Having thought about this more overnight, I'm convinced that the entire scene with Anderson was lies.

The most obvious clue in all this, is the fact that Sherlock CALLS ANDERSON BY HIS FIRST NAME.

WHY ON EARTH WOULD HE DO THAT? He can't even remember Lestrade's first name, someone he's worked with for many years and whom he has a certain amount of respect for. He's always, always, called him Anderson. Why would that suddenly change now? I think it's more like Anderson's personal fantasy that Sherlock would call him by his first name because now he's Sherlock's number one fanboy.

Then there was the fact that Sherlock basically just disappeared and it was a bit of a weird jump cut that looked like funny editing - or on purpose editing.

Then there was the fact that the entire scene was just stuck rather awkwardly in between the middle of the dramatic train scene.

The whole thing made NO SENSE.

Why would Sherlock go to Anderson? Why would he sit and be recorded for an interview for his ridiculous, idiotic fan club group by a man he spent his entire time with Scotland Yard deriding and making fun of? WHY? Why would he tell Anderson and not John?

This is Anderson's fantasy.

Anderson would love to be able to turn around and tell Sherlock Holmes that how he did it wasn't particularly clever or exciting.
Sorry, I think the whole thing made absolutely perfect sense. Maybe not as 'exciting' or 'thrilling' as some were expecting, but these things rarely are. Any time you see the illusion behind a magic trick, it's disappointing. The big key to take from it is that Sherlock had a codename with every scenario, so he and his brother had worked out all of the details beforehand.

Why would he tell Anderson and not John? Because he respects John enough to think that John can work it out himself. "You know my methods." Anderson? Not so much.

That's not really convincing enough for me.

KKKKK · January 2, 2014 3:43 pm

the last episode: The last vow... just thinking, but isnt the last vow at a marrige service till death do us part... maybe we will become more confident then on how Sherlock faked his death and if what he told Anderson is wrong maybe the final episode will reveal what actually happened. i know that relating it to the marriage theme in episode 2 is probably obvious and the title for the 3rd episode probably has no relevence, but to me it could be a possiblity?

shylock · January 2, 2014 3:46 pm

I think we should all agree that the ONLY correct solution will be one that cannot have holes picked in it. Sherlock would simply not allow there to be any doubt or risk to its total success.

Anderson's one has got so many holes and 'what if' factors.

This thread alone has shown that, let alone all the other web-sites, forums and discussions zones which are ripping it apart.

Sherlock Holmes · January 2, 2014 3:49 pm

I never liked the rubber ball in the first place...*glares at rubber ball*

shylock · January 2, 2014 3:51 pm

Sherlock Holmes wrote:
I never liked the rubber ball in the first place...*glares at rubber ball*

A ball under the armpit does stop the pulse. I've used the effect many times in my professional life as an entertainer!
Try it!

Last edited by shylock (January 2, 2014 3:52 pm)

browneyedsherlock · January 2, 2014 4:21 pm

I feel that it couldn't have been Anderson's fantasy, because there were too many pieces of information that Anderson had no knowledge about.

besleybean · January 2, 2014 4:26 pm

He's a forensic scientist.

KKKKK · January 2, 2014 4:43 pm

each time I watch the bit with Sherlock explaining how he faked his death to Anderson the more I believe it. As Sherlock had blandly explained there were 13 possible ways of doing it, therefore he must have had every way set up and only at that last moment he would choose what method would work. with Moriarty supposedly killing himself Sherlock's options were limited and therefore he starts looking around to choose the best option. so it is possible that what he told Anderson is true (i dont know whether i believe its true because I wanted an answer or just because i dont think they will bring that subject up again in the series) he has already told us that he couldn't use the laundry truck so that is out of the picture and how many other ways can you jump off a roof and survive, they have used all the obvious clues in this theory and that is why I find i so believable, however there are other possibilites many others have not managed to find likewise with myself that could be more plausable and more clever than the one he gave Anderson.
The air bag seems too obvious, but i keep thinking back to the point moriarty told Sherlock on the roof... that's your weakness, you always want everything to be clever... this could hint that Sherlock's faked death is clever or that we all expect it to be clever and thats why we are doubting it... lets just say I am hoping that how Sherlock faked his death becomes more clear this series ( and also hoping that Moriarty hasnt died either! it wont be the same without him ;) )