BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » How Mary could have shot Sherlock and everyone forgave her for it

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 1:04 am

lil wrote:
lil wrote:
Brilliant btw..thought provoked..

1 cam set up the bonfire test.
2 he needed Sherlock to get a clue and watch him hunt
3 he was connected to Sherlock via Mary. ? He had power over Mary.
4 he told Mary to take the skip code to Sherlock.
5 Mary knew about John bonfire plan and colluded in it.

Simple logical chain of thought ...one plus one equalling two..

You do not see this as making sense or evidence?

No, I don't.

1. Yes, CAM set up the bonfire test, as stated in the episode.
2. He needed to know Sherlock's pressure point, as stated in the episode. He never believed that it was drugs.
3. He was connected to Sherlock via Mary, because he already knew Mary's pressure point (her past), and he wanted to get to Sherlock because he wanted Mycroft....as stated in the episode.
4. He never told Mary to take the skip code to Sherlock. He sent the skip code to Mary's phone, but never, in any of the three episodes, did anyone ever mention that Magnussen told Mary to take the code to Sherlock. He sent the code to her phone when she was on her way to 221B. Hence why she ran in and asked Sherlock for help. We saw the messages sent to her phone...nothing said "take it to Sherlock" and there's no evidence that CAM ever told her to do it before.
5. There's no evidence that she knew about the fire. In fact, she asks "What are they going to do to him?" when they are on their way there. When John sees Magnussen watching the video of the bonfire, Magnussen says absolutely nothing about having colluded with his fiance...which would have been the optimal scene to do so, don't you think?

You are making assumptions on 4 and 5 which are not backed up by any evidence in any of the episodes. That's why it makes no sense.

Last edited by sj4iy (January 20, 2014 1:07 am)

lil · January 20, 2014 1:24 am

After 4..2 again.
cam needed to get a clue to Sherlock..
He didn't need to send the code to Mary at all?
So why did he?
Oh ..3 again.
You suggest .. idk..by coincidence at the very time John was in the bonfire..Mary by coincidence decided to..for the 1st time ever..visit 221b...and otw got a text...meant for Sherlock?
Ok!

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 1:42 am

lil wrote:
After 4..2 again.
cam needed to get a clue to Sherlock..
He didn't need to send the code to Mary at all?
So why did he?
Oh ..3 again.
You suggest .. idk..by coincidence at the very time John was in the bonfire..Mary by coincidence decided to..for the 1st time ever..visit 221b...and otw got a text...meant for Sherlock?
Ok!

Please don't be patronizing. There's no need for that.

Of course it's not a coincidence. John walked to 221B and was drugged. When the time comes to build the bonfire, they stick John inside, and position people around to film it. Mary knew that John was going to talk to Sherlock, so she went there to meet him. On her way there, CAM's people (who are watching) text her the skip code. She runs inside, gets Sherlock and they take off.

The only 'coincidence' in the story is that John decides to go to 221B on a night they are celebrating Guy Fawkes (which is clearly before Nov 5th because the terrorist plot was actually ON the 5th of November), but that's not so much a coincidence as it is 'narrative convenience'.

lil · January 20, 2014 1:49 am

Why send the code to Mary at all?
Why chance it when all he had to do was ask?

Last edited by lil (January 20, 2014 1:51 am)

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 2:13 am

lil wrote:
Why send the code to Mary at all?
Why chance it when all he had to do was ask?

Because they knew that she would contact Sherlock for help. Her fiancé is Sherlock's best friend and partner, of course she would go to him.

Ask what?

lil · January 20, 2014 2:30 am

It was an elaborate plan to set up..cam would want to be sure Sherlock got the code and started the hunt . Not asking Mary to deliver the code is a risk..all he had to do was ask/tell her to..he would enjoy flicking her face..that makes his plan foolproof.
She could not say no.It would be silly not to tell Mary ..take the code to Sherlock.
Cam was not stupid. He took no risks.

Yes cam knew..he knew because he told her to. He made sure.

Last edited by lil (January 20, 2014 2:35 am)

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 2:35 am

lil wrote:
It was an elaborate plan to set up..cam would want to be sure Sherlock got the code and started the hunt . Not asking Mary to deliver the code is a risk..all he had to do was ask/tell her to..he would enjoy flicking her face..that makes his plan foolproof.
She could not say no.It would be silly not to tell Mary ..take the code to Sherlock.
Cam was not stupid. He took no risks.

It was foolproof. It worked without any sort of 'collusion' between Mary and Sherlock. When John didn't come home, it's obvious that Mary would come that way looking for him when she knew that he went to talk to Sherlock.

"Narrative convenience" isn't the same as "coicidence".

lil · January 20, 2014 2:46 am

You are of course free to believe that.
For myself I have proof enough.

It is not a smoking gun but a smoking text.
There is no place for Mary in the bonfire plan except to deliver the text.
Otherwise cam would just text Sherlock the skip code.

Sadly still not one good/nice thing Mary did or even said in all 3 episodes.

Neighbors came for John who thought they came for SH And nurses..not always nice /good...

I will make an effort to find something though.

Last edited by lil (January 20, 2014 3:08 am)

sj4iy · January 20, 2014 3:43 am

lil wrote:
You are of course free to believe that.
For myself I have proof enough.

It is not a smoking gun but a smoking text.
There is no place for Mary in the bonfire plan except to deliver the text.
Otherwise cam would just text Sherlock the skip code.

Sadly still not one good/nice thing Mary did or even said in all 3 episodes.

Neighbors came for John who thought they came for SH And nurses..not always nice /good...

I will make an effort to find something though.

She did plenty of good things, you simply are finding ways to explain them away as bad.

RavenMorganLeigh · January 20, 2014 3:55 am

I think Mary is set up to be a controversial character; MY reasons for not giving her the benefit of the doubt have more to do with what seems to me to be an unhealthy, narcissitic wayof maintaing a relationship with John.

CAM's a threat-- go after him with a gun. Discovered by Sherlock? Shoot him. After miraculously surviving after dying on the table, Sherlock's still a threat, so go warn him not to tell the truth to John.

Still perciving Sherlock as a threat to her relationship, she shows up to the Empty house with a loaded gun. Pretty sure she was going to finish him off, to keep John from learning the truth.

She's not sorry that she shot John's best freind, shes not sorry that she decieved John, she's sorry he found out. And when they meet at the Christmas party, she's like, "Oh, you're speaking to me, now, " like John was in the wrong for being angry.

Love is not an excuse to do whatever you want to whomever you percieve as threating your relationship. If I had someone do to me what she did to John, I couldn't forgive it. Ever.

I have to add something, because i'm not sure it's come up: but-- *why is Mary pregnant, and why did John "panic", when Sherlock told Mary and John at the weding reception?* I mean, she's a nurse, he's a doctor-- surely they know how to avoid an unplanned pregnancy. Mary's not young, there could be complications at her age, yes? Wouldn't a doctor and a nurse be careful in the first place? It didn't seem like this was something they were expecting--- or maybe Mary *was* trying to get pregnant on purpose. Again, another way to anchor her relationship with John. Suppose *that's * actually the reason John takes her back? Manipulative, and a common ploy, and just a bit...not good.

Last edited by RavenMorganLeigh (January 20, 2014 8:26 am)

Willow · January 20, 2014 12:00 pm

According to the Season 3 DVD the actress, Amanda, was not given the script for the final episode until they had completed the first two; they didn't want her acting to be affected by the fact that she knew she was playing a baddie.

I have to say that this does make it a great deal easier to understand the disconnect between the two Marys; no matter how good the actress it would inevitably have skewed her performance, and the show runners were taking no chances with it...

Hanka · January 20, 2014 4:06 pm

Just to add another argument to the list of Mary's rather bad characteristics (though I do not deny that she does have good one's):
Somebody stated that it was quite unclear if Mary killed someone after leaving the intelligence service she worked for. I disagree:
She states that, if somebody found out about her past, she would go to prison for the rest of her life. She doesn't say that somebody, maybe a relative or a friend of someone she killed for the CIA (or whatever intelligence service she worked for), would find and kill her. Her going to prison means that she did something that was clearly against the law and not in service of her country, and considering the length of the expected imprisonment, it very likely was murder (or even numerous murders). Magnussen saying that she went freelance would support this.

Regina Alexandra · January 20, 2014 4:07 pm

To me Mycroft would not forgive or forget, but he would never reveal to anyone (except Sherlock) what the actual death of his little brother would mean to him. Out of brotherly love, Mycroft will not contribute to her death. However, he will wait and watch.

silverblaze · January 20, 2014 4:11 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
CAM's a threat-- go after him with a gun. Discovered by Sherlock? Shoot him. After miraculously surviving after dying on the table, Sherlock's still a threat, so go warn him not to tell the truth to John.

The whole point was that she could keep her secret and Sherlock would be alive. Otherwise she'd killed him.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
Still perciving Sherlock as a threat to her relationship, she shows up to the Empty house with a loaded gun. Pretty sure she was going to finish him off, to keep John from learning the truth.

She didn't think she'd meet him, he found her and invited her in. She threatened him, but it was likely to be an empty threat, if she wanted to kill him she'd already done so. She had the gun because she has enemies, not for Sherlock. Besides, who knows who else she might be protecting.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
She's not sorry that she shot John's best freind, shes not sorry that she decieved John, she's sorry he found out. And when they meet at the Christmas party, she's like, "Oh, you're speaking to me, now, " like John was in the wrong for being angry.

Before she shot Sherlock she said she was sorry. There's no evidence that she doesn't feel sorry about these things. In the scene with John she seems scared more than angry.

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
It didn't seem like this was something they were expecting--- or maybe Mary *was* trying to get pregnant on purpose. Again, another way to anchor her relationship with John. Suppose *that's * actually the reason John takes her back? Manipulative, and a common ploy, and just a bit...not good.

Common ploy indeed, no evidence for it happening here. Panic is not a logical response if your evil plan is working. And she didn't know at that time that they might split up. More likely that she panicked because she knows she's not safe and a baby will make her even more vulnerable.

Willow · January 20, 2014 4:42 pm

Questions of motivation are always more complex than questions of facts, so sticking with the facts:

Mary did not say sorry before she shot Sherlock.

Mary was trying to trace Sherlock after he left the hospital; she admits this and said she thought she was being clever. She had a loaded gun with a silencer in her pocket, and she had already shot him once with a near fatal outcome.

LightPurple · January 20, 2014 5:56 pm

Hanka wrote:
Just to add another argument to the list of Mary's rather bad characteristics (though I do not deny that she does have good one's):
Somebody stated that it was quite unclear if Mary killed someone after leaving the intelligence service she worked for. I disagree:
She states that, if somebody found out about her past, she would go to prison for the rest of her life. She doesn't say that somebody, maybe a relative or a friend of someone she killed for the CIA (or whatever intelligence service she worked for), would find and kill her. Her going to prison means that she did something that was clearly against the law and not in service of her country, and considering the length of the expected imprisonment, it very likely was murder (or even numerous murders). Magnussen saying that she went freelance would support this.

But you realize that Sherlock has to go to prison (or be sent to his death in Estern Europe) for shooting Magnussen as well? His shooting was clearly against the law as well, even if you consider that Magnussen was threatening Mary. So according to your argument, it's still likely that Sherlock and Mary share the same "bad characteristics". We know that she killed beyond her CIA duties, but she also stated that there were people like her in order to get rid of people like Magnussen. So we just don't know if the people she killed were not criminals themselves and we don't know why she killed them and whom she killed them for. Magnuessen was very vage on the whole "freelance" thing.

I don't say that it's perfectly ok to just shoot criminals. But if we're ready to forgive Sherlock for shooting Magnussen, it's not really fair if we judge Mary for shooting people who probably didn't deserve it any less than Magnussen. The problem is that we just don't know whom and why she killed and as long as we don't know that, she's going to stay a controversial character.

LightPurple · January 20, 2014 6:12 pm

lil wrote:
You are of course free to believe that.
For myself I have proof enough.

It is not a smoking gun but a smoking text.
There is no place for Mary in the bonfire plan except to deliver the text.
Otherwise cam would just text Sherlock the skip code.

Sadly still not one good/nice thing Mary did or even said in all 3 episodes.

Neighbors came for John who thought they came for SH And nurses..not always nice /good...

I will make an effort to find something though.

I will try to point out something good and not entierly selfish that no one has mentioned before:

In the Mini Episode "Many Happy Returns" we see John without a mustache and in the same flat that he and Mary live in at the beginning of "His Last Vow". I think we can savely assume that they already lived togehter in "Many Happy Returns" or at least had met and spent enough time together for John moving into a flat big enough for two people. And in "The Empty Hearse" Mary mentions that John had had his mustache for six months, so we also have to assume that they met and fell in love more than six months before "The Empty Hearse" and months before John grew his mustache.

So I think the reason for John to be growing a mustache was like a confirmation to himself that he was starting to move on after Sherlock's presumed death, it was like a sign of a new beginning, of him recovering and getting better. Mary must have realized that this mustache actually had a positive meaning for John, that it was a sigt and confirmation of him getting better and thus didn't mention that she absolutely hated it (and who can blame her for that?).

So my point is that I can't see anything selfish in her not telling John that she hated his mustache. A small gesture? Yes, but I like to believe that it proves that she actually truely cares for John's wellbeing.

Willow · January 20, 2014 6:16 pm

LightPurple wrote:
Hanka wrote:
Just to add another argument to the list of Mary's rather bad characteristics (though I do not deny that she does have good one's):
Somebody stated that it was quite unclear if Mary killed someone after leaving the intelligence service she worked for. I disagree:
She states that, if somebody found out about her past, she would go to prison for the rest of her life. She doesn't say that somebody, maybe a relative or a friend of someone she killed for the CIA (or whatever intelligence service she worked for), would find and kill her. Her going to prison means that she did something that was clearly against the law and not in service of her country, and considering the length of the expected imprisonment, it very likely was murder (or even numerous murders). Magnussen saying that she went freelance would support this.
But you realize that Sherlock has to go to prison (or be sent to his death in Estern Europe) for shooting Magnussen as well? His shooting was clearly against the law as well, even if you consider that Magnussen was threatening Mary. So according to your argument, it's still likely that Sherlock and Mary share the same "bad characteristics". We know that she killed beyond her CIA duties, but she also stated that there were people like her in order to get rid of people like Magnussen. So we just don't know if the people she killed were not criminals themselves and we don't know why she killed them and whom she killed them for. Magnuessen was very vage on the whole "freelance" thing.

I don't say that it's perfectly ok to just shoot criminals. But if we're ready to forgive Sherlock for shooting Magnussen, it's not really fair if we judge Mary for shooting people who probably didn't deserve it any less than Magnussen. The problem is that we just don't know whom and why she killed and as long as we don't know that, she's going to stay a controversial character.

The difference between Sherlock and Mary is that he was prepared to take the consequences; those ranged from being shot at the scene, imprisoned for life or going on a mission which Mycroft, who is never wrong, said would kill him in six months. He took the latter option.

Mary, by contrast, is prepared to keep on killing over and over again in order to avoid the consequences of her actions; she has demonstrated that nothing matters more to her than getting what she wants, and she doesn't care who she has to kill to do so.

That is the fundamental difference between them...

Hanka · January 20, 2014 6:19 pm

LightPurple wrote:
Hanka wrote:
Just to add another argument to the list of Mary's rather bad characteristics (though I do not deny that she does have good one's):
Somebody stated that it was quite unclear if Mary killed someone after leaving the intelligence service she worked for. I disagree:
She states that, if somebody found out about her past, she would go to prison for the rest of her life. She doesn't say that somebody, maybe a relative or a friend of someone she killed for the CIA (or whatever intelligence service she worked for), would find and kill her. Her going to prison means that she did something that was clearly against the law and not in service of her country, and considering the length of the expected imprisonment, it very likely was murder (or even numerous murders). Magnussen saying that she went freelance would support this.
But you realize that Sherlock has to go to prison (or be sent to his death in Estern Europe) for shooting Magnussen as well? His shooting was clearly against the law as well, even if you consider that Magnussen was threatening Mary. So according to your argument, it's still likely that Sherlock and Mary share the same "bad characteristics". We know that she killed beyond her CIA duties, but she also stated that there were people like her in order to get rid of people like Magnussen. So we just don't know if the people she killed were not criminals themselves and we don't know why she killed them and whom she killed them for. Magnuessen was very vage on the whole "freelance" thing.

I don't say that it's perfectly ok to just shoot criminals. But if we're ready to forgive Sherlock for shooting Magnussen, it's not really fair if we judge Mary for shooting people who probably didn't deserve it any less than Magnussen. The problem is that we just don't know whom and why she killed and as long as we don't know that, she's going to stay a controversial character.

I said that what Magnussen said would support my much stronger argument of Mary saying she'd have to go to prison. I agree that, on it's own, it isn't exactly reliable. My argument is that killing someone is murder, no matter what horrible things the other person has done - if it wasn't an accident or in direct defence of her own or another person's life, I don't care about her reasons. And if what she says it's true, she killed someone.
Did I say anything about Sherlock in my post? This is about my only post in this forum in which I don't complain for hours about the way Sherlock's murder is dealt with in the series (hint: it is dealt with for about two minutes and then ridiculed by Sherlock returning so easily). Please don't make me repeat it (you can go through either this thread or the one called "I don't like HLV/Criticism", which I opened, btw). So, I completely agree that Sherlock should go to prison just like I think Mary should. However, I disagree that some people "deserve to die", or that it's the right decision to send Sherlock away to die, or Mary even. But, yeah, you can read about that in my other 386467 posts on this topic.

Last edited by Hanka (January 20, 2014 6:21 pm)

silverblaze · January 20, 2014 6:41 pm

Willow wrote:
Mary did not say sorry before she shot Sherlock.

She did, she said 'I'm sorry, Sherlock' and then she shot him. I thought she meant it.

Agreed with the facts thing. Here's an opinion then: if she wanted to kill him she'd already done so, so whatever her motivations, killing him was not first on her list.