BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » You can not blackmail people with your memory. No physical proof

Lollipopfop · August 30, 2014 8:15 am

If this guy kept all this blackmail information in his memory, it would be totally useless as blackmail. To blackmail someone you need actual physical evidence of some illegal or embarassing thing. If you just know something, then its just an unproven accusation, and only very feebleminded peoplewould be willing to pay a blackmailer that couldn't show actual proof that they had a tangiblke way of causing trouble for them. Example; Blackmailer; "Your husband wrote love letters to an underage girl!" Lady; "Do you have an actual photographof these love letters?" Blackmailer; "Heh, heh let me read them to you!" Lady; "I don't need you to read them to me. I need proof that you have them. If you don't have the letters physically no one will believe you anyhow, so you can't harm my hubby. Show me a photo of the letters, or go jump in a lake." All Sherlock had to do was make it public knowledge that this blackmailer guy really had absolutely no tangible proof of anything, he just had a good memory, and hearsay isn't proof. That would have rendered the blackmailer harmless. In fact if people knew Magnusen's "Appllefdore" was his noggen, even the few cases where the information with no proof could be useful would be nullified, because people would completely dismiss him as a crackpot.
He couldn't even write a newspaper article if his knowledge was not backed up by anything. A journalist can not be his own source.
For a show that prides itself on clever, smart plots, its really not well written in the plot regard. Seems like they outsmart themselves more often then not.

Last edited by Lollipopfop (August 30, 2014 8:51 am)

SolarSystem · August 30, 2014 8:49 am

I think you already started a similar thread months ago... without ever answering to any of the other posts...

http://sherlock.boardhost.com/viewtopic.php?id=4660

Last edited by SolarSystem (August 30, 2014 8:50 am)

Lollipopfop · August 30, 2014 8:54 am

Sorry, didn't remember doing it. Doesn't chage the fact that its awfully bad writing. That was over a year ago. Good memory you have. I posted it, and I completely forgot.

SolarSystem · August 30, 2014 8:59 am

Well, it wasn't over a year ago, it was in February.
But you can still look at the other posts in that thread and revive the discussion.

RavenMorganLeigh · August 31, 2014 8:16 pm

Lollipopfop wrote:
If this guy kept all this blackmail information in his memory, it would be totally useless as blackmail. To blackmail someone you need actual physical evidence of some illegal or embarassing thing. If you just know something, then its just an unproven accusation, and only very feebleminded peoplewould be willing to pay a blackmailer that couldn't show actual proof that they had a tangiblke way of causing trouble for them. Example; Blackmailer; "Your husband wrote love letters to an underage girl!" Lady; "Do you have an actual photographof these love letters?" Blackmailer; "Heh, heh let me read them to you!" Lady; "I don't need you to read them to me. I need proof that you have them. If you don't have the letters physically no one will believe you anyhow, so you can't harm my hubby. Show me a photo of the letters, or go jump in a lake." All Sherlock had to do was make it public knowledge that this blackmailer guy really had absolutely no tangible proof of anything, he just had a good memory, and hearsay isn't proof. That would have rendered the blackmailer harmless. In fact if people knew Magnusen's "Appllefdore" was his noggen, even the few cases where the information with no proof could be useful would be nullified, because people would completely dismiss him as a crackpot.
He couldn't even write a newspaper article if his knowledge was not backed up by anything. A journalist can not be his own source.
For a show that prides itself on clever, smart plots, its really not well written in the plot regard. Seems like they outsmart themselves more often then not.

"Journalists" do this all the time. They publish innuendo, rumour and unsubstanitated acusations. That can ruin someone's life, it can also get people killed.

Boswell · July 17, 2015 12:58 pm

OK i can see this is a rather old thread but I'd like to revive it because it's something i have wondered about too. The 'one remarkable thing Magnussen does' at Sherlock's flat is show him the letters sitting in his pocket, which SHerlock takes as proof that Magnussen is willing to negotiate. Later in the episode, almost towards the end, newspaper headlines are shown about Lord Smallwood's suicide. What, if not Magnussen's physical possession of the letters, could have caused that? Did he just call up Lord Smallwood and tell him "I know about that girl you dated ages ago"?

Kittyhawk · July 17, 2015 2:37 pm

I think the letters did exist and Magnussen did have them (he says something about "sending for files" when he explains about the mind palace). Besides, at the time of the suicide - before Sherlock and John went to Appledore - everybody still believed that the vault with all the blackmail material (i. e. proof) was a reality. So Lord Smallwood committed suicide because he was blackmailed. (Or somebody killed him - you never know...)

The tragic thing is that just a few days later (depending on the age of the newspaper in the Holmes home) the blackmailer would have been dead...

Boswell · July 20, 2015 8:51 am

Kittyhawk wrote:
I think the letters did exist and Magnussen did have them (he says something about "sending for files" when he explains about the mind palace).

Exactly, the letters did exist-physically, not just in Magnussen's memory. Unless the writers want us to believe he was doing a remarkable double-bluff and banking on Sherlock noticing it and therefore being misled into believing he holds hard copy documents on everyone he blackmails.
Murder is not really Magnussen's forte in the story, and it is unlikely the plot would assume the angle that Lord Smallwood was murdered.
In which case, i wonder what the writers want us to believe Magnussen would have told Lord Smallwood that was convincing enough to make him commit suicide.

Last edited by Boswell (July 20, 2015 8:56 am)

Kittyhawk · July 20, 2015 2:44 pm

CAM probably said that he would expose Lord Smallwood as a child abuser and that the resulting scandal would destroy his reputation, his wife's career and his children's future (assuming the Smallwoods have children).

I was not thinking of Magnussen murdering Lord Smallwood - there wouldn't be any point to it whatsoever, as it would remove Lady Smallwood's "pressure point". Which makes her my first suspect... (or Mycroft, just to keep government running smoothly).

Last edited by Kittyhawk (July 20, 2015 2:49 pm)

Lola Red · July 20, 2015 3:51 pm

Poor Mycroft’s shade of grey just keeps getting darker and darker this hiatus (love it).
Lord Smallwood might have just become desperate enough to remove his wife’s pressure point so CAM could no longer humiliate her (I just assume his cheek-licking was not the last they heard of him). The problem with CAM was that not only were all his accusations always based on some truth, – which is why he needed so many proxy’s to get to Mycroft, he had nothing on the man himself - due to him owning (a) newspaper(s) (?) he could also manipulate how this information would be perceived. The real danger in CAM is not so much the physical proof he possesses (which probably exist for all his cases, but it is likely not in his possession, but in hands that don’t quite know what to do with that information, that knowledge, I believe, is CAM’s source of power), but how he can get that information to work for him. As he said himself “I’m in news. [...] I don’t have to prove it, I just have to print it.”

kornmuhme · July 20, 2015 7:02 pm

If somebody is a media mogul like CAM he can have everything print he wants to! And he can ruin anybody's life just by manipulating and publishing certain information. I think that makes him one of the most dangerous antagonists of the show! He's not as charismatic and insane as Moriarty had been (he was kind of more fascinating), but he is coldly calculating and exactly knows where to "press"! Goah, I find him so disgusting!!!
But something that interests me much more is: Why does he do the things he does? Power?

REReader · July 21, 2015 9:58 pm

Power, yes--control-over-governments type of power. Very likely it wasn't just the British government he was aiming to control ultimately, either.

kornmuhme · July 22, 2015 7:39 pm

REReader wrote:
Power, yes--control-over-governments type of power. Very likely it wasn't just the British government he was aiming to control ultimately, either.

What do you mean?

RavenMorganLeigh · July 22, 2015 8:32 pm

kornmuhme wrote:
REReader wrote:
Power, yes--control-over-governments type of power. Very likely it wasn't just the British government he was aiming to control ultimately, either.
What do you mean?

If I recall, CAM states that he has whole governments under his thumb. That is very , very dangerous. What this made me think of was Wikileaks, and how some diplomats and people working for the freedom of their country (in Africa) were killed because they were outed by Julian Assange. Now, think of CAM with that kind of information. Capricious, consienceless, doing the same*for his own amusement*. He sees people as toys, and governments the same. It's all about power, and power comes from having the information to destroy lives-- whether or not it's provable is moot-- because of his control of the media (Think FOX News) he can spin the *perception* of impropriety *any way he wants*.

I remember, here in the US when Howard Dean , a candidate for President, was gaining a huge amount of popularity-- and after a campaign speech he let out an exhuberant yell of victory. Well, the Press went to town, and in less than 24 hours, they sank the man's political career--The yell was too this, too that, whatever. Somehow they made Dean into a laughingstock, and he dropped out of the race.

That's the power of the Press. Imagine that, squared-- and you have CAM.

kornmuhme · July 23, 2015 1:27 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
kornmuhme wrote:
REReader wrote:
Power, yes--control-over-governments type of power. Very likely it wasn't just the British government he was aiming to control ultimately, either.
What do you mean?

If I recall, CAM states that he has whole governments under his thumb. That is very , very dangerous. What this made me think of was Wikileaks, and how some diplomats and people working for the freedom of their country (in Africa) were killed because they were outed by Julian Assange. Now, think of CAM with that kind of information. Capricious, consienceless, doing the same*for his own amusement*. He sees people as toys, and governments the same. It's all about power, and power comes from having the information to destroy lives-- whether or not it's provable is moot-- because of his control of the media (Think FOX News) he can spin the *perception* of impropriety *any way he wants*.

I remember, here in the US when Howard Dean , a candidate for President, was gaining a huge amount of popularity-- and after a campaign speech he let out an exhuberant yell of victory. Well, the Press went to town, and in less than 24 hours, they sank the man's political career--The yell was too this, too that, whatever. Somehow they made Dean into a laughingstock, and he dropped out of the race.

That's the power of the Press. Imagine that, squared-- and you have CAM.

Yeah, that's frightening, isn't it? Thanks fo your explanations.

RavenMorganLeigh · July 23, 2015 8:29 pm

Thanks!

REReader · July 23, 2015 11:46 pm

RavenMorganLeigh wrote:
kornmuhme wrote:
REReader wrote:
Power, yes--control-over-governments type of power. Very likely it wasn't just the British government he was aiming to control ultimately, either.
What do you mean?

If I recall, CAM states that he has whole governments under his thumb. That is very , very dangerous. What this made me think of was Wikileaks, and how some diplomats and people working for the freedom of their country (in Africa) were killed because they were outed by Julian Assange. Now, think of CAM with that kind of information. Capricious, consienceless, doing the same*for his own amusement*. He sees people as toys, and governments the same. It's all about power, and power comes from having the information to destroy lives-- whether or not it's provable is moot-- because of his control of the media (Think FOX News) he can spin the *perception* of impropriety *any way he wants*.

I remember, here in the US when Howard Dean , a candidate for President, was gaining a huge amount of popularity-- and after a campaign speech he let out an exhuberant yell of victory. Well, the Press went to town, and in less than 24 hours, they sank the man's political career--The yell was too this, too that, whatever. Somehow they made Dean into a laughingstock, and he dropped out of the race.

That's the power of the Press. Imagine that, squared-- and you have CAM.

Excellent explanation! [LIKE]

RavenMorganLeigh · July 25, 2015 7:27 pm

Thanks!