I think that since Mycroft and his men were the only ones to witness Magnussen's murder, Mycroft could easily hide all evidence and release a story about how CAM just died of a heart attack. MI6 know that it was Sherlock, but from HLV it appears that if Sherlock can sort out the Moriarty problem they will consider his price paid..

I too think that Magnussen´s death was never officially disclosed to the police, so in the eyes of public and Scotland Yard Sherlock is as innocent as a lilly and only a few goverment officials know the truth....

At the beginning of S4 we´ll probably have some newspapers announcement about CAM dying of heart attack/in an accident/choking to death after he swallowed a fish-bone and he won´t ever be mentioned again. 

I’m not quite sure. On the one hand the show is a bit notorious for things to not have consequences, but from all we have heard concerning the new season, that might be about to change. And there has been some emphasis on Sherlock now being a murderer (which, in all likelihood, he has been since at least ASIB). I am not sure if it will actually translate to “having trouble with the law”, but I have a feeling that this killing might play a role still. 

Dorothy83 wrote:

SherlockianPrincess wrote:

I suppose that makes sense but wasn't Mycroft having an enire confrence with the British government about how Sherlock apparently can't get away with doing things like that, and so he can't really go back on that and convince them it never happened. Idk, I think your right though! Thanks! 

Was that the British government he was talking to? I thought it was just the Secret Services?

In any case I am 150% sure that Mycroft would never let the news of Magnussen's murder reach public domain because for one, that would absolutely doom Sherlock to a very lengthy prison sentence (since his killing him wasn't even in self defence) if not for life, and 2 - Sherlock's name would be definitely and finally destroyed since he's basically a celebrity. And I don't think that if people knew what he did he could just be allowed to 'be sent on a mission' instead of jail - I think that would cause a huge backlash.

 
Yea, I suppose that's true. I'm just a little worried about plot holes and all that, which is a bit obsessive of me considering the season hasn't even come out yet, but anyway maybe Sherlock didn't even kill the guy (which is a strech) but on the other hand we all saw Moriarty shoot himself in the head and now here he is again alive. Hm.

I believe that the "consequences" that have been referred to by the writers to be coming in series 4 will at least partly have to do with the fact that Sherlock has committed a murder, for all intents and purposes.  Perhaps it will be ket quiet from the general public, but there's still people who know, and whether it's someone who represents the law or someone who sees themselves as a vigilante of somem sort, I think someone will be out to get Sherlock for it.  Of course, what will be interesting is how he gets out of it.

Strictly speaking, John didn't shoot the cabbie in self-defense: he did it to rescue Sherlock. He benefits from the black and white situation: the cabbie is the bad serial killer, he, John, is the good guy protecting his friend. Also the bad guy would die anyway because of illness, so we are more ready to forgive. It's a moral trap, I would say.
Also, they even say "we don't believe you (John) would stand trial, but let's not risk it" -> implying it might not be such a clear case.

Sherlock also doesn't shoot in self-defence, but to protect his friend and his wife. The problem for him is that the situation is more grey-ish: yes, CAM would have destroyed Mycroft's, Mary's and perhaps John's life in the long run, but the threat is not an immediate life threat at the point of shooting. So everybody is inclined to say: there must be consequences.

But, as we have discussed in other threads, they have both killed a man, with one situation playing out clearer than the other, but still I'm inclined to say that if John claims self-defence for the cabbie murder, a similar argument could be made for Sherlock in the grand scheme. Or to say, it wasn't self-defence, not in John's case, not in Sherlock's case... but why do we argue so different then for both?

I'm not sure I really support the point I just made, I just want to mention that we so very easily change our moral perception depending on the context we are fed.
Sherlock also throws a guy out of the window - that should have resulted in him being put on trial too. The other american guy, too, of course. But both of them, that's the point.

The story always helps us to make excuses, and that's what for me feels like "plot holes". By now, I'd like to see some realistic approach - even if it's a TV show.
(and even, if I'm honest with myself, it is probably realistic: do we know how many "murderers" run free in real life because they do agent work for a government?)
 

Last edited by Whisky (August 4, 2015 10:27 am)

But are you speaking in terms of our perception of what John and Sherlock did, or in terms of the legality of their actions and the repercussions within the show? Because while Sherlock killed someone in front of witnesses, John didn't - only Sherlock knows (although he has only deduced it, not seen it) and nobody else knows that John was the cabbie's murderer and therefore John wouldn't be charged.

Sherlock on the other hand murdered someone in front of government officials, but of course they are people who could still keep it quiet just like Sherlock did for John.

But that would mean that one of Mycroft's men would have to spill the beans to one of Magnussen's friends (because honestly Magnussen made the mistake of being too arrogant/undermining Sherlock's love for John and his willingness to do anything for him  and didn't think of having a witness there for himself - even though he claimed to know how much he cares about John Watson... Magnussen basically made the mistake of not being a hardcore Johnlocker ;)).

And remember how Mycroft thought nothing of openly threatening Anderson & friend in Baker Street? I think he would just as easily if not more threaten one of his men

Though you make a good point - I just thought that they are telling us there will be consequences, and we think it means somebody will come for Mary, whereas someone could easily come for Sherlock, too.

Scaring an out of work forensic investigator and the fan club he assembles around himself to solve the mystery of a seemingly decreased consulting detective is something else than scaring the government. I assume that Mycroft is not universally liked by his subordinates, people who rose to that kind of power seldom are, and everyone knows that his junkie detective baby brother is his pressure point and that pressure point has just gotten incredibly sensitive, because now he has finally spiralled out of control.

Lola Red wrote:

Scaring an out of work forensic investigator and the fan club he assembles around himself to solve the mystery of a seemingly decreased consulting detective is something else than scaring the government. I assume that Mycroft is not universally liked by his subordinates, people who rose to that kind of power seldom are, and everyone knows that his junkie detective baby brother is his pressure point and that pressure point has just gotten incredibly sensitive, because now he has finally spiralled out of control.

Uhm, once again, when Sherlock faked his death in TRF, he was under arrest for serious crimes and Mycroft would be in a big trouble even then, if it leaked out he helped Sherlock to escape....

And yet none of Mycroft´s people tried to out his secret.

I guess, it´s because it doesn´t pay to leak out dirty bussinesses the powerful government officials want to keep secret. Just look at the fate of RL Julian Assange, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden...