BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012.


You are not logged in. Would you like to login or register?



April 5, 2016 10:24 pm  #1


How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

We know how he possibly came in but how he could escape? I cant imagine that he get out to the window and over the roof with two kids under his arms. Also i dont believe that the nine year old boy is responsible for all the glowing traces. He had no time ( "seconds" Sherlock said) and was scared, so the kidnapper must left this traces with intent. And why went the boy on his toes?

Ps: sorry for my english :-)

 

April 6, 2016 12:25 pm  #2


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

The house mistress said that all the doors and windows were locked, but this would be from the inside and they must be fairly easy to unlock in case there's a fire.  Probably the kidnapper simply unlocked a door from the inside and had a car waiting nearby.  Miss Mackenzie was presumably elsewhere in the building, or had fallen asleep.

I'm sure that the HELP US notice and trail was done by the kidnapper rather than by Max.  As you say, Max only had a short time to react, and if he could already see the man through the glass of the door's window, he definitely didn't have time to write a message on the wall.  Moriarty wanted Sherlock to follow clues and find the children so that he could be accused of being the kidnapper himself, so he (Jim) arranged for the clues to be left at the school.  I thought to myself at the time that it was all very convenient that the kidnapper apparently went to the disused factory in Addlestone before he went to the school, so that he could tread in all the items which would lead Sherlock to the factory.

Of course, it's also rather convenient that Max happened to be a fan of spy stories and had a handy bottle of linseed oil beside his bed so that the clues would seem to have come from him.  But then that's Steve Thompson for you - never allows a sensible plot get in the way of a story!

Last edited by Ariane DeVere (April 6, 2016 12:29 pm)

 

April 6, 2016 5:21 pm  #3


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

I always thought that the lineseed oil was for the bat. Sherlock smelled it in the room and the first thing he checked was if the boy's wooden bat was freshly covered with it. So the bottle wasn't completely out of place, but I also think the clues were left by the kidnapper.

 

April 6, 2016 8:04 pm  #4


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

I thought to myself at the time that it was all very convenient that the kidnapper apparently went to the disused factory in Addlestone before he went to the school, so that he could tread in all the items which would lead Sherlock to the factory.

Thats right, I did not notice that Point too. I was so concentrating on look to all the traces that I overlooked this. The whole case smells like a fake and Sherlock didnt notice that because he was to busy following all the hints. Thats a weakness of Sherlock (being himself) Moriarty exploit. It is his passion to figure out things and not saving humans. The main thing is that he is challenged and not bored.

Watson said something about security cameras, for this reason I thought it is impossible for the kidnapper to walk with the two kids through the house without beeing noticed.

     Thread Starter
 

April 6, 2016 8:22 pm  #5


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

Thats right, lineseed oil is for maintaining wooden surfaces. But the bottle was to small for leaving a Message and the all the foot prints.
I think Moriarty also left a "nerd" hint by using the black-light lamp: it usually contains quicksilver.

     Thread Starter
 

April 6, 2016 9:45 pm  #6


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

Black light lamps (and I think they must be special, because it doesn't work with a simple money proofer) are used to make organic substances visible AFAIK, so I thought it was a normal MO. Sherlock smelled the oil and saw the emptied bottle, but there was no oil on the bat, so they had to search it. The other question is if it really work with oil.

I also tried to find out something more about the quicksilver poisoning, because pure quicksilver is not dangerous when swallowed, and if you breath it in, the symptoms wouldn't match those from the episode. The same for quicksilver salts... But maybe we expect too much. http://cdn.boardhost.com/emoticons/happy.png

 

April 6, 2016 11:11 pm  #7


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

Ok, I dont know much about lamps containing quicksilver, I read this in an Article about flourescend lamps and rememberd it as I saw the scene.

But what is more important, I think I solved the case :-)

Its quiet easy:
Moriarty use to corrupt people in the environment of the people he observed. We have no reason to believe the old woman from the internat said the Truth and if the internat is so safe she said ( and it must be, because there are all rich Kids who could be kidnappend) is the only possible solution that she is a liar and moriarty corrupt her. So the Kidnapper could take the Kids and perhaps she helped him with the traces.

Possible reasons:

Maybe she had a bellyful that the rich Kids or parents bossed her around or she was jealous of their Money and so she took revenge (and get Money for it).

     Thread Starter
 

April 7, 2016 10:31 am  #8


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

I think you're over-thinking this a little!  I can't see any reason why Miss Mackenzie would be involved with the kidnapping (I assume that by "the old woman from the internat" you are referring to the school's house mistress).  After all, when Sherlock terrorises her into speaking quickly, she says: "All the doors and windows were properly bolted. No-one – not even me – went into their room last night. You have to believe me!" and Sherlock, who has been watching her face closely, tells her, "I do."  And she does seem genuinely upset about the loss of the children.

And actually, checking her line again, she says the doors and windows were "bolted," not locked.  As I said in my earlier post, it would be necessary for any door to be opened quickly from the inside in case of fire, so once the kidnapper was in the building, he could get any door open without difficulty.  With only two children sleeping in the school, he wouldn't be noticed or disturbed by anyone, and I don't believe that House Mistresses are obliged to stay awake and monitor the children all night long - they just do occasional checks.  It's likely, therefore, that the kidnapper waited until she had done a check and then knew that she wouldn't be back for some time.

 

April 7, 2016 1:44 pm  #9


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

I thinked over it and I think you are right, Miss Mackenzie is not a liar. Sherlock could notice that if she was told him not the truth.
But Watson mentioned the security cameras, if Miss Mackenzie did not notice the kidnapper the cameras did (I suppose the cameras are outside of the building and guard the doors and windows).

Miss Mackenzie did not lie but i still suppose she was corrupted by Moriarty. Moriarty also knows that Sherlock could detect a liar and because he is a very clever person he left the marks inside the rooms while the kids are kidnapping outside the building. Perhaps they have a playground or Miss Mackenzie bait them to a blind spot out of the view from the security cameras.
So she could say "All the doors and windows were properly bolted. No one - not even me - went into their room last night" without telling any lies.

I also think Sherlock knew that because as he stressed her to tell whats happened she immediately had the feeling to explain herself and said her studied sentence like an actress. Maybe this is the reason why Sherlock ignore all this unlogical things we noticed, he already knew that Moriarty left the marks. He also knows his methods (think about the woman in gallery he corrupted) and that is the reason, why he was so rude to Miss Mackenzie: She was not a victim.

     Thread Starter
 

April 11, 2016 12:26 pm  #10


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

Well, that's your opinion and you are, of course, entitled to it!  From what I've seen within the episode, I have no reason to believe that Miss Mackenzie was involved, corrupted or knew anything about the kidnapping in advance.

>> said her studied sentence like an actress
In the sense that Lorraine Hilton is an actress and therefore delivered Miss Mackenzie's lines in the way that an actress would, yes.  However, I don't have any reason to believe that Miss Mackenzie had rehearsed the line in advance.

 

April 11, 2016 3:45 pm  #11


Re: How did the kid napper escape with the two children?

Well, this forum would be very boring if we all agree with each other :-)

Sherlock asked Miss Mackenzie: Are you an Idiot, drunk or a criminal. I think her resonse precludes the first two accusations, so "criminal" remained.

But how you said it, nobody really knows, we only can speculate.

     Thread Starter
 

Board footera

 

Powered by Boardhost. Create a Free Forum