BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Magnussen couldn't blackmail anyone with no tangible proof!

Lollipopfop · February 8, 2014 8:50 pm

Take the lady chairman. He blackmailed her with the love letters her husband wrote to a 15 yr old girl. But the letters were in his mind, so he couldn't have shown them to third party and thus prove that her husband had an improper affair. Just knowing something isn't going to make any difference, because the person can simply deny it!!! ALL sherlock had to do was to let everyone know there was no Appledor. He didn't need to kill the guy. In fact; i am completely unwilling to believe that all the powerful, intelligent, savy people he blackmailed, none of them ever demanded to see the proof that he actually had something on them. He couldn't make Mary go to jail simply by knowing she committed crimes!! You need to PROVE someone committed a crime. And he couldn't. People don't go to jail just because someone says they did something. So he was harmless. Thats a really big plot problem.

Lollipopfop · February 8, 2014 8:55 pm

Even someone like me, not a smart person with power, if someone said to me; I know that you stole money from your moms purse when you were a kid; I would say "Prove it ot Shut it." And if they told me all kinds of details, and said they had pictures of me doing it, I would say "show me." And if they said "the pictures are in my mind vault." I would say "MHAHA. Get out of here!"

SherlocklivesinOH · February 8, 2014 9:02 pm

Thank you!

This was something I had been wondering about and was going to post more about. Sherlock could have just reported the absence of any physical evidence and then gone back and told everyone, "Arrest him, testify against him, just ignore him, whatever. He can't really hurt you."

I get that he could still print things in a way that seemed convincing, but once word was out that he HAD no proof, his credibility would have been severely diminished...

And what was up in the scene where CAM visited Baker Street? Now, the funny part was, after all the creepy things he did Sherlock honed in on one that seemed normal and innocous by comparision, but Sherlock said, "He showed us the letters!" Or, I thought Sherlock said that? And later, it turned out there WERE no letters, or at least CAM didn't have any.

In all other stories involving blackmail, retrieving or destroying the physical evidence is usually said to solve the problem.

And I actually don't get how he could have put Mary in jail, anyway, even if he had proof about her past. It sounds like she worked for a government (the US)? allied with Britain, so while MORALLY she may be a killer (morally you can question whether the CIA is any different from anyone they go after), her actions would have been sort of legal, at least in the eyes of some governments. She even says, "People like him need to be killed, that's why there are people like me."

Or, did she commit a crime by leaving the CIA without permission?

SusiGo · February 8, 2014 9:23 pm

As for the letters - in this scene he touches some papers peeping out of is pocket. Sherlock assumes that CAM is taunting him by showing him letters. He does not realise that they do not exist.

I think CAM explains his MO quite welll - he is not giving proof but news. He is circulating rumours. Just imagine papers printing articles about someone stating the person is a child molester. Even if the person can dissipate all doubt there will remain something in people's minds. This has been shown quite well in TRF. Sherlock committed no crime but the moment the media picked up the accusations his reputations was destroyed.
And even if there are not Appledore vaults CAM told John that he has memorised the names of people that might become dangerous to him and Mary. I suppose this applies to the other cases as well.

Willow · February 8, 2014 9:29 pm

The names and the telephone numbers of all the people who would like to see Mary dead, and would take active steps to bring that about...

SusiGo · February 8, 2014 9:32 pm

And the thing is that he does tell the truth, at least in Lady Smallwood's case. Her husband wrote the letters, the girl was minor. So other journalists would start to investigate, find her, talk to her and her family and friends. He only has to push the button.

Willow · February 8, 2014 9:41 pm

SusiGo wrote:
And the thing is that he does tell the truth, at least in Lady Smallwood's case. Her husband wrote the letters, the girl was minor. So other journalists would start to investigate, find her, talk to her and her family and friends. He only has to push the button.

And did, because Lady Smallwood stood up to him...

SherlocklivesinOH · February 8, 2014 10:55 pm

SusiGo wrote:
As for the letters - in this scene he touches some papers peeping out of is pocket. Sherlock assumes that CAM is taunting him by showing him letters. He does not realise that they do not exist.

I think CAM explains his MO quite welll - he is not giving proof but news. He is circulating rumours. Just imagine papers printing articles about someone stating the person is a child molester. Even if the person can dissipate all doubt there will remain something in people's minds. This has been shown quite well in TRF. Sherlock committed no crime but the moment the media picked up the accusations his reputations was destroyed.
And even if there are not Appledore vaults CAM told John that he has memorised the names of people that might become dangerous to him and Mary. I suppose this applies to the other cases as well.

And in the case of the smear campaign against Sherlock, it became a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy. And has more or less come true after HLV.

There is a blackmailer in canon named Charles Augustus Milverton (not a media guy, he just has a vault full of letters, and he seems to operate in kind of an 'underworld' way, rather than being in a position of official power) but the CAM of BBC seems to be a composite of Milverton and canon's MORIARTY, in terms of the way he operates - putting pressure on people, wielding power through a network, while all the while maintaining an outwardly respectable position. In canon, that MO is more Moriarty.

SherlocklivesinOH · February 9, 2014 1:09 am

Willow wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
And the thing is that he does tell the truth, at least in Lady Smallwood's case. Her husband wrote the letters, the girl was minor. So other journalists would start to investigate, find her, talk to her and her family and friends. He only has to push the button.

And did, because Lady Smallwood stood up to him...

I think, though, that Sherlock could have talked his way out of the "selling secrets" charge..., at least with Mycroft, the MPs, and the "official" authorities, many of whom are familiar with how Sherlock Holmes works.

Russell · February 9, 2014 5:04 am

It did seem kind of strange, thinking about it, that he held them in his power simply with his word… people tend to not want to push the issue in case he does get his hands on proof and simply do what he wants? I agree with Susi's argument, though… it's not like he even has to prove too much… exactly like TRF, and real life, the victims simply don't want the info out there and in the media badly enough, and give in to him. Get enough people talking about it, and the media would probably dig up proof of it's own, or ruin their reputation regardless of what happens.

But you would think if one person was brave enough to stand up to, and it was found that it was just against 'his word', and more people started fighting, the media would turn on him instead, for his word being untrustworthy.

miriel68 · February 9, 2014 10:09 am

I think the whole Magnussen storyline is very much a continuation of show's take of the power the media held in our world. It is not a very optimistic take, to say the last. Magnussen did say that he sometimes "sends for the things" although he very rarely has to. I think it means that slander is usually all he needs to do (and he is ah, so right: I have seen so many completely fabricated "information" about BC in tabloids and people willing to believe it immediately) but if he really has a need for a proof, he is able to get it.

Ormond Sacker · February 9, 2014 1:39 pm

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
Willow wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
And the thing is that he does tell the truth, at least in Lady Smallwood's case. Her husband wrote the letters, the girl was minor. So other journalists would start to investigate, find her, talk to her and her family and friends. He only has to push the button.

And did, because Lady Smallwood stood up to him...
I think, though, that Sherlock could have talked his way out of the "selling secrets" charge..., at least with Mycroft, the MPs, and the "official" authorities, many of whom are familiar with how Sherlock Holmes works.

Some one get Sherlock off that charge because when Mycroft, Lady Smallwood and the rest are discussing Sherlock's punishment, only murder is brought up. Not a word about treason, spying, selling secrets or anything like that.

miriel68 · February 9, 2014 5:06 pm

In fact, I think the whole problem of "Sherlock selling state secrets" in any case wouldn't come from Mycroft, who would never believe it/ nor would be ihe interested in harming his little brother, but from Magnussen. Even Mycroft would not have a possibility to stop Magnussen from printing these news, given that there were nor vaults and M. was untouchable. This was the whole M. point: he knew that Mycroft would do everything to protect Sherlock and at this point he finally got a leverage on him.

SherlocklivesinOH · February 9, 2014 7:25 pm

SusiGo wrote:
I think CAM explains his MO quite welll - he is not giving proof but news. He is circulating rumours. Just imagine papers printing articles about someone stating the person is a child molester. Even if the person can dissipate all doubt there will remain something in people's minds. This has been shown quite well in TRF. Sherlock committed no crime but the moment the media picked up the accusations his reputations was destroyed.
And even if there are not Appledore vaults CAM told John that he has memorised the names of people that might become dangerous to him and Mary. I suppose this applies to the other cases as well.

This MO would NOT be enough to bring criminal charges against anyone, in cases like the Smallwoods...

I get that rumors...planting the idea in people's minds that someone has done something, can in some cases harm them just as much. Dear Abby perodically runs this poem:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-02-02/entertainment/9101100425_1_alopecia-areata-foundation-dear-abby-hair-loss

But I would think, if they could have gotten enough witnesses to CAM's talking about his MO (best of all, if they had recorded it somehow) and publicized that, it would have gone along way toward convincing people not to believe information read in his newspapers, or otherwise traceable to him.

SusiGo · February 9, 2014 7:34 pm

CAM used the leverage against Lady Smallwood in order to stop the investigation against him. Lady Smallwood knew only too well that the reputation of a policitican can be damaged by mere rumours and insinuations. And in her husband's case the fact remained that he wrote love letters to a minor girl even if she looked older and he broke contact after learning her age.

More important, however, is that this is a crime show. Would it still work if Sherlock were gathering people to speak out against CAM and to keep him from going on with his dealings? I think we have to accept certain things, e.g. that this is about dramatic life and death situations and not about how to solve this problem peacefully. And lastly, there is the Canon story in which Milverton is killed by a woman he has blackmailed. There is a violent death at the end and Moffat decided on his own version of this death.

Willow · February 9, 2014 7:43 pm

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
SusiGo wrote:
I think CAM explains his MO quite welll - he is not giving proof but news. He is circulating rumours. Just imagine papers printing articles about someone stating the person is a child molester. Even if the person can dissipate all doubt there will remain something in people's minds. This has been shown quite well in TRF. Sherlock committed no crime but the moment the media picked up the accusations his reputations was destroyed.
And even if there are not Appledore vaults CAM told John that he has memorised the names of people that might become dangerous to him and Mary. I suppose this applies to the other cases as well.
This MO would NOT be enough to bring criminal charges against anyone, in cases like the Smallwoods...

I get that rumors...planting the idea in people's minds that someone has done something, can in some cases harm them just as much. Dear Abby perodically runs this poem:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-02-02/entertainment/9101100425_1_alopecia-areata-foundation-dear-abby-hair-loss

But I would think, if they could have gotten enough witnesses to CAM's talking about his MO (best of all, if they had recorded it somehow) and publicized that, it would have gone along way toward convincing people not to believe information read in his newspapers, or otherwise traceable to him.

I wish that I could believe that; unfortunately we know from long experience that it is very easy to destroy people's reputations and very hard to rebuild trust. CAM was in a position where he wielded immense power over the media, since he owned a large chunk of it; that point is made clear in the long opening sequence. That in turn enabled him to bend the Prime Minister's ear whenever he wanted, and clearly he wanted to do so regularly, given the number of times he had visited Downing St over the previous year.

One of the excuses regularly offered by the tabloid press is that they don't have to be accurate because nobody believes them anyway; unfortunately a lot of people do believe what they read, and if they only read one paper that is what they are going to believe. Most people do only read one paper so they would carry on in sublime ignorance, and CAM would continue to destroy lives...

SherlocklivesinOH · February 9, 2014 10:02 pm

Another thing: CAM, whatever else he is, is not stupid. And he has to realize that some people being blackmailed get desperate...I have to wonder what kind of contingency plan he has in place in case anything happens to him...

This Is The Phantom Lady · February 9, 2014 10:17 pm

A lot of Magnussen's power comes not only from his chillingly cold behaviour but also that he could print anything he wanted; he could turn the world against them in an instant and the mere threat of their inner secrets coming out is enough to grant him the power.
He could make his papers print the story and other people would dig deeper and find the truth; the secrets Magnussen stored in his vault.

It all comes down to the media not needing evidence. The word is all they need to run the world.

I think it was the smartest move for Sherlock to shoot him; I hate to say it. But since it was all in Magnussen's head it would end there.

Last edited by This Is The Phantom Lady (February 9, 2014 10:18 pm)

SherlocklivesinOH · February 10, 2014 8:51 pm

I wonder if it would have been possible to lock CAM up and deprive him of access to his papers and the ability to give orders for them to print anything.

Seems like between Sherlock, John, the gun, and Mycroft's team it wouldn't have been that hard to physically overpower CAM.

And the question is not so much, "What harm can he possibly do if he doesn't have physical proof?" as "Why he is ESPECIALLY dangerous?" Theoretically, every owner of a tabloid or media chain, or anyone adept at planting gossip on a broad scale, (or even doing it accidentally) should pose the same danger.

Also, his admitting to his lack of physical proof to Sherlock Holmes (someone closely connected to Mycroft Holmes who IS the British government) strikes me as a stupid thing to do...admitting a weakness...surely even if he CAN hurt people without proof, he would be in a BETTER position if they did believe he had proof? From TVtropes Headscratchers:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Sherlock

Last edited by SherlocklivesinOH (February 14, 2014 1:58 am)

Aytoun · February 14, 2014 3:41 pm

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
I wonder if it would have been possible to lock CAM up and deprive him of access to his papers and the ability to give orders for them to print anything.

Seems like between Sherlock, John, the gun, and Mycroft's team it wouldn't have been that hard to physically overpower CAM.

And the question is not so much, "What harm can he possibly do if he doesn't have physical proof?" as "Why he is ESPECIALLY dangerous?" Theoretically, every owner of a tabloid or media chain, or anyone adept at planting gossip on a broad scale, (or even doing it accidentally) should pose the same danger.

Also, his admitting to his lack of physical proof to Sherlock Holmes (someone closely connected to Mycroft Holmes who IS the British government) strikes me as a stupid thing to do...admitting a weakness...surely even if he CAN hurt people without proof, he would be in a BETTER position if they did believe he had proof? From TVtropes Headscratchers:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Headscratchers/Sherlock

In the UK it would be quite possible for the government to slap an injunction on CAM and his papers and then lock him up if he broke it. Lady Smallwood could have gone that route, so could Mycroft, even fairly minor TV personalities have used them to stop divorce cases etc being reported in the news. For all the scare stories about the press no one has more power than the goverment, but it wouldn't have been as much fun that way

I agree with everything else that you've said - CAM needs proof to make it stick, real phyiscal evidence. Actually I'm not entirely convinced that everything was in CAM's head, series 4 will tell, but if it was a trick it was one that he didn't live to regret.