Because he wanted to spare Sherlock the pain of the real memory. Feeling responsible for the death of a beloved dog (because he didn't solve Euru's puzzle) is bad enough, but feeling responsible for the death of your best friend must be devastating. I guess Mycroft was still hoping against all odds that Sherlock would never remember what really happened and therefore be spared a lot of pain.

diva wrote:

Kae Em wrote:

Because he wanted to spare Sherlock the pain of the real memory. Feeling responsible for the death of a beloved dog (because he didn't solve Euru's puzzle) is bad enough, but feeling responsible for the death of your best friend must be devastating. I guess Mycroft was still hoping against all odds that Sherlock would never remember what really happened and therefore be spared a lot of pain.

Exactly. I imagine that Sherlock was traumatised at first but then started to act as if the whole Redbeard incident never happened. When Mycroft discovered that his brother didn't remember what really happened he tried to keep it that way. Loss of memory as some kind of mental self protection might not be the healthiest way to cope with traumatic experiences but it seemed to work in this case so Mycroft didn't want to reopen old wounds. I think the "ignorance is bliss" formula in TLD foreshadows this idea.

But that does not make sense in a situation they were in - with the revelation of Eurus, it was only a question of time when the truth of Victor comes out. In fact, Eurus could babble it to Sherlock right away during their first conversation together, if she felt so inclined.... so how does "sparing Sherlock´s feelings" from Mycroft help things? It makes Sherlock more vulnerable during Eurus´ game and enables her to taunt him. Not knowing the truthful state of things makes Sherlock into Eurus´ target and prolongs the game - and all of this could be avoided if Mycroft just revaled the truth to him....

nakahara wrote:

But that does not make sense in a situation they were in - with the revelation of Eurus, it was only a question of time when the truth of Victor comes out. In fact, Eurus could babble it to Sherlock right away during their first conversation together, if she felt so inclined.... so how does "sparing Sherlock´s feelings" from Mycroft help things? It makes Sherlock more vulnerable during Eurus´ game and enables her to taunt him. Not knowing the truthful state of things makes Sherlock into Eurus´ target and prolongs the game - and all of this could be avoided if Mycroft just revaled the truth to him....

Are you implying that in real life,  people only do things that make sense? I don't think so. When it comes to emotions, humans often don't act logical.  In the series, Mycroft has spent the last 20 years  (or more) of his life trying to prevent Sherlock from ever remembering what really happened to Victor. I can understand why  - from an emotional point of view (and yes, when it comes to Sherlock, Mycroft is emotional, even if he hardly ever admits it openly) - he was very reluctant to tell Sherlock everything he had tried to protect him from for such a long time. Even if the odds were against him, there was still a small possibility Eurus wouldn't tell Sherlock what really happened. And I can understand why Mycroft was clutching desperatly at that last straw. Anyway, we don't know what Eurus would have done to Sherlock if had known about Victor from the start of her game. That knowlege, the guilt and his anger against her could have even made him even more vulnarable and given her more opportunity to torture him.
 

Quite a good explanation of why was John trown a rope into the well, although he was chained to the ground:

http://fffinnagain.tumblr.com/post/156052187578/john-well-rope-real-help-can-we-stop

I agree entirely and I find it bizarre what some focus on!

Wish we could have seen the details of the rescue operation.  It would have been neat to watch just how it was done.
 

So what about this?

http://gosherlocked.tumblr.com/post/156987150356/the-room-of-eurus-holmes

It kind of makes sense that her parents would try to encourage a more "normal" childhood.  And I suppose she did her learning elsewhere.

Still, I find it weird. They are taking great pains so that rooms reflect the people who live in them. Just think of 221b which is a mirror of everything Sherlock and John represent. Or the flat of the train guy in TEH, to name just two examples. 

We have a mother who is a genius, a gifted mathematician who gave up her work to have children. And she has a daughter who is an era-defining genius beyond Newton. And nothing of this is reflected in Eurus's room? And what is more, as a child, we never see her doing anything extraordinary - she is playing with a toy plane, draws pictures of how to kill her brother, and plays with fire. We have to take Mycroft's word for everything we learn about his sister's childhood. Without his words, she would seem a lonely and disturbed little girl, nothing more. 
 

Well, we have been presented with lots of evidence that Sherlock is a genius. And people loved it. And then suddenly he is the family idiot and his sister is the big child genius? And we do not get a scrap of evidence? Sorry, but that does not work for me. This character does not sit well with me - not because of her violence - but because to me she does not make sense. We are told she was brilliant as a child but we only see her as lonely and cruel. 
We get to see Sherlock's brilliance and even Magnussen's mind palace, we get to see Mycroft speaking Serbian after two hours. And with Eurus we are meant to just believe?