BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » Why does the little girl scream? Why mercury?

Davina · September 12, 2012 10:21 am

Moriarty almost certainly has insiders in the police force working for him. If Lestrade was on the 'hit' list and the shots (excuse the pun) we see inside the Yard when the sniper is being shown/implied are genuine then this is evidence to back up that assertion.

kazza474 · September 12, 2012 10:30 am

Davina wrote:
Moriarty almost certainly has insiders in the police force working for him. If Lestrade was on the 'hit' list and the shots (excuse the pun) we see inside the Yard when the sniper is being shown/implied are genuine then this is evidence to back up that assertion.

Ahhhh, nicely put " implied" . Yes, a random camera shot, a suggestion from a madman & suddenly some cop is a sniper!

Sherlock Holmes · September 15, 2012 10:09 am

Yeah, a post somewhere else actually made me think about this, that maybe we shouldn't believe everything we are shown on the screen.

Watching Jeremy Brett the other night. At the end of Final Problem we see him and Moriarty topple over the Falls, but in the Empty House we find out that didn't actually happen.

kazza474 · September 15, 2012 10:16 am

The camerawork is clearly giving us suggestions that the man looking back at Lestrade in the office could be the sniper of which Moriarty is currently speaking, but isn't that how a good red herring is thrown?

Overall, I think it is more about applying what people want to believe, or applying what happened in 'some other show' because that was a good idea. That is what seems to happen with these assumptions.
While amusing, it is rather an insult to the creativity of Moftiss really.

KLowsenuff · September 27, 2012 2:55 pm

I'm really getting here a little late, aren't I?

I think that Moriarty used Mercury for several reasons. The first is that, as mentioned, it was a way to kill the children slowly, giving time for Sherlock to work out what was going on. The second is that Jim expected Sherlock to find the kids, therefore he needed something lethal that Sherlock would be able to recognize. I did some research and a lot of places say that Mercury has a faint odor, but no taste. Perfect.

So Moriarty coat the candies, the hungry kids eat them, unaware of the poison. Sherlock, as expected, tracks the kids down and discovers the wrappers. Moriarty expects him to be able to easily identify the chemical, and we already know Sherlock has an excellent sense of smell, so, of course, he figures it out quickly. (He works in a lab, constantly surrounded by chemicals that he does experiments with, so the idea that Mercury would be easily is readily believable.)

When the police take the wrappers for evidence, the lab technicians are sure to be able to pinpoint that the candies did, in fact, have mercury on them.

This in addition to the little girls reaction to Sherlock ( which I think has been covered well here) would make the evidence that our detective is legitamate all the more un-believable. Moriarty has laid even more of his grounds work to Sherlock's fall.

Sorry if rambling paragraphs are disapproved of here, I'll get the hang of it sooner or later.

Last edited by KLowsenuff (September 27, 2012 2:57 pm)

The Doctor · September 28, 2012 1:26 pm

KLowsenuff wrote:
... and we already know Sherlock has an excellent sense of smell, so, of course, he figures it out quickly. (He works in a lab, constantly surrounded by chemicals that he does experiments with, so the idea that Mercury would be easily is readily believable.)

Just to make a point here: mercury is odourless but VERY TOXIC (INHALATION/SKIN ABSORPTION HAZARD, SKIN SENSITIZER, REPRODUCTIVE HAZARD - CNS (central nervous system). Unprotected persons should avoid all contact with this chemical.

*besides the point but this thread also brought back memories of too many lab experiments that resulted in (temporarily) loss of any smell whatsoever..*

Harriet · September 28, 2012 1:36 pm

The Doctor wrote:
Just to make a point here: mercury is odourless but VERY TOXIC (INHALATION/SKIN ABSORPTION HAZARD, SKIN SENSITIZER, REPRODUCTIVE HAZARD - CNS (central nervous system). Unprotected persons should avoid all contact with this chemical.

... and regarding the children here, is it true there are hardly any ways to get it out of them?

Jammeez · September 28, 2012 8:58 pm

You and me both, KLowsenuff!

Moriarty has a history of enjoying making Sherlock rush. The whole point of The Great Game was that there was a "Dead"line. Arriving at the factory, the authorities were already under pressure to find the kids, but learning they had an (virtually) endless supply of slow poison that they were certain to keep eating made it all the more urgent to locate them and get them treated.

I believe the exact words were "the hungrier they get, the faster they eat". Which of course would put even more pressure on.

Last edited by Jammeez (September 28, 2012 9:00 pm)

The Doctor · October 1, 2012 6:58 am

Harriet wrote:
.. is it true there are hardly any ways to get it out of them?

.. hard to say pending the exact form of mercury, children swallowing batteries probably being the most common.
I re-read some manuals and also found this online:

ELEMENTAL MERCURY
Inhaled elemental mercury poisoning may be difficult to treat. The patient may receive:
Humidified oxygen or air
Breathing tube into the lungs
Suctioning of mercury out of the lungs
Medication to remove mercury and heavy metals from the body

INORGANIC MERCURY
For inorganic mercury poisoning, treatment usually begins with supportive care. The patient may receive:
Fluids by IV (into a vein)
Medicines to treat symptoms
Activated charcoal, a medicine that soaks up many substances from the stomach
Medicines called chelators to remove mercury from the blood

Treatment of organic mercury usually consists of medicines called chelators to remove mercury from the blood and away from the brain and kidneys. Often, these medications will have to be used for weeks to months. Chelation is a process in which chemicals that "grab" toxic metals are put into the bloodstream. As the treatment chemicals pass through the circulatory system, they carry the mercury and other heavy metals out of the blood, through the kidneys and eliminate them via urination.
Two common chelation treatments are ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and dimercaptocuccinic acid (DMSA). These drugs are administered intravenously and are approved by the FDA for the removal of toxic metals. Both are highly successful with mercury poisoning. It may take anywhere between 5 and 30 treatments to remove all toxic metal from the body.

Outlook (Prognosis)
Breathing in a small amount of elemental mercury will cause very few, if any, long-term side effects. However, larger amounts will lead to a long hospital stay. Permanent lung damage is likely. There may be some brain damage. Very large exposures will likely cause death.
A large overdose of inorganic mercury may cause massive blood and fluid loss, kidney failure, and likely death.
Chronic brain damage from organic mercury is difficult to treat.

As for the taste: The Merck doesn't list a taste for mercury, but ... for mercury amide chloride (HgNH2Cl), they list an "earthy, styptic, metallic taste"; mercury(II) iodide is "almost tasteless"; the black form of mercury(II) sulphide is tasteless (and I imagine the red form- cinnibar- would be similarly tasteless); mercury(I) chloride is also tasteless. I could suggest it tastes like chicken though i prefer tofu?

Last edited by The Doctor (October 1, 2012 7:02 am)

aWorldlyPhilosopher · October 18, 2012 7:42 pm

Davina wrote:
...why does the little girl scream when Sherlock enters the room in the hospital?

Does she?

besleybean · October 18, 2012 8:18 pm

Good grief...has she been shown pics of the targets....is it JOHN?!

Davina · October 19, 2012 7:46 am

Perhaps, but the point is everyone assumes it is Sherlock she is screaming at and to be honest nothing else matters. If he enters the room, with or without other people, and the little girl points and screams, who exactly will everyone assume she is screaming at? Before they even go into the room Lestrade has warned Sherlock to be less Sherlocky, hence him turning down his collar.

The scream is planned somehow because it clearly has the desired effect. Whoever planned it, and I think we can assume that it is Jim Moriarty, knows that her reaction will be seen as a negative reaction to Sherlock. The seed of doubt will be sown.

Last edited by Davina (October 19, 2012 7:48 am)

besleybean · October 19, 2012 4:16 pm

Yeah I always assumed the abductor wore a Sherlock mask or the girl was shown pix of Sherlock...or his shadow wouldn't be dissimilar to Moriarty etc.

besleybean · October 21, 2012 7:24 am

Indeed.

sherlockian111 · January 23, 2013 1:30 am

There's something wrong with all this, I can't quite put my finger on it. Why would the kids eat the chocolates in the first place? I guess he could've made them eat them, but still. And also, Sherlock walked in(the little girl hadn't looked at him yet), Sherlock started talking, she looks up and starts screaming. Maybe it was something about his voice?
Putting this bluntly, the police had no evidence what so ever in regards to Sherlock kid napping the kids, the girl had just been kidnapped, and hadn't uttered anything except the scream, you can't exactly arrest someone because a traumatised little girl screamed.

sherlockian111 · January 23, 2013 1:39 am

I've looked up the symptoms for mercury poisoning, and in children, some common symptoms are memory impairment and emotional lability

Elisabeth · February 8, 2013 5:39 pm

Hello,
as you all have already deducted that this way of poisoning has an aftereffect of hallucinations and delisions. So what do we conclude? Remember when Sherlock says to Lestrade:"Wenn there is an idea, it is always there!" Pointing on his head. So Moriarty managed to influence the girl with some sort of story maybe because he calls himself the storyteller. Why does he wants to kill even children? Remember the Case with the Taxi driver in 'The Great Game'. The Bombs were on innocent people like an old Lady or also an child. Essentially he is like Sherlock because Sherlocks sociopathie is obvious.
So what do you think?
Sorry for my english if there are mistakes. I'm bilingual (German/British)
Greetings
Elisabeth

Mary Me · February 8, 2013 5:58 pm

For me there's another question:

Why didn't somebody just ask her for her reason to scream?
Okay, okay, she is traumatised. But dear police, give her time to recover from the shock and then ask her directly if Sherlock was the man who had been kidnapping her. Would clear things up a bit.

Last edited by Mary Me (February 8, 2013 5:59 pm)

besleybean · February 8, 2013 10:28 pm

And it might.

miriel68 · February 11, 2013 11:47 am

I think it is always risky to dig too deeply in things like these. After all, it is not real life we are talking about, it's a script. Ok, a devishly clever script, but still, some things happen because writers want them to happen or need them to happen for plot, time or pace sake. In fact, the whole kidnapping subplot works well and fits perfectly the fairy tales theme (which I love, btw), but it's based on very shaky fundaments.
First of all, the footprint: why would be the molecule of glicerine there? The kidnapper did not COME from the sweets factory, he TOOK the children there. we could still explain it by supposing that Moriarty planted this footprint intentionally in order to give Sherlock a lead. Quite plausible, given how smart Moriarty is. However:
1. Moriarty could in no way forsee how much time exactly Sherlock would need to solve the enigma and then
2. He could not be certain just how many sweets the children would eat and if they would be still conscious when found (the boy already passed out, it was a pure chance the girl did not).
Also, he could not be CERTAIN the girl would scream seeing Sherlock, but this is a minor point IMO. (Neither could he be certain that Sherlock would get into the cab alone, leaving John behind: if Watson was with him in the cab, the story about Sir Boastalot would not have had the same impact on Sherlock).

On the other hand, we know Moriarty have an accomplice / more accomplices inside police forces (there is this guy who is supposed to kill Lestrade, remember? He is evidentely a police agent) so it would be in any case easy for him to arrange some false proves and implicate Sherlock into a crime he is supposedly helping to solve. Only, to show it in a completely realistic way, they should need more screentime and it would be probably something less spectacular, therefore I am absolutely happy to accept the "fairy tale" twist.