anjaH_alias wrote:

besleybean wrote:

Yeah, but the public don't know that!

Important is, what Moriarty´s confidents think. Or better, what they don´t know. I can imagine that it could be very helpful that they don´t know what really happened on the rooftop (suicide of Moriarty). That they think everything went according to the plan, as far as they were informed about that. They just know, the dangerous detektiv is dead AND still said to be fraudulent in the media, boss is not mentioned so there is no reason of doubting about him being alive. Something like that. The public in general is not important.
I mean, it must have a reason, that Moriarty is not mentioned in the last news about Sherlock. I don´t believe in the embarrassment of the tabloids -- they simply don´t care. Today this, tomorrow that. So why hiding that fact then if they were aware about that? What makes sense if it´s not a planful disappeared body for the sake of the further plans of Sherlock and whoever might be involved?

I agree - what could be more sensational than the suicide of the fraud detective?  The suicide or murder of the poor man he roped into his nefarious scheme.  The investigation of Richard Brook's death would just be more fodder for the tabloids.  They'd certainly have run the death of Brook as a sub-headline with Sherlock's suicide.

Hiding the body (and Molly would have been in a good position to do that, given that she was there and had the morgue at her disposal) so that Moriarty's underlings don't immediately learn of his death makes sense.  I was thinking that Mycroft and/or Molly might have hidden the body so that Sherlock wouldn't be implicated in his death.  That might have been the plan, actually, if we assume that Sherlock intended to or thought he might have to kill Moriarty.  But as you point out, it also buys him a bit of time.

besleybean wrote:

Oh I think Moriarty's team are fully aware of their master's fate.

You´re right, at least one should know, if Moffat/Gatiss walk along the canon. Yeah, we´ll see then, what really happened.
Nervertheless, the press could have made also a good story out of finding "Richard Brook" dead without losing their face - poor actor, driven to commit suicide by fraudulent detectice, etc. I still don´t see the point why mentioning Moriarty´s death automatically means feeling embarrassed. So I am nearly convinced about them not being aware of the fact that he´s dead. But of course, both is possible, I´d llike to know NOW what happened .
BTW: I don´t know English press so well, that´s right. But I know the German equivalents. And they can make people into heroes one day, and the next they watch them fall without any explanation of their changing attitude. And people swallow that because it´s "entertainment".

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 10, 2013 4:14 pm)

Davina wrote:

Yes, I get your point here. It is possible that Moriarty could be kept 'virtually alive', as it were. This would enable the tracking down of his web of criminal associates, as in the canon. Interesting idea.

Thanks, that´s exactly what I meant. I think it´s possible and not a very complicated storyline. It´s at least as much possible as the alternative about knowing about his death and not reporting about that.
Such a short firm sentence of you - sometimes I really struggle with the English and I think it sounds then more complicated than it is in fact .

erunyauve wrote:

I looked at the original source of Moffat's quote again, and it seems to me that he was talking about the out of character bit in the context of something Sherlock did to survive the fall. So that wouldn't be the hero thing, unless the cuff links could release invisible mini-parachutes.

Here is the quote: "I’ve been online and looked at all the theories," Moffat told us, "and there’s one clue that everyone’s missed. It’s something that Sherlock did that was very out of character, but which nobody has picked up on." (Radio Times 18.1.2012) Nothing, that it´s only about the fall itself.....

erunyauve wrote:

Personally, I'm going with the crack theory of the crisp packets mentioned earlier in the thread. The OOC moment is when Sherlock 'invites' Molly to a working lunch, yet we know he doesn't eat while working on a case. Inspired by the bag he shakes at Molly, he later empties the vending machine and fills his coat with crisps, thereby providing a nice (if slightly crunchy) cushion for his landing.

And no fish are involved, so it passes the Moftiss test.

Sorry, but this is a joke, or ? He was landing on crisps? I mean, besides that I doubt that one can land safely on these after a jump from a 10m high building, this "invitation" of Sherlock was so much in character indeed: He spoiled/didn´t accept the lunch date of Molly´s and as alternative he´s offering crisps!? That´s so much Sherlock..... And he´s eating nothing, by the way.

Last edited by anjaH_alias (January 11, 2013 12:19 pm)

besleybean wrote:

I was gonna say the same, but I assumed it was a joke!

So then: Sorry for not really getting it ...

anjaH_alias wrote:

besleybean wrote:

I was gonna say the same, but I assumed it was a joke!

So then: Sorry for not really getting it ...

Yes, I was joking, but no worries!

It's the text prior to Moffat's quote that seems to imply that it's about surviving the fall:

'Moffat admitted he had been following the fevered speculation about how Sherlock, played by Benedict Cumberbatch, could appear alive and well in the last scene of the episode, despite having apparently fallen to his death and, indeed, been buried. But according to Moffat, all the fans’ talk of switched corpses and mystery cyclists has been lacking a crucial detail.'

There are a lot of mysteries in the episode, and I do think that he was taking some high-profile cases to draw out Moriarty.  (I don't think he had much of a choice about becoming a hero.  After all, John had to keep reminding him to be gracious.)  So, lots to speculate about, but I thought the mention of 'switched corpses and mystery cyclists' pointed directly at the fall.  I might be reading too much into it, however, and Radio Times might not have the quote in its proper context.

Here again is the original interview (rather than the multi-repeated version) with all that was said before & after 'the' statement.

There is a clue everybody's missed

I see the clue could mean one of two things; missed something in the whole episode OR something during the fall. Which it is doesn't really bother me. I still believe that allowing himself to become a hero is NOT in Sherlock's usual style; he abhors the idea. So it was definitely part of a plan.

But I have been mulling over the words in this interview for the past 2 months actually. And I believe what he says AFTERWARDS is very relevant.
I havent drawn a conclusion yet, but I will let you know where I am going. Unlike others I have seen online (everywhere, not just here) I am not going to 'keep it to myself' and do a big reveal just before or worse, after the next episode. I don't see any point really; there's no prize for being right and no disgrace in being wrong. However all I am really saying is what we have discussed for a year now, lol.
I'm still analysing even what he said in that interview so its like a jigsaw puzzle that I keep sorting out into sections; then leaving it for real life; then coming back later.

OK.
- He talks of going one better than ACD.
- In the canon, Watson didn't see the fall but assumed there must be a body and a death.
- In Reichenbach, Watson sees the fall AND sees the body and assumes the death.

There is your 'one better' - he sees it happen.
So yes, I believe he could be referring to the actual 'making him look dead' thing; so how do you fool Dr Watson?
Or is it 'how do you make him see or believe he saw something that didn't happen'?

"It is all there in that episode", so again I'm going through each section, looking for the 'skimmed over' things (there's a lot trust me, lol)

They have also said you don't need slow mo or enlarged images to see the clues, so I try not to do that.  I'm just being observant on a different section each time.
After today's dramas I am hoping to get more than a few hours at a time to string together & put my mind to the task.
I'll see what ife dishes up next.

So sorry guys, no great reveal for some of you but for newer ones struggling to think 'where do I start" that may give you ideas and again I stress do not make it too complicated. If its not on teh screen, its probably irrelevant.

I think Sherlock's acknowledging he's not interested in Molly romantically, but that he's always considered her a  trusted colleague and now needs to ask her help...
Incidentally, I didn't realise there is an IF at the beginning of this.  is this definitely there? 
I thought Sherlock was making a clear statement, not asking a question,
No that's it.  He says: yet you still want to help me.

It does not really matter how many theories we set up, although some of them sound very good.
At the end we'll be surprised. I only pray that the resolution is logical and believable.

What for theories? I listen