Well, it was indeed the case, I think and what is really amazing, is that we have it coming as early as the beginning of the first episode, with Donavan predicting that Sherlock will "cross the line" one day.Quite a wonderful continuity, rarely seen in a TV series. Do you think M & G had already plans for Sherlock's fall at that stage, or they just used cleverly these early lines when RF arrived?  

Sometimes I think they planned nearly everything. There was a post on Tumblr some days ago where they showed John's mug with the crown, the apple on his desk and the gun in his drawer, all from the very beginning of ASiP. And the crown, the apple and the gun return in TRF. 

crazybbcamerican wrote:

Good point! 

(OK I'll play! nowhere in Sherlock or the original canon did sherlock *ever* say "Elementary, dear Watson." He says elementary once or twice, and calls Watson dear a few times, but those words never appear together in the text :D So is that the one that doesn't belong?)

You are technically correct, but only partially correct with respect to the entirety of the riddle.

You're on the right track....

Swanpride wrote:

If they are really set on believing that Sherlock is a fraud, they will most likely argue that a few of his cases might have been real, but most of them were not.

Perhaps. 

I get that point.  That the public will see Sherlock as a fraud despite any legitimately-solved cases, since they're outnumbered by the fraudulent cases.

But not all cases are alike.  Not all cases carry the same weight.  Not all cases are verifiable, or verifiable to the same degree.  And not all cases are of similar difficulty. 

So, in my opinion, Sherlock's successful solving of the Interpol case should, by itself, disprove any allegation that any other case solved by Sherlock was a fraud.  There's just no way that the public can swallow all the other fraud bits while admitting that he actually solved the Interpol one. 

Why? 

1. Interpol is as credible as a source can get -- so if they say it's true, the public must believe it's true. 

This isn't a privately-solved case for a private client, where the "proof" is from the fuzzy detailed accounts from Watson's blog.  Heck, it's not even a Scotland Yard write-up by envious colleagues.

This is an international police organization comprised of 190 nations -- i.e., the biggest, most famous, policing organization in the world.  There are only 193-195 nations in the world.  So, we are literally talking about the police force represntative of the entire world. 

A police organization that big, that legitimate cannot be anything BUT a credible source.  Their news -- Sherlock's help in capturing Interpol's #1 -- is literally as "official" and irrefutable as it gets. 

There literally is no other police organization in the solar system that could have more credibility in making such an announcement.  

2. The alternative: Interpol is not credible, and the public doesn't believe Interpol.

So, Interpol says it's true, but the public doesn't believe Interpol.  What would that take?

The public eats up the story that Sherlock bribed "Rich Brook" to play along as "Jim Moriarty," even to the point that they believe that Sherlock paid Brook to stage the triumvirate break-in, and ensure his subsequent acquittal in court.  Ridiculous, but whatever.  Ok, fine, let's assume that much.

But what about Interpol?  It's one thing to bribe a starving actor, but you're in an entirely different universe to think that Sherlock could do the same with Interpol.

Sherlock would have to:
1) make a bribe of literally an unfathomable amount of money (like $10 billion) to the police force of the entire world
2) ensure cooperation from 100% of the 190 Interpol nations, as even one dissenting nation would reveal and thwart the scheme
3) participate in this global conspiracy just to perpetuate the notion that he's a legitimate genius detective, and not a fraud.

So, let's go ahead and assume that the public, as much as it wants Sherlock to be proven a fraud, begrudgingly accepts Interpol's testimonial that Sherlock solved the Interpol #1 case, and there was never a bribe.

3. Sherlock's resolution of the Interpol #1 case is enough to trump all other allegedly fraudulently-solved cases.

So, assuming that Interpol and the public aknowledge that Sherlock legitimately solved the case of the missing Interpol #1 suspect -- that achievement, ALONE, should set Sherlock's investigative bar so high that it ought to show that Sherlock is capable of solving any "lesser" crimes (e.g., the Hansel & Gretel case).

It's not like Sherlock captured Scotland Yard's #9 suspect of July 2012.  This is Interpol's #1 fugitive of 30 years. 

3 decades have passed, and 190 nations -- quite literally, just about the ENTIRE WORLD'S POLICE FORCES -- have cooperatively pooled their efforts and resources to try to capture this fugitive, whom they've made their TOP priority in capturing.  Basically, the bin Laden of the Sherlock universe.  And he never got captured.  Considering the passage of 30 years, the involvement of the entire world, and the #1 priority set to capture him, the fact that the fugitive remained on the loose likely means that it was deemed a virtually unsolveable case.

But Sherlock solved the case.

Logically, if Sherlock can solve that case, shouldn't the public begin to wonder if he'd be able to solve the other cases?  At the very least, the public has to acknowledge that his abilities are not fraudulent, but genius.

4. Still! He could've still been a genius who set up the other crimes!

This could be a strong counter argument.  There are only two reasons why someone like Sherlock would fabricate crimes:

1) Because he's not a genius and he genuinely lacks the ability to solve crimes, so he needs to cheat by creating crimes for which he already knows the answer, in order to become a "hero"; or

2) Because he's actually a crime-solving genius, but uses the ability to fabricate cases out of fun.

As for 1), if he can solve Interpol #1, there's no need for him to fabricate crimes just to obtain the solution that only he could know.  Donovan think this is the case -- but if Sherlock can solve a 30-year old global top priority cold case, couldn't he solve an arguably simpler case of finding missing children (who are obviously not evading capture)?

As for 2), if he's just a sociopath who enjoys committing crimes, then why solve them? 

Presumably, the buzz of committing crimes is the risk of getting caught.  Solving the crimes you enjoyed committing eliminates almost all possibility that you'd get caught.  Even Moriarty wouldn't solve his own crimes, he just enjoyed committing them. 

Also, again, Sherlock has proven he can solve crimes in which he clearly had no involvement -- like Interpol #1.

The public believes that he "created Moriarty" to give himself an arch-nemesis, implying that Sherlock annointed himself the hero, and Sherlock enjoys the "hero" status.  So, if the public believes Sherlock is a fraud, it's based on the assumption that Sherlock is simply an ordinary guy who makes up crimes so that only he knows the solution, just to be a hero. 

And if the public believes he's just some ordinary fraud committing crimes just to solve them himself, how does Interpol figure Sherlock solved their holy grail of unsolveable cases?  Sheer ordinary luck?

5. Interpol vs. the rest of the sources

So, we have Interpol's credibility, and their attestation that Sherlock solved a 30-year old unsolveable case -- showing that Sherlock is a legitimate detective genius, and not a fraud.

On the other side, the only evidence supporting the notion that "Sherlock is a fraud" comes from:
1) Kitty Riley (the previously scoop-less underachiever previously rejected by Sherlock),
2) Rich Brook (the struggling actor whose only documentation still shows no connection to Sherlock; also, even if he were actually bribed by Sherlock to commit the UK's biggest crime ever, there's still no explanation for his "outing" of Sherlock"),
3) Envious colleagues (like Donovan and Anderson).  Incidentally, it was Sherlock's Interpol ceremony that his main accusers (Anderson and Donovan) were chuckling at Sherlock's expense.  Not exactly disinterested parties.

Impartial, global police force vs. three partial, if contentious, parties.  Interpol wins.

6. What are the chances that Sherlock faked every single case but the Interpol case? 

Basically, the public would have to believe that Sherlock's a fraud nearly all the time, but he luckily solved the Interpol problem.

Again, it makes no sense to legitimately solve the hardest case he has faced, or at least the most official and legitimate case, but to fabricate all other crimes just so he can solve them himself. 

BlinkULDHC wrote:

1. Interpol is as credible as a source can get -- so if they say it's true, the public must believe it's true. 

This isn't a privately-solved case for a private client, where the "proof" is from the fuzzy detailed accounts from Watson's blog.  Heck, it's not even a Scotland Yard write-up by envious colleagues.

This is an international police organization comprised of 190 nations -- i.e., the biggest, most famous, policing organization in the world.  There are only 193-195 nations in the world.  So, we are literally talking about the police force represntative of the entire world.  . 

Well, I'm not saying your theory is wrong, but Interpol isn't a police force, or an arm of law enforcement.  Except in American spy movies, I guess.  For the most part it's a huge database that multiple jurisdictions can access.  http://www.interpol.int/ipsgapp/educational/what-is-interpol.html  They have a Most Wanted sort of list, I'm sure, but they don't have policemen or cases or solve them.  They are an information clearing house.

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:

BlinkULDHC wrote:

Sherlock was congratulated for the successful capture of Interpol's number one suspect, who had been on the loose for 30 years.

There can't be anyone (in the fictional universe or our universe) that believes that a 6 or 7-year old Sherlock began scheming with this guy in order to set up the ultimate pre-solved crime....3 decades later.

Good observation! I confess that I am frustrated with some characters (and especially John) for not suspecting that Sherlock's death could be faked. 

I mean, from where John is standing it's as though Sherlock committed suicide because he either:

1) he was a fraud and he was found out OR

2) he couldn't live with the whole world thinking he was a fraud 

Now I'm not a mindreader so I'm just guessing at what John thinks. But maybe John blames himself, at least in part. He may think that it is not so much that Sherlock is a fraud or cares what the rest of the world thinks about him, but that he (John) may have at least in part pushed Sherlock to this. After all some of the last words John says to him is "You machine.". His parting remark to Sherlock is "No, Sherlock. Friends protect people", maybe he feels that he didn't protect Sherlock when the man needed it the most.
And that's why John is still grieving after nearly two years, like Anderson he blames himself. Though it's not in John's character to create fanclubs.