For Irene, it's about the money she will make by scaring the government into buying her phone.  For Moriarty, it's about screwing with the Holmes bros.  She even says so "he didn't even want anything, I think he just likes to cause trouble".  Moriarty may be on a suicide path, but he's not going to give up the opportunity to destroy the Holmes bros if given the chance.  He did say that he wanted to burn Sherlock...what better way than by having a woman toy with his heart and then rip it out?  Moriarty knows he can always kill Sherlock at anytime he wants...but he enjoys messing with him more.

YouRepelMe wrote:

Check this theory out. I think it covers a lot of loose ends. I didn't buy all of it but it was still worth reading because it's really well-written. Also read the "crackpot theory" she wrote first. It's less believable but SO imaginitive.

http://eva-christine.tumblr.com/post/32560017981/reichenbach-explanation-richard-brook-was-real

This is the first of series of six posts that were put up back in March that advanced the premise that Sherlock and Mycroft had been planning the whole thing from the end of ASIB.   

http://thesherlockblog.blogspot.com/2013/03/the-holmes-boys-stalking-moriarty.html

This series also includes the information that you cannot make binary code out of either Bach Partita and a lot of other things in what you linked above.  If these fans came to these conclusions independently, it lends weight to their theories, I think,  At least, it makes them reasonable in face of evidence. 

And, there is this page How Sherlock Survives, you might find interesting. 

I think it's just really obvious that Mycroft and Sherlock planned everything from as soon as Mycroft let Moriarty out of his cell.  And as soon as Sherlock started acting so out of character in Baskerville.

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (June 25, 2013 3:33 am)

YouRepelMe wrote:

Check this theory out. I think it covers a lot of loose ends. I didn't buy all of it but it was still worth reading because it's really well-written. Also read the "crackpot theory" she wrote first. It's less believable but SO imaginitive.

http://eva-christine.tumblr.com/post/32560017981/reichenbach-explanation-richard-brook-was-real

I just want to point out that the poster makes an error several times misquoting what was said about checking out Moriatry's classmates.  What Sherlock said was:

"All the living classmates check out."  The blogger misquotes him by saying "all the classmates check out" and build the below premise on that presuming he must have had a different name at the time. 

The friendly bomber says that he “never liked” Carl Powers, so the swimming tournament wasn’t the first time they met. Carl laughed at him, which points to them being in the same age group. The consulting criminal is around the same age as Sherlock, who was “only a kid” when Carl drowned. So, Carl was killed by a child who knew Carl but “never liked him” and who had access to Carl’s eczema cream. The simplest conclusion is that Carl’s killer was his classmate. 

Or he could have been a neighbor, a kid on another swim team, child of a servant or empoyee or younger than Carl.  Or, this kid:



The Holmes/Moriarty Connection might be of interest.




 

Last edited by MysteriaSleuthbedder (July 3, 2013 11:22 pm)

There are big chunks of her theory I'm not quite down with, but I love the elegance of the idea of Brook being the "real" identity and Moriarty being the false one. I, though, don't believe that Sherlock knew as much or was on top of things as much as this blogger believes. Remember, Moriarty was the one antagonist who was good enough that Holmes couldn't be assured of beating him. And I honestly have no trouble believing that Holmes' brain got stuck on the Moriarty piece and didn't immediately cop to the Rich Brook identity...

For me, that's what makes SH's comments in his phone call with John about "I created Moriarty" make sense and be so powerful: Moriarty would never have existed if Brooks, the actor/storyteller/madman/genius had not taken notice of Sherlock and decided to take him on; it was Sherlock's engagement of him that made Moriarty into who he was, as each challenged the other to rise higher and perform better, until their final confrontation on the roof. 

So...without Sherlock, there would have been no Moriarty. But...without Moriarty, Sherlock still exists, which is why he in the end wins.