^ Maybe she is just still very happy to see him? 

Not a mistake but something I never really understood: after Sherlock had made John send the message to Jennifer Wilson's mobile phone and the murderer calls back, Sherlock says that only the murderer would do that while someone who had simply found the phone would ignore the message. That would only be true if we assume that the finder wanted to keep the phone but I think most people would be honest enough to give it back to the owner - so why ignore the text?

romahp wrote:

This is very silly, but it stuck out for me so here goes..
 In SIP, the scene when John is about to knock at 221B and SH joins him on getting out of a taxi and they are standing there talking on the pavement. Now, I should point out that SH later on tells John that he 's already moved in, which means he is already living there i.e. Mrs.Hudson is already his housekeeper. We never see them hugging or greeting each other on any other occasions when SH is entering or leaving his rooms. So when Mrs.Hudson opens the door and fondly hugs him, saying "Sherlock....", we assume that they are meeting after a long time! When in fact he's already her tennant! That seemed very odd to me, so yeah maybe you think it's stupid..yeah maybe it is!

He is still new in the flat, or? Just moved in, looking for a flatmate now. He even seems to have no own key at that time . So the hugs might be there because the whole situation is new. Btw: The flat looks as if Sherlock it still uses more for storage purposes. And: We see Sherlock hugging Mrs. Hudson more than one time, e.g. short before "the game is on" (when Sherlock leaves Baker Street).

Well, I found a nice mobile a year ago: I just called the first person I found on the register it happened to be the best friend of the owner: they were really happy to have their mobile back. Same thing happened to my hubby (ex-hubby now) a couple of years ago. So I guess some people will still give back electronic devices

I not sure if this was a mistake, but in the reflection on the taxi it reads"Glasglow 592" was this supposed to be there as glasglow is a long way away!

SussexieVampire wrote:

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

Yeah, I also noticed that the victims took 2 pills in a vial, and that when he "plays" with Sherlock it's only one pill. Maybe there is no game, maybe he just forces them to take it at gunpoint. Kind of dull but there you go...

I noticed the same thing too... I think he plays a different game with Sherlock or they just made a mistake while filming the beggining scenes.

I screencapped (is that a word?) the pills and in all cases I see 3 pills in the vial. Only the first man is showed putting the pill in his mouth (only one), but I assume it's the same in all the cases. Anyway, it looks like the cabbie cheated or changed his game for Sherlock... or they made a mistake filming the scenes.

Sherlock Holmes wrote:

I'm not sure if this is a mistake or not but...

When the cabbie texts Sherlock to say "Come with me", how did he get Sherlock's mobile number? We know he has John's number because they texted him earlier off John's phone, but how did he get Sherlock's?

The only explanation I can think of was that he got it off Moriarty...who is bound to be able to get hold of people's numbers easily - he's got the genius and the technology to do it.

SERIOUSLY?! it's on his website! In the pilot, he asks for John's phone, because his number is on the website. I signed up to this website just to post this! OMG >.<
 

TeeJay wrote:

And you know what? Someone already posted that. Check the fifth post on the first page of this thread.

And you know what? I don't really care.
 

Wow I cant believe i never noticed the blood disappearing even though that's been resolved now!! I was wondering about the pills though!! I watched it again today - and it's still as good as ever!!! mind you now you've pointed all this out, I'm going to have to watch it again!!! ;)

There's actually quite a big writing error at the end, namely the shock blanket gag. Just like every other screenwriter in the world, Moffat didn't seem to know the difference between circulatory shock and psychological shock. 

Well, there's this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shock_(circulatory)
And I'm not an expert, but basically circulatory shock is when the perfusion of blood is somehow disturbed, for various reasons, the most common ones are severe blood loss and cardiac arrest. It leads to hypoxia and death, depending on the severity. 

Psychological shock is more commonly called acute stress disorder. It's when people are disoriented after an acute primary stress response. It's not harmful by itself, though it might be a predictor of ptsd, I don't know if that link is there. 

The shock blanket is for the former condition; people who are in circulatory shock need to be kept warm and calm so that they need as little oxygen as possible. I suppose you could use it for the latter condition too but people in psychological shock don't necessarily need to be kept warm. As far as I'm aware the most important in that situation is that people around them remain calm and don't reinforce the stress.