BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Something else that doesn't make sense...

**Posted by SherlocklivesinOH** February 8, 2014 4:22 am

Irene refers to Sherlock as "the famous detective in the funny hat," and there are references to him being increasingly famous, due to John's blog and some other media.

So how did the Chief Superintendent not know until this episode how involved Sherlock was with their cases?

**Posted by tobeornot221b** February 8, 2014 7:44 am

SherlocklivesinOH wrote:
Irene refers to Sherlock as "the famous detective in the funny hat," and there are references to him being increasingly famous, due to John's blog and some other media.
So how did the Chief Superintendent not know until this episode how involved Sherlock was with their cases?

There are still people at large who never heard of Sherlock Holmes, apparently.
Be it DI Carter in SCANDAL or Louise Mortimer in HOUNDS ("Sherlock...who?") or Kate in HLV ("Who's Sherlock Holmes?").
To say it in Mary's words: "See? That does happen."

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 8, 2014 10:43 am

But interesting though. I think it's understandable that someone like Louise or Kate has never heard of Sherlock Holmes before, if they're not interested in news about crime (somethingorother ).
The Chief Superintendent is another story, though. Then again, maybe he's someone who just wants crimes to be solved, no questions asked, until something goes wrong?

**Posted by SherlocklivesinOH** February 11, 2014 8:07 pm

And Sherlock has joked about being "threatened" with a knighthood...which he doesn't want, of course, but that implies somebody high-up respects him, and that the government would be openly acknowledging his assistance.

**Posted by tobeornot221b** February 11, 2014 8:29 pm

And don't forget - in SiP even John hadn't heard of a certain Sherlock Holmes but had to look him up on the internet. At that time Sherlock apparently had been quite succesful in solving cases for the police.

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 11, 2014 8:48 pm

Then again, John had more or less just returned from Afghanistan, right? Do we know how long he's been there?

**Posted by tobeornot221b** February 11, 2014 8:55 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Then again, John had more or less just returned from Afghanistan, right?

I knew someone would say that...

**Posted by SolarSystem** February 11, 2014 8:57 pm

tobeornot221b wrote:
SolarSystem wrote:
Then again, John had more or less just returned from Afghanistan, right?
I knew someone would say that...

And I'm so glad it was me who said it!

**Posted by Boswell** July 21, 2015 10:23 am

Being new to the forum i'm always digging up old dormant threads, and couldnt resist this one either
So, to my mind the really strange thing about the Chief Sup not knowing about Sherlock's involvement in police cases was that the police held a public felicitation for Holmes after he helped them catch a criminal they'd been chasing since 1982! The ceremony where Lestrade gave Holmes the deerstalker and the press asked him to put it on for the cameras.
The explanation i have received since is that the Chief Sup was politically motivated to 'cover his ass' by pretending not to know who Sherlock was or the level of his engagement on police cases when it emerged Sherlock could be a suspect. But even with this explanation, that scene at the Chief Sup's office still jars with me; not just his 'ignorance is bliss' act but even more so Lestrade's hopelessly inadequate response.

**Posted by Morton** July 25, 2015 5:19 pm

My dear Boswell (I couldn't resist that, sorry) There would be a procedure for bringing in amateur advice which Lestrade hasn't followed - Sherlock has been involved without anyone above Lestrade knowing, hence he is stuck to have to admit that he has allowed an amateur on any crime scene. It would be ok to give Sherlock that credit for helping so long as Lestrade never let it be known that Sherlock was actually at crime scenes. I think Greg was trying for damage limitation and to save his arse and save Sherlock's behind as well. Otherwise I might just have to put it down to Moftiss not examing their plot for holes that such an intelligent observer as yourself can identify as blooming big plot holes.

**Posted by Morton** July 25, 2015 5:34 pm

SolarSystem wrote:
Then again, John had more or less just returned from Afghanistan, right? Do we know how long he's been there?

I'd guess from his blog that BBC John was back in London in hospital for at least six weeks before 14th December and met Sherlock on 29 January.

**Posted by Kittyhawk** July 26, 2015 4:58 pm

Morton wrote:
.... There would be a procedure for bringing in amateur advice which Lestrade hasn't followed - ....Otherwise I might just have to put it down to Moftiss not examing their plot for holes.....

Lestrade not following procedure for bringing in his consulting detective is confirmed by his remark in Study in Pink "I'm breaking enough rules as it is" (or something similar, I'm quoting from memory). But Boswell makes a good point: The Met holds a press conference at (probably) Scotland Yard for Sherlock (where he gets the deer stalker) - how could Lestrade's boss miss that? So I strongly suspect that your alternate explanation provides the solution...

**Posted by Boswell** July 27, 2015 10:11 am

Morton wrote:
My dear Boswell (I couldn't resist that, sorry) There would be a procedure for bringing in amateur advice which Lestrade hasn't followed - Sherlock has been involved without anyone above Lestrade knowing, hence he is stuck to have to admit that he has allowed an amateur on any crime scene. It would be ok to give Sherlock that credit for helping so long as Lestrade never let it be known that Sherlock was actually at crime scenes. I think Greg was trying for damage limitation and to save his arse and save Sherlock's behind as well. Otherwise I might just have to put it down to Moftiss not examing their plot for holes that such an intelligent observer as yourself can identify as blooming big plot holes.

Please, don't be obvious! ;)

**Posted by nakahara** July 27, 2015 10:29 am

I believe that Greg´s boss just tried to shit the responsibility on his subordinates by pretending he doesn´t know anything about Sherlock and never heard about him before. Sally´s accusation of Sherlock made a very bad name to the police. By accusing him that he committed all the crimes they were investigating, Donovan practically admitted that she and Lestrade arrested a bunch of innocent people and that they both were OK with it (I am really surprised she was even allowed by Lestrade to do that in such a rush, without previous thorought investigation of Sherlock´s activities). Such mistakes commited by subordinates usually affect the image of the boss too, so the Chief Superintendent deliberately played dumb to distance himself from the situation.

**Posted by Whisky** July 27, 2015 10:51 am

I think the Chief Superintendent would do what most bosses would do (and which is also sensible in some regards): put your name on it when it works well, pretend to know nothing when it goes wrong.
The problem Greg has is that he will only be backed (here: silent approval) if everything works well. If something becomes critical (which is the case here I'd say), he is on his own, and his boss will let him sort it out and take the blame.

I think many people don't know about Sherlock openly, because he only goes public when he sees the need to do so, and the police will be happy to keep their source of success private, so they get all the credit. Which works, because as Sherlock says, he doesn't want public interest. ("I'm a private detective the last thing I need is a public image")

**Posted by nakahara** July 27, 2015 11:52 am

Whisky wrote:
I think many people don't know about Sherlock openly, because he only goes public when he sees the need to do so, and the police will be happy to keep their source of success private, so they get all the credit. Which works, because as Sherlock says, he doesn't want public interest. ("I'm a private detective the last thing I need is a public image")

Which is compliant with the Canon, actually:

"In recording from time to time some of the curious experiences and interesting recollections which I associate with my long and intimate friendship with Mr. Sherlock Holmes, I have continually been faced by difficulties caused by his own aversion to publicity. To his sombre and cynical spirit all popular applause was always abhorrent, and nothing amused him more at the end of a successful case than to hand over the actual exposure to some orthodox official, and to listen with a mocking smile to the general chorus of misplaced congratulation. "

(ACD, The Adventure of the Devil´s Foot)

**Posted by Whisky** July 27, 2015 12:06 pm

Although that even sounds like he doesn't like praise in general, which in BBC verse isn't really true :-)

**Posted by nakahara** July 27, 2015 12:16 pm

He likes praise from people he is acquainted with (especially from THAT one person), but I guess he abhors personal cult from the masses, which always prooves fickle when tested.... the masses love you untill you make a slight mistake. They then delight in kicking you down from the pedestal. Breves populi amoris.... I´m not surprised Sherlock doesn´t want to be associated with that.

**Posted by Whisky** July 27, 2015 12:21 pm

Yes, of course he likes praise from John :-)
but I think about that cab ride when they first meet and John is amazed about Sherlock's deduction skills... Sherlock is happy that John likes what he's doing, but at that point they don't know each other well, and it also suggests that Sherlock hasn't heard praise for his abilities before but is very delighted to finally hear some. That it's from John doesn't matter so much at that point, I'd say... they're just getting to know each other. I don't think Sherlock would be so surprised if the public had been praising him for years already.

Last edited by Whisky (July 27, 2015 12:23 pm)

**Posted by nakahara** July 27, 2015 12:31 pm

That was the love at first sight from Sherlock´s side, so it does not count, I suppose....