BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 / Left Mycroft extra hints for Sherlock at the scenes of crime?

**Posted by Danielle80** June 25, 2016 1:10 pm

Especially in this episode I noticed that Sherlock always took the right clues from the scenes of crime and that his actions were very targeted. E.g. The books on the stairs: Sherlock took the right book with the stamp of the library by the first trial as if he exactly knew for what he had to watch out.

So perhaps Mycroft gave some extra hints to his brother of the things he already found out and Sherlock knew that. Something like the many bottles of sparkling wine in the fridge in the flat of van coon, which could be a hint for a affair too (beside the hand cream)

Maybe the Lucky Cat was not really a drop off point for the smugglers (anyway, its seemes to be a bit odd that Soo Ling lived next to them) but a point where Mycroft left hints for his brother so that he found Soo Ling and the signs for the cypher. E.g I noticed that the arm of the cat had the same mechanics as the ladder Sherlock used to get into Soo Lings flat.

I also couldn't believe that Soo Ling in her fear of of death quickly solved a part of the cipher. The photo of the cypher were received from the police man to Sherlock, so Mycroft could fake this evidence in consultation to put Sherlock on the right way.
A reason for this could be that Mycroft want to make the life more interesting to keep him away from drugs.

**Posted by Vhanja** June 25, 2016 5:16 pm

To me, all of this is a sign of not too good writing, and it's a big part of why I don't like the episode too much. Too many times, the story is driven forward by convenience and coincidence.

**Posted by besleybean** June 25, 2016 5:17 pm

I just took it that it was a regularly used book, so it would be the most prominent.

**Posted by Danielle80** June 25, 2016 6:19 pm

Vhanja wrote:
To me, all of this is a sign of not too good writing, and it's a big part of why I don't like the episode too much. Too many times, the story is driven forward by convenience and coincidence.

It came into my mind, because Mycroft made a few allusion in the following episodes: In "SiB" he asked Sherlock if he would be to bored to the see the signs of the "flight of the dead" i.e. the girls who couldn't see their grandpa after he died and the man who swore that the ash in the urn is not humane. So I thought that Mycroft sent the people to Sherlock to give him a clue.
In "TAB" said Mycroft to him, that he solved the case of Lady Carmichael in his head and that he only need Sherlock for the legwork.

**Posted by besleybean** June 25, 2016 6:22 pm

Well, the only parallel I can see is that possibly Mycroft didn't know Moriarty was the one behind the sabotage.
He also should have told Sherlock, if he knew Irene was a leak.

**Posted by Ariane DeVere** June 27, 2016 12:51 pm

The book was thrown onto the pile on the stairs by Lukis himself - we saw it happen. The reason why Sherlock spotted it so quickly was - as Vhanja suggested above - lousy writing by Steve Thompson and/or careless directing by Euros Lyn. There was no sensible reason why Sherlock homed in on that particular book - unless we couldn’t see properly that all the other books were covered with dust - but that doesn't suggest that Mycroft came in earlier and put a sticky note on the wall pointing down to that book; and if he had texted Sherlock earlier saying, “Pay attention to the books on the staircase,” surely Sherlock would realise that Mycroft was playing him.

As for the champagne in Van Coon's flat, are you truly suggesting that Mycroft contacted Sherlock and said, “Look in the fridge” on the assumption that a talented detective wouldn't bother to look there? And why would lots of champagne and nothing else in the fridge suggest that Van Coon was having a relationship with his secretary? The impression I got was that he was a posh git who only drank the best champagne, and who never bothered cooking, probably always eating out or getting takeaway. I don’t think that his lifestyle would necessarily give clues about who he was boffing at the time.

Danielle80 wrote:
I noticed that the arm of the cat had the same mechanics as the ladder Sherlock used to get into Soo Lings flat.

I'm sorry, I simply don't know what this signifies. But are you also suggesting that Mycroft set up the Lucky Cat Emporium just to entertain Sherlock?

Danielle80 wrote:
The photo of the cypher were received from the police man to Sherlock

But the photo (presumably you're talking about the cypher on the wall beside the railway line) was taken on John's phone, printed out by John or by Sherlock and then left behind in the museum during the kerfuffle after Soo Lin's death. How could Mycroft tamper with it?

Last edited by Ariane DeVere (June 27, 2016 12:52 pm)

**Posted by Danielle80** June 27, 2016 4:51 pm

I don't think Mycroft worked with sticky notes :-) I thought of something more subtl like: its a bit odd that there are so many books on the stairs, that had to mean something or like the the many bottles of champaign with nothing else in the fridge.
I don't think the bottles alone could be a clue that he had a affair with his secretary, but in combination with the handcreme.
Sure, this would mean that Mycroft would prepare the crime scenes in co-working with the police for Sherlock only and this is a bit unrealistic. But to be honest, the whole episode seems absurd to me so that I could imagine something like this too :-)

By the way, there is something else I didn't understand: Why wrote the newspaper about the second murder, that the perpetrator went through the wall? When the journalist came back from the library you saw that someone broke into his flat i.e. the door was already open as he arrived. So it looked to me like a normal burglary.

Furthermore it seemed odd to me, that the journalst saw the signs in the library, get panicky but still loaned the book out.
Thats one of the thing I mean with "absurd". As well as a full-grown man could pass through such a tiny roof window.
I am not sure how seriously I could take "Sherlock", therefore are my theories a bit odd too :-)

"I'm sorry, I simply don't know what this signifies. But are you also suggesting that Mycroft set up the Lucky Cat Emporium just to entertain Sherlock?"

No, I thought of something simple like paying the woman to show Sherlock the cat. But you are right, it would be a big coincidence too.

What else I wonder, maybe someone has an answer for me, Soo Ling saw the signs at the beginning of the episode, hide herself in the museum (where she found the signs) because she was scared about her brother. But as far as I understood he was the one who sprayed the signs. So I think he already found her, or did I missunderstand something? Isn't the museum a really bad place for hiding in this case?

I think it is a pity, that there are only a few explanaition of Sherlock thoughts in this episode, thats why its hard for me to follow the story/plot. But I refuse to believe that someone took great care to write such a lousy story :-)

Last edited by Danielle80 (June 27, 2016 9:04 pm)

**Posted by Danielle80** June 27, 2016 4:58 pm

Sorry I had troubles with the quotes.

**Posted by Ariane DeVere** June 28, 2016 12:16 pm

Danielle80 wrote:
But to be honest, the whole episode seems absurd to me so that I could imagine something like this too :-)

Two words: Steve Thompson.

A large majority of this entire episode makes no bloody sense, and it's all down to the stupid scriptwriting. For instance, why did the Black Lotus kill Lukis and Van Coon when they desperately wanted the hairpin back and knew that one of them had it? Dead men can't tell anyone where they've hidden stolen goods.

Danielle80 wrote:
When the journalist came back from the library you saw that someone broke into his flat i.e. the door was already open as he arrived. So it looked to me like a normal burglary.

No, the door wasn't open. The door to his flat was at the bottom of the stairs where he had scattered his books. He unlocked it to get in and then deadbolted it before scurrying up the stairs and dropping the all-important library book on the way up.

Danielle80 wrote:
Furthermore it seemed odd to me, that the journalst saw the signs in the library, get panicky but still loaned the book out.

And again, those two words: Steve Thompson. There is a brilliant fanfic called The Partially Sighted Postman which cleverly - but hilariously - sums up the idiocy of the plotlines in this episode.

**Posted by besleybean** June 28, 2016 6:13 pm

Aw, I rather like Steve!

**Posted by Vhanja** June 28, 2016 6:19 pm

Steve Thompson is probably an awesome guy, but I really don't like his episodes either. Same with TRF. When John suggest they could go to Mycroft for help when they run from the police, Sherlock just replies: "A big family reconciliation? Now's not really the moment." (Thanks, Ariane!), which must be the lamest cop-out I've ever seen in a show.

Although he makes up for it all with the rooftop scene. That scene is amazing.

**Posted by besleybean** June 28, 2016 6:23 pm

That's because it's Andrew...

**Posted by dioscureantwins** June 28, 2016 6:50 pm

Oh dear, I actually think both TBB and TRF were immensely clever in so many ways and I love Steven Thompson's writing. The champagne in Van Coon's fridge indicates he's a very successful trader who likes to celebrate his successes. Then why do the smuggling? Well, because as the fall of Lehman Brothers thought us enough is simply never enough, not if you're a banker. And the book was carelessly thrown down by Lukis as he hurried upstairs. Exactly the kind of detail someone with Sherlock's capabilities at observation would notice.

Secretly I'm convinced that if they'd made more use of Thompson in S3 I wouldn't have been so massively disappointed with it.