Having previously said I wouldn't give consideration to motives in relaton to Gareth Williams' death, I would add this:
Murder aside, most of the theories currently abroad centre around his personal life when looking for reasons as to why he would get into a holdall but there is a very small, if apparently unlikely outside chance of an operational motive: in 2011, Spanish police arrested two men who had been involved in a series of robberies from the luggage of passengers travelling in a coach between Girona and Barcelona. One of the pair would hide inside a suitcase and be loaded into the hold of the coach, then emerge during the journey to raid the suitcases of other passengers, before returning to the suitcase in time for arrival in Barcelona. A bizarre MO to be sure but, then again, who would have imagined that SIS were using a spy rock in Moscow until it became news?
Otherwise, I fear that Gareth Williams deliberately intended to take his own life. The inquest has heard that he was a model employee who failed only one assessment in his career. It also heard that this failure caused him intense disappointment at the time, but that he took the course again and passed showing huge improvement.
The inquest has also heard from another witness that he failed his initial training course for secondment to SIS in 2007. So, given that he only failed one assessment in his career, it seems clear that this was the assessment he failed. It seems, therefore that GW was extremely keen to achieve the move from Cheltenham to London.
And taking the evidence of his former landlady Jennifer Elliot into account regarding the 'escapology' incident in 2007, the question is raised over whether the two events are related. The suggestion would be that, rather than seeking a move to London, GW was seeking a move away from Cheltenham, perhaps as a result of embarrassment over the incident at Elliot's house. From other witnesses, it certainly seemed that GW was much happier at GCHQ than SIS.
Moving on to 2010 and Helen Yelland's call to police to report GW missing - she mentioned that he had been "pulled from a job and wasn't sure how he'd taken it". When questioned as to where she got the information, she was unclear, but the suggestion is that, contrary to previous claims in the press GW may have been leaving SIS 'under a cloud' and was not as keen to return to Cheltenham as has been said.
Ultimately, though, if Gareth Williams did get into the bag himself, his motivation may never be known for certain. From his school days onward, he was widely regarded as a genius and perhaps, after ten years of solving puzzles he decided to set one that the rest of us can only imagine we might one day understand.
Certainly, this is one 'circus' trick that will not be forgotten in a hurry.
UPDATE
It's a good while since I posted on this and, reading back through, I
find myself slightly surprised at some of my own conclusions. Bearing
in mind the area in which he was known to have been working and having
since looked at the background and family connections of some of the people with whom he was
known to associate towards the end of his life, I would say "all bets
are off" as to the cause of his death, which now seems equally likely to
have been the result of a "work related injury" - an injury that prematurely ended a (very) long game aimed at infiltrating a major international money-laundering organisation.
I'm not sure that injurylawyers4u.com would have much joy pursuing this one in court though.
Saturday 28 April 2012
Gareth Williams: Circus tricks
Like plenty of others this week, I have been following the inquest into the death of Gareth Williams, the GCHQ/SIS officer whose body was discovered in a padlocked holdall in his London flat in August 2010. Since that time, the internet has been home to a host of conspiracy theories on the matter and, since the inquest has once again sparked a wave of interest in the case, there will no doubt be plenty more to come.
Perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of Gareth Williams work and the details of the case, the overwhelming majority of theories centre on a murder plot by an intelligence agency or criminal organisation, but I though I would put up an alternative suggestion by way of balance. This is by no means a comprehensive theory, of course, and there are several details in terms of forensic evidence (or the lack thereof) which appear to contradict it, but until the post mortem evidence is heard at the inquest on Monday, I believe it remains a possibility, if an increasingly small one.
Murder aside, there are several other theories as to why he ended up in the bag, most of which are centred on his private life. But what I am looking to consider here is not so much why he ended up there, as how. So:
Would it have been possible for Gareth Williams to get into the bag himself?
Despite the somewhat bizarre efforts of Peter Faulding, the Mackay experiments (Daily Mail - upper video) appear to show that someone of Williams' size and build could get into the bag and operate the zips from within. Of course, Mackay's assistant was unable to secure the padlock, but his suggestion remained that it might not be impossible with practice and the kind of hand strength that GW would have gained from mountaineering.
From a personal point of view though, after seeing both attempts at reconstruction, I am left with the feeling that if they wanted to do this properly, rather than military experts, the police would have done better to employ someone from the circus (no pun intended - well, maybe a bit).
Why was the bag in the bath?
One thing that struck me watching the Mackay reconstruction video is the way that his assistant in the bag had to be handed the padlock after dropping it in his efforts to close the bag. Perhaps this was a lesson that GW had learned through previous attempts - that by placing the bag in the bath he was able to ensure that if the padlock was dropped, it would slide down the bath side and back towards the bag within easy reach. On a hard floor, the padlock could bounce or slide away from the bag, meaning that GW would potentially have to get out of the bag to retrieve it.
Considering a possible suicidal motivation - it might also be that GW wanted to minimise the trauma and inconvenience to whoever discovered his body. I believe that it is by no means uncommon for suicides to tidy up extensively before taking their own lives.
Is the position of the zips significant?
Watching the Mackay reconstruction video, it can be seen that the attempt is made to join the zip sliders at a point where the zipper turns the corner of the flap, roughly in line with the position of the assistant's face. Comparing this with the Met Police photo of the actual bag, it appears that this corresponds to the position of the zips when GW's body was discovered by PC Gallagher. It appears that this would be the position best suited to attempt the closing manoeuvre from inside the bag, while perhaps being an unlikely place to join the zips for a third party closing the bag from outside.
As an aside, the bag shown in the Met photo appears to be of a slightly different design to the images of the North Face Basecamp XL Duffle currently being used by the press - there appears to be a right-angled seam to the right of the zip sliders on the police photo, suggesting a square end to the bag, rather than the cylindrical shape of the current model. I believe it has been noted that the bag used by GW was produced up to 2006. Note also that the cut in the police photo was made by the officers who discovered the body on 23rd August 2010.
Why was there blood on the padlock?
According to evidence heard at the inquest, small traces of GW's blood were found on the padlock and the outside of the bag. The pathology/post mortem evidence is due to be heard on Monday (30.4.12) but, in the meantime I would suggest that it might be the result of graze injuries to GW's knuckles in his attempts to close the upper (right hand in Met photo) zip using his fingernails from within, in combination with the use of the padlock looped through the eye of the lower (left hand) zip slider to pull it up. Roughly - that GW grazed his knuckles on the upper zip and then transferred the blood on his fingers to the padlock and the outside of the bag.
On the other hand, if this were the case, you might expect to see traces on the inside of the bag, where he would presumably have had to push the lock closed through the fabric. Either way, as it stands I believe that any post mortem evidence of grazed knuckles of fingernail damage on Monday may prove highly significant.
See also: Circus tricks - part 2
Perhaps unsurprisingly given the nature of Gareth Williams work and the details of the case, the overwhelming majority of theories centre on a murder plot by an intelligence agency or criminal organisation, but I though I would put up an alternative suggestion by way of balance. This is by no means a comprehensive theory, of course, and there are several details in terms of forensic evidence (or the lack thereof) which appear to contradict it, but until the post mortem evidence is heard at the inquest on Monday, I believe it remains a possibility, if an increasingly small one.
Murder aside, there are several other theories as to why he ended up in the bag, most of which are centred on his private life. But what I am looking to consider here is not so much why he ended up there, as how. So:
Would it have been possible for Gareth Williams to get into the bag himself?
Despite the somewhat bizarre efforts of Peter Faulding, the Mackay experiments (Daily Mail - upper video) appear to show that someone of Williams' size and build could get into the bag and operate the zips from within. Of course, Mackay's assistant was unable to secure the padlock, but his suggestion remained that it might not be impossible with practice and the kind of hand strength that GW would have gained from mountaineering.
From a personal point of view though, after seeing both attempts at reconstruction, I am left with the feeling that if they wanted to do this properly, rather than military experts, the police would have done better to employ someone from the circus (no pun intended - well, maybe a bit).
Why was the bag in the bath?
One thing that struck me watching the Mackay reconstruction video is the way that his assistant in the bag had to be handed the padlock after dropping it in his efforts to close the bag. Perhaps this was a lesson that GW had learned through previous attempts - that by placing the bag in the bath he was able to ensure that if the padlock was dropped, it would slide down the bath side and back towards the bag within easy reach. On a hard floor, the padlock could bounce or slide away from the bag, meaning that GW would potentially have to get out of the bag to retrieve it.
Considering a possible suicidal motivation - it might also be that GW wanted to minimise the trauma and inconvenience to whoever discovered his body. I believe that it is by no means uncommon for suicides to tidy up extensively before taking their own lives.
Is the position of the zips significant?
Watching the Mackay reconstruction video, it can be seen that the attempt is made to join the zip sliders at a point where the zipper turns the corner of the flap, roughly in line with the position of the assistant's face. Comparing this with the Met Police photo of the actual bag, it appears that this corresponds to the position of the zips when GW's body was discovered by PC Gallagher. It appears that this would be the position best suited to attempt the closing manoeuvre from inside the bag, while perhaps being an unlikely place to join the zips for a third party closing the bag from outside.
As an aside, the bag shown in the Met photo appears to be of a slightly different design to the images of the North Face Basecamp XL Duffle currently being used by the press - there appears to be a right-angled seam to the right of the zip sliders on the police photo, suggesting a square end to the bag, rather than the cylindrical shape of the current model. I believe it has been noted that the bag used by GW was produced up to 2006. Note also that the cut in the police photo was made by the officers who discovered the body on 23rd August 2010.
Why was there blood on the padlock?
According to evidence heard at the inquest, small traces of GW's blood were found on the padlock and the outside of the bag. The pathology/post mortem evidence is due to be heard on Monday (30.4.12) but, in the meantime I would suggest that it might be the result of graze injuries to GW's knuckles in his attempts to close the upper (right hand in Met photo) zip using his fingernails from within, in combination with the use of the padlock looped through the eye of the lower (left hand) zip slider to pull it up. Roughly - that GW grazed his knuckles on the upper zip and then transferred the blood on his fingers to the padlock and the outside of the bag.
On the other hand, if this were the case, you might expect to see traces on the inside of the bag, where he would presumably have had to push the lock closed through the fabric. Either way, as it stands I believe that any post mortem evidence of grazed knuckles of fingernail damage on Monday may prove highly significant.
See also: Circus tricks - part 2
Monday 6 February 2012
The Da Vinci Cat
[One from the archives - this dates from 2004 or thereabouts.]
Anomalous additional figure within "The Last Supper".
An informal experiment to determine the possibility of the presence an additional figure within Leonard da Vinci's wall painting "The Last Supper"
The recent popularity of the novel "The da Vinci Code", by American author Dan Brown has re-ignited interest in the parahistorical theory previously propounded by the books "The Templar Secret" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", that the term 'Holy Grail' relates not to the cup used by Christ at the last supper, but rather to a holy blood-line descended from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Proponents of this theory suggest that Leonardo da Vinci's wall painting "The Last Supper", at the Capella de Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, contains coded information confirming the existence of a child produced by such a union. In support of this claim, theorists suggest that the figure of St John, seated to the left of Christ in the painting, is actually a representation of a female figure (Mary Magdalene) and that the shape formed by the space between the two figures represents a 'V' shape, symbolising the female vulva or uterus, which cryptically indicates the fertility of the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
However, while not wishing to dismiss these theories unduly, based on previous research involving manipulated photographs from the Soviet Union and considering the size and nature of the area (being apparently lacking in any important detail which would require the separation of the seated figures), the possibility was considered that in the original image the area between the figures of St John and Christ may have contained an additional figure, which has subsequently been erased or obscured.
A parahistorical exercise was devised to test this hypothesis as follows:
Method
Due to the informal nature of this exercise and funding constraint, a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" was obtained via the internet. Using the 'Google' search engine, an advanced image search was undertaken on the following criteria:
Keywords: da Vinci "The Last Supper"
Image size: large
File type: JPEG
Colour: Full colour only
A reproduction was selected from the search results on the basis of image pixel dimension (the largest image available), image clarity (the clearest reproduction) and assumed reliability and independence of the source (the image used being a digital scan of a postcard obtained from the Capella de Santa Maria delle Grazie, one of a number of such scanned postcards made by an Italian writer detailing his visits to various tourist locations in Italy). The original digital image used for this exercise may be viewed in full at:
http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/Italy2001/Postcards/Milan1.jpg
[NB: original link no longer active. Best link at present is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/DaVinci_LastSupper_high_res_2_nowatmrk.jpg]
The image was downloaded from the internet to a computer within the department of parahistory and examined using digital imaging software (photoshop v6), with particular attention to the area between the figures of St John and Jesus.
Result
Upon inspection of the image area detailed in (figure 2), it was determined that an outline figure existed between the figures of St John and Christ, the figure being apparently smaller than that of others within the image. The standing figure is apparent facing Christ, with head and torso visible directly in front of the darker area of the pillar.
Additionally, the figure appears to have two arms, the left being raised, the right lower, the forearms extending into the lighter area of the pillar to the right. Although no right hand is apparent, lightness of the area of Christ's robe at the point at which the hand would extend from the figure's right arm suggests that the right hand may, originally, have been touching the robe at this point. And although the figure is apparently clothed and standing upright, the facial features do not appear human.
Notably, the figure appears to have whiskers similar to those of a cat or dog and large, pointed ears. In (figure 2), the image area studied is shown unenhanced. (Figure 3) shows the result of initial digital enhancement of the key outlines of the figure.
Conclusion
Taking the results of this exercise into account and using established parahistorical reasoning methods, it is determined that while da Vinci may have intended to cryptically convey knowledge relating to the existence of a Holy blood-line resulting from the union of Mary Magdalene and Christ, the presence of the cat-like creature standing immediately to the right of and touching Christ, indicates that this, now erased figure, held a position of greater significance than that of the others at the table.
Further, while evidence for this conclusion is provided by the suppression of any reference in Biblical texts to marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene or of any cat-like creature resulting from the union, apocryphal texts, specifically the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Nag Hammadi) contain references to "corruption of the body", which suggest that such a creature was central to biblical events and, while apparently reviled by many of the apostles, enjoyed the particular affection of Mary Magdalene.
Anomalous additional figure within "The Last Supper".
An informal experiment to determine the possibility of the presence an additional figure within Leonard da Vinci's wall painting "The Last Supper"
The recent popularity of the novel "The da Vinci Code", by American author Dan Brown has re-ignited interest in the parahistorical theory previously propounded by the books "The Templar Secret" and "Holy Blood, Holy Grail", that the term 'Holy Grail' relates not to the cup used by Christ at the last supper, but rather to a holy blood-line descended from the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
Proponents of this theory suggest that Leonardo da Vinci's wall painting "The Last Supper", at the Capella de Santa Maria delle Grazie in Milan, contains coded information confirming the existence of a child produced by such a union. In support of this claim, theorists suggest that the figure of St John, seated to the left of Christ in the painting, is actually a representation of a female figure (Mary Magdalene) and that the shape formed by the space between the two figures represents a 'V' shape, symbolising the female vulva or uterus, which cryptically indicates the fertility of the union of Jesus and Mary Magdalene.
However, while not wishing to dismiss these theories unduly, based on previous research involving manipulated photographs from the Soviet Union and considering the size and nature of the area (being apparently lacking in any important detail which would require the separation of the seated figures), the possibility was considered that in the original image the area between the figures of St John and Christ may have contained an additional figure, which has subsequently been erased or obscured.
A parahistorical exercise was devised to test this hypothesis as follows:
Method
Due to the informal nature of this exercise and funding constraint, a reproduction of Leonardo da Vinci's "The Last Supper" was obtained via the internet. Using the 'Google' search engine, an advanced image search was undertaken on the following criteria:
Keywords: da Vinci "The Last Supper"
Image size: large
File type: JPEG
Colour: Full colour only
A reproduction was selected from the search results on the basis of image pixel dimension (the largest image available), image clarity (the clearest reproduction) and assumed reliability and independence of the source (the image used being a digital scan of a postcard obtained from the Capella de Santa Maria delle Grazie, one of a number of such scanned postcards made by an Italian writer detailing his visits to various tourist locations in Italy). The original digital image used for this exercise may be viewed in full at:
http://images.fbrtech.com/dnew/Italy2001/Postcards/Milan1.jpg
[NB: original link no longer active. Best link at present is http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/DaVinci_LastSupper_high_res_2_nowatmrk.jpg]
The image was downloaded from the internet to a computer within the department of parahistory and examined using digital imaging software (photoshop v6), with particular attention to the area between the figures of St John and Jesus.
 |
| Figure 1: Da Vinci's "The Last supper" [2004 link image] |
Result
Upon inspection of the image area detailed in (figure 2), it was determined that an outline figure existed between the figures of St John and Christ, the figure being apparently smaller than that of others within the image. The standing figure is apparent facing Christ, with head and torso visible directly in front of the darker area of the pillar.
Additionally, the figure appears to have two arms, the left being raised, the right lower, the forearms extending into the lighter area of the pillar to the right. Although no right hand is apparent, lightness of the area of Christ's robe at the point at which the hand would extend from the figure's right arm suggests that the right hand may, originally, have been touching the robe at this point. And although the figure is apparently clothed and standing upright, the facial features do not appear human.
Notably, the figure appears to have whiskers similar to those of a cat or dog and large, pointed ears. In (figure 2), the image area studied is shown unenhanced. (Figure 3) shows the result of initial digital enhancement of the key outlines of the figure.
 |
| Figure 2: detail of image |
 |
| Figure 3: digitally enhanced detail of image |
Conclusion
Taking the results of this exercise into account and using established parahistorical reasoning methods, it is determined that while da Vinci may have intended to cryptically convey knowledge relating to the existence of a Holy blood-line resulting from the union of Mary Magdalene and Christ, the presence of the cat-like creature standing immediately to the right of and touching Christ, indicates that this, now erased figure, held a position of greater significance than that of the others at the table.
Further, while evidence for this conclusion is provided by the suppression of any reference in Biblical texts to marriage between Jesus and Mary Magdalene or of any cat-like creature resulting from the union, apocryphal texts, specifically the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (Nag Hammadi) contain references to "corruption of the body", which suggest that such a creature was central to biblical events and, while apparently reviled by many of the apostles, enjoyed the particular affection of Mary Magdalene.
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Just one more thing, ma'am...
Here's a funny thing. The trouble is I can't find any decent videos to illustrate it on Youtube. But since everyone in the known universe now owns a copy of "Sherlock" series two on DVD, you will no doubt be able to confirm it for yourself. Watch the video below. In fact, you really only need to watch the first ten seconds or so:
If you don't have access to the DVD, watch it at the best resolution you can. If you do have access to a DVD copy, go back to the previous shot of the blurry figure in the doorway, a few seconds before the Youtube video starts and watch from there.
Watch it a couple of times, then answer the following: when Moriarty walks across the front of the shot and picks up an apple, who is standing by the fireplace in the background, looking in the mirror?
Duuh! It's Sherlock, of course. Or is it?
Because when you see it from the end of the previous shot on a television screen, it looks very much like the late Mr Henry Fishguard, the mannequin who appeared previously in the episode suspended by his neck in the kitchen.
Apart from the lack of facial features reflected in the mirror, the curious angle of the neck and the slightly too thick-set torso, the effect is most noticeable as Moriarty enters, immediately after Sherlock's line "kettle's just boiled": his violin bow moves onto his left shoulder in a distinctly mechanical manner, while the rest of the body moves not a jot.
But then Moriarty picks up an apple, says his line "Johann Sebastian would be appalled" as we go briefly to a mid-shot, then it's back to Sherlock in the flesh as he offers Moriarty a seat.
But it seems to make no sense. Was the shot filmed on a day when Benedict Cumberbatch wasn't called? Is it an "Easter egg", a hidden treat for us internet obsessives? Or is it plot related? If it is, how does Sherlock pull the 'switcharoo' so quickly?
Perhaps it's a piece of semiological sleight of hand. We assume that the figure who breaks into the flat and creeps up the stairs before appearing as a blurred outline in the doorway is Moriarty, but are we we, in fact seeing two nearly identical scenes cut together. Might it, after all, be Mycroft crossing the room? As Sherlock says "Most people knock. But then you're not most people". This could apply equally to Mycroft or Moriarty. And they are certainly both inclined to wearing light grey suits on occasion.
Time for a long lie down in a darkened room, I think...
But before I finish, I would just add that the straight-legged, open stance with the left arm held stiffly by the side adopted by Mr Fishguard in this shot is distinctly reminiscent of Sherlock standing on the parapet in the final scene of the episode, as seen from Watson's point of view.
Which, in a way, is pretty much where I started.
----------------------------
By the way, if anyone can find a link to an internet video of the shot starting from the figure in the doorway, it would be appreciated.
If you don't have access to the DVD, watch it at the best resolution you can. If you do have access to a DVD copy, go back to the previous shot of the blurry figure in the doorway, a few seconds before the Youtube video starts and watch from there.
Watch it a couple of times, then answer the following: when Moriarty walks across the front of the shot and picks up an apple, who is standing by the fireplace in the background, looking in the mirror?
Duuh! It's Sherlock, of course. Or is it?
Because when you see it from the end of the previous shot on a television screen, it looks very much like the late Mr Henry Fishguard, the mannequin who appeared previously in the episode suspended by his neck in the kitchen.
Apart from the lack of facial features reflected in the mirror, the curious angle of the neck and the slightly too thick-set torso, the effect is most noticeable as Moriarty enters, immediately after Sherlock's line "kettle's just boiled": his violin bow moves onto his left shoulder in a distinctly mechanical manner, while the rest of the body moves not a jot.
But then Moriarty picks up an apple, says his line "Johann Sebastian would be appalled" as we go briefly to a mid-shot, then it's back to Sherlock in the flesh as he offers Moriarty a seat.
But it seems to make no sense. Was the shot filmed on a day when Benedict Cumberbatch wasn't called? Is it an "Easter egg", a hidden treat for us internet obsessives? Or is it plot related? If it is, how does Sherlock pull the 'switcharoo' so quickly?
Perhaps it's a piece of semiological sleight of hand. We assume that the figure who breaks into the flat and creeps up the stairs before appearing as a blurred outline in the doorway is Moriarty, but are we we, in fact seeing two nearly identical scenes cut together. Might it, after all, be Mycroft crossing the room? As Sherlock says "Most people knock. But then you're not most people". This could apply equally to Mycroft or Moriarty. And they are certainly both inclined to wearing light grey suits on occasion.
Time for a long lie down in a darkened room, I think...
But before I finish, I would just add that the straight-legged, open stance with the left arm held stiffly by the side adopted by Mr Fishguard in this shot is distinctly reminiscent of Sherlock standing on the parapet in the final scene of the episode, as seen from Watson's point of view.
Which, in a way, is pretty much where I started.
----------------------------
By the way, if anyone can find a link to an internet video of the shot starting from the figure in the doorway, it would be appreciated.
Monday 30 January 2012
The crumbs from Sherlock's table.
After some blog problems at the end of last week, time to round up the final thoughts with regard to the last episode of 'Sherlock' series two. So far, we know how Sherlock effected the pretence of his own demise and the nature of Moriarty's plan to unlock the mind of Mr Holmes for the benefit of himself and his various chums in the criminal underworld by means of an eavesdropping application planted on Sherlock's iPhone. With Sherlock apparently being the pre-eminent genius in crime detection, constantly at least three steps ahead of the police and disposed to 'thinking out loud', what could be more useful to a criminal organisation than knowing his thoughts, his methods and, not least, on which cases he is working?
Following on from this, we know from Mycroft that underworld assassins have moved in to the immediate vicinity of 221B Baker Street. But why? Well, later in the episode we get to see Sherlock unearthing a hidden camera (planted on the book shelf by Moriarty's Mr Fix-It) and using his MacBook to identify that it is transmitting images via wi-fi, presumably to a neighbouring flat within range. Thus we have a good indication that the eavesdropping app on the phone is broadcasting by the same means, with Moriarty either establishing a 'relay' station in a neighbouring flat or his various criminal clients establishing their own receiving bases there.
But, as well as a receiving base, the various criminal organisations have installed their own security, in the form of hitmen tasked to protect Holmes and , thereby, their source of information. From there on, it's a game of spy versus spy. Every time one of the hitmen approaches Holmes, he is killed by one of the others - either as the result of an assumption on the part of the other hitmen that the one close to Holmes is about to kill him, that some information has been passed between Holmes and the hitman to which they are not privy, or simply out of a desire to eliminate the competition.
The big question on the back of all this, of course, is - did Moriarty really die on the top of the hospital? We see Holmes and Moriarty on the roof. We see a sniper on the stairs and we see him looking through his telescopic sight at Watson after Holmes has jumped, before packing his rifle away and leaving. Moriarty has threatened that Holmes's firends will die if he doesn't jump and the implication appears to be that the sniper leaves because of this, allowing Watson to live after seeing Holmes die.
But, leaving aside the fact that Moriarty has clearly been sold a pup with regards to how many friends Sherlock has, this is not one of Moriarty's gunmen - he is one of the original four 'independent' assassins of whom Watson was shown photos at the Diogenes Club. Thus, the sniper is not tasked to kill Watson, but to protect Holmes. Which perhaps answers one of the tricky questions regarding the finale of the episode. From his position on the ground, Watson is unable to see the street where Holmes falls because of the low building. But from his position on the stairs, the sniper has an apparently unobstructed view of the area. Which in turn raises the question, did the sniper witness the subterfuge involved in the faking of Holmes' death? There is every chance that he is entirely aware of it.
So now we return to the roof, knowing that there is a sniper in the building opposite whose task is to protect Holmes. And we see Moriarty pull a gun from his coat and put the barrel in him mouth. And we see Holmes reel back. We hear a shot and Moriarty falls, apparently dead. But what we don't see is Moriarty pull the trigger. So does he shoot himself or does the sniper, on seeing Moriarty pull out the pistol shoot him in the belief that he is about to kill Holmes? Which then raises the possibility that Moriarty has merely been grazed by the bullet. The previous snipers went for shots to the body, but with Holmes having his back to the street and partially obscuring Moriarty from the sniper's view. Or was it the missing, fourth sniper? The Russian woman that Watson believes he may have seen before when shown the photos by Mycroft?
Alternatively, of course, that little look down to the right by Moriarty just before he pulls out the pistol may yet prove to be significant. Either way, it's a racing certainty that Moriarty will be back in series three, even if only to gurn mysteriously at the camera in the last few seconds of the final episode.
And so to the various odds and ends which caught my eye and provide, if not food, then at least a few crumbs for thought:
How did Holmes know that the children were being held at Addlestone?
Well, we see Holmes scanning through the various photos of possible locations, before he settles on Addlestone, thanks to a photo not of a factory, but of a rhododendron bush. So is that the clue, or is it something else? Well, it's the place name - by means of a dual reference to the mirror in Snow White and the Mirror tabloid, we find the leters of Addlestone partially inverted to become Applestone. And thus it is suggested that Holmes, far from being confused by Moriarty's plans , is already well aware of the apple connection and all that it entails.
Incidentally, whether Moriarty actually did poison the children with mercury is unclear. The use of mercury in combination with hunger and darkness might cause them to become confused and disorientated to the extent that Moriarty could use edited recordings from Sherlock's phone to convince them that he was the kidnapper. But I can't help thinking that he would have had a very tough job painting anything with liquid mercury and the presence of the rhododendron bush suggests that the flower toxin may also have played a part.
As with 'Addlestone', in the final scenes we find Mycroft reading of Sherlock's death in a tabloid paper. On the front the headline screams "SUICIDE OF FAKE GENIUS", but on the back the apparently light-hearted headline is "Chompion!" As with Addlestone, a bit of letter inversion brings us to 'chompiou', or 'chomp-iou'. Chomp, as in the bite taken from the poisoned apple by Snow White and present in the Apple computer logo. And IOU, as in Moriarty's 'final problem'. Speaking of which...
What was the 'final problem'?
At 221B after his acquittal Moriarty tells Holmes that he wants to resolve 'the final problem.' and challenges Holmes to identify it, adding "I did tell you. But did you listen?" before going on to tap out a rhythm on his knee. As with the key, the solution lies in the apple and the IOU he carves into it. I and O, 1 and 0 are recurring motifs throughout the episode: in the image of binary code as the texts are sent from Moriarty's phone at the beginning, the street number of the Diogenes Club, the I and O of the kettle switch in 221B. But where is the U? And that's the answer. Just as the clue to the 'key' lies in a pun, so does the clue to the nature of Moriarty's final problem:
The final problem is 'U' or, to put it another way: you.
Of course, Moriarty also describes it as our problem, thereby identifying each of them as the other's problem. But there are two sides to this sword - with I and O appearing together and alone with such frequency in the episode, it could equally be said that the problem is the lack of U/you. This perhaps resonates with Sherlock's reply to Molly in the lab when she asks him what he needs and he replies "you".
Hold on... With all this punning going on, does he say "you"? Or could he actually have said "yew"? Toxic plant, causes a weak heart beat...
Damn it! Just when I had finally got to the end. I hate it when this happens!
Following on from this, we know from Mycroft that underworld assassins have moved in to the immediate vicinity of 221B Baker Street. But why? Well, later in the episode we get to see Sherlock unearthing a hidden camera (planted on the book shelf by Moriarty's Mr Fix-It) and using his MacBook to identify that it is transmitting images via wi-fi, presumably to a neighbouring flat within range. Thus we have a good indication that the eavesdropping app on the phone is broadcasting by the same means, with Moriarty either establishing a 'relay' station in a neighbouring flat or his various criminal clients establishing their own receiving bases there.
But, as well as a receiving base, the various criminal organisations have installed their own security, in the form of hitmen tasked to protect Holmes and , thereby, their source of information. From there on, it's a game of spy versus spy. Every time one of the hitmen approaches Holmes, he is killed by one of the others - either as the result of an assumption on the part of the other hitmen that the one close to Holmes is about to kill him, that some information has been passed between Holmes and the hitman to which they are not privy, or simply out of a desire to eliminate the competition.
The big question on the back of all this, of course, is - did Moriarty really die on the top of the hospital? We see Holmes and Moriarty on the roof. We see a sniper on the stairs and we see him looking through his telescopic sight at Watson after Holmes has jumped, before packing his rifle away and leaving. Moriarty has threatened that Holmes's firends will die if he doesn't jump and the implication appears to be that the sniper leaves because of this, allowing Watson to live after seeing Holmes die.
But, leaving aside the fact that Moriarty has clearly been sold a pup with regards to how many friends Sherlock has, this is not one of Moriarty's gunmen - he is one of the original four 'independent' assassins of whom Watson was shown photos at the Diogenes Club. Thus, the sniper is not tasked to kill Watson, but to protect Holmes. Which perhaps answers one of the tricky questions regarding the finale of the episode. From his position on the ground, Watson is unable to see the street where Holmes falls because of the low building. But from his position on the stairs, the sniper has an apparently unobstructed view of the area. Which in turn raises the question, did the sniper witness the subterfuge involved in the faking of Holmes' death? There is every chance that he is entirely aware of it.
So now we return to the roof, knowing that there is a sniper in the building opposite whose task is to protect Holmes. And we see Moriarty pull a gun from his coat and put the barrel in him mouth. And we see Holmes reel back. We hear a shot and Moriarty falls, apparently dead. But what we don't see is Moriarty pull the trigger. So does he shoot himself or does the sniper, on seeing Moriarty pull out the pistol shoot him in the belief that he is about to kill Holmes? Which then raises the possibility that Moriarty has merely been grazed by the bullet. The previous snipers went for shots to the body, but with Holmes having his back to the street and partially obscuring Moriarty from the sniper's view. Or was it the missing, fourth sniper? The Russian woman that Watson believes he may have seen before when shown the photos by Mycroft?
Alternatively, of course, that little look down to the right by Moriarty just before he pulls out the pistol may yet prove to be significant. Either way, it's a racing certainty that Moriarty will be back in series three, even if only to gurn mysteriously at the camera in the last few seconds of the final episode.
And so to the various odds and ends which caught my eye and provide, if not food, then at least a few crumbs for thought:
How did Holmes know that the children were being held at Addlestone?
Well, we see Holmes scanning through the various photos of possible locations, before he settles on Addlestone, thanks to a photo not of a factory, but of a rhododendron bush. So is that the clue, or is it something else? Well, it's the place name - by means of a dual reference to the mirror in Snow White and the Mirror tabloid, we find the leters of Addlestone partially inverted to become Applestone. And thus it is suggested that Holmes, far from being confused by Moriarty's plans , is already well aware of the apple connection and all that it entails.
Incidentally, whether Moriarty actually did poison the children with mercury is unclear. The use of mercury in combination with hunger and darkness might cause them to become confused and disorientated to the extent that Moriarty could use edited recordings from Sherlock's phone to convince them that he was the kidnapper. But I can't help thinking that he would have had a very tough job painting anything with liquid mercury and the presence of the rhododendron bush suggests that the flower toxin may also have played a part.
As with 'Addlestone', in the final scenes we find Mycroft reading of Sherlock's death in a tabloid paper. On the front the headline screams "SUICIDE OF FAKE GENIUS", but on the back the apparently light-hearted headline is "Chompion!" As with Addlestone, a bit of letter inversion brings us to 'chompiou', or 'chomp-iou'. Chomp, as in the bite taken from the poisoned apple by Snow White and present in the Apple computer logo. And IOU, as in Moriarty's 'final problem'. Speaking of which...
What was the 'final problem'?
At 221B after his acquittal Moriarty tells Holmes that he wants to resolve 'the final problem.' and challenges Holmes to identify it, adding "I did tell you. But did you listen?" before going on to tap out a rhythm on his knee. As with the key, the solution lies in the apple and the IOU he carves into it. I and O, 1 and 0 are recurring motifs throughout the episode: in the image of binary code as the texts are sent from Moriarty's phone at the beginning, the street number of the Diogenes Club, the I and O of the kettle switch in 221B. But where is the U? And that's the answer. Just as the clue to the 'key' lies in a pun, so does the clue to the nature of Moriarty's final problem:
The final problem is 'U' or, to put it another way: you.
Of course, Moriarty also describes it as our problem, thereby identifying each of them as the other's problem. But there are two sides to this sword - with I and O appearing together and alone with such frequency in the episode, it could equally be said that the problem is the lack of U/you. This perhaps resonates with Sherlock's reply to Molly in the lab when she asks him what he needs and he replies "you".
Hold on... With all this punning going on, does he say "you"? Or could he actually have said "yew"? Toxic plant, causes a weak heart beat...
Damn it! Just when I had finally got to the end. I hate it when this happens!
Thursday 26 January 2012
The other 'Sherlock' thing
So now we know how the death fakery was achieved, it's time to address the other 'Sherlock' thing i.e:
What the heck was all that about?
Or, to put it another way: what was actually going on in the 'Reichenbach Fall' episode of the BBC's 'Sherlock'? Well, as the saying goes - "if you don't want to know the score, look away now". Of course, if it turns out that I have nailed it, it will be down to Sheer luck. But don't say you weren't warned.
So. Was there really a 'key' and, if so, what was it?
If you believe Holmes, there was a key. And if you believe Moriarty, there wasn't, it was all a bluff. So who was right? Well, both of them. There was a key and it did merely amount to a few lines of code. But it's not so much about the key as the lock it opened.
So what was the clue to the key? When Moriarty visits Holmes after his acquittal, he taps out a rhythm on his knee which Holmes later identifies as a motif from Bach's First Partita for violin. But that's not the clue. It's the apple.
When Moriarty first enters the flat he picks up an apple from the bowl, sits down and begins carving into it. After he leaves, Holmes picks up the apple and discovers that Moriarty has neatly carved the letters IOU into it. Well, I say neatly, but he appears to have made rather a mess of the 'O', taking out the entire centre of the letter.
So. It's about an apple. It's about a key. And it's about power. Despite what Holmes said, it's definitely about Moriarty's quest for power over Holmes. He might not need it, but that doesn't stop him wanting it.
It's about an apple. It's about power. And it's about a key.
Apple... power... key...
And there it is. The power key from an Apple computer: IOU carved into an Apple. There's the I in the middle. The U is formed by the broken circle and the O can be taken either as the outer ring, or the completion of the broken inner circle. This photo of iPhone power key wallpaper illustrates it more clearly, perhaps:
... but I included the first photo as it shows the way that the motif is 'carved' into the power key on an Apple computer. Also, recall that Moriarty took the centre out of the 'O' when he carved it. It could just have been it a bit of sloppy workmanship on his part, but I doubt it since it also serves to mimic the "chomp" taken out of the Apple computer logo. Thus:
While we're about it, it also makes reference to the bite taken from the poisoned apple by Snow White in the classic Grimm's fairy tale. You don't get a picture of Snow White, though. Or Sir Isaac Newton and his falling apple. Or any of the other apple references in the episode.
But back to the Apple computer power key. So what?
We know from later in the episode that Holmes uses a MacBook (though the glowing logo is disguised by an envelope). But we also know that he uses an Apple iPhone. One of the key themes of the episode is celebrity and tabloid culture and, as anyone who has watched the TV news in the last six months knows, there are two words that go with "tabloid" like "ticket fiasco" and "Olympics": "phone" and "hacking". And yet they are not mentioned in the entire episode.
But this isn't just phone-hacking. This is Moriarty and Sherlock phone-hacking: a covert eavesdropping app smuggled onto Sherlock's iPhone which gives Moriarty and his clients access to Holmes's every conversation, text and email. And not just his telephone conversations, of course. Any conversation within range of the phone's microphone would be picked up and broadcast to waiting criminal ears.
It's well known that such eavesdropping applications have existed for some time:
http://www.appedia.com/news/3774.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
According to the media sources, you would currently need to physically install the app on the phone. That is to say, you would need to have it in your hands. The suggestion in 'The Reichenbach Fall' however, is that Moriarty plants the app on Sherlock's phone, more than likely via Bluetooth with his phone doing the work for him while he quietly sips his tea at 221B after the trial. It's a small leap of the imagination, but to misquote the lady in the lab "if you can imagine it, someone is probably doing it".
So, there you have it. In a nutshell, it all turns on a visual pun. Moriarty hacks into Sherlock's phone and sells access to the feed to his various criminal clients as well as using it for his own ends. Having taken so long to say not a lot in this post, I'll save the further technical details and the implications for next time.
Next up: all the other stuff, including 'Chompion!', Addlestone, spy versus spy and the nature of the 'final problem'.
What the heck was all that about?
Or, to put it another way: what was actually going on in the 'Reichenbach Fall' episode of the BBC's 'Sherlock'? Well, as the saying goes - "if you don't want to know the score, look away now". Of course, if it turns out that I have nailed it, it will be down to Sheer luck. But don't say you weren't warned.
So. Was there really a 'key' and, if so, what was it?
If you believe Holmes, there was a key. And if you believe Moriarty, there wasn't, it was all a bluff. So who was right? Well, both of them. There was a key and it did merely amount to a few lines of code. But it's not so much about the key as the lock it opened.
So what was the clue to the key? When Moriarty visits Holmes after his acquittal, he taps out a rhythm on his knee which Holmes later identifies as a motif from Bach's First Partita for violin. But that's not the clue. It's the apple.
When Moriarty first enters the flat he picks up an apple from the bowl, sits down and begins carving into it. After he leaves, Holmes picks up the apple and discovers that Moriarty has neatly carved the letters IOU into it. Well, I say neatly, but he appears to have made rather a mess of the 'O', taking out the entire centre of the letter.
So. It's about an apple. It's about a key. And it's about power. Despite what Holmes said, it's definitely about Moriarty's quest for power over Holmes. He might not need it, but that doesn't stop him wanting it.
It's about an apple. It's about power. And it's about a key.
Apple... power... key...
And there it is. The power key from an Apple computer: IOU carved into an Apple. There's the I in the middle. The U is formed by the broken circle and the O can be taken either as the outer ring, or the completion of the broken inner circle. This photo of iPhone power key wallpaper illustrates it more clearly, perhaps:
While we're about it, it also makes reference to the bite taken from the poisoned apple by Snow White in the classic Grimm's fairy tale. You don't get a picture of Snow White, though. Or Sir Isaac Newton and his falling apple. Or any of the other apple references in the episode.
But back to the Apple computer power key. So what?
We know from later in the episode that Holmes uses a MacBook (though the glowing logo is disguised by an envelope). But we also know that he uses an Apple iPhone. One of the key themes of the episode is celebrity and tabloid culture and, as anyone who has watched the TV news in the last six months knows, there are two words that go with "tabloid" like "ticket fiasco" and "Olympics": "phone" and "hacking". And yet they are not mentioned in the entire episode.
But this isn't just phone-hacking. This is Moriarty and Sherlock phone-hacking: a covert eavesdropping app smuggled onto Sherlock's iPhone which gives Moriarty and his clients access to Holmes's every conversation, text and email. And not just his telephone conversations, of course. Any conversation within range of the phone's microphone would be picked up and broadcast to waiting criminal ears.
It's well known that such eavesdropping applications have existed for some time:
http://www.appedia.com/news/3774.html
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/12/remotely_eavesd_1.html
According to the media sources, you would currently need to physically install the app on the phone. That is to say, you would need to have it in your hands. The suggestion in 'The Reichenbach Fall' however, is that Moriarty plants the app on Sherlock's phone, more than likely via Bluetooth with his phone doing the work for him while he quietly sips his tea at 221B after the trial. It's a small leap of the imagination, but to misquote the lady in the lab "if you can imagine it, someone is probably doing it".
So, there you have it. In a nutshell, it all turns on a visual pun. Moriarty hacks into Sherlock's phone and sells access to the feed to his various criminal clients as well as using it for his own ends. Having taken so long to say not a lot in this post, I'll save the further technical details and the implications for next time.
Next up: all the other stuff, including 'Chompion!', Addlestone, spy versus spy and the nature of the 'final problem'.
Wednesday 25 January 2012
That 'Sherlock' thing.
I like a bit of schlocky TV drama as much as the next internet wrongmo. Well, actually, no I don't. I can't abide the majority of TV drama, which is why I missed the entire first series of 'Sherlock' on the BBC. That and taking a violent and irrational dislike to the name Benedict Cumberbatch. It's not his fault, of course, it's just that the name reeks of public school privilege and strikes directly at the heart of my chippiness about class. I had the same thing with Miranda Hart - "bloody BBC overrun by public school types" etc. Then, after refusing to watch her first series and grudgingly tuning in to a later epsiode it turned out that she is extremely funny. Nose, face, spite etc.
So, anway, to save keep repeating this over and over, here's the shadwell version of what was going on in "The Reichenbach Fall", Series 2 Episode 3 of the BBC's 'Sherlock' :
How did Sherlock fake his own death?
Well, it's not hugely complex, but it required a bit of help. When Watson turns up at the hospital, Holmes makes him walk back to a position away from the building and look straight up at him. What's not obvious in the epsiode, with the camera angles following Holmes and Watson's line of sight, is that there is a low, flat-rooved building between the position Watson is made to stand and the street below Holmes, which obscures it completely. That is to say, Watson can see Holmes on the roof, but he can't see the street where he later lands.
If that's still not clear, this is Watson's view of the hospital, as seen on Google streetview: http://g.co/maps/j3zwt
Remember also that a Streetview camera is roughly 12ft off the ground, compared to Watson's 5' 8" or thereabouts, so he would have had even less of a view of the lower part of the hospital building.
So, with the street completely obscured, the potential for 'rigging' the landing zone becomes considerably easier. And so it is. Plenty of people have noticed the pick-truck type which pulls away from the bus stop laden with bin bags. It's sometimes described as a rubbish collecting truck, but I'm going with laundry collection: lots of nice poomfy bags of bedding to drop onto. Of course, it would be a brave person who jumped from a tall building into a truck bed with wire cage sides, no matter how many bags of laundry were in it. Miss by a foot, hit the side and it's game over.
But with those drop-down sides folded out flat and your poomfy laundry bags spread out, you've got a nice big crash mat. You would need to brace the sides in the horizontal, but with a few people on the ground to hold it, it would't be too hard.
Then, once your man has landed, he jumps off onto the ground, up go the sides, (pushing all the bags into the middle) and away goes the truck. Of course, even with a well-rehearsed routine, it's going to take a few seconds to complete, so you might need someone on hand to delay your witness's arrival slightly. Enter the chappy on the bike, who simultaneously delays and disorientates Watson by means of a good whack to the side.
So now our man is off the roof and on the ground. But who is it that goes off the roof? Moriarty? A dead body provided by Molly? Molly herself? Nah, none of the above. The somewhat over-the-top swimming motion during the fall gives the lie to the idea that it is a dead or unconscious body and, while the figure on the roof does have a somewhat 'principal boyish' stance at times from Watson's viewpoint, Holmes is the hero: he wouldn't get anyone else to take the fall for him.
And so now Holmes is on the ground, lying on the pavement about a pick-up truck's unfolded cage-side distance from the kerb. We need to add some gore, so on goes the ketchup, courtesy of the team on the ground. But also, Watson has to be convinced that Holmes is dead. We see him attempt to take Holmes's pulse, before his hand is pulled away by one of the assistants on the ground. Of course, in his disorientated state, he may have been unable to detect a pulse in the time he had available. But equally, there's a good chance that Holmes had another trick up his sleeve.
There is some speculation that Holmes used the squash ball seen earlier in the episode to slow his heart-rate by squeezing it into his armpit a la Derren Brown. Maybe, but you would have a job keeping it in place after taking a dive off a tall building and once the ball is dislodged the pulse would come back, more than likely at a good rate under the circumstances. It could, however, have been a pointer to another means of achieving the same effect: bradycardia (slowing of the pulse) induced by the use of an extract of Rhododendron Ponticum.
Rhododendron Ponticum (or 'Ponticon' as Sherlock pronounces it) gets a mention earlier in the episode in relation to the discovery of the children in the disused factory. Among its other effects, rhododendron poisoning causes the heart-rate to slow dramatically, thus making it impossible for Watson to detect a pulse in the short time before his hand as pulled away. Additionally what appeared to be Holmes' emotional state during his conversation with Watson, was actually the physiological effects of the poison.
There's more about Rhododendron Ponticum toxicity and reference to its use as a poison in Guy Ritchie's 2009 Sherlock Holmes film at:
http://www.aschoonerofscience.com/poisons/rhododendron-poison-truth-behind-the-science-of-sherlock-holmes/
In a nutshell, then, so far we have Holmes downing an extract of rhododendron to simulate death, jumping off the roof into a rigged truck, then onto the pavement where he gets a splash of gore for effect and Watson taking a whack from a conveniently clumsy cyclist to slow him down a bit. What's left?
Well, we know that Holmes has previously approached Molly for assistance in his plot and that he has chosen her place of work for his staged demise. So, with Watson apparently convinced that Holmes is dead, the body is whisked onto a gurney and into the hospital where Molly presumably takes charge of it and administers the necessary antidotes, before spiriting Holmes away into the bowels of the St Bartholomew's Hospital pathology department to spend the next however many months living on a diet of crisps.
Though, come to think of it, of course... it wasn't only Watson who tried to take Holmes's pulse. There was a hopsital doctor on the other side taking a carotid pulse before Holmes was lifted on the gurney and rushed away. Which action, by its very haste suggests that this doctor believed Holmes to still be alive. Fortunately, Watson quickly followed his best friend inside to see whether this was the case... oh, hold on. No he didn't. He sat by the bench looking all wistful and confused.
But hey, it's only TV... and I like it.
Next up: What the heck was all that about? A run down on what was actually going on in the episode.
So, anway, to save keep repeating this over and over, here's the shadwell version of what was going on in "The Reichenbach Fall", Series 2 Episode 3 of the BBC's 'Sherlock' :
How did Sherlock fake his own death?
Well, it's not hugely complex, but it required a bit of help. When Watson turns up at the hospital, Holmes makes him walk back to a position away from the building and look straight up at him. What's not obvious in the epsiode, with the camera angles following Holmes and Watson's line of sight, is that there is a low, flat-rooved building between the position Watson is made to stand and the street below Holmes, which obscures it completely. That is to say, Watson can see Holmes on the roof, but he can't see the street where he later lands.
If that's still not clear, this is Watson's view of the hospital, as seen on Google streetview: http://g.co/maps/j3zwt
Remember also that a Streetview camera is roughly 12ft off the ground, compared to Watson's 5' 8" or thereabouts, so he would have had even less of a view of the lower part of the hospital building.
So, with the street completely obscured, the potential for 'rigging' the landing zone becomes considerably easier. And so it is. Plenty of people have noticed the pick-truck type which pulls away from the bus stop laden with bin bags. It's sometimes described as a rubbish collecting truck, but I'm going with laundry collection: lots of nice poomfy bags of bedding to drop onto. Of course, it would be a brave person who jumped from a tall building into a truck bed with wire cage sides, no matter how many bags of laundry were in it. Miss by a foot, hit the side and it's game over.
But with those drop-down sides folded out flat and your poomfy laundry bags spread out, you've got a nice big crash mat. You would need to brace the sides in the horizontal, but with a few people on the ground to hold it, it would't be too hard.
Then, once your man has landed, he jumps off onto the ground, up go the sides, (pushing all the bags into the middle) and away goes the truck. Of course, even with a well-rehearsed routine, it's going to take a few seconds to complete, so you might need someone on hand to delay your witness's arrival slightly. Enter the chappy on the bike, who simultaneously delays and disorientates Watson by means of a good whack to the side.
So now our man is off the roof and on the ground. But who is it that goes off the roof? Moriarty? A dead body provided by Molly? Molly herself? Nah, none of the above. The somewhat over-the-top swimming motion during the fall gives the lie to the idea that it is a dead or unconscious body and, while the figure on the roof does have a somewhat 'principal boyish' stance at times from Watson's viewpoint, Holmes is the hero: he wouldn't get anyone else to take the fall for him.
And so now Holmes is on the ground, lying on the pavement about a pick-up truck's unfolded cage-side distance from the kerb. We need to add some gore, so on goes the ketchup, courtesy of the team on the ground. But also, Watson has to be convinced that Holmes is dead. We see him attempt to take Holmes's pulse, before his hand is pulled away by one of the assistants on the ground. Of course, in his disorientated state, he may have been unable to detect a pulse in the time he had available. But equally, there's a good chance that Holmes had another trick up his sleeve.
There is some speculation that Holmes used the squash ball seen earlier in the episode to slow his heart-rate by squeezing it into his armpit a la Derren Brown. Maybe, but you would have a job keeping it in place after taking a dive off a tall building and once the ball is dislodged the pulse would come back, more than likely at a good rate under the circumstances. It could, however, have been a pointer to another means of achieving the same effect: bradycardia (slowing of the pulse) induced by the use of an extract of Rhododendron Ponticum.
Rhododendron Ponticum (or 'Ponticon' as Sherlock pronounces it) gets a mention earlier in the episode in relation to the discovery of the children in the disused factory. Among its other effects, rhododendron poisoning causes the heart-rate to slow dramatically, thus making it impossible for Watson to detect a pulse in the short time before his hand as pulled away. Additionally what appeared to be Holmes' emotional state during his conversation with Watson, was actually the physiological effects of the poison.
There's more about Rhododendron Ponticum toxicity and reference to its use as a poison in Guy Ritchie's 2009 Sherlock Holmes film at:
http://www.aschoonerofscience.com/poisons/rhododendron-poison-truth-behind-the-science-of-sherlock-holmes/
In a nutshell, then, so far we have Holmes downing an extract of rhododendron to simulate death, jumping off the roof into a rigged truck, then onto the pavement where he gets a splash of gore for effect and Watson taking a whack from a conveniently clumsy cyclist to slow him down a bit. What's left?
Well, we know that Holmes has previously approached Molly for assistance in his plot and that he has chosen her place of work for his staged demise. So, with Watson apparently convinced that Holmes is dead, the body is whisked onto a gurney and into the hospital where Molly presumably takes charge of it and administers the necessary antidotes, before spiriting Holmes away into the bowels of the St Bartholomew's Hospital pathology department to spend the next however many months living on a diet of crisps.
Though, come to think of it, of course... it wasn't only Watson who tried to take Holmes's pulse. There was a hopsital doctor on the other side taking a carotid pulse before Holmes was lifted on the gurney and rushed away. Which action, by its very haste suggests that this doctor believed Holmes to still be alive. Fortunately, Watson quickly followed his best friend inside to see whether this was the case... oh, hold on. No he didn't. He sat by the bench looking all wistful and confused.
But hey, it's only TV... and I like it.
Next up: What the heck was all that about? A run down on what was actually going on in the episode.
Tuesday 24 January 2012
Shadwell's Blog
At some stage this will become a repository for some of the various conspiracy theories and weirdness I have stuck my nose into over the course of my years on the former Guardian Unlimited talkboard and its successor http://notthetalk.com/ including, but not only:
* The Da Vinci Cat
* Little blue men on the moon.
* Litvinenko
* Christopher Marlow's true identity
* Roswell
* 9/11
... as well as a whole world of mundane wibbling, no doubt. While I go and have a rummage through my drawers, I recommend you pay a visit to: http://talk.notthetalk.com/
* The Da Vinci Cat
* Little blue men on the moon.
* Litvinenko
* Christopher Marlow's true identity
* Roswell
* 9/11
... as well as a whole world of mundane wibbling, no doubt. While I go and have a rummage through my drawers, I recommend you pay a visit to: http://talk.notthetalk.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)