“What have you done to my bloody wall?!”
I like how the eyes took me 7 hours to draw and I wish I was joking but I’m not I just lost the ability to draw eyes for a moment
Nice touch, this. The pool… where little Carl died.
Carl Powers (1978 - 1989)
fromthesuncomesthelifeofastar asked:
Something I’ve been contimplating ever since I figured out that Moriarty must have kept the shoes. He seems to have kept them because he knew Sherlock knew about them. So does this mean ever since they were kids, Moriarty was waiting for him? Also, did he not do any crimes between killing Carl and the stuff he does to set up the encounters with Sherlock? I wanna believe sherlock would have caught onto those cases if he had. Sorry my question’s not super clear. Character limit, and all.
Jim initially took Carl’s shoes because they were the only solid evidence that Carl had been murdered. Sherlock read about the missing shoes in the paper, and the fact that they were missing made him think Carl’s death may not have been an accident.
Even if the detail about the shoes appeared in the newspaper reports as quickly as possible after Carl’s death and Sherlock went to the police as quickly as possible after reading the article and Jim found out Sherlock was causing trouble as quickly as possible after that, I think we’ve still got to assume that whole process took at least a day. Which means Jim, faced with the options of immediately destroying the evidence or keeping it, had already chosen to hold onto the shoes for at least a little while.
Maybe Jim did decide to keep the shoes forever and ever after he realized Sherlock was interested in them.
Or maybe (and I tend to think this is more likely) Jim kept the shoes because Carl had loved them.
Given all of the parallels with Sherlock and the fact that Carl Powers was Sherlock’s first case, I suspect Carl Powers was Jim’s first murder as well. So Jim may have kept the shoes for years as a trophy. (Rather than because he immediately came up with the idea of saving them to play a game with Sherlock in the event the boy grew up to be a detective.)
As for crimes that happened in-between Carl’s murder and A Study in Pink… Yes, I think Jim had almost certainly been involved in tons of crimes by then. The cabbie described Jim’s reputation (“more than a man,” etc) in a way that makes me think Jim was well-established as a consulting criminal.
Why wouldn’t Sherlock have caught on earlier? Because Moriarty’s good at his job, and Sherlock Holmes never does fully catch on until just before it will lead to an exciting face-off.
From The Final Problem:
“As you are aware, Watson, there is no one who knows the higher criminal world of London so well as I do. For years past I have continually been conscious of some power behind the malefactor, some deep organizing power which forever stands in the way of the law, and throws its shield over the wrong-doer. Again and again in cases of the most varying sorts—forgery cases, robberies, murders—I have felt the presence of this force, and I have deduced its action in many of those undiscovered crimes in which I have not been personally consulted. For years I have endeavored to break through the veil which shrouded it, and at last the time came when I seized my thread and followed it, until it led me, after a thousand cunning windings, to ex-Professor Moriarty of mathematical celebrity.”
Since it started with a kid getting killed, it would be incredibly inappropriate to celebrate the 25th anniversary of Sherlock’s sleuthing career in 2014, right?
Even though we’ll need something to do between series of Sherlock?
Fine. I didn’t really want to anyway. *ill-concealed sulk*
Anonymous asked: How could Moriarty have known that Sherlock was interested by Carl Powers' death, if he couldn't get the police to listen?
We’ll probably never know.
My own guess would be that was the biggest crime young Jim had committed at the time, so he paid extra attention to whether anyone suspected Carl’s death was murder rather than an accident. Somehow Jim must’ve seen or heard about Sherlock’s investigation or attempts to convince the police. I can imagine a few ways that could’ve happened, but we’re basically in fanfiction territory there. So your guess is as good as mine.
silverpolarbears asked: Whoa. Just had a mind-boggling thought: what if Jim knew about Sherlock's suspicions about Carl Powers' death from Mycroft? Or is it just more likely that was the first time Sherlock came to Jim's attention?
I think it’s more likely the Carl Powers case was just the first time Sherlock came to Jim’s attention.
Jim already knew about Sherlock’s investigation of the Carl Powers case in The Great Game. That’s why he incorporated Carl’s shoes into one of the puzzles.
There’s nothing to suggest Jim and Mycroft had ever discussed Sherlock’s history at that point. As Mycroft later explained, he only told Jim about Sherlock’s life because it seemed like a way to get Jim to talk about the key code when Mycroft had him in custody. Mycroft didn’t have Jim in custody until after Scandal.
Irene: Jim Moriarty sends his love.
Mycroft: Yes, he’s been in touch. Seems desperate for my attention, which I’m sure can be arranged.
Anonymous asked: Just want to clear something up you said: Since Jim was the one who killed Carl and kept the shoes all these years... Was it confirmed that Moriarty is the killer? Sherlock said he was just a kid when that crime was committed, do you believe Moriarty is much older than Sherlock or committed the crime at as a child? Possibly a classmate of the swimmer? Keep up the good work.
The Great Game:
Man (speaking for Jim): Clever you. Guessing about Carl Powers. I never liked him. Carl laughed at me, so I stopped him laughing.
John: Anything on the Carl Powers case?
Sherlock: Nothing. All the living classmates check out spotless, no connection.
John: Maybe the killer was older than Carl?
Sherlock: The thought had occurred.
John (speaking for Jim): Nice touch, this. The pool, where little Carl died. I stopped him. I can stop John Watson, too. Stop his heart.
So Jim definitely killed Carl. Jim wasn’t a classmate of Carl’s, but was probably close to the same age based on the comment about Carl laughing at him.
hotgaysarehot-deactivated201206 asked: In "The Great Game", the killer who kept Carl Powers' shoes is the bomber-- has Moriarty been following Sherlock around since they were gradeschool kids? If so, I would assume they grew up in the same area, maybe went to the same school. I would assume Sherlock would have known of him earlier, been more... prepared. Something's not adding up for me, and I'm not sure why.
The Great Game:
Sherlock: Carl Powers, John.
John: What is it?
Sherlock: It’s where I began.
Sherlock: 1989, young kid, champion swimmer, came up from Brighton for a school sports tournament, drowned in the pool. Tragic accident. You wouldn’t remember it. Why should you.
John: But you remember.
Sherlock: Yes.
John: Something fishy about it?
Sherlock: Nobody thought so. Nobody except me. I was only a kid myself. I read about it in the papers.
John: You started young, didn’t you?
Sherlock: The boy, Carl Powers, had some kind of fit in the water, but by the time they got him out, it was too late. There was something wrong somewhere and I couldn’t get it out of my head.
John: What?
Sherlock: His shoes.
John: What about them?
Sherlock: They weren’t there. I made a fuss. I tried to get the police interested but nobody seemed to think it was important. He’d left all the rest of his clothes in his locker. But there was no sign of his shoes. Until now.
So Carl wasn’t from London. He was only at that swimming pool for a sports tournament.
And Sherlock had no personal connection to the case. It was only something he’d read about in the newspaper. He couldn’t even get anyone interested in the shoes, so he didn’t meet Jim or find out who was behind Carl’s murder until The Great Game.
Considering Jim knew to leave Carl’s shoes as a puzzle for Sherlock later, though, it seems likely that young Jim had noticed young Sherlock’s efforts at the time.
Hopefully that helps make things add up a little better?
starksexual asked: Hello! You see, I was thinking about the video that Moriarty /supposedly/ uploaded on John's blog... What do you think is its purpose?(if it has a purpose at all, other than showing off) I have a few things in mind, but it all depends on the time it's been uploaded (after or before the Fall)... I just wanted to know what are your thoughts on it, given that you have a quick mind to create theories. Thank you! You're brilliant!
(The hacked blog entry is here, and a YouTube version of the video is here.)
I think the main point of that was to freak us out before Reichenbach. And to mess with Sherlock and John’s minds as well, if you want it to make sense within the story.
I haven’t heard of anyone finding any major clues in that video. To be honest, I hope there aren’t any. They didn’t even reference the blog hack in the show, and I think that means it would be kind of a cheat to have anything very important in the video. John’s blog is really fun for adding a little bonus information to the show, but a lot of people who watch the show will never read the blog. My personal feeling is that the big mysteries should be solvable by people who have seen the episodes but don’t necessarily read the supplemental material online. Otherwise, we’ll end up with a block of viewers who feel confused and a little cheated when answers are revealed.
As for when Jim uploaded the video—it was definitely before the fall. The date on that blog entry was 16 March. Earlier that same day, everyone was goofing around making stupid puns and idle death threats in the comments of John’s Hounds writeup.
As far as we know, the only thing that was taken from or planted in 221B any time recently was the wireless camera in Reichenbach, but I don’t think Jim handled that personally considering the name of the wireless network the camera was connected to.
Actually, the interesting thing to me is that we do know something was planted at Baker Street less-than-recently. Remember where Sherlock found Carl Powers’ shoes in The Great Game? They were left in 221C— Mrs. Hudson’s unoccupied basement flat. Since Jim was the one who killed Carl and kept the shoes all these years, and since Carl’s shoes formed the very first connection between Sherlock and Jim, I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that Jim had decided to handle that task personally.
I don’t know if anyone’s done a full comparison between the way 221B was set up in Jim’s video, Series 1, and Series 2 yet. (I certainly haven’t attempted it.) But unless someone finds evidence that Jim’s video was definitely shot after the start of Series 2, I’m somewhat inclined to think it was old footage that Jim shot when he left Carl’s shoes in 221C.
aikoota asked: As much as I love Sherlock, and because I never ever read any A.C. Doyle story, I am wondering when Moriarty did start becoming an arch enemy of SH. In the series (1 or 2) it is never revealed, I guess. He just hates him. So why did he hate him even before he knew SH personally? SH was (in S1) not that famous. Are there any clues given in the books?
In the books, Moriarty showed up for the first time in The Final Problem—the same story in which he died. In that story, Holmes explained to Watson that he’d figured out Moriarty was basically running a huge crime network. Holmes was finally on the verge of shutting the whole thing down and having Moriarty held accountable for his crimes. So that’s more or less when they became enemies. Though the catch is that after ACD changed his mind and decided to allow Holmes to survive Reichenbach (Sherlock’s death was originally meant to be permanent) he wrote a story called The Valley of Fear that was set before The Final Problem and involved Moriarty. So you could also say that was the “first” story with them as enemies.
In Sherlock, they introduced the Moriarty character much earlier and had him involved in more cases than in the ACD stories. We actually do have an idea of when Jim’s connection to Sherlock started, though. Remember the Carl Powers case in The Great Game? The boy who died at the swimming pool? That was young Sherlock’s first case. Though Sherlock didn’t know it at the time, Jim was the one who had murdered Carl. While I don’t believe they’ve said exactly when Jim first noticed Sherlock, I tend to assume it was sometime during Sherlock’s attempts to draw attention to how suspicious Carl’s death had been.
nextfix-netflix asked: Wouldn't it be ridiculously cool if Victor Trevor was written into series three as Victoria Trevor. BAM! Sherlock has a past.
Since they switched his first case to Carl Powers rather than Victor Trevor, I have to say that’s the area of his past I’d be more interested in.
But it will never happen. Because wee little Sherlock versus wee little Jim? Such a battle of archenemies would surely implode due to extreme overadorableness.
