Sherlock Theories

Part 2

Pretty Things & Monsters

Reichenbach Explanation - Richard Brook was real - Rumpelstiltskin

The crackpot IOU theory (AKA. the theory before this chapter) left a lot of questions unanswered: Who is Richard Brook? Why is Sherlock's behavior so out of character throughout the entire episode? Since when is Mycroft so stupid? What is the final problem? Why does Moriarty thank Sherlock before killing himself? There has to be a rational, non-crackpot explanation for all of this - something that doesn't involve super-secret ciphers or magical blood capsules. What if "IOU" is not the Reichenbach puzzle?

Moriarty hints at the existence of a riddle for Sherlock, and yet the only "riddle" we actually see turns out to be Bach's Partita No. 1. The riddle could just be another bluff, but if Moriarty never created any puzzle for Sherlock to solve, then why is he so upset in the rooftop scene? Notice that he doesn't get angry when Sherlock taps out the fake binary code - it is the detective's "I can use it to alter all the records, I can kill Rich Brook and bring back Jim Moriarty" proclamation that causes the consulting criminal to finally snap.

What is it about these words that makes Moriarty so mad, and why is he calling Sherlock a doofus? If there is no key code, that means the consulting criminal paid someone to alter the records, and Sherlock can "kill Rich Brook and bring back Jim Moriarty" by simply altering them back (and it wouldn't be too hard, considering who his older brother is). What if the real reason Moriarty is so disappointed in "ordinary Sherlock" is not because of the binary code, but because he did give Sherlock a puzzle - a puzzle that he thinks the detective never solved? And what if maybe, just maybe, this puzzle has something to do with Sherlock's words that got the biggest reaction from the consulting criminal: "I can kill Rich Brook and bring back Jim Moriarty"?

"IOU" looks like a riddle, but if it were, Moriarty wouldn't dismiss it as unimportant just because ordinary Sherlock couldn't solve it. The consulting criminal is the type of person who cannot "cope with an unfinished melody." If he really gave Sherlock a puzzle, he'd bring it up again during his final confrontation with the detective. If the Reichenbach puzzle exists, it has to be something that Moriarty talks to Sherlock about on St. Bart's rooftop. There is no mention of "IOU," so that's not it.

Let's look at what he does talk about.

After calling Sherlock ordinary and announcing that he has beaten the detective, Moriarty asks him two questions: "Did you almost start to wonder if I was real? Did I nearly get you?" He doesn't ask about the key code, the binary sequence, or the "IOU" message. It sounds like he is simply taunting the detective, but what if he is actually testing him here?

Moriarty: "Did you almost start to wonder if I was real? Did I nearly get you?"

Sherlock: "Richard Brook."

Moriarty: "Nobody seems to get the joke. But you do."

Sherlock: "Of course."

Moriarty: "Attaboy."

Sherlock: "Richard Brook in German is Reichenbach. The case that made my name." The detective eagerly demonstrates that he understands the joke that "nobody seems to get" and then taps his fingers to "prove" that he gets not only the Richard Brook joke but also the binary code.

Now, keep in mind that Sherlock is only pretending to believe in the binary code. As was pointed out at the beginning of the crackpot theory, the "code" he's tapping out in St. Bart's lab is completely different from Moriarty's "Partita No. 1" sequence. But if Sherlock is trying to appear an ordinary doofus, then why is he showing that he's the only one who understands Richard Brook's origins? Something's wrong with this picture.