S05.E18: Dead Man's Tale

[basil]

Quote

Shinwell had insisted earlier that he never killed anyone.  It is possible someone else did the killing and Shinwell was afraid to confront him?

I see no fear in Shinwell, only protectiveness. I think there is more to his backstory than we know.

One funny thing no one has mentioned yet is that when they play Gene Wilder's line from The Producers, it is immediately followed by a character (Marcus?} saying something about a "chocolate factory". Gene Wilder played a major role in Willie Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

[backgroundnoise]

When they played the clip of The Producers, they asked the suspect if he was familiar with the movie.  Someone, not sure who, replied they were more of a Chocolate Factory guy.  I took it to mean whoever said it likedGene Wilder in the Chocolate Factory, but not so much The Producers.

I'm completely and utterly disinterested in Shinwell. 

[theatremouse]

The suspect said that in response to the clip. His point was that Gene Wilder was Willy Wonka. The team essentially asked him if the plot of the producers were familiar and he feigned ignorance by saying he was more of a chocolate factory kinda guy, ie the plot of the producers was not familiar to him, but he did recognize Gene Wilder.

[basil]

Got it, thanks.  I enjoyed the references to The Producers ans Willy Wonka.

I had rewatched myself, and one thing became very clear. Not only does Shinwell not confess to the murder, every sentence he says regarding the murder is almost torturously constructed to back him up. "a friend" was told to kill Jamal. "SBK" killed Jamal.

Shinwell did not kill Jamal.

[Trey]

30 minutes ago, basil said:

Shinwell did not kill Jamal.

I wonder if he mean this literally, or is he saying that SBK is really responsible because they made him kill Jamal

[paigow]

10 minutes ago, Trey said:

I wonder if he mean this literally, or is he saying that SBK is really responsible because they made him kill Jamal

Shinwell was the only person in the apartment that could have pulled the trigger. Unless there is a grassy knoll nearby, he has some serious guilt to deal with for following orders.

Edited March 30, 2017 by paigow

[Trey]

1 minute ago, paigow said:

Shinwell was the only person in the apartment that could have pulled the trigger. Unless there is a grassy knoll nearby, he has some serious guilt to deal with...

The younger brother was also in the apartment.

[paigow]

1 minute ago, Trey said:

The younger brother was also in the apartment.

True. But Sherlock has definitively eliminated him as a suspect - therefore, Shinwell is the Prime Suspect...

[basil]

Quote

 

  37 MINUTES AGO, BASIL SAID:

Shinwell did not kill Jamal.

 

Quote

I wonder if he mean this literally, or is he saying that SBK is really responsible because they made him kill Jamal.

Shinwell expressly says he's never killed anyone in one episode. All other references to Jamal's death, he refers to as SBK asked "a friend" to kill him. He says this more than once. He never says "SBK asked me to kill him". Shinwell has never confessed to the murder

Quote

Shinwell was the only person in the apartment that could have pulled the trigger. Unless there is a grassy knoll nearby, he has some serious guilt to deal with...

Quote

The younger brother was also in the apartment.

Exactly. Everything hinges on the kid, whose story was hinky to begin with. He is the only other eyewitness other than Shinwell. Someone else could have been there. Every word that kid says is suspect. He was the one who conveniently found the gun and didn't turn it in.

Quote

Sherlock has definitively eliminated him as a suspect - therefore, Shinwell is the Prime Suspect

I missed this. How did Sherlock eliminate the brother as the gun man? Also, is it possible Jamal killed himself?

 

 

 

.

Edited March 30, 2017 by basil

[rainsmom]

29 minutes ago, basil said:

Also, is it possible Jamal killed himself?

 

 

 

.

I believe he was shot 3x in the back.

[Clanstarling]

23 minutes ago, basil said:

I missed this. How did Sherlock eliminate the brother as the gun man? Also, is it possible Jamal killed himself?

I don't think Sherlock  had any concrete reason to eliminate the brother other than believing him.

I am more inclined to believe that Shinwell did kill the brother, but I don't think Sherlock eliminated all possibilities, and given there's another survivor of that night, the brother is still a possibility. As young as he was he could have been so traumatized that the only thing he remembers is Shinwell's laugh and him walking away. There are a number of scenarios, particularly in a gang setting, that could be the reason - being stoned, being initiated into the gang, shooting at Shinwell but hitting his brother, or even an accident. I do seem to recall an image of him with back wounds, as @rainsmom pointed out. So maybe not suicide.

[Canada]

I can't see Shinwell being the killer.  The show has invested a lot of time with his redemption and there's no way they're going to ruin that with him turning out to be a killer.

[basil]

Quote

I do seem to recall an image of him with back wounds, as @RAINSMOM pointed out. So maybe not suicide.

There is an image of a body with bloodstains on his back, so yes, suicide is unlikely. I wasn't paying close attention at that point. It was just a thought. I did watch again, though, and it turns out the brother was not an eyewitness. He was in the house, but in his bedroom. He heard Shinwell and Jamal laughing, heard the refrigerator open, then three shots. He didn't even leave his bedroom until after Shinwell left. He saw Shinwell put "something" in a garbage can. He didn't see his brother killed, never saw Shinwell with a gun. The writers are twisting themselves into knots to keep Shinwell from confessing. He tells Sherlock to leave. He says that there is nothing to confess and that he didn't kill anybody - and again, during Sherlock's beating by Shinwell, he twice says SBK told "a friend" to kill Jamal. Why would he phrase it that way?

[paigow]

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

I don't think Sherlock  had any concrete reason to eliminate the brother other than believing him.

Sherlock concluded that Shinwell is the killer because the person- i.e. Watson - most likely to disbelieve little brother concurs with his own assessment. To a lesser degree, Sherlock also trusts the opinion of Det. Guzman.

[MisterGlass]

2 hours ago, Canada said:

I can't see Shinwell being the killer.  The show has invested a lot of time with his redemption and there's no way they're going to ruin that with him turning out to be a killer.

Since Irene Adler turned out to be Moriarty, I don't think we can make any assumptions.

[roseha]

I can't see a ten year old brother killing Jamal unless it was a tragic accident, which seems very unlikely to be three shots in the back.  It's also true that the brother never saw what happened according to his own story.  Certainly someone else could have invaded the apartment and killed Jamal.  Shinwell seemed very specific about saying that "a friend" meaning someone else, whom he knows about, did the killing. 

I guess we will find out soon enough.

[theatremouse]

I'm guessing the sitch was Shinwell was there, and aware of the "treason" (hence his story about how they lied) and his job was not to kill his friend but to let someone else in who did so, and to get rid of the gun. That could make everything he said true, and the brother mistaken but not lying. That'd still make Shinwell an accessory, and maybe wracked with guilt, but would still allow him to say he never personally killed anyone.

[rainsmom]

The more we talk about it, the more I think it's going to turn out to be the little brother. The gang convinced the kid to do it, but it absolutely DESTROYED him. He made up an alternative story that he has made himself believe to keep himself sane.

Shinwell knows the truth, of course, and that's why he's determined to take down the gang, whom he blames for all of it. He lost one friend; he doesn't want the kid to lose his life due to the gang too -- even if it costs him his own life to protect the kid's fantasy.

[jhlipton]

On 3/27/2017 at 10:52 AM, basiltherat said:

I see a Mason/Dark Internet Broker Girl romance in the future.

I think DIB Girl was 13 to 15 so I don't see it.

 

3 hours ago, paigow said:

Sherlock concluded that Shinwell is the killer because the person- i.e. Watson - most likely to disbelieve little brother concurs with his own assessment. To a lesser degree, Sherlock also trusts the opinion of Det. Guzman.

The little brother may be convinced Shinwell killed Jameel, hence Sherlock and Watson believing him, but as pointed out, that may not be the case.

[CaptainCranky]

I normally love Elementary but this episode I just didn't care for. Not sure why but it is one I would not watch a second time.

[fastiller]

I'm 100% convinced that it was little brother (and have been since the possibility first came up).  This was reinforced during this week's episode of Major Crimes wherein we have someone who committed an awful act (albeit accidentally) as a young man who did a 180° turnaround into a fine upstanding college student.  I think it will turn out to have been an accident (the multiple shots notwithstanding).

[paigow]

Very few people have successfully lied to Sherlock - little brother is not anywhere near Moriarty / Mycroft ability. If little brother IS the killer: Holmes, Watson & Guzman failed to see it... Shinwell has no motivation for breaking SBK. Also, he would not try to kill Shinwell now...

[Clanstarling]

3 minutes ago, paigow said:

Very few people have successfully lied to Sherlock - little brother is not anywhere near Moriarty / Mycroft ability. If little brother IS the killer: Holmes, Watson & Guzman failed to see it... Shinwell has no motivation for breaking SBK. Also, he would not try to kill Shinwell now...

That's, of course, if he's consciously aware that he's telling a lie. Memory is a funny thing for a traumatized person.

[paigow]

Shinwell would know if little brother is lying...

[Clanstarling]

3 minutes ago, paigow said:

Shinwell would know if little brother is lying...

Yes, and he seems to be protective of him...

Truth be told, I don't particularly care about this plot. I tend to think Shinwell is the actual murderer. But I don't think Sherlock is infallible, and I think other possibilities exist.

Edited March 31, 2017 by Clanstarling

[johntfs]

19 hours ago, Canada said:

I can't see Shinwell being the killer.  The show has invested a lot of time with his redemption and there's no way they're going to ruin that with him turning out to be a killer.

I can't see Shinwell not being the killer.  It's really the only thing that makes sense in terms of his vendetta against SBK.  They tricked him into murdering his best friend and he wants to destroy them.  He hates himself for killing his best friend and he hates SBK for making him into a person who would kill his best friend.  It wouldn't surprise me to see Shinwell turn himself in for killing Jamal, but only after he destroys SBK.

[tvfanatic13]

Damn. I could not follow this one. Too many twists and turns. I too thought JM sounded like he was sick. 

[MisterGlass]

4 hours ago, johntfs said:

He hates himself for killing his best friend and he hates SBK for making him into a person who would kill his best friend.

It could be that he is so upset about it even these years later that he won't admit it because it was to painful.  If he was the friend SBK sent, then it is emotionally easier to say that SBK is responsible - the 'friend' was only following orders.

[jhlipton]

3 hours ago, tvfanatic13 said:

Damn. I could not follow this one. Too many twists and turns. I too thought JM sounded like he was sick. 

There's a ship called the Santa Lecitia (or something like that) that ran between Spain and NYC back in the day.  For most of its career, it never had gold or treasure, but this pirate named Black Peter loaded a treasure onto it and it sunk just off NYC before anyone else -- at all -- knew about the gold.

Mr Salvage hears about the ship and comes up with a plan: he'll sell 1000% of the gold on board to his investors.  After all, Every Single Authority says the ship is worthless.  So he gets the rights to salvage the ship.  But before he can start, this guy comes to him, wanting to salvage the ship himself because Black Peter says he should.  If there is gold onboard, Mr Salvage owes 10 times whatever they find, so he kills the guy with the book.

But there's still gold, so Mr Salvage sells the book, via Dark Internet Broker Girl, to the Saudi guy.  Saudi guy salvages the ship right quick, more for giggles than anything else, so now there's just a husk for Mr Salvage to "find".

Sherlock and Watson essentially follow the leads to Saudi guy and work backwards through the plot above to nab Mr Salvage.

[kieyra]

Was this some kind of misguided course-correction over the early complaints about Shinwell being dull?

Character is all over the map, and I don't think you come back from smashing a bottle over one of the lead's heads, not on a show like this. I mean, it seems obvious it's a double fakeout, but I think they went too far. They also forgot to make the character compelling even when he's being violent. 

[shapeshifter]

On March 27, 2017 at 0:00 AM, orza said:

It sounded like JLM had a bad cold.

Only in the first scene.

I suppose if Shinwell did not kill Jamil, then most likely the little brother did it, and Shinwell is covering for him. But Occam's Razor says Shinwell did do it for the reasons stated.

I loved Joan's blouse. *Off to find a close-up of the print design*
ETA: Here it is: https://wornontv.net/68157/ and: 

Edited April 1, 2017 by shapeshifter

[Trey]

Licorice allsorts...my least favourite candy but they sure look good on that blouse!

[sinkwriter]

Even if he didn't kill his friend, Shinwell still loses points with me for beating up Sherlock. How on earth was doing that supposed to help his case any? Sherlock is not one to scare easily - Shinwell's actions will only make Sherlock dig into the case even harder.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, sinkwriter said:

Even if he didn't kill his friend, Shinwell still loses points with me for beating up Sherlock. How on earth was doing that supposed to help his case any? Sherlock is not one to scare easily - Shinwell's actions will only make Sherlock dig into the case even harder.

Maybe the gang was watching Shinwell and he beat the crap out of Sherlock so he could communicate something to him and not blow his cover?

[basil]

Quote

Even if he didn't kill his friend, Shinwell still loses points with me for beating up Sherlock. How on earth was doing that supposed to help his case any? Sherlock is not one to scare easily - Shinwell's actions will only make Sherlock dig into the case even harder.

Shinwell wanted to make a point. Yes, he did beat up Sherlock, but he seemed to go out of his way not to truly harm him. The bottle hit him in the back, not the head. He kept him down, kicking him in the stomach, not the ribs or the head.

Shinwell says that any one who gets in the way will be hurt - that includes Joan. I'd think Sherlock would have to consider that. Why is Sherlock so fixated on a decade-old death of a gangbanger when he couldn't be bothered to help out a man whose son died of an overdose a few episodes back? Wounded pride that he misread Shinwell? Again, Sherlock is no saint. Aside from almost killing Moran, he beat another man nearly to death, because, what...the guy tried to get him on drugs again? Because he used his own sister's death in the process?
 

Quote

 

Maybe the gang was watching Shinwell and he beat the crap out of Sherlock so he could communicate something to him and not blow his cover?

 

I really feel like it's something more like this.

[paigow]

3 minutes ago, basil said:

 Why is Sherlock so fixated on a decade-old death of a gangbanger..

Guzman will have cause to revoke C.I. status for not disclosing all crimes....

[basil]

Quote

Guzman will have cause to revoke C.I. status for not disclosing all crimes....

Not if he can't prove them or doesn't know about them. This is a cold case. The only way it will be proven is if (maybe) Sherlock can do it - and why would he want to do that, based solely on the testimony of a person who was a child at the time and saw nothing? He's also changed his story. As it is, if the kid testifies, he'll have to confess to attempted murder.

Edited April 1, 2017 by basil

[paigow]

2 minutes ago, basil said:

if the kid testifies, he'll have to confess to attempted murder.

That was my question at the beginning of this thread...he freely admitted to shooting at Shinwell...was he arrested offscreen for this?

[basil]

1 hour ago, paigow said:

2 hours ago, basil said:

if the kid testifies, he'll have to confess to attempted murder.

That was my question at the beginning of this thread...he freely admitted to shooting at Shinwell...was he arrested offscreen for this?

I don't recall. People make false confessions with some frequency and are not arrested for them. Again, they only have the kid's word that he was the one who shot at Shinwell. In any case, it's a moot point regarding whether Shinwell is guilty of murder or not. When the murder occurred, the kid claimed he didn't see or hear anything. Now he says he heard laughter, a door opening, and 3 shots, and later saw Shinwell walking down the street , dropping "something" in a wastecan,, later saying he found the murder weapon there. It's his word against Shinwell's, and Shinwell says he's never murdered any one. How can this murder be proved?

eta, I re watched: The kid confessed what he heard the night of the murder to Guzman, Hell, he could be arrested for accessary after the fact for hiding the gun. He could also been tried for attempted murder. Guzman later said that the DA was not inclined to prosecute (either the kid or, presumably, Shinwell). The case is too old, there is no evidence, and the kid (whose story keeps changing) claims the murder weapon is in the river.

Quote

Sherlock concluded that Shinwell is the killer because the person- i.e. Watson - most likely to disbelieve little brother concurs with his own assessment. 

Actually, it was the other way around. Sherlock had to go to great lengths to convince Joan that Shinwell might be the murderer.

Edited April 2, 2017 by basil

[possibilities]

I am waiting to see what the show tells us about who actually dunnit. This show rarely uses occam's razor. But I don't find it out of character for Sherlock to be worked up about the idea that Shinwell might have lied to him-- he is especially sensitive to being lied to, or in any way duped; it strikes at his ego and his self-image of being impossible to fool, and also triggers his Moriarty trauma. And when his emotions get involved, that's when he makes mistakes or does stupid things. He's always been this way. He's a genius when rational, and a fool when his emotions get involved. Except for his love for Joan. That seems to be the one time he can feel and also use his brain.

[theatremouse]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Maybe the gang was watching Shinwell and he beat the crap out of Sherlock so he could communicate something to him and not blow his cover?

I don't think this is where they're going with it, but would be absolutely delighted if it were because that sounds much more interesting than what this plot has provided so far.

[basil]

Quote

I don't find it out of character for Sherlock to be worked up about the idea that Shinwell might have lied to him-- he is especially sensitive to being lied to, or in any way duped; it strikes at his ego and his self-image of being impossible to fool, and also triggers his Moriarty trauma. And when his emotions get involved, that's when he makes mistakes or does stupid things. He's always been this way. He's a genius when rational, and a fool when his emotions get involved. 

I understand what you're saying about Sherlock's sensitivity, but we have only seen him react this way when Sherlock either knows for sure he's been duped, or has a very good reason to believe he has. ALL he has to go on here, as far as I can tell, is the reversal of a ten year old's testimony twelve years later, and Shinwell being shot at with the same murder weapon that has now conveniently disappeared.. Not much evidence. Sherlock doesn't go with his guts. He goes with the facts. He never guesses : "It is a shocking habit,—destructive to the logical faculty."

Ah, well. Time will tell.

Edited April 2, 2017 by basil

[paigow]

3 hours ago, basil said:

Actually, it was the other way around. Sherlock had to go to great lengths to convince Joan that Shinwell might be the murderer.

Sherlock basically dared Joan to determine if little brother was lying.

[basil]

paigow, You started by saying this:

Quote

Sherlock concluded that Shinwell is the killer because the person- i.e. Watson - most likely to disbelieve little brother concurs with his own assessment. To a lesser degree, Sherlock also trusts the opinion of Det. Guzman - paigow

The opener of the show is Sherlock making his case with Joan that Shinwell is the murderer, and she is arguing emphatically against it - so no, Sherlock did not conclude that Shinwell is the murderer because Joan agreed with him. As I said, quite the opposite. Sherlock had to convince Joan and asked her to go with Guzman to listen to the younger brother give "a statement" to Guzman (which, oddly, seemed to be held in Damon's house).

Quote

Sherlock basically dared Joan to determine if little brother was lying.

Quote

*

Sherlock suggested that Joan accompany Guzman to listen to Damon, look him in the eye, and "then tell me if you're not convinced". Not exactly a "dare".

Guzman does not seem convinced either. He challenges Damon as to why he didn't turn the gun over to the police. It seems that Guzman is either entirely unconvinced or doesn't see the point in pursuing the case(s).

In addition, Sherlock says that Damon has proved himself an "unreliable witness" and "Shinwell a reliable informant", another reason why Guzman may be disinclined to even arrest Damon.

Since when do Sherlock and Joan make solid conclusions based on someone's statement with out anything to back it up?

Much later, Joan asks Sherlock why wants to "get a confession out of Shinwell now?". Sherlock seems to acting very much out of character, imo. It wouldn't be the first time Sherlock has let a killer walk free, either because the murdered person was a horrible person (as in the father who molested his child) or otherwise for the greater good. He's even almost framed a man for murder when he couldn't prove his guilt.

Edited April 2, 2017 by basil

[Vermicious Knid]

I've been wondering if Shinwell opened the door and let the trigger man in. Which makes him equally culpable while technically not the murderer.

[basil]

Quote

I've been wondering if Shinwell opened the door and let the trigger man in. Which makes him equally culpable while technically not the murderer

So, an unknown murderer, Shinwell and Damon as accessories (though Damon after the fact), and Damon obstructing justice, attempting another murder, and disposing of a murder weapon? Seems too convoluted even for TV. I hope they give us a resolution soon.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I loved the actor who plays Shinwell on True Blood so much, it's depressing to see him in this role. Even though he was more interesting last night, it's just not good.

Agreed. Granted, he went from the just-barely-concious character he's been all season to someone with a bit more life in him, but I still feel like the writers have over-estimated this character in terms of how compelling he could be. There's just not enough there to justify this much of a storyline spent on him all season long. I feel like Shinwell is single-handedly going to kill this show because every time I see an episode description that says something about Shinwell I just sort of groan and I don't look forward to watching it at all. 

[CaptainTightpants]

On 3/31/2017 at 4:07 PM, johntfs said:

I can't see Shinwell not being the killer.

I'm with you 100%. Given the dialogue while Shinwell was kicking the snot out of Sherlock I think it is pretty clear that he killed his friend. He is going to have to be dead to me from now on. I found the beating scene to be awful. It is so so easy to critically injure somebody by kicking them repeatedly in the abdomen, even if you are not a bid guy wearing boots. I'm kind of expecting Sherlock to end up in the hospital after this one. 

I wouldn't have thought it was possible for Nelsan Ellis to play a non-compelling character. He was just about my favorite thing in True Blood. And he gives a very interesting interview as himself. But Shinwell has been a total loss for me from day one. I kept thinking he was going to evolve into something more interesting. But after assaulting Sherlock, I'm done with him. I don't care that he feels used by SBK to murder his friend. He crossed a line in the last episode that you can't come back from. 

So I'm assuming that he is either going to end up back in prison or getting killed off himself. Either way I can't see him being on the show much longer.

It's a shame, I was really looking forward to seeing Nelsan Ellis back on my screen when it was announced that he had been added to the cast. I hope that his next role is equal to his talents! 

[possibilities]

On 4/2/2017 at 9:29 AM, basil said:

Seems too convoluted even for TV.

This show loves a convoluted story, though.

[basil]

Quote

I found the beating scene to be awful. It is so so easy to critically injure somebody by kicking them repeatedly in the abdomen, even if you are not a bid  [sic] guy wearing boots. I'm kind of expecting Sherlock to end up in the hospital after this one. 

If you're looking to make a point without permanent damage, and you know what you're doing, kicking someone in the solar plexus periodically will do that without any real damage. No ribs will be broken, no organs damaged (don't ask me how I know this). Shinwell could have killed Sherlock or hurt him very badly. He almost seemed to go out of his way not to.

Quote

This show loves a convoluted story, though

Point taken. ;)