A blast from the past: A few things Sherlock could have said to the evil cabby

I recently rewatched the first episode of the excellent BBC TV series “Sherlock” starring Benedict Cumberbatch and Martin Freeman, written by Steven Moffatt and Mark Gatiss. It is called “A Study in Pink” and is inspired by Conan Doyle’s “A Study in Scarlet,” minus the original’s anti-Mormon backstory.

SPOILER

The murderer’s evil scheme is to lure people away from their friends and give them a choice of two identical bottles containing identical pills. One (he says) is poison and will kill you instantly; the other will have no effect. The murderer says: “you choose and swallow one; then I’ll choose and swallow the other. Otherwise I will shoot you. I am making my move” – and he pushes forward one of the bottles. He intends the victim to attempt to read his mind in order to pick the “safe” pill… but all the victims so far have failed, and are dead.

The concept of testing someone’s moral worth, courage, or acceptability to God by making them eat, drink or do something that may kill them is not uncommon. But I don’t know any example of this particular gambit except its use in the film and presumably the book “The Princess Bride.” Here, interestingly, it’s used against the secondary villain by the (very cool but morally rather grey) hero – who also cheats.

Well.  I basically think Sherlock missed out a lot of possible angles and arguments. If I’m ever in such a situation, the following is my plan.

After praying for guidance, I would take both bottles and mix them up thoroughly so that I didn’t know which one I was offered. After all, why should I expect to read the mind of a serial killer? I would however be interested in whether this action alarmed him/her. If it didn’t, then probably the pills were in fact the same (see below.)

I would then point out the various scenarios, and there are actually a lot more than the three discussed in the programme. Thus:

1. I choose the bad pill and die. My family wonders if it was suicide or murder.
2. I choose the innocent pill and live. The villain takes the bad pill and dies. I then have to persuade the police that my version of events is true.
3. I refuse to play, and am shot dead. My family wonders as above, but I suspect it’s harder to fake a suicide with a gun and a conscious and resistant victim…
4. I refuse to play, and attack the villain. Probably ends up the same as 3. HOWEVER… all the above scenarios assume that the villain is telling the truth. Sherlock and I have absolutely no reason to think this. The villain is a kidnapper and serial killer. So…
5. In this scenario, both pills are bad. I die, the villain walks away.
6. Both pills are innocent. (Unlikely.) The villain pretends it’s all a joke, or possibly shoots me anyway.
7. I refuse to play, but the gun is fake. This was what happened to Sherlock. He had plainly won the game, but incredibly the villain almost succeeded in persuading him to try again. (A third party then intervened.) I am not Sherlock, and am not I hope likely to do anything so silly. In this case…the villain lets me leave…
8. As 7, but the villain tries to persuade me not to tell the police… or alternatively lets me leave the room and then attacks me from behind.
9. I choose the innocent pill; the villain cheats and kills me anyway.
10. I refuse to co operate. The gun is a fake, so we have a fight. I would probably lose, but maybe not.
11. I refuse to co operate. The gun is a fake, so we sit quietly until a third party (cleaners? Accomplices of the villain?) come in and break up the party. Or until one of us falls asleep.

Since in my view the two worst possible scenarios are my family thinking that I have committed suicide, and a serial killer getting away with his crime… I see no reason why any sensible person would accept the wager and play this game.

Sherlock therefore is a bit of an idiot.

Love from the PPI Blogger

PS The villain is an ally of Moriarty. Why on earth doesn’t he have a real gun?