And here, we have the eager look of a man earning his pay. Egotistical beyond belief, isn’t it, that Holmes would have him actually flirt with him? Did he have no shame?
(Source: 221who)
CAN WE JUST TALK ABOUT THE FACT
THAT MORIARTY APPEARS HALFWAY THROUGH SCANDAL IN BELGRAVIA
JUST TO BLOW A RASPBERRY
That doesn’t sound like the actions of a true mastermind. To an actor who needs to keep his act fresh, and gratify his employer’s need for an unexpected thrill…
Anonymous asked: Could you tell us a bit about yourself and why you started this blog? Are you ever going to make an about page?
You can call me a bystander interested in the truth. And thus, I became a bystander interested in Richard Brook. The street movement to support Sherlock Holmes is obvious and active. I sort of consider myself a participant in an anti-secret society secret society.
I’ve always wanted to do something for the world. But let’s be honest: I’m never going to save the whales or end world hunger. The story of Richard Brook is at once great enough to change the world, and manageable enough that one person really can make a difference.
We all have our battlegrounds. I’ve finally found mine.
Anonymous asked: Why are you defending Richard Brook? I wouldn't call him kind or decent. Even if he's obviously not a SUPER CRIMINAL, he's still a conman.
Sherlock Holmes is the conman. Richard Brook was basically a prop in Holmes’s schemes. It’s not a flattering take for him, surely, but it’s true.
Think of it like this: what damage was he doing, at first? At first, nothing. He was an actor, so he was acting. He was no more a conman than a troupe hired to liven up a murder mystery dinner party are conmen. Yes, there’s an element of lying, but there is in all theater. It’s a question of extremity.
Of course, once people started getting hurt… What was he supposed to do? Quit? Run? Even when he suddenly knows what his employer is capable of? He tried to run at the end. Journalism and public knowledge is always the refuge of the secretly damned, but even Holmes’s fraud becoming public knowledge couldn’t save him.
i beg to differ.
Don’t believe Holmes’s lies!
A fraud’s suicide does not excuse murder. Richard Brook was innocent!
He didn’t say a word at the trial but he was so expressive he didn’t need to.
The scene from the first gif always cracks me up, the way he’s trying not to laugh…
He was so funny and scary as hell, his look on the last one…
He should have stopped. Of course, he should have stopped. But look into your heart, and then say that any actor could resist a part like this. But it’s a calculated gamble, isn’t it? Barely any risk. And he did get off, after all. Completely free and clear.
He just ended up trusting Holmes too far…
(via eleanorfenyx)
So why do you think Rich was innocent, if he even existed at all?
Edit: A thousand reasons. First, I have to say look at his work. It’s on DVD. For him to be a fake, that means a “criminal mastermind” took years out of his evil deeds to audition for, win, and perform a children’s show. On the offchance that persona might be useful? Or were they always gunning for Sherlock Holmes? Really. Someone always coming after you, laying those traps for years and years. How big an ego could Holmes have had, to believe that?
so searching up richard brook on google
haha, nice jim.
*clicks on link*
BROOK IS INNOCENT.
coming soon.
Those of us who know are gathering.
You’re in or you’re out. You’re on Richard’s side, or you’re on Holmes’s.
I don’t know who would write such a thing when left alone in the dendro lab. Hm.
Finally! Someone sees the light!
This is not a battle that can be won in courthouses; we must take to the streets, enmasse, those who know the truth.
Hello, are you ready for the story?
You can’t say “but look, he looks scary, he must be real!”
He’s an actor. A fine actor. A dangerous man, perhaps, in the way that theater people are—blind to danger in their pursuit of the role of a lifetime. Until it’s too late, of course.
Sherlock Holmes is a murderer.
(Source: good-oldfashionedvillain)
