I suppose it was inevitable that eventually Elementary would ask, "what was Holmes capable of when he was in the depths of his addiction?" According to the police, it just might have been murder. When the body of a woman murdered three years ago turns up, with a note from Sherlock Holmes (Jonny Lee Miller) among her effects, the police--or anyway, the ones investigating the crime--consider Holmes a suspect. Elementary has many times explored whether one's identity is fixed, or whether one can gradually change over time, generally coming down on the optimistic side of change. Is identity plastic enough for Holmes to have been a murderer, though? He initially argues that his moral compass would never allow him to commit a murder, no matter how far gone on drugs he was, though as the episode progresses he comes to doubt himself, as he cannot remember what happened.
Fortunately, the suspicions of investigating officer Detective Demps (guest star Richard Brooks, who many will recognize from his various parts over the years, notably DA Robinette on La and Order) are not shared by Team Holmes. Gregson (Aidan Quinn) allows Demps and his partner to question Holmes but clearly does not share their suspicions. More notably, Watson (Lucy Liu) insists that she "knows" Holmes can't have done it, even when Holmes himself comes to doubt. Can Watson know Holmes better than he knows himself? Or is she being, as he argues, illogical? Is her belief in his innocence grounded in knowledge of his essential nature, or in her desire for him to be innocent? The more more interesting option might have been the latter, but the episode seems to opt instead for the former.
The investigation leads to one of Holmes's former drug buddies, Oscar Rankin (Michael Weston), who holmes hopes might remember something about the time in question. Oscar, however, instead pins the blame on Holmes, reporting that Holmes was capable of anything at the time (he recounts waking up once to find holmes holding a knife to his throat) and he even provides Watson with evidence--blood-stained clothing he stole from Holmes's brownstone at the time of the murder (a theft rather thinly justified as him keeping an insurance policy in case Holmes ever tried to pin the crime on him)--Watson maintains her faith. Indeed, and of course, this evidence does not mean what Oscar thought it meant. It is not evidence of Holmes's crime but instead of his innocence: they are the evidence the murder victim had brought to Holmes when seeking his help in bringing someone who killed someone else to justice: a politician who murdered a friend's wife.
This episode showcases well the partnership between Holmes and Watson by giving a fair bit of the load in solving the crime to Watson. Though the episode initially pays lip service to the fact that, as a suspect, Holmes would not be permitted to be involved in any investigation by having Watson make initial inquiries herself and bring Bell (Jon Michael Hill) on board, however, by the mid point this reality is quietly forgotten, as Holmes and Watson collaborate to work out what really happened. Holmes recognizes the evidence Watson retrieved from Oscar as the clothing the politician was wearing in a picture in his office (convenient!), so Watson's persistence and leg work, and Holmes's amazing powers of observation, are both necessary to close the case.
As cases go, it's not particularly deep or complex. The episode is marginally more interesting for how it keeps Holmes's addiction a central element of his character, even while he is clean; we are not allowed to forget about it, or about how it has impacted and continues to impact his life. Most shows would probably have allowed the addiction to fade quietly by now (anyone remember Reed on Criminal Minds being a drug addict for a while? He's apparently easily able to just say no now). Holmes's final gesture in the episode, an attempt to convince Oscar to go to rehab, makes explicit (by having it in the dialogue) the ongoing necessity for addicts to make amends. We are left with a delicate balance between a character, Holmes, who seems to have been able to change, and another, Oscar, who seems trapped in his addiction. I think it's good that Elementary does not settle for a simple bromide about how one can change if only one puts one's mind to it. it is also admirable for its insistence on consequences; though holmes did bnot kill the woman, his addiction meant he forgot she even existe,d or that he was concerned for her welfare, leaving her murder unsolved for three years. Nevertheless, the episode seemed to be more of a place-holder than a genuine step forward. it was a solid but unspectacular episode--in my opinion. But what about yours? Let me know in the comments below.
