True Detective

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Anyone catch the line the kids’ mother says to Amelia when they are talking? She was talking about the rough home life and how the “children should laugh”. Same as what was on the note that the family found.

Okay, finally caught up. First, the Easter Egg with S1 is huge. It really makes you re-think everything you've seen so far. It doesn't necessarily help solve anything, but still - it suggests a shared universe and that is exciting. Additionally, there is some thematic overlap wrt The Yellow King and such - too soon to dig into that yet though.

As to the mystery of what happened - no idea; this show is nothing if not good at dropping red herrings like they were hot potatoes. For me, it's all about the mom - her quote about children smiling, and subsequent breakdown when talking to Amelia - something is there; just not sure what. Still, there is something missing. Hays mentions it - just not sure what it is yet.

And while it hasn't been mentioned yet, Carmen Ejogo as Amelia is smoldering...she wants sex and drinking all night in a rando motel. YES PLZ.

 

[RandyL]

Boy do I agree about Ejogo. A beautiful, mature looking woman.

 

[Grant Green]

Anyone catch the line the kids’ mother says to Amelia when they are talking? She was talking about the rough home life and how the “children should laugh”. Same as what was on the note that the family found.

Nice one dude!

 

[WestSideLion]

Anyone catch the line the kids’ mother says to Amelia when they are talking? She was talking about the rough home life and how the “children should laugh”. Same as what was on the note that the family found.

My wife and I caught and discussed that. We think it’s another red herring. The mom isn’t smart enough to be in on this. The other options are that the daughter accidentally killed her brother and fled (and heard mom say that line, thus included it in a note) or the uncle-cousin did similar. I think both are a bridge too far.

 

[Grant Green]

My wife and I caught and discussed that. We think it’s another red herring. The mom isn’t smart enough to be in on this. The other options are that the daughter accidentally killed her brother and fled (and heard mom say that line, thus included it in a note) or the uncle-cousin did similar. I think both are a bridge too far.

I've thought about the girl did it angle. definitely possible but I think it still has to tie into the occult story. perhaps they get to her afterward?

 

[rudedude]

Hays also gives the mother a suspicious glance when he is in the kids bedroom. Also, the mother went from a confessional to psychotic in a minute. She appeared to be confessing something to Amelia with the “soul of a whore” line and saying she did terrible things. If she was such a slut could she have been the one to turn the kids over to pedophile/cult members?

It’s also becoming more obvious to me that Hays was set up to be taken off the case because I believe he will get too close to the hidden truth due to his LRRP skills. Also appears Roland was injured at some point because he is limping in 1990. He has risen through the ranks and perhaps his reward was keeping his mouth shut when Hays was discredited. Just a theory.

Lucy, the kid’s mother, looked awful familiar to me. Turns out the actress, Mamie Gummer, is Meryl Streep’s daughter.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Hays also gives the mother a suspicious glance when he is in the kids bedroom. Also, the mother went from a confessional to psychotic in a minute. She appeared to be confessing something to Amelia with the “soul of a whore” line and saying she did terrible things. If she was such a slut could she have been the one to turn the kids over to pedophile/cult members?

It’s also becoming more obvious to me that Hays was set up to be taken off the case because I believe he will get too close to the hidden truth due to his LRRP skills. Also appears Roland was injured at some point because he is limping in 1990. He has risen through the ranks and perhaps his reward was keeping his mouth shut when Hays was discredited. Just a theory.

Lucy, the kid’s mother, looked awful familiar to me. Turns out the actress, Mamie Gummer, is Meryl Streep’s daughter.

This makes a lot of sense - remember in their first task force meeting Roland says something like, ‘we thought the girl was dead and we were wrong,’ and Hays says, ‘not we’ or something like that - suggesting he was of a different opinion as to what was happening during the original case.

 

[rudedude]

My wife and I caught and discussed that. We think it’s another red herring. The mom isn’t smart enough to be in on this. The other options are that the daughter accidentally killed her brother and fled (and heard mom say that line, thus included it in a note) or the uncle-cousin did similar. I think both are a bridge too far.

Why is “should” the only misspelled word on the sheet? Kinda implicates someone of low intelligence, the mother!

 

[WestSideLion]

Why is “should” the only misspelled word on the sheet? Kinda implicates someone of low intelligence, the mother!

“A person of low intelligence” is broad. It could also be a kid that isn’t very good at spelling or grammar. We’ll see where it goes. The mom may have been behind the note for reasons other than being involved.

 

[LongJakk]

I'm currently thinking that there are actually 3 events that occurred. The girl is taken or sold. The boy goes looking for her is chased by the VW kid . He trips, hits his head on a rock and dies. Dead eye guy finds him dead and puts him in cave along with dolls. I'm guessing that this guy is falsely accused of the boys death and girls disappearance.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm currently thinking that there are actually 3 events that occurred. The girl is taken or sold. The boy goes looking for her is chased by the VW kid . He trips, hits his head on a rock and dies. Dead eye guy finds him dead and puts him in cave along with dolls. I'm guessing that this guy is falsely accused of the boys death and girls disappearance.

Too much of a coincidence that the boy falls and accidentally dies right near their play spot in the woods (where the toys and dice were found) in your scenario. Maybe it was an accident, but it is very unlikely it happened during a chase with the teens.

Regarding the guy with the dead eye (and the dolls), there are three possibilities:

1) The racist church lady is lying about who she sold the dolls to because she is involved (this would point to a church connection, which explains the pose of the dead boy).

2) The guy with the dead eye is lying, but he seemed pretty believable and is likely not involved.

3) There is another black guy with a dead eye in town; they allude to there being lots of injuries from the chicken processing plant, so it's not impossible that there is a second dead eye guy. This would point to a chicken company connection, which could potentially link the birth mother back into involvement (which would make sense because of the note "children shud")

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Too much of a coincidence that the boy falls and accidentally dies right near their play spot in the woods (where the toys and dice were found) in your scenario. Maybe it was an accident, but it is very unlikely it happened during a chase with the teens.

Regarding the guy with the dead eye (and the dolls), there are three possibilities:

1) The racist church lady is lying about who she sold the dolls to because she is involved (this would point to a church connection, which explains the pose of the dead boy).

2) The guy with the dead eye is lying, but he seemed pretty believable and is likely not involved.

3) There is another black guy with a dead eye in town; they allude to there being lots of injuries from the chicken processing plant, so it's not impossible that there is a second dead eye guy. This would point to a chicken company connection, which could potentially link the birth mother back into involvement (which would make sense because of the note "children shud")

Additionally, there was some build up to a 'black guy and white girl' driving around in a nice, brown car. So far, the only white and black persons driving around in a nice brown car are Hays and West.

Okay, and now that we're four episodes in, let's get a little nuts...

This is the first bonkers/rabbit hole theory I've come across with some real teeth. The killer? It's Amelia. Here's a link to a deep dive of the theory - and it sort of adds up (and even explains a few things). I'm not sure I'm completely sold, but it's definitely adding a layer of mystery that was so prevalent, and fun to chat about, in S1.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...iller-amelia-season-3-episode-3-the-big-never

Here's a taste; the article has much more (this may also explain some of Hays's issue with remembering Amelia - he may have discovered that she did it and tried to hide it; jives with his vision of her where she says something like, 'Are you afraid they're going to find out what you left out there (the crime scene/woods)?':

BUT WHY?: O.K., why, other than the aforementioned evil rot, would Amelia do something like this? I’d say ambition. A classic deduction tactic in Agatha Christie novels (listen, she’s the best, so why not use her as a blueprint?) is to try to determine who profits from any given crime or murder. (Cui bono? Follow the money. Etc.) The answer in this case is, quite literally, Amelia. She gets a best-seller out of the whole deal. In Episode 2, when Wayne asks the 1980 version of Amelia if she likes teaching, she gets a deeply bored look on her face before saying that what she really wants to do is write.

It’s creepy to consider, but the fastest way to put together a best-selling true-crime book is certainly to both commit the murder and make yourself essential to the investigation.

Speaking of that bored look, if Wayne hadn’t been so blinded by lust and love, he might have noticed a few funny other looks on his wife’s face. Like the disappointment/fear in 1990 when he tells her Julie might be alive. Sure, that might just be an author concerned over what this development means for her soon-to-be-published book, but I’d like to hope that Amelia would be happy to learn that Julie might be O.K.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I'm currently leaning towards the theory (and I realize others have said this) that Amelia did it.


Evidence to support this theory:

Motive: She stated early on that she wanted to be an author. By manufacturing a case to write about and positioning herself next to the lead detective for the case, she would be able to write a very compelling book because she would be able to (without directly saying so) write from both the killer’s perspective and the detective’s perspective.

Access: She knew Will from school (she taught him in class) and was good at getting close to kids (as evidenced during the investigation when she helps out).

Supporting Evidence:

1) We know some odd things about her including that she was involved with the Black Panthers in CA (and things “went bad”) and she sometimes goes to St. Louis under a fake identity.

2) She’s VERY into using her sexuality to get information out of the Oklahoma police in 1990 and there is clearly a rift in their marriage when the case is reopened in 1990.

3) Whenever Hays pushes her for personal information, she either deflects or suggests sex.

4) We know something big happened between her and her husband (Hays), which led to the estrangement of their daughter.

5) We also know that something happened to Hays’ career as a result of this case.

6) We also know that Hays has never read the book. He says it because he doesn’t like seeing his name in it, but maybe there’s another reason?

7) Could 4&5 point to him figuring out that she did it and not turning her in?

8) Outside the town hall meeting in episode 2(?), she is picked up by a black man in a new brown car. Brown car is referenced as being seen out by where the kids played as containing a black man and a white woman. She is relatively light skinned and could be mistaken for white from far away. We haven’t seen this black guy again, but I can’t imagine they’d have him pick her up (rather than her driving herself) if he wasn’t something important.

9) She seems to be the only teacher who takes an interest in helping the police and even goes out of her way to deliver the art projects to their mom (why not send those with Hays?)

10)Some of the clues that don’t seem to make 100% sense (i.e. the ties back to the church) could be the result of her creating false trails to cover herself.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

I'm currently leaning towards the theory (and I realize others have said this) that Amelia did it.


Evidence to support this theory:

Motive: She stated early on that she wanted to be an author. By manufacturing a case to write about and positioning herself next to the lead detective for the case, she would be able to write a very compelling book because she would be able to (without directly saying so) write from both the killer’s perspective and the detective’s perspective.

Access: She knew Will from school (she taught him in class) and was good at getting close to kids (as evidenced during the investigation when she helps out).

Supporting Evidence:

1) We know some odd things about her including that she was involved with the Black Panthers in CA (and things “went bad”) and she sometimes goes to St. Louis under a fake identity.

2) She’s VERY into using her sexuality to get information out of the Oklahoma police in 1990 and there is clearly a rift in their marriage when the case is reopened in 1990.

3) Whenever Hays pushes her for personal information, she either deflects or suggests sex.

4) We know something big happened between her and her husband (Hays), which led to the estrangement of their daughter.

5) We also know that something happened to Hays’ career as a result of this case.

6) We also know that Hays has never read the book. He says it because he doesn’t like seeing his name in it, but maybe there’s another reason?

7) Could 4&5 point to him figuring out that she did it and not turning her in?

8) Outside the town hall meeting in episode 2(?), she is picked up by a black man in a new brown car. Brown car is referenced as being seen out by where the kids played as containing a black man and a white woman. She is relatively light skinned and could be mistaken for white from far away. We haven’t seen this black guy again, but I can’t imagine they’d have him pick her up (rather than her driving herself) if he wasn’t something important.

9) She seems to be the only teacher who takes an interest in helping the police and even goes out of her way to deliver the art projects to their mom (why not send those with Hays?)

10)Some of the clues that don’t seem to make 100% sense (i.e. the ties back to the church) could be the result of her creating false trails to cover herself.

Think we were posting at the same time. I think it also provides lots of evidence that at least some of Hays' memory issues are sort of self-inflicted (chooses not to remember because it's too painful). The other glaring question here is, how and why was the original investigation so botched? When being interviewed in 2015, the show interviewer has tons of evidence that Hays doesn't have or seem to remember. Some obvious stuff seems to be overlooked (too obvious for a trained hunter like Wayne). Was Hays the one steering things away from Amelia?

 

[PSU2UNC]

Think we were posting at the same time. I think it also provides lots of evidence that at least some of Hays' memory issues are sort of self-inflicted (chooses not to remember because it's too painful). The other glaring question here is, how and why was the original investigation so botched? When being interviewed in 2015, the show interviewer has tons of evidence that Hays doesn't have or seem to remember. Some obvious stuff seems to be overlooked (too obvious for a trained hunter like Wayne). Was Hays the one steering things away from Amelia?

Agreed.

Some of the botched investigation stuff (e.g. only certain neighbors interviewed; no follow up with seemingly important witnesses) could be explained either by:

1) Some sort of high level cover up in the department (e.g. covering for important people at Hoyt)

2) Purposeful misdirection by someone on the ground (e.g. Hays to protect Amelia).

 

[Grant Green]

I read the Amelia theory as well. There is some twisted motive there and it would be someone that you don't expect. However, I don't know if it is that interesting of a conclusion compared to a more vast conspiracy. So far, the first two seasons have involved a larger group of people that commit/contribute to the crime. Also, I can't help but think that the killer has some tie to Season 1.

In Season 1, the first 4 or 5 episodes led to Reggie Ledoux, who was obviously a false lead. They didn't get on the right path until after episode 5 (iirc) and I wouldn't be surprised if that repeats in Season 3.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I read the Amelia theory as well. There is some twisted motive there and it would be someone that you don't expect. However, I don't know if it is that interesting of a conclusion compared to a more vast conspiracy. So far, the first two seasons have involved a larger group of people that commit/contribute to the crime. Also, I can't help but think that the killer has some tie to Season 1.

In Season 1, the first 4 or 5 episodes led to Reggie Ledoux, who was obviously a false lead. They didn't get on the right path until after episode 5 (iirc) and I wouldn't be surprised if that repeats in Season 3.

This is a good point (that there are always lots of false leads).

However, in Season 1, we are convinced that there is a huge conspiracy and then we basically learn it's really just one really messed up family that has almost died out except for two messed up siblings, the brother being the "Yellow King".

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

This is a good point (that there are always lots of false leads).

However, in Season 1, we are convinced that there is a huge conspiracy and then we basically learn it's really just one really messed up family that has almost died out except for two messed up siblings, the brother being the "Yellow King".

Sort of - he was part of a bigger, more well known family but didn't have the protections they did (they were tied to the governor or something). So, at the end of S1, the detectives sort of lament the fact that they weren't able to get everyone, but had to take some satisfaction in that they at least got 'someone'.

I will say the 'final episodes' of S1 and S2 is where things got explained nearly from the get go - I expect that to happen this season too (noting we're halfway through, and it looks like there is about to be another big action set piece at the Native American's house).

 

[PSU2UNC]

Sort of - he was part of a bigger, more well known family but didn't have the protections they did (they were tied to the governor or something). So, at the end of S1, the detectives sort of lament the fact that they weren't able to get everyone, but had to take some satisfaction in that they at least got 'someone'.

I will say the 'final episodes' of S1 and S2 is where things got explained nearly from the get go - I expect that to happen this season too (noting we're halfway through, and it looks like there is about to be another big action set piece at the Native American's house).

But wasn't most of the family (Tuttles/Childress') dead by the end of Season 1? Or am I misremembering that?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

But wasn't most of the family (Tuttles/Childress') dead by the end of Season 1? Or am I misremembering that?

I don't think so - just the father of the killer (I think the killer had him tied up in the shed when the detectives arrive?). The rest of the family was more well to do and less likely to get caught (think they hid behind the church?). I'm a bit fuzzy but believe there were more and they were still out there.

 

[Grant Green]

Sort of - he was part of a bigger, more well known family but didn't have the protections they did (they were tied to the governor or something). So, at the end of S1, the detectives sort of lament the fact that they weren't able to get everyone, but had to take some satisfaction in that they at least got 'someone'.

I will say the 'final episodes' of S1 and S2 is where things got explained nearly from the get go - I expect that to happen this season too (noting we're halfway through, and it looks like there is about to be another big action set piece at the Native American's house).

This is a good point (that there are always lots of false leads).

However, in Season 1, we are convinced that there is a huge conspiracy and then we basically learn it's really just one really messed up family that has almost died out except for two messed up siblings, the brother being the "Yellow King".

What Midnighter said. The Tuttle family had the connection to Childress. They were as big a part of the overall story. Now if they connect Amelia to something bigger....
I wonder if the DA or AG end up being involved in this Season. I don't recall who makes the decision to alert the town about the dolls in E2.

I think we get introduced to some new characters/leads in the next episode or two.

Side note - I just started watching Ozark as well. Interesting to be into both of these shows simultaneously.

 

[PSU2UNC]

I don't think so - just the father of the killer (I think the killer had him tied up in the shed when the detectives arrive?). The rest of the family was more well to do and less likely to get caught (think they hid behind the church?). I'm a bit fuzzy but believe there were more and they were still out there.

I guess they aren't all dead, but at least three (maybe four) are:

Sam Tuttle (grandfather and possibly the original Yellow King) is dead.
Erroll Childress' father (as you mention, tied up in shed) is dead
The politician (senator) who had the video tape that Rust steal is dead.

Reggie LaDoux (sp?) who was thought one of the "five horseman" on the tape, is also dead.

 

[rudedude]

Additionally, there was some build up to a 'black guy and white girl' driving around in a nice, brown car. So far, the only white and black persons driving around in a nice brown car are Hays and West.

Okay, and now that we're four episodes in, let's get a little nuts...

This is the first bonkers/rabbit hole theory I've come across with some real teeth. The killer? It's Amelia. Here's a link to a deep dive of the theory - and it sort of adds up (and even explains a few things). I'm not sure I'm completely sold, but it's definitely adding a layer of mystery that was so prevalent, and fun to chat about, in S1.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywoo...iller-amelia-season-3-episode-3-the-big-never

Here's a taste; the article has much more (this may also explain some of Hays's issue with remembering Amelia - he may have discovered that she did it and tried to hide it; jives with his vision of her where she says something like, 'Are you afraid they're going to find out what you left out there (the crime scene/woods)?':

BUT WHY?: O.K., why, other than the aforementioned evil rot, would Amelia do something like this? I’d say ambition. A classic deduction tactic in Agatha Christie novels (listen, she’s the best, so why not use her as a blueprint?) is to try to determine who profits from any given crime or murder. (Cui bono? Follow the money. Etc.) The answer in this case is, quite literally, Amelia. She gets a best-seller out of the whole deal. In Episode 2, when Wayne asks the 1980 version of Amelia if she likes teaching, she gets a deeply bored look on her face before saying that what she really wants to do is write.

It’s creepy to consider, but the fastest way to put together a best-selling true-crime book is certainly to both commit the murder and make yourself essential to the investigation.

Speaking of that bored look, if Wayne hadn’t been so blinded by lust and love, he might have noticed a few funny other looks on his wife’s face. Like the disappointment/fear in 1990 when he tells her Julie might be alive. Sure, that might just be an author concerned over what this development means for her soon-to-be-published book, but I’d like to hope that Amelia would be happy to learn that Julie might be O.K.

 

[Grant Green]

Rudedude knows too much about this case. I'm beginning to have some suspicions. Ever been to Arkansas dude?

 

[rudedude]

Rudedude knows too much about this case. I'm beginning to have some suspicions. Ever been to Arkansas dude?

I’ve got the soul of a whore (in a brown paper bag under my desk!)

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Public Service Announcement - Episode 5 available now on HBO GO. Probably because of the SB on Sunday.

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN EPISODE 5

*****
****
***
**
*

So, what do we know after last night's episode?

- The Native American vet Woodard was found guilty for the Purcell's murder(s), despite him obviously not being the culprit. This is further reinforced in 1990 when Hays sees pics of Purcell children items found at the scene, noting Will's backpack, which was found under the porch of Woodard's house, barely had any dirt/grime on it.

- The conspiracy appears to be getting bigger. Someone wanted Woodard framed for the Purcell murder(s), either to draw attention away from what really happened and who was involved, or for political motivation (close the case quickly, nab your guy, build a political career on it). This is supported by the introduction of a fairly well known actor as a police officer who worked the Woodard crime scene for three days, but went missing by 1990. It also looks like Lucy Purcell may have been murdered via OD, and her brother might have been killed too (tying up loose ends if it turns out they were involved). Additionally, a set of 'unknown' fingerprints found at the scene have gone missing despite being in the evidence room that entire time....

- 2015 Roland West is the man.

- Still not sure about Amelia - she is awful curious about this case. Could be that it's her writer's instinct and curiosity, but wow is it wrecking her marriage. We know she aspires to bigger and better things, but she seems to be going way above the call of duty to get her story (pretending to be unmarried so someone will give her information). I'm not ruling her out though...

- Very interested to know 'what we did' means wrt West and Hays; did they kill someone to keep a secret? Whatever it was, it haunts both of them.

- Not sure how I feel about Julie's phone call and the references to the 'pink room' and being a princess. This feels like forced cosmic horror stuff, but maybe it'll pay off.

Thoughts?

 

[WestSideLion]

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN EPISODE 5

*****
****
***
**
*

So, what do we know after last night's episode?

- The Native American vet Woodard was found guilty for the Purcell's murder(s), despite him obviously not being the culprit. This is further reinforced in 1990 when Hays sees pics of Purcell children items found at the scene, noting Will's backpack, which was found under the porch of Woodard's house, barely had any dirt/grime on it.

- The conspiracy appears to be getting bigger. Someone wanted Woodard framed for the Purcell murder(s), either to draw attention away from what really happened and who was involved, or for political motivation (close the case quickly, nab your guy, build a political career on it). This is supported by the introduction of a fairly well known actor as a police officer who worked the Woodard crime scene for three days, but went missing by 1990. It also looks like Lucy Purcell may have been murdered via OD, and her brother might have been killed too (tying up loose ends if it turns out they were involved). Additionally, a set of 'unknown' fingerprints found at the scene have gone missing despite being in the evidence room that entire time....

- 2015 Roland West is the man.

- Still not sure about Amelia - she is awful curious about this case. Could be that it's her writer's instinct and curiosity, but wow is it wrecking her marriage. We know she aspires to bigger and better things, but she seems to be going way above the call of duty to get her story (pretending to be unmarried so someone will give her information). I'm not ruling her out though...

- Very interested to know 'what we did' means wrt West and Hays; did they kill someone to keep a secret? Whatever it was, it haunts both of them.

- Not sure how I feel about Julie's phone call and the references to the 'pink room' and being a princess. This feels like forced cosmic horror stuff, but maybe it'll pay off.

Thoughts?

My initial thought on the last point was that the hidden princess stuff may have pointed to the Hoyt Family conspiracy theory. They were “royalty,” lost a daughter and may have wanted to replace the lost child with Julie. She refers to her birth father as the man pretending to be her father, which almost seems like she made a choice (?) to move away from her birth family.

 

[rudedude]

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN EPISODE 5

*****
****
***
**
*

So, what do we know after last night's episode?

- The Native American vet Woodard was found guilty for the Purcell's murder(s), despite him obviously not being the culprit. This is further reinforced in 1990 when Hays sees pics of Purcell children items found at the scene, noting Will's backpack, which was found under the porch of Woodard's house, barely had any dirt/grime on it.

- The conspiracy appears to be getting bigger. Someone wanted Woodard framed for the Purcell murder(s), either to draw attention away from what really happened and who was involved, or for political motivation (close the case quickly, nab your guy, build a political career on it). This is supported by the introduction of a fairly well known actor as a police officer who worked the Woodard crime scene for three days, but went missing by 1990. It also looks like Lucy Purcell may have been murdered via OD, and her brother might have been killed too (tying up loose ends if it turns out they were involved). Additionally, a set of 'unknown' fingerprints found at the scene have gone missing despite being in the evidence room that entire time....

- 2015 Roland West is the man.

- Still not sure about Amelia - she is awful curious about this case. Could be that it's her writer's instinct and curiosity, but wow is it wrecking her marriage. We know she aspires to bigger and better things, but she seems to be going way above the call of duty to get her story (pretending to be unmarried so someone will give her information). I'm not ruling her out though...

- Very interested to know 'what we did' means wrt West and Hays; did they kill someone to keep a secret? Whatever it was, it haunts both of them.

- Not sure how I feel about Julie's phone call and the references to the 'pink room' and being a princess. This feels like forced cosmic horror stuff, but maybe it'll pay off.

Thoughts?

The scene with West and Hays in 2015 was some fantastic acting. Very powerful.

I think West and Hays got into deep s**t by going off the reservation and not suppprtong the narrative they were given by the AG in regards to supporting that Woodard was the actual killer. Maybe they also get too close to the truth with the Hoyt family.

Hays thinks the kid’s mom is involved after reading his wife’s book. I think she was and essentially “sold” Julie to the Hoyt’s and they are the ones behind it all.

Amelia being a culprit is a red herring IMO.

 

[rudedude]

SPOILER AHEAD.......


“I saw him on the television. Make him leave me alone. Tell him to leave me alone. I know what he did. The man on TV acting like my father. Where’s my brother, Will? I don’t know what he did with him. We left him resting. He took me and I’m never coming back. Just leave me alone.”

Hmmm, perhaps AG Kindt?

 

[PSU2UNC]

SPOILERS FOR THOSE WHO HAVEN'T SEEN EPISODE 5

*****
****
***
**
*

This is supported by the introduction of a fairly well known actor as a police officer who worked the Woodard crime scene for three days, but went missing by 1990.

Good summary. This episode definitely generated more questions than it answered.

It's possible that Lucy and her cousin were murdered, but it's also possible they just got caught up in bad decisions.

Regarding your quote above (well known officer who went missing) could this be the guy the in suit in Hays' "ghost visions" of guys he's killed? Could that be what he and Roland are referring to as the really bad thing they did in 1990?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Good summary. This episode definitely generated more questions than it answered.

It's possible that Lucy and her cousin were murdered, but it's also possible they just got caught up in bad decisions.

Regarding your quote above (well known officer who went missing) could this be the guy the in suit in Hays' "ghost visions" of guys he's killed? Could that be what he and Roland are referring to as the really bad thing they did in 1990?

Could be. I haven't paid much attention to the ghosts in Hays' vision but my guess is it's important. I think the officer who went missing is key because a) I believe he planted the Purcell evidence, and b) he may have been killed as a result. Only 3 episodes left - really dig this season so far. Even if the ending is a let down, the performances and everything up to this point has been great. Nice to want to peek down the rabbit hole again after S2 sort of just blew it up.

 

[smealpsu2005]

Good summary. This episode definitely generated more questions than it answered.

It's possible that Lucy and her cousin were murdered, but it's also possible they just got caught up in bad decisions.

Regarding your quote above (well known officer who went missing) could this be the guy the in suit in Hays' "ghost visions" of guys he's killed? Could that be what he and Roland are referring to as the really bad thing they did in 1990?

Good recap. I know some believe Amelia may be culprit. One thing that caught my eye is that the description of her encounter with Lucy is from her point of view. A point of view which she wrote about, which opens up the idea of her sending the letter and then aligning the letter with her encounter with Lucy thus raising suspicion that Lucy may be the killer or involved in some way. I end this with the honest fact that I have no clue who killed that boy and kidnapped the girl

 

[psulongago]

Good summary. This episode definitely generated more questions than it answered.

It's possible that Lucy and her cousin were murdered, but it's also possible they just got caught up in bad decisions.

Regarding your quote above (well known officer who went missing) could this be the guy the in suit in Hays' "ghost visions" of guys he's killed? Could that be what he and Roland are referring to as the really bad thing they did in 1990?

Another point who is feeding info to the TV investigative reporter. When Hayes went to see her he asked if he was intruding and if anyone was there, she said no, but there were two drinking glasses?

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

Another point who is feeding info to the TV investigative reporter. When Hayes went to see her he asked if he was intruding and if anyone was there, she said no, but there were two drinking glasses?

I think Hays caught that too (IIRC).

Ultimately, I think the boy's death is accidental and probably happened when the kidnappers made a move to take Julie. Prevailing theory is the ownership of Hoyt Foods (in an effort to replace their deceased granddaughter), and that makes sense.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Another point who is feeding info to the TV investigative reporter. When Hayes went to see her he asked if he was intruding and if anyone was there, she said no, but there were two drinking glasses?

100% this is Hays' son that is "dating" the reporter. Not sure how much info he is giving her, but he is definitely feeding her something ;-)

 

[anon_xdc8rmuek44eq]

100% this is Hays' son that is "dating" the reporter. Not sure how much info he is giving her, but he is definitely feeding her something ;-)

That's a good theory - they seem to get along pretty well. But he 'seemed' happily married....

 

[PSU2UNC]

Could be. I haven't paid much attention to the ghosts in Hays' vision but my guess is it's important. I think the officer who went missing is key because a) I believe he planted the Purcell evidence, and b) he may have been killed as a result. Only 3 episodes left - really dig this season so far. Even if the ending is a let down, the performances and everything up to this point has been great. Nice to want to peek down the rabbit hole again after S2 sort of just blew it up.

I think the vision from episode 4(?) is really important. We see a bunch of Vietnamese men (men Hays' killed during the war), Woodard (who we now know Hays killed in "suicide by cop") and a mysterious guy in a suit that we can't see clearly but looks like a cop. To me that means Hays killed the guy in a suit. Not sure if it's the guy who went missing, but sure seems likely...

 

[psulongago]

100% this is Hays' son that is "dating" the reporter. Not sure how much info he is giving her, but he is definitely feeding her something ;-)

Was thinking someone higher up is involved with the reporter, possibly the AG, he certainly appears to be a slime ball. But then I think the daughter in her tape was referring to the AG when mentioning I saw you on TV, presumption was she was referring to her father whom I don't think is her biological father.

 

[PSU2UNC]

Was thinking someone higher up is involved with the reporter, possibly the AG, he certainly appears to be a slime ball. But then I think the daughter in her tape was referring to the AG when mentioning I saw you on TV, presumption was she was referring to her father whom I don't think is her biological father.

Has anyone discussed the possibility that the abductor is Julie's biological father? We learned during the funeral episode (Ep 2?) that Tom's parents thought Julie wasn't Tom's and we know Lucy slept around. Could the father be someone powerful (someone from Hoyt?) who wanted to get his biological daughter out of what he perceived to be a bad situation and Lucy went along with it?