I'm pretty sure Hays' accuses his son of sleeping with the reporter (without saying it in so many words) when he goes to the police station to ask him to find Roland. I thought that, plus the subtle interaction that she and the son have, plus the two wine glasses, kind of sealed that as the case.
True Detective
- Thread starter bkmtnittany1
- Start date
Here's a random thing from an early episode (Ep 2?) that bothered me, but is probably nothing.
When Hays and Roland track down the racist pedophile guy in another town (that they tie up and beat in the barn), they throw him in the trunk of their car, decide he didn't do and are discussing what to do with him, when they get the call to go to the Purcell house (because the note was discovered, I think).
They never show them letting him out of the trunk of the car. Did they kill him? Was this just bad editing (i.e. they somehow cut that scene) or does this actually mean something?
When Hays and Roland track down the racist pedophile guy in another town (that they tie up and beat in the barn), they throw him in the trunk of their car, decide he didn't do and are discussing what to do with him, when they get the call to go to the Purcell house (because the note was discovered, I think).
They never show them letting him out of the trunk of the car. Did they kill him? Was this just bad editing (i.e. they somehow cut that scene) or does this actually mean something?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Definitely looking more and more like the mom had something to do with something. Maybe the result wasn't her intention. I agree that Amelia is a red herring. Her role in the case obviously causes a rift in the relationship and I think the real story could be how Hays ends up going back to the book he ignored to help figure things out.
Hmmm, wonder how Amelia really died? Maybe she got too close to something.
Definitely could be on to something there.
What did Tom Purcell do? Doesn't the daughter say something about that in the phone message?
Here is the transcript of the phone call from the daughter:
"You’re looking for me I saw on the television. I saw him on the television. Leave me alone. 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… Tell him to leave me alone… He took me and I’m never coming back..."
My take:
"We left him resting" -- means that she saw Will's body in the cave but didn't know he was dead. This also implies to me that she knew and was comfortable with her abductor (but we kind of knew that already).
"He took me and I'm never coming back..." The 'he' here refers to her abductor, not Tom, and again suggests that she knew/was comfortable around her abductor. This also suggests (to me) that she and her abductor are still together (or at least still in contact)
"The man on TV acting like my father..." -- this implies that she thinks Tom is not her father; my guess is that the abductor told her that Tom wasn't her real father (and maybe the abductor was?)
Anyone have a take on the "princess" and "pink room" stuff that the other homeless kid told the detectives the daughter talked about?
I have concuded that the biggest mystery is why this beautful woman Amelia has anything to do with this bitter, screwed up detective.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
He wasn't always like that - their first date was one the best scenes so far in the series. The dialogue was pretty hot...
Did anyone take the last scene in episode 5, where Hays (Ali) and West (Dorff) are talking in present day, as an indication that Hays has played his memory issues (at least partially) as a ruse to get info and to continue the investigation? My thought is that our main character is holding stuff back from his family, the investigators, and the viewers (us). He knows more of the story. He is acting like he only knows (e.g.) 30%, when he really knows 70%. We (the viewers, etc.) haven't yet been told what that 40% is.
Agreed. Perhaps there is also a subconscious attraction because of his involvement in the case and her desire to do bigger things (writing the book).
Questions for all - The trailer showed the image of Cohle and Hart on the laptop screen of the interviewer. I didn't see that scene in the actual episode. Did I miss it?
It was asked already, but who is the guy in the suit in Hays' dream sequence? Gotta have something to do with whatever Hays and West did.
What about the car in front of Hays house. He has seen it twice now. Paranoia or significant? Some kind of relationship with the "brown car"?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
If true he’s playing it very convincingly - the audio recordings and stuff he does to help remember seem excessive in that case.
This is possible. It's also very possible that his "clarity" varies significantly from day to day. This is suggested by him recording notes for himself. Sometimes he remembers more than others.
Based on who else in that dream sequence (Viet Cong and Woodard) it is almost certainly someone that Hays killed. Based on how he's dressed, he looks like a cop, so my money is on the guy who went missing after the 1990 investigation and this is the "bad thing" that Hays did (that Roland was at least complicit in). The question becomes why did he (they?) kill a cop.
I do agree re that one scene..but he still doesnt deserve her. She is too lovely.
All right, I'm just lonely and it is affecting my viewing.
Going back to the Current Day TV reporter, some speculate Hayes' son is her confidant and possible paramour. She appears to be too high maintenance and probably has a more significant contact and lover, but who?
One thing I noticed is that her statement was careful not to directly mention Tom. Recall that attorney general was also giving speech on TV at same podium. That is my spoiler guess.
Agree but a few other things: Trashman (Woodard-SP) referred to Hayes as Sarge, were they in NAM together hence the Cong visions. Also Woodard was obviously a sharpshooter but choose not to shoot Hayes, what is the connection between the two? Further 1990 in West's office, picture of West with a young Bill Clinton, obviously Hillary did it??? Kidding about that but why the picture of Clinton, to indicate high level political interference and/or involvement?
Maybe. But the phone call said "The man on TV acting like my father" which would be Tom (i.e. he was on TV pleading for his daughter to come home). The caller believes that she is not Tom's daughter (maybe she is not his biological daughter), but it is pretty clear (to me) that she was referring to Tom, not someone else who happened to be in the TV shot.
When Roland and Hays bring Woodard in for questioning originally, they talk a lot about their service in Vietnam. They did not know each other in Nam, but Woodard is impressed that Hays was a LRRP and respects him, which may be why he didn't shoot him in the firefight.
Could be but someone has been "acting" like her father and for me it is the AG. Possibly he has known where she has been all along and been trying to contact her, and she wants to be left alone. The AG, think he was the prosecutor in 1980 wanted to bury the case quickly and use it for personal political leverage.
Is this a potential Easter egg?
Early on in the episode, there was a mention of a suspect being interviewed by a "plainclothes detective". Could that have been an oblique reference to either of the detectives in S1 of the show? I just thought it was an odd comment to have been made if it had no significance.
Early on in the episode, there was a mention of a suspect being interviewed by a "plainclothes detective". Could that have been an oblique reference to either of the detectives in S1 of the show? I just thought it was an odd comment to have been made if it had no significance.
Maybe, but I think this is probably the investigator who disappeared in 1990 (the one in Hays' dream, that I think he killed).
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Might be more here than we think - going back to the drilled hole in the wall of Will's bedroom, I can't recall if the hole was to peek in on Julie or the mom. I assume the hole was drilled by the mom's brother (name escapes me) to spy on someone but the detectives, to my knowledge, have not mentioned this piece of evidence anywhere nor did they confront the uncle about it when they interrogated him. I assume the hole was to peek in on the mom? If so, any chance Juliet is the product of an incestuous relationship between the two? That might explain the mom's guilt and breakdown in front of Amelia. Additionally, who wrote Juliet the notes that were found in her notebook/folder? And who gave her the straw dolls? I feel like we're focusing on everything but the evidence.
The hole was between the siblings' (Will and Julie's) rooms. It seems likely that the mom's cousin (not kids' uncle) was peeping on Julie when he was staying in Will's room, but that may or may not be related to her disappearance.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Hm. Okay, then why didn't Hays and West say/do something about it? Would really make that guy a top suspect don't you think? Even if he had an alibi (and he does), why not rough him up a bit like the other known pedophile? Julie is like, eight. I can't imagine they let him off with only the quick chat they had.
Fair points, although I'd say that:
1) They don't know for sure he drilled the hole.
2) The notes that they found look like they were rolled up (as if passed through a hole), so maybe that was the purpose of the hole (rather than peeping)?
3) As you say, he wasn't even in the state in the months leading up to the abduction. I think he was a top suspect, until the alibi surfaced.
4) The other known pedophile they roughed up had actually been convicted. Dan was *maybe* a suspected peeper.
5) They only interact with Dan (I think) at the funeral. Not the proper venue for roughing up a suspect.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Okay, but there doesn't appear to be 'any' follow up with Dan. I agree about proper venue, but these detectives don't seem to be the type to let some relatively big questions get answered. What is your theory on the dolls? Who, in Julie's neighborhood, passed them out (specifically to her)?
I like your thoughts on #2. Noting the detectives didn't have the notes until well after they found the hole.
Dan does end up dead in a quarry, so maybe the detectives do follow up with him later?
My guess is that, in 1980, once they learned of his alibi, they starting looking at other possibilities and following other leads (of which there were many: Woodard, the teenagers, the church/missing eye guy). These all seemed like better leads because Dan (even though potentially a creeper) was out of state at the time, so they focused their efforts there.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Do we know *how* Dan is a cousin? IIRC, he was in/around Vegas too (where the mom was found). I think there's something (more) to this relationship than we know. And Hays seeing a pic of Dan's skeleton seemed like a surprise to him (noting the memory stuff). The reporter seemed to know that he wouldn't know about that (or assumed).
TBH, I don't think Hays/Roland killed Dan. But it's possible.
You may be on to something about Dan either not really being a cousin (it's an interesting choice to make him a cousin and not her brother) or them having an inappropriate relationship.
I will say that none of the other family members seems to bat an eye at him being at the (relatively small) funeral, so if he isn't really a relative, this has been a deception for a long time (note: I don't think anyone else from her family is at the funeral, but I assume Tom's parents have met Dan before).
Watching the camera shot of the press conference, there are three men in the picture: Tom, the AG and West.
West has a relationship with Tom away from work and tries to protect him. He probably has nothing to do with the child’s death but he may be keeping the daughter and father separate.
Interesting thought and you can't count anything out with this show. I'm not sure if that actually plays out that way, but I do think that the AG is somehow involved.
I agree. I think show does a good job introducing key items and then diverting your attention to something else. There are probably several pieces of evidence that are being overlooked.
?s
1. what were the "notes" to Julie about; did it show their content?
2. when did cousin Dan die? was it same ime time as the death of the detective who so far seems implicated in at least a coverup?
1. what were the "notes" to Julie about; did it show their content?
2. when did cousin Dan die? was it same ime time as the death of the detective who so far seems implicated in at least a coverup?
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
1. IIRC, they said stuff like, 'I will protect you,' and other short messages of hope/support. I can't find a list of them.
2. Not sure - Elisa notes the photo of him is from after he resurfaced in 1990.
1. It's alright
Don't Listen
I'll always keep you safe
It's ok
Im always here
2. Dan disappeared in 1990. I believe that is around the time the detective goes missing.
Last edited:
One explanation that could make Dan a red herring is that he was staying with the family when the marriage first started falling apart. He could have been trying to console Julie about her parents fighting all the time by passing notes through the wall between their rooms.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I mean I could be totally wrong, but there is nothing inappropriate about those notes. Nothing sexual. Nothing overly familiar. All of them are consistent with things you would say to a little girl who is crying herself to sleep at night because her parents are yelling in the next room.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
No, my post was to suggest that your thinking was pretty on point. It answers three pretty big questions - why the hole, who wrote the notes (and why). I like when shows give the viewer just enough to work things out - my fear is everything will be revealed to be a red herring once the final episode hits.
I like this. Could it have been more than just the parents fighting? Could Tom have been abusing the girl as well? That could explain what she said on the phone in 1990 and why West hates him in 2015.
Similar threads
