A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
He seems too legitimately broken up about his kids - I think Julie is brainwashed or referring to someone else.
True Detective
- Thread starter bkmtnittany1
- Start date
He seems too legitimately broken up about his kids - I think Julie is brainwashed or referring to someone else.
He could be broken up because he believes he is to blame for her running away. He has a tendency to drink and do stuff that he later regrets. Remember when he drops an Nbomb and then almost immediately feels bad. This after getting drunk and misbehaving.
West really seems to hate him for something. Just spitballing.
The fact that Julie may not be his daughter is consistent perhaps with the notion of him abusing her, whether sexual or otherwise. But I agree he seems too legitimately hurt. i dont think Tom is in anyway to blame for anything.
I cant remember what it was exactly, but it seems like very early on, maybe Toms parents again..something about how Tom and Lucy got married very hurriedly. Was that right before Julie was born, or their son?
Maybe Tom knew all along Julie/Will was not his child.
A review I just read suggested that if Wayne/Roland killed anyone, it was Tom Purcell ??
I cant remember what it was exactly, but it seems like very early on, maybe Toms parents again..something about how Tom and Lucy got married very hurriedly. Was that right before Julie was born, or their son?
Maybe Tom knew all along Julie/Will was not his child.
A review I just read suggested that if Wayne/Roland killed anyone, it was Tom Purcell ??
So, I went back and watched the first 2 episodes of Season 1. I was thinking that Pizzolatto would try to follow the Season 1 mold after a disappointing season 2. I was a little surprised that a few prominent clues were brought up early - green eared spaghetti monster, the picture of Dora with the 5 horsemen, Dora's diary describing "Carcosa" and "king in yellow". I'm wondering if there as many clues in the 1st two episodes of this season, so I went back and rewatched E1.
A few observations.
1. When the detectives first enter the Purcell house there are pictures of the two kids on the wall. In between them, there is very obviously a missing picture. Probably nothing, but why would Pizz go through the trouble of clearly showing this? Pictures are very important in TD.
2. I know that I may be a little biased now with my view of Tom, but he is clearly hesitant to let the detectives search the house at first. Suspicious. When Lucy comes home she yells a lot at Tom and tells him everything he touches turns to shit (something like that). Upon first viewing, it seemed like she was mad because he was the one in charge. Second viewing, it kind of felt like he did something else that we don't know about. The rest of the episode, I got the vibe of a guilty feeling between them that I didn't get on the first viewing. Just a hunch, but I'm starting to think that they initiated something with the kids that did not go the way they expected.
3. Again, pictures are important in TD. Hays looks very closely at Julies drawing showing a couple getting married with 2 kids in attendance. I really think there is something important in the drawing. Why are the 2 kids at a wedding that occurred before they were born? There is something to the left of the wedding scene and I can't tell what it is.
Sorry, I don't often make long winded posts, but I'm getting a little preoccupied with this season.
A few observations.
1. When the detectives first enter the Purcell house there are pictures of the two kids on the wall. In between them, there is very obviously a missing picture. Probably nothing, but why would Pizz go through the trouble of clearly showing this? Pictures are very important in TD.
2. I know that I may be a little biased now with my view of Tom, but he is clearly hesitant to let the detectives search the house at first. Suspicious. When Lucy comes home she yells a lot at Tom and tells him everything he touches turns to shit (something like that). Upon first viewing, it seemed like she was mad because he was the one in charge. Second viewing, it kind of felt like he did something else that we don't know about. The rest of the episode, I got the vibe of a guilty feeling between them that I didn't get on the first viewing. Just a hunch, but I'm starting to think that they initiated something with the kids that did not go the way they expected.
3. Again, pictures are important in TD. Hays looks very closely at Julies drawing showing a couple getting married with 2 kids in attendance. I really think there is something important in the drawing. Why are the 2 kids at a wedding that occurred before they were born? There is something to the left of the wedding scene and I can't tell what it is.
Sorry, I don't often make long winded posts, but I'm getting a little preoccupied with this season.
Good post. Couple of things.
1) I've also been re-watching Season 1 (forgot how amazing some of it is).
2) Regarding the pictures on the wall, my read of that based on the context (where the pictures were located) was that space previously contained a picture of the happy couple (Tom and Lucy) and it was gone because the relationship was gone (perhaps smashed in anger?) It's possible there is more to it than that, but that was my read.
3) Regarding Tom being upset that they wanted to search the house (disclaimer: I don't think Tom is involved), my take on that was him being insulted that he was a suspect (that's his mind set because Lucy blames him for everything). Also possible that he is embarrassed that they will learn he and his wife are still cohabitating, but not sharing a bed. Again, maybe more to it, just my take.
4) Regarding Julie's drawings, I draw the comparison to season one, when one of Marty's daughters was drawing disturbing things and doing creepy things with her dolls. Note that at the time, it there were lots of theories that Marty's daughter was somehow caught up in the abuse cult, but that turned out not to be the case. It was just a statement about family (fatherly?) dysfunction, not anything more sinister. I think the drawing of the wedding in Season 3 (could be) just her wish that mom and dad were happily married.
1. I forgot how amazing Alexandre Daddario is.
2. Yeah, the missing photo is the weakest clue. I agree that the unhappy marriage angle is the most likely.
3. I know, there are plenty of ways to explain Tom's actions. We'll see. There just seems to be too much smoke between him and Lucy. I'm pretty convinced that one or both did something to initiate the whole thing (likely without bad intentions).
4. I was in on the Season 1 drawing theory, which turned out to be a red herring. This one is different though since it directly involves the victim. If it isn't a clue, I really think there is something in that first search scene that will be relevant.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
1. I forgot how amazing Alexandre Daddario is.
2. Yeah, the missing photo is the weakest clue. I agree that the unhappy marriage angle is the most likely.
3. I know, there are plenty of ways to explain Tom's actions. We'll see. There just seems to be too much smoke between him and Lucy. I'm pretty convinced that one or both did something to initiate the whole thing (likely without bad intentions).
4. I was in on the Season 1 drawing theory, which turned out to be a red herring. This one is different though since it directly involves the victim. If it isn't a clue, I really think there is something in that first search scene that will be relevant.
Don't forget Lili Simmons...
Hmmm, there's another rabbit hole I'd like to explore.Don't forget Lili Simmons...
I think Lucy is somehow involved, but I'm not sure how yet. I think Tom is guilty of being a bad husband/father, but that's about it.
Ok, I have one more thought for the day.
Have we seen Julie Purcell in 2015 and not realized it? She would be about 45 and blond. I would love for her to be Elisa the interviewer, but she is too young.
Have we seen Julie Purcell in 2015 and not realized it? She would be about 45 and blond. I would love for her to be Elisa the interviewer, but she is too young.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
I’ll add that whatever happens in 1990 is not good - Hays keeps talking about wanting to finally solve the case in 2015. We need to know what happens in 1990; it appears to be a big reason Hays and West don’t talk anymore, and the way West talks about things they maybe did something bad and covered it up.
I don't think so. We haven't met too many blond women in the 2015 timeline, and as you say the interviewer is too young.
Have they even said if Julie is alive in 2015? I'm not even sure if we know that.
Alexandra Dadarrio and Lili Simmons.
What a classic lesson in how beauty (and sexiness) can come in all shapes and sizes.
Btw....how did the detectives find that young guy who gave them info re Julie/mary July?
He just appeared out of the blue. Any reason why they didnt how us anything re that.
What a classic lesson in how beauty (and sexiness) can come in all shapes and sizes.
Btw....how did the detectives find that young guy who gave them info re Julie/mary July?
He just appeared out of the blue. Any reason why they didnt how us anything re that.
They didn't explain this in great detail, but I believe he was "running with" Julie/Mary in Oklahoma, and I'm assuming his prints were also in the Walgreens. He had a known address (or at least local cops knew where to find him), so they picked him up for questioning.
I re-watched through E4, and you're right. The 2015 timeline doesn't really show anyone outside of the interview room, police station, and Henry's family. Damn, would have been cool.
Thoughts upon reviewing.
I do think Henry is the one hooking up with the reporter. I'm a little suspicious of his motives.
I'm more convinced that Amelia is a red herring. In fact, she could end up actually being the true detective. Her book may contain the clues that finally solves it for Hays.
I'm still pretty convinced that the Purcells are complicit and that Tom did something directly or indirectly to initiate the kidnapping. I know I'm pretty alone on Tom.
I'm getting more convinced that Will's death was an accident and the crime was all about Julie.
In S1, the 'green eared spaghetti monster' was introduced in E1, but then somewhat forgotten about for a while I think. I believe the black man with the dead eye (or I think the doll woman says scar?) could be this season's spaghetti monster. They shifted away from him recently, but he could end up at the center of things. In E4, Wayne sees the tire track of a car with a bike track inside of it (i.e. the car was following a kids bike). Brown car?
Also, the church/priest have some tie to the crime. This was a consistent theme in S1 as well.
I would still love for this season to connect with S1.
I'll shut up now. Can't wait for Sunday.
I'm starting to agree with you that Amelia is a red herring, but we'll see. She might be tangentially involved, but not the main culprit.
Related to the man with the scar/dead eye, I won't spoil anything for you, but if you snoop around the IMDB cast lists for upcoming episodes you can figure out a pretty important piece of data regarding that clue.
A
anon_xdc8rmuek44eq
Guest
Yeah, IMDB is no fun - easy to ruin a show like this if you want to check things out there; 'what happened or likely happened' has been out there because of that.
Well we now know where the pink room is, who the one eyed man is as well as the people behind Julie’s kidnapping. There still is some twist coming, I believe, and I fear it may be a quite devastating one by what I have in mind, but only two episodes to go. I wish they had done longer episodes, however. Just as it gets interesting, the episode ends.
Last edited:
We now know that the dad is killed by the same people behind the mom and cousin/uncle/daddy. Hoyt was too easy...I’m a bit disappointed. You’re right that there must be a twist yet and I share your view that West was likely involved or discovered it and kept quiet.
IMO, it wasn't West but someone close to him and not his wife either. Someone who's career advanced, while West's stagnated. Is it because of racism or coverup?
You mean Hays. West is Stephen Dorf. Seems likes things are getting clearer and kudo's to those who guessed the Hoyt's had something to do with it. I still don't think Amelia is totally out of the clear.
Could West’s ex have been the white woman who was part of the couple seen visiting with the kids out at Devil’s Den?
No I mean I think West is involved in the coverup, hence the promotions.
Ok, I officially give up on the Tom angle. Lucy on the other hand...likely guilty as suspected.
I have to admit to being a little disappointed with E6. I think everyone suspected that Lucy was somehow involved and that Hoyt likely pulled the strings on a kidnapping. We also knew that Harris would be the crooked cop. I was hoping for some shockers, but instead, we kind of got what we expected. I expect some fireworks in E7.
I wondered if she could be involved when she said she studied poultry science at the dinner and then took an interest in Amelia's book. She has a connection to the church and possibly Hoyt now.
I have to admit to being a little disappointed with E6. I think everyone suspected that Lucy was somehow involved and that Hoyt likely pulled the strings on a kidnapping. We also knew that Harris would be the crooked cop. I was hoping for some shockers, but instead, we kind of got what we expected. I expect some fireworks in E7.
I wondered if she could be involved when she said she studied poultry science at the dinner and then took an interest in Amelia's book. She has a connection to the church and possibly Hoyt now.
I'm not sure about that. I think West got promoted and Hays didn't because West was more willing to let things drop in 1980; in other words Hays was not OK with the "Woodard did it" company line (we saw some of that in the 1980 timeline in episode six) and was vocal about it. West probably disagreed with pinning it on Woodard but kept his mouth shut and moved up the ladder.
Edit: I guess you could have meant that pinning everything Woodard WAS the cover up (which I guess in a sense is true). I'm not sure to what extent it was the DA "just wanting everything to go away so the town could heal" vs "protecting the actual killer". I'd call the latter a cover up and the former, bad/lazy work by the DA. Anyway, sorry if I misunderstood you.
Last edited:
Nope. Totally different guy (and an actor who was in other stuff, like X Files, I think).
We also learned the truth about the "peep hole" although it still isn't clear (to me anyway, maybe I missed it) who wrote the notes (was it Will passing notes to Julie?)
(Also, told ya so...haha).
Yeah, you called that one, although it was Will and not Dan passing the notes.
My first thought was that Will was collateral damage when they took Julie. He was trying to protect her and things went wrong.
I've seen 2 references to Tom now being dead. Has there been mention in past episodes that he was dead in 2015? I don't recall hearing that. Or is it just speculation based on what we see at the end?
Still don't know why West hates Tom so much. Was it the gay thing? Maybe Tom killed Dan, preventing Hays/West from finding out what Dan knew?
Still don't know why West hates Tom so much. Was it the gay thing? Maybe Tom killed Dan, preventing Hays/West from finding out what Dan knew?
I'm wondering the same thing; I can't recall hearing that Tom was dead, although based on the final scene of this week's episode that certainly seems possible.
Did anyone else catch the odd compliment that Harris James' paid to Hays and the death stare Hays gave him?
Absolutely. It was curious after the revelation of Tom being gay.
I'm hyper sensitive to every little thing shown/said at this point. I may be over-analyzing, but when Amelia is interviewing the girl at the shelter, why do they show the landscaping guy outside getting out of his truck? I will note that in S1, they innocently show Eroll early in the season mowing lawn, so Pizz does like to foreshadow (not that I think the landscaping guy is the killer/kidnapper).
Truck says ARDOIN, the neighbor kid that waved at Julie as they rode their bikes by his house and was interviewed by West and Hays and Amelia. The plot thickens!
Here's the connection to the landscaper: the name of the landscaping company is "Ardoin Landscaping". Mike Ardoin is the name of the kid that Will and Julie said they were spending time with when they were actually playing D&D (or whatever) in the woods with ???
My guess is that his is just a "false clue" in the same way that the same "fat neighbor" (i.e. the woman who was with Lucy at the town hall meeting this week) keeps hanging around. I think it demonstrates that this is a small town and that's probably it. But I could be wrong.
Edit: sorry, I got this wrong. Mike is the friend who maybe had a crush on Julie. Ronny was the one with the dog who they lied about hanging out with. Mike is probably more central to the case because he was the one who identified the dolls and told them that "two ghosts" gave them to Julie on Halloween (and we see a line of questioning about this in the preview of next week).
Last edited:
Nice work dude. Ok, so this is definitely significant now.Truck says ARDOIN, the neighbor kid that waved at Julie as they rode their bikes by his house and was interviewed by West and Hays and Amelia. The plot thickens!
So, is Mike a good guy, or bad guy?
If good guy, I suspect that he is somehow aiding Julie in 1990.
I tend to lean that way as well.
An interesting note. In each of the first 2 seasons, Pizz nonchalantly showed the killers in previous episodes. Eroll cutting the lawn in S1,E3 or E4 (?) and then the 2 orphan kids in S2. Did he do it again? Have we seen the guilty party already and not realized it?
Yep Hoyt’s daughter in the picture in the office with the little girl on her lap. She has to be the woman with the man with the scar and milky eye.
