My impression was that he wanted Tony to kill him - he's a broken man at that stage with no way out. Ironically his dissappearence means his crimes are more easily swept under the carpet.
Could Mark and Emily have organised Ollie's abduction? They seem quite comfortable together from the start, they could have been having an affair and wanted to disappear together with their children. Maybe Emily not being overly anxious could have been because she knew Ollie was being kept somewhere safe and sound and was to be delivered to her, but then something went wrong and either Ollie died or vanished for real. The fact she was so convinced Mark's son was Ollie could have been because she expected Ollie to be with Mark at that stage.
Could Mark and Emily have organised Ollie's abduction? They seem quite comfortable together from the start, they could have been having an affair and wanted to disappear together with their children..
It would explain the broken down car, AND the fact they were both so willing to spend 15K on some bribe (not to get info, but to keep quiet?)
I thought the same, until Seig wanted the money for this bribe for info that could easily be nothing, Mark and Emily were trying to put Tony off and trying to convince him he had nothing valid. it surprised me that Emily agreed with them having nothing more than the scarf and pic on the wall didn't warrant a new investigation, as a mother surely she should have been raising hell and demanding the investigation be reopened if there was the slightest chance that this could lead to Ollie. Also, Malik says 'I know what you did Emily, you and Tony', he emphasises Emily's name as if they both did something, maybe two separate things.
it surprised me that Emily agreed with them having nothing more than the scarf and pic on the wall didn't warrant a new investigation, as a mother surely she should have been raising hell and demanding the investigation be reopened if there was the slightest chance that this could lead to Ollie..
A lot of people will feel like that I'm sure.
My interpretation is that the writers wanted to show different sides of the coin. Tony stuck in the past, unable to move on and destroying his life for a resolution that may never come. Emily has accepted Ollie may not be found and has tried to, superficially at least, move forward with her life with a replacement family (but in truth cannot get over her past either).
It's an interesting juxtaposition of how two people react and deal with great loss, both equally viable.
Hmm. Possibly. I thought it only referred to Molly though. You can't kill 53 children and not be found out - that's utterly insane. The last time someone got away with that was in the 14th century. (And he was hanged in the end)
So did i. Doesn't Tony say you murdered your own daughter, Garrett cant face saying yes, he just answers.Molly was a misatke.it just happened.
If Garrett had not killed Molly, Garrett would have told him he didn't kill her.
I dont think Tony is saying you killed 53 kids as he hasn't had time to view all the tape. he just knows Garrett has told him there are 53 tapes and the tape he just watched showed him abusing and killing his daughter.
So did i. Doesn't Tony say you murdered your own daughter, Garrett cant face saying yes, he just answers.Molly was a misatke.it just happened. If Garrett had not killed Molly, Garrett would have told him he didn't kill her.
I dont think Tony is saying you killed 53 kids as he hasn't had time to view all the tape. he just knows Garrett has told him there are 53 tapes and the tape he just watched showed him abusing and killing his daughter.
Garrett obviously feels guilty about whatever happened to Molly so he may have just felt that and not wanted to defend himself on that point .
I don't think Molly was on the tape Tony looked at , it makes more sense that it was a boy , since a girl obviously looks different to a boy and Garrett seemed to know Tony was watching a scene with boy hence he says "thats not your son"
the bribe is a funny one. Nesbitt would have been straight round, and got that back, I should think.
I wondered why Baptiste had a limp. We know now.
But that doesn't explain why is so interested in Sieg's story about the evidence that had been picked up. All the details must have been in the envelope 8 years ago
My impression was that he wanted Tony to kill him - he's a broken man at that stage with no way out. Ironically his dissappearence means his crimes are more easily swept under the carpet.
I agree. Ken Stott has said Garrett was difficult to play as he is a despicable individual.
Something happened in 2009, something that has apparently turned the townspeople against Tony. I find it hard to believe that it's just the loss of tourist revenue, surely they would still have sympathy for a father desperately looking for his son ?
The only people who know for sure that Tony killed Garrett are Emily, and now Baptiste as far as we know. Malik may suspect that's what happened, and so might Bourg, but they don't have any evidence.
I can't imagine beating up a known paedophile like Bourg would have turned everyone against Tony, so was something revealed in 2009 about Tony or the town itself that has caused the apparent loathing ?
Malik's book about the case is called The Ugly Truth Behind the Disappearance of Oliver Hughes..or something like that. We saw that when he was looking at a proof copy of the cover. What has he written with the knowledge he has so far ?
Someone posted that they believed the broken tv was a surveillance camera, if this was the case, Malik could have a copy of Tony's confession to Emily about killing Garret.
surely they would still have sympathy for a father desperately looking for his son ?
People have sympathy of course, but as we have seen with some residents of Praia de luz (tearing down posters etc), patience wears thin after many years and people want to draw a line under matters.
No way. This is a small French community in a 21st century setting.
With all the progress we have made with DNA and forensic research... 53 kids dead and not a soul making a fuss about it? Nah - that's beyond any kind of realistic scenario.
To be honest when Tony first killed Garrett and we had to wait another week, i thought the same as yourself , Tony can't just dump Garretts body he has to erase all traces of Garrett going to the house as it will obviously be a crime scene, that meant dumping the body and moving Garretts car.
I was very surprised to see him not only dump the body but leave all the tapes and Garretts car which automatically made the boat a crime scene.
A simple test would reveal the boat was full of Garretts blood so the police can assume Garrett was murdered even though there is no body, there was DNA and fingerprints all over the place and it's hard to believe tests were not done but could the police make any connection to Tony without bringing him for tests.
I think this is were it proves it was a cover up. they didn't look very far for suspects. the investigation was botched, we know for a fact Tony was never caught so we dont have to speculate. hes got away with it for now.
I would be surprised if all the evidence is still not on file and if Tonys fingerprints ever get put into the system he will be arrested for Garretts murder,he could possibly be charged as pedophile himself as his prints are all over the camera, that would take some explaining but unlikely charges would stick.
People have sympathy of course, but as we have seen with some residents of Praia de luz (tearing down posters etc), patience wears thin after many years and people want to draw a line under matters.
Wasn't there some mention of jobs being lost after Ollie's disappearance? (I could be wrong on this as I can't find the scene) Job losses due a decline in tourism after all the publicity surrounding a child abduction could make the town turn against Tony and not want him bringing attention to the place again.
To be honest when Tony first killed Garrett and we had to wait another week, i thought the same as yourself , Tony can't just dump Garretts body he has to erase all traces of Garrett going to the house as it will obviously be a crime scene, that meant dumping the body and moving Garretts car.
I was very surprised to see him not only dump the body but leave all the tapes and Garretts car which automatically made the boat a crime scene.
A simple test would reveal the boat was full of Garretts blood so the police can assume Garrett was murdered even though there is no body, there was DNA and fingerprints all over the place and it's hard to believe tests were not done but could the police make any connection to Tony without bringing him for tests.
I think this is were it proves it was a cover up. they didn't look very far for suspects. the investigation was botched, we know for a fact Tony was never caught so we dont have to speculate. hes got away with it for now.
I would be surprised if all the evidence is still not on file and if Tonys fingerprints ever get put into the system he will be arrested for Garretts murder,he could possibly be charged as pedophile himself as his prints are all over the camera, that would take some explaining but unlikely charges would stick.
Great points. I did, and still do, wonder whether they will somehow find Ollie but Tony will go to prison for Garret's murder. He appears to have no future, but may be at peace with the knowledge his son is safe and well.
It's important that the ending isn't a cop-out bearing in mind the subject matter, but equally I don't want it to end of too depressing a note!
Because he knew the game was up. Tony had previously said that he was going to report Garrett and show the tapes to the police so he knew his reputation and life was in ruins. He didn't even put up a fight when Tony attacked him so I guess at that point he wanted Tony to kill him and get it over with..
By the way didn't we get a brief glimpse of Tony wiping the boat down just before he jumped overboard. Presumably then he was trying to remove his DNA from the boat.
Because he knew the game was up. Tony had previously said that he was going to report Garrett and show the tapes to the police so he knew his reputation and life was in ruins. He didn't even put up a fight when Tony attacked him so I guess at that point he wanted Tony to kill him and get it over with..
Exactly. He's an extremely conflicted and complex individual. Clearly someone abused themselves, who is deeply unhappy despite a successful career, who has gone on to abuse - even his own daughter.
In his lucid moments he can't seem to reconcile what he is and what he's done, as we see in moments and in painting his daughter. He appears to believe his own fiction, his own lies and it's only when broken and laid bare that his barrier fails.
One more clue I've spotted, although it doesn't solve anything: a few days after the abduction Emily says to Tony "Today would have been the last day of our holiday... blah blah... Ollie would be in the pool... I would have had to lure him away with ice cream." This ties in with the image in the title sequence of ice cream and red sauce splattered over a rock. I think prior to checking in at the hotel someone saw Ollie having his favourite ice cream in a public place and then offered him one near the pool bar that evening as part of the abduction (possibly laced with a drug).
Because he knew the game was up. Tony had previously said that he was going to report Garrett and show the tapes to the police so he knew his reputation and life was in ruins. He didn't even put up a fight when Tony attacked him so I guess at that point he wanted Tony to kill him and get it over with..
I agree with you Frank, the question was rhetorical to Virgil who thought Garrett may have been a child abuser hunter of sorts.
To be honest when Tony first killed Garrett and we had to wait another week, i thought the same as yourself , Tony can't just dump Garretts body he has to erase all traces of Garrett going to the house as it will obviously be a crime scene, that meant dumping the body and moving Garretts car.
I was very surprised to see him not only dump the body but leave all the tapes and Garretts car which automatically made the boat a crime scene.
A simple test would reveal the boat was full of Garretts blood so the police can assume Garrett was murdered even though there is no body, there was DNA and fingerprints all over the place and it's hard to believe tests were not done but could the police make any connection to Tony without bringing him for tests.
I think this is were it proves it was a cover up. they didn't look very far for suspects. the investigation was botched, we know for a fact Tony was never caught so we dont have to speculate. hes got away with it for now.
I would be surprised if all the evidence is still not on file and if Tonys fingerprints ever get put into the system he will be arrested for Garretts murder,he could possibly be charged as pedophile himself as his prints are all over the camera, that would take some explaining but unlikely charges would stick.
That all takes us back to the involvement of the Mayor and other bigwigs. Would they just order a cover-up because Garrett was financing the Mayor's election campaign ? Seems a stretch to me, when Garrett's activities involved the abuse and murder of children.
But we know from the current real-life inquiries going on in the UK that practically anything is possible. It was actually the threat (or bluff of a threat) by Baptiste to talk to Malik that forced the Mayor to open the inquiry again.
I think when everyone comes together and shares the information they have the truth will be clear. But at the moment, even the "innocent" have something to lose.
What a fantastic series. I actually missed the first episode, then started watching from episode 2.
Today (thanks for links;-)) I finally saw episode 1 on youtube, It made me realise you could watch them in just about any order - but didn't give me any extra 'hindsight' clues.:D
I'm obsessed with Tony's job, even though it may have no relevance, and how Mark turned up there with his lookalikey son.
Comments
My impression was that he wanted Tony to kill him - he's a broken man at that stage with no way out. Ironically his dissappearence means his crimes are more easily swept under the carpet.
I think that's a bit far fetched ;-)
I don't think Mark especially wants to pay the bribe he says
"How much? For information you have no idea is any good? Is he nuts? You're thinking of paying. We don't have 15,000 euros, Em."
These are no witnesses to benfit from these conversations, and there would be no need for them were they in cahoots
I thought the same, until Seig wanted the money for this bribe for info that could easily be nothing, Mark and Emily were trying to put Tony off and trying to convince him he had nothing valid. it surprised me that Emily agreed with them having nothing more than the scarf and pic on the wall didn't warrant a new investigation, as a mother surely she should have been raising hell and demanding the investigation be reopened if there was the slightest chance that this could lead to Ollie. Also, Malik says 'I know what you did Emily, you and Tony', he emphasises Emily's name as if they both did something, maybe two separate things.
A lot of people will feel like that I'm sure.
My interpretation is that the writers wanted to show different sides of the coin. Tony stuck in the past, unable to move on and destroying his life for a resolution that may never come. Emily has accepted Ollie may not be found and has tried to, superficially at least, move forward with her life with a replacement family (but in truth cannot get over her past either).
It's an interesting juxtaposition of how two people react and deal with great loss, both equally viable.
He emphasises her name because, of course, he speaking to and appealing to her.
This is referenced in the teaser where Malik calls Tony and tells him he knows he killed Garrett.
So did i. Doesn't Tony say you murdered your own daughter, Garrett cant face saying yes, he just answers.Molly was a misatke.it just happened.
If Garrett had not killed Molly, Garrett would have told him he didn't kill her.
I dont think Tony is saying you killed 53 kids as he hasn't had time to view all the tape. he just knows Garrett has told him there are 53 tapes and the tape he just watched showed him abusing and killing his daughter.
I looked at that teaser and I'm now more excited than ever to see tonight's episode!
Garrett obviously feels guilty about whatever happened to Molly so he may have just felt that and not wanted to defend himself on that point .
I don't think Molly was on the tape Tony looked at , it makes more sense that it was a boy , since a girl obviously looks different to a boy and Garrett seemed to know Tony was watching a scene with boy hence he says "thats not your son"
.
I wondered why Baptiste had a limp. We know now.
But that doesn't explain why is so interested in Sieg's story about the evidence that had been picked up. All the details must have been in the envelope 8 years ago
I agree. Ken Stott has said Garrett was difficult to play as he is a despicable individual.
The only people who know for sure that Tony killed Garrett are Emily, and now Baptiste as far as we know. Malik may suspect that's what happened, and so might Bourg, but they don't have any evidence.
I can't imagine beating up a known paedophile like Bourg would have turned everyone against Tony, so was something revealed in 2009 about Tony or the town itself that has caused the apparent loathing ?
Malik's book about the case is called The Ugly Truth Behind the Disappearance of Oliver Hughes..or something like that. We saw that when he was looking at a proof copy of the cover. What has he written with the knowledge he has so far ?
People have sympathy of course, but as we have seen with some residents of Praia de luz (tearing down posters etc), patience wears thin after many years and people want to draw a line under matters.
I was very surprised to see him not only dump the body but leave all the tapes and Garretts car which automatically made the boat a crime scene.
A simple test would reveal the boat was full of Garretts blood so the police can assume Garrett was murdered even though there is no body, there was DNA and fingerprints all over the place and it's hard to believe tests were not done but could the police make any connection to Tony without bringing him for tests.
I think this is were it proves it was a cover up. they didn't look very far for suspects. the investigation was botched, we know for a fact Tony was never caught so we dont have to speculate. hes got away with it for now.
I would be surprised if all the evidence is still not on file and if Tonys fingerprints ever get put into the system he will be arrested for Garretts murder,he could possibly be charged as pedophile himself as his prints are all over the camera, that would take some explaining but unlikely charges would stick.
Wasn't there some mention of jobs being lost after Ollie's disappearance? (I could be wrong on this as I can't find the scene) Job losses due a decline in tourism after all the publicity surrounding a child abduction could make the town turn against Tony and not want him bringing attention to the place again.
Great points. I did, and still do, wonder whether they will somehow find Ollie but Tony will go to prison for Garret's murder. He appears to have no future, but may be at peace with the knowledge his son is safe and well.
It's important that the ending isn't a cop-out bearing in mind the subject matter, but equally I don't want it to end of too depressing a note!
By the way didn't we get a brief glimpse of Tony wiping the boat down just before he jumped overboard. Presumably then he was trying to remove his DNA from the boat.
Exactly. He's an extremely conflicted and complex individual. Clearly someone abused themselves, who is deeply unhappy despite a successful career, who has gone on to abuse - even his own daughter.
In his lucid moments he can't seem to reconcile what he is and what he's done, as we see in moments and in painting his daughter. He appears to believe his own fiction, his own lies and it's only when broken and laid bare that his barrier fails.
I agree with you Frank, the question was rhetorical to Virgil who thought Garrett may have been a child abuser hunter of sorts.
That all takes us back to the involvement of the Mayor and other bigwigs. Would they just order a cover-up because Garrett was financing the Mayor's election campaign ? Seems a stretch to me, when Garrett's activities involved the abuse and murder of children.
But we know from the current real-life inquiries going on in the UK that practically anything is possible. It was actually the threat (or bluff of a threat) by Baptiste to talk to Malik that forced the Mayor to open the inquiry again.
I think when everyone comes together and shares the information they have the truth will be clear. But at the moment, even the "innocent" have something to lose.
Today (thanks for links;-)) I finally saw episode 1 on youtube, It made me realise you could watch them in just about any order - but didn't give me any extra 'hindsight' clues.:D
I'm obsessed with Tony's job, even though it may have no relevance, and how Mark turned up there with his lookalikey son.