A few days ago I posted my theory about every image in the title sequence being relevant (splattered ice cream, a snow-covered child's swing, etc).
I just spotted one more - a woman's left hand wearing a plain silver ring. The hand, fingernails and ring are all identical to Sylvie's. Hard to say what's going on in the rest of the image though. Looks like she is in a crowded public place and holding a camera phone in her right hand.
Am assuming the ice cream is what was used to entice Ollie away with.
The question remains why Ollie wasn't immediately released unharmed. Could be something like the film The Pledge where one of the key protagonists in the plot is killed or has an accident unknown to the rest of the participants?
So Is the BBC saying that sexual interest in children is reversible by chemical intervention. (Also sometimes called chemical castration). Its not actually reversible per se but removing all sexual desires, children or otherwise. Its available as a treatment i suppose on the NHS for sometime.
The question remains why Ollie wasn't immediately released unharmed.
The mistaken Identity theory rasies more questions that it answers, if it answers anything at all. The simplist answer is that Ollie was abducted because he was identiifed as a target, was foreign, and they knew he was staying just one night so had to act.
I don't feel any sympathy for Bourg but the fact that he's seeking medical help for his addiction (if you can call it that) does stir my interest because I didn't know that such treatment was available and he's made the decision/effort to seek it out.
This is one part of the plot i hope we are given answers. we dont even know just what Bourg has been doing.
Just what did Garrett mean when telling Bourg our relationship is terminated, Bourg has always said he never touches just looks, gives you the impression he could be dealing in child pornography but it is possible that Garrett abused him as a child. maybe it's relevant to the tapes found on Garretts boat.
I dont think any of these questions are Red Herrings or should be left to the viewer to decide. i will be disappointed if we dont find out.
The lady with the boy was not Sylvie's friend so all that about Sylvie giving him the scarf could not have happened.
No-one said that the lady with the boy was Sylvie's friend or that she gave him the scarf!
The point I made was that it's ironic, considering Sylvie/Alain are now prime suspects, that it is Sylvie's photo of her friend on Facebook that led Tony to identify the scarf.
Just what did Garrett mean when telling Bourg our relationship is terminated, Bourg has always said he never touches just looks, gives you the impression he could be dealing in child pornography
I thought it was clear, as you suggest, that their relationship is one of sharing child abuse images.
Perhaps the Romanian gang didn't get a chance to contact Mark that James was in their hands because they quickly worked out they had taken the wrong boy.
Mark is oblivious to the kidnapping of Ollie along with everyone else.
The question remains why Ollie wasn't immediately released unharmed. Could be something like the film The Pledge where one of the key protagonists in the plot is killed or has an accident unknown to the rest of the participants?
I cant see any gang abducting a detectives son to warn him to back off.
It's not a warning. they have crossed a line, what does Mark do, allow his Son to remain missing and back off or say ok i will back off, get his son back and still back off, once he got his son back he would get him out the way and throw everything at them.
The only way that works is if they wanted to stop him from doing his job for a short period. they kidnap his son and hold him till they have done what they wanted, then release him back to Mark. it would never work to stop an investigation.
I cant see any detective investigating any crime with his young son in the UK never mind in France, would his superiors allow it even if he was foolish enough to offer. so i find it hard to believe Mark was out there undercover. so why target his kid to shut him up.
I find the portrayal of paedophilia much more sinister when it is done this way rather than the THEY ARE ALL SUBHUMAN MONSTERS of the tabloids. It could be, and often is, a neighbour, workmate or friend. Scary.
I suspect the two victims of abuse we are being shown in this are Bourg and Monique. Bourg related in someway to Garrett (step-son) and Monique daughter of Sylvie and Alain & niece of Mayor. The abused sadly often go on to be abusers. In this instance we are being told that he views images and he is frightened that he will abuse. Baptiste said in early episode 'it won't end well for Bourg'. No it won't he will commit suicide. Monique is in Paris. From what we saw she is basically a prostitute. Again sadly too many abused kids end up going down this route.
This is one part of the plot i hope we are given answers. we dont even know just what Bourg has been doing.
Just what did Garrett mean when telling Bourg our relationship is terminated, Bourg has always said he never touches just looks, gives you the impression he could be dealing in child pornography but it is possible that Garrett abused him as a child. maybe it's relevant to the tapes found on Garretts boat.I dont think any of these questions are Red Herrings or should be left to the viewer to decide. i will be disappointed if we dont find out.
Wouldn't surprise me that some of these are shot in room 7.
Snatch him in the UK, the search focuses in the UK - snatch him abroad and the search focuses everywhere else.
BTW Paedophilia is almost certainly a red herring, it's been explored already - a second totally separate ring of paedophiles in the same town isn't credible
It could involve trafficking That hasn't completely been resolved yet, has it? I was trying to make a point that Greg wasn't Ollie's biological father.
If they want to discuss these things then a Horizon or documentary is the way forward. Not a whodunnit
Dramas cover a wide range of issues and have over many years. Even Coronation Street and Eastenders have covered, rape, incest and paedophilia among many other things. I'm not sure why this topic would be off limits here assuming it is treated sensitively, which it is in my opinion.
I suspect the two victims of abuse we are being shown in this are Bourg and Monique. Bourg related in someway to Garrett (step-son) and Monique daughter of Sylvie and Alain & niece of Mayor. The abused sadly often go on to be abusers. In this instance we are being told that he views images and he is frightened that he will abuse. Baptiste said in early episode 'it won't end well for Bourg'. No it won't he will commit suicide. Monique is in Paris. From what we saw she is basically a prostitute. Again sadly too many abused kids end up going down this route.
How is she basically a prostitute?!! Because she slept with a man she just met?really???:o
I remain convinced that Ollie is alive and is the boy in the very first scene in Episode 1, credited as Alex Duchamps. The earlier kidnapping of Alex Duchamps in 2009 gave rise to some kind of child-swap or identity fraud, because Ollie's new family needed paperwork to give him an identity. This was done with the help of corrupt officials because Ollie/Alex's new parents are well connected and achieved everything with the help of other figures in the town (the Mayor, Sylvie, etc.).
In 2014 he is living somewhere near Challons with the British couple he was seen with by Tony in the restaurant. The image of the child's swing is from their garden.
I keep banging on about the ice cream references, well here's a 4th one - Alex Duchamps has a glass ice cream bowl in front of him in the restaurant, just as Ollie did in the outdoor café in the centre of Challons (when Emily takes a photo of him).
I cant see any gang abducting a detectives son to warn him to back off.
It's not a warning. they have crossed a line, what does Mark do, allow his Son to remain missing and back off or say ok i will back off, get his son back and still back off, once he got his son back he would get him out the way and throw everything at them.
The only way that works is if they wanted to stop him from doing his job for a short period. they kidnap his son and hold him till they have done what they wanted, then release him back to Mark. it would never work to stop an investigation.
I cant see any detective investigating any crime with his young son in the UK never mind in France, would his superiors allow it even if he was foolish enough to offer. so i find it hard to believe Mark was out there undercover. so why target his kid to shut him up.
That is a good point. Maybe they needed Mark's position in law enforcement to act in a complicit manner in an illegal operation or to not give key evidence in a case? Happens all the time in bank/building society robberies for example ( in N. Ireland anyway and this is a small place! )
If Sieg's recollection is correct, the Romanian gang member was wearing a balaclava when Sieg was shown in. Was this just for Sieg's benefit or was it their intention to release the boy alive at a future date?
I cant see any gang abducting a detectives son to warn him to back off.
It's not a warning. they have crossed a line, what does Mark do, allow his Son to remain missing and back off or say ok i will back off, get his son back and still back off, once he got his son back he would get him out the way and throw everything at them.
The only way that works is if they wanted to stop him from doing his job for a short period. they kidnap his son and hold him till they have done what they wanted, then release him back to Mark. it would never work to stop an investigation.
I cant see any detective investigating any crime with his young son in the UK never mind in France, would his superiors allow it even if he was foolish enough to offer. so i find it hard to believe Mark was out there undercover. so why target his kid to shut him up.
Mark was probably just on holiday with his kid. BUT his work involved tracking the gangs across borders. Baptiste made reference to Mark and Interpol earlier on. Folks said it was made up. Perhaps only the part of him being a computer expert was made up. He did work for Interpol. Baptiste clearly knew all about the gang and the undercover cop immediately wanted to speak to him when he was brought in. Baptiste seemed very happy to include Mark quickly into the inner circle of the investigation. Did Baptiste know more about him?
As for the paedophile ring in Chalon Du Bois. Suspect this gang knew it operated which means that some of them are open to bribery. Most likely the Mayor.
The only other issue that is still not known is what job Tony had. Did he work for security services or something like that. Leads to the jurisdiction mention. BUT I do think that a swerve ball of that nature at this stage is too much. It would have been a key part of the investigation early on I think.
That is a good point. Maybe they needed Mark's position in law enforcement to act in a complicit manner in an illegal operation or to not give key evidence in a case? Happens all the time in bank/building society robberies for example ( in N. Ireland anyway and this is a small place! )
If Sieg's recollection is correct, the Romanian gang member was wearing a balaclava when Sieg was shown in. Was this just for Sieg's benefit or was it their intention to release the boy alive at a future date?
It was a horrible scene. BBC have gone too far. They showed a man trying hard to resist getting excited by a boy. They have crossed a weird line here. What are they trying to do. Bring a certain acceptability to paedophilia here. Sticks in the throat.
I remain convinced that Ollie is alive and is the boy in the very first scene in Episode 1, credited as Alex Duchamps. The earlier kidnapping of Alex Duchamps in 2009 gave rise to some kind of child-swap or identity fraud, because Ollie's new family needed paperwork to give him an identity. This was done with the help of corrupt officials because Ollie/Alex's new parents are well connected and achieved everything with the help of other figures in the town (the Mayor, Sylvie, etc.).
In 2014 he is living somewhere near Challons with the British couple he was seen with by Tony in the restaurant. The image of the child's swing is from their garden.
I keep banging on about the ice cream references, well here's a 4th one - Alex Duchamps has a glass ice cream bowl in front of him in the restaurant, just as Ollie did in the outdoor café in the centre of Challons (when Emily takes a photo of him).
An abducted kid is going to be walking around the village he was abducted from?
Comments
Am assuming the ice cream is what was used to entice Ollie away with.
Very good!
What? Real life? Yeah, very odd
The mistaken Identity theory rasies more questions that it answers, if it answers anything at all. The simplist answer is that Ollie was abducted because he was identiifed as a target, was foreign, and they knew he was staying just one night so had to act.
Just what did Garrett mean when telling Bourg our relationship is terminated, Bourg has always said he never touches just looks, gives you the impression he could be dealing in child pornography but it is possible that Garrett abused him as a child. maybe it's relevant to the tapes found on Garretts boat.
I dont think any of these questions are Red Herrings or should be left to the viewer to decide. i will be disappointed if we dont find out.
If this is the case Ollie may remain "The Missing" forever. Not a sunny ending but then neither was The Pledge!
I find his quiet voice and underacting very appealing.
Incidentally, I'll be rustling up lunches on the boat.:)
No-one said that the lady with the boy was Sylvie's friend or that she gave him the scarf!
The point I made was that it's ironic, considering Sylvie/Alain are now prime suspects, that it is Sylvie's photo of her friend on Facebook that led Tony to identify the scarf.
Quelles horreurs et Chateauneuf du Pape!
I thought he may be this year's unlikeliest sex symbol, but having looked at all these, obviously not.
I thought it was clear, as you suggest, that their relationship is one of sharing child abuse images.
If they want to discuss these things then a Horizon or documentary is the way forward. Not a whodunnit
It's not a warning. they have crossed a line, what does Mark do, allow his Son to remain missing and back off or say ok i will back off, get his son back and still back off, once he got his son back he would get him out the way and throw everything at them.
The only way that works is if they wanted to stop him from doing his job for a short period. they kidnap his son and hold him till they have done what they wanted, then release him back to Mark. it would never work to stop an investigation.
I cant see any detective investigating any crime with his young son in the UK never mind in France, would his superiors allow it even if he was foolish enough to offer. so i find it hard to believe Mark was out there undercover. so why target his kid to shut him up.
I suspect the two victims of abuse we are being shown in this are Bourg and Monique. Bourg related in someway to Garrett (step-son) and Monique daughter of Sylvie and Alain & niece of Mayor. The abused sadly often go on to be abusers. In this instance we are being told that he views images and he is frightened that he will abuse. Baptiste said in early episode 'it won't end well for Bourg'. No it won't he will commit suicide. Monique is in Paris. From what we saw she is basically a prostitute. Again sadly too many abused kids end up going down this route.
... and I say so, so it must be right, eh?
It's drama. All subjects and situations are valid.
Wouldn't surprise me that some of these are shot in room 7.
It could involve trafficking That hasn't completely been resolved yet, has it? I was trying to make a point that Greg wasn't Ollie's biological father.
Dramas cover a wide range of issues and have over many years. Even Coronation Street and Eastenders have covered, rape, incest and paedophilia among many other things. I'm not sure why this topic would be off limits here assuming it is treated sensitively, which it is in my opinion.
How is she basically a prostitute?!! Because she slept with a man she just met?really???:o
In 2014 he is living somewhere near Challons with the British couple he was seen with by Tony in the restaurant. The image of the child's swing is from their garden.
I keep banging on about the ice cream references, well here's a 4th one - Alex Duchamps has a glass ice cream bowl in front of him in the restaurant, just as Ollie did in the outdoor café in the centre of Challons (when Emily takes a photo of him).
Wait and see!
That is a good point. Maybe they needed Mark's position in law enforcement to act in a complicit manner in an illegal operation or to not give key evidence in a case? Happens all the time in bank/building society robberies for example ( in N. Ireland anyway and this is a small place! )
If Sieg's recollection is correct, the Romanian gang member was wearing a balaclava when Sieg was shown in. Was this just for Sieg's benefit or was it their intention to release the boy alive at a future date?
Mark was probably just on holiday with his kid. BUT his work involved tracking the gangs across borders. Baptiste made reference to Mark and Interpol earlier on. Folks said it was made up. Perhaps only the part of him being a computer expert was made up. He did work for Interpol. Baptiste clearly knew all about the gang and the undercover cop immediately wanted to speak to him when he was brought in. Baptiste seemed very happy to include Mark quickly into the inner circle of the investigation. Did Baptiste know more about him?
As for the paedophile ring in Chalon Du Bois. Suspect this gang knew it operated which means that some of them are open to bribery. Most likely the Mayor.
The only other issue that is still not known is what job Tony had. Did he work for security services or something like that. Leads to the jurisdiction mention. BUT I do think that a swerve ball of that nature at this stage is too much. It would have been a key part of the investigation early on I think.
Bingo.
An abducted kid is going to be walking around the village he was abducted from?