Did anyone notice the boy in the tree shortly after Emily's speech? Who was he?
He looked like a young Bourg.
There were happy endings for some.
Baptiste and his daughter
Khalid's son visiting his father's grave
Malik and his family.
How on earth did Olly manage to draw the big ears drawing and when did he have the time?
He climbed out of the boot of the car, made his way to the window before he was dragged away by the Romanian and killed. I don't think he would have had the strength. It's not easy drawing on a brick wall.
Think it told us far more, we see Tony with Monique at Emilys wedding.
He could only have met up with her if he went to Paris., the reason he went to Paris was to investigate the Caid de Citadle who he knew were involved, maybe he learned more from the inevitable police investigation. this is were Russia must come in, Tony may be going off his head and obsessed with finding Ollie but he still must have had reason to go to Russia, he wouldn't just get on a plane without information even if he was going barmy.
Romania shares a border with Russia. I reckon he went to Romania first then moved on to Russia.
Romania shares a border with Russia. I reckon he went to Romania first then moved on to Russia.
Yes i think your right.
The question is why did he go to Rumania and Russia, he had to go for a reason, he wasn't aimlessly going from one boy in a one particular town to another somewhere else, he must have had information and leads.
Opinions given now is he is wandering aimlessly around Russia just picking boys at random in different city's because he is going barmy.
How on earth did Olly manage to draw the big ears drawing and when did he have the time?
He climbed out of the boot of the car, made his way to the window before he was dragged away by the Romanian and killed. I don't think he would have had the strength. It's not easy drawing on a brick wall.
When he was in the boot of the car, he was presumed dead. So he was probably left alone for quite some time. He drew the picture on the wall before he tried to escape, because it was there on the wall when the Romanian guy discovered him missing and made his way upstairs So, it seems that Oliver went to that corner near the stairs and probably hid there for a while, and drew the picture, before making his way upstairs and trying to escape.
Seems an unlikely thing to do, but that has to be the sequence of events.
For you to believe that Ollie drew the pucture on the car window, you'd have to believe that a 13 year old boy would still be drawing stick men.
I can believe that actually. Maybe he clung on to that image to remind himself of his former life and continued to draw it as he grew older. Maybe he didn't even remember the significance of it anymore and yet still continued to draw it hence the flicker of dawning realisation as the police dragged Tony away.
I continue (on occasion) to draw a simple doodle that I first drew as a teenager some 30 year ago... Yeah I know I'm weird!
At the end of the day, the writers appear to have left enough room for doubt so not sure why so many on here appear to know definitively what their intentions were...
Yes i think your right.
The question is why did he go to Rumania and Russia, he had to go for a reason, he wasn't aimlessly going from one boy in a one particular town to another somewhere else, he must have had information and leads.
Opinions given now is he is wandering aimlessly around Russia just picking boys at random in different city's because he is going barmy.
It's not a question that matters, is it?
We don't need to know precisely what has led Tony to Russia, or what potential leads he is following up. It could be absolutely anything. Could be as simple as a tip-off that there's a boy matching Ollie's description in Russia. But it doesn't matter. The scene tells us what it's supposed to - despite an attempt to move on with his life (appearance of Monique at the wedding), Tony has not accepted that Ollie is dead, and has remained obsessed with finding him.
Your reply just supports my earlier point. You see Tony as a good character and because he killed a bad character, that's fne and he doesn't need to be brought to justice. In fact, you go so far as to call his act brave. So, in what you deem the right circumstances, you'll support someone committing a crime and taking a life. Yet you find completely abhorrent the very idea that Bourg could be portrayed in a sympathetic light. It's rather simplistic in my view.
I stand by what I've said. I haven't sought to condone, mitigate or excuse the behaviour of characters like Vincent Bourg.
That's right. Something can be "just" without due process. We have laws to prevent people taking the law into their own hands. But these are only man-made conventions, introduced to make it easier to govern society.
In this case Garrett was a self-confessed child killer, the law required he should have been tried in a court, given a smart lawyer to plead his case, and all the rest of the trimmings. But we know (even if Tony didn't at that time) the Mayor would have impeded any investigation. I consider there was a "natural justice" in his killing. Should Tony have been put on trial for Garrett's murder ? Probably he should, because in a civilised society we can't all be judge, jury and executioner. But I would like to think that given the circumstances, he would have walked free. He wouldn't of course, because the law and justice appear to be different things.
Yes i think your right.
The question is why did he go to Rumania and Russia, he had to go for a reason, he wasn't aimlessly going from one boy in a one particular town to another somewhere else, he must have had information and leads.
Opinions given now is he is wandering aimlessly around Russia just picking boys at random in different city's because he is going barmy.
I think he's been trying to trace the package that the Romanians in Caid de Cite were sending to the Far East. Baptiste told him it was a false lead or something, but Tony believes that the package could have been Olly. Maybe Tony took a different course and ended up in Russia. Tony doesn't want to give up his search and didn't truly believe that Alain was telling the truth.
We don't need to know precisely what has led Tony to Russia, or what potential leads he is following up. It could be absolutely anything. Could be as simple as a tip-off that there's a boy matching Ollie's description in Russia. But it doesn't matter. The scene tells us what it's supposed to - despite an attempt to move on with his life (appearance of Monique at the wedding), Tony has not accepted that Ollie is dead, and has remained obsessed with finding him.
There was a reason for Tony to carry on investigating in Paris, to find his Sons body and bring the person who killed him to justice. i would not class that as obsession.
The wedding scene with Monique tells us Tony went to Paris.he investigated the Caid De Citadel.
I didn't realise it was Tony until he spoke with his Northern Irish accent. The enormous beard made him completely unrecognisable and I think it is very realistic to think that if the boy was Ollie he would not have recognised him.
If you are looking for a long lost child you would not disguise your appearance to make recognition harder.if that was ollie he would remember his father .he was five not two or three when he went missing.He would remember learning a new language too.He wouldnt be having the cloudy memory of an adult as it was only 8 or so years.
That's right. Something can be "just" without due process. We have laws to prevent people taking the law into their own hands. But these are only man-made conventions, introduced to make it easier to govern society.
In this case Garrett was a self-confessed child killer, the law required he should have been tried in a court, given a smart lawyer to plead his case, and all the rest of the trimmings. But we know (even if Tony didn't at that time) the Mayor would have impeded any investigation. I consider there was a "natural justice" in his killing. Should Tony have been put on trial for Garrett's murder ? Probably he should, because in a civilised society we can't all be judge, jury and executioner. But I would like to think that given the circumstances, he would have walked free. He wouldn't of course, because the law and justice appear to be different things.
I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I meant to say in the post you quoted that I wasn't in any way sorry to see Garrett killed, and I wouldn't have taken any pleasure in seeing Tony brought to justice (in legal terms) for his death.
I was just really using that as a counterpoint to the outrage around Bourg being portrayed as a sympathetic character. It's a lot easier to write a one dimensional monster, and arguably we already had that in Garrett.
There was a reason for Tony to carry on investigating in Paris, to find his Sons body and bring the person who killed him to justice. i would not class that as obsession.
The wedding scene with Monique tells us Tony went to Paris.he investigated the Caid De Citadel.
The reason for Monique being at the wedding scene was to make us believe for a few minutes that Tony had heeded Julien's words about home not only being where you live but about the people you keep around you, and had started to move on.
You're trying to fill in gaps that don't need filling in. It doesn't matter what led him to Russia. It's not part of the story. It's like asking why they chose to go to France on holiday.
When he was in the boot of the car, he was presumed dead. So he was probably left alone for quite some time. He drew the picture on the wall before he tried to escape, because it was there on the wall when the Romanian guy discovered him missing and made his way upstairs So, it seems that Oliver went to that corner near the stairs and probably hid there for a while, and drew the picture, before making his way upstairs and trying to escape.
Seems an unlikely thing to do, but that has to be the sequence of events.
Yes, I've just checked and it does seem odd that he's drawn a picture first before trying to attract attention at the window.
I personally don't have any Doubts that Olly was murdered by the Ruthless Romanian who had not the slightest hesitation in slitting a young woman's throat leaving her for dead in an earlier episode.
The fact is when you look at the reconstruction of the events on that fateful night back in 2006 as shown last night it ties in with everything we had seen before.It explained Why No one at the Bar saw any kind of struggle because Ollie was not abducted simply chasing a fox which to him reminded him of his toy.Then we see how he ended up at the house and we even get to see the scene captured at end of episode 3 when we see Olly in Video clip being grabbed away from window by unseen assailant but this time we see who it really was.
Then when Georges goes down to the basement we see the exact same pool of blood that karl steig described in Episode 6 which ties in and also it explains why he was watching the road where Zain found the Sobriety coin because he was probably told to go and make sure no evidence of Alain's involvment at the scene of the accident.
I think everything we saw and especially the reaction of Georges when he looked in back of Van and his face when he left the house tells us the horror of what he has just witnessed.Also The Romanian says to Georges "you brought me here to get rid of the boy it IS done" not it WILL be done before showing him what we can be almost 100% certain was Ollie lying dead in back of Van.
As i said a tragic yet mesmerising tale so beautifully written and acted and it played on all our human emotions fear,horror,doubt,hope the lot.In the end i think the writers are pretty clear in their intentions as to what happened to Ollie .
Just as Tony cannot accept the awful truth and has literally been driven mad by his obsession and hope that somehow Olly is still alive there are quite a few viewers who have the same sense of disbelief and are clinging to the same hope that he has no matter how unlikely or in plausible that is.It is a summation of life itself and let's be honest even if misplaced without Hope we Humans would never have gotten anywhere without it.
I think Bourg knew what had happened to Ollie..that is why he killed himself...he said he had guilt..I think.he was guilty of watching what happened..not just guilty of his pervy desires..he may of even helped with Ollie being taken away to were ever...he just had to do as he was told.
The reason for Monique being at the wedding scene was to make us believe for a few minutes that Tony had heeded Julien's words about home not only being where you live but about the people you keep around you, and had started to move on.
You're trying to fill in gaps that don't need filling in. It doesn't matter what led him to Russia. It's not part of the story. It's like asking why they chose to go to France on holiday.
The point is not Monique was at the wedding to have us believe Tony had moved on, it's the fact she was at the wedding that shows us Tony traveled to Paris, that's not filling in gaps that is a fact. why would he do that.? i would say he went to Paris to investigate and Monique was the only friend he had to turn to.
He didn't travel to Paris just to meet up with her for romance.
BTW Im not telling you your wrong, not my place to, but i just want an opinion from someone who does believe Ollie to be alive....
Why do you think the ruthless Romanian gangster lied and covered up the boys death to the mayor? The mayor was so far up to his neck in it that the Romanian could have done anything he wanted with Ollie and he'd be powerless to intervene without dropping himself and everyone else in it.
I think even if the Romanian had 1million rats arses to give, he wouldnt have given one to the fact that the mayor would know what he'd done with the boy on finding he was alive.
The gangsters just don't strike me as someone who would worry and cover their own crime up when committing one for someone else. I think they would just say 'yeah he was in fact alive and so im sending him away', after all its no worse than 'yeah he was alive so i killed him'
No probs I didn't think you was anyway
Maybe I want to believe it is Ollie as others have said that the poster looked like that boy.
Going through all the posts and their views I am totally confused as we are all seeing different versions and understandings of what happened.
I think they have left us the viewers to assume what happened when and where.
I think Bourg knew what had happened to Ollie..that is why he killed himself...he said he had guilt..I think.he was guilty of watching what happened..not just guilty of his pervy desires..he may of even helped with Ollie being taken away to were ever...he just had to do as he was told.
There was absolutely no evidence to support that in the reveal. It's based on nothing.
I think Bourg knew what had happened to Ollie..that is why he killed himself...he said he had guilt..I think.he was guilty of watching what happened..not just guilty of his pervy desires..he may of even helped with Ollie being taken away to were ever...he just had to do as he was told.
The thing that really annoyed me about him shooting himself is that all the armed police that were there should have shot him in the arm or leg so they got the truth out of him.
But the writers didn't want us to know did they >:(
The point is not Monique was at the wedding to have us believe Tony had moved on, it's the fact she was at the wedding that shows us Tony traveled to Paris, that's not filling in gaps that is a fact. why would he do that.? i would say he went to Paris to investigate and Monique was the only friend he had to turn to.
He didn't travel to Paris just to meet up with her for romance.
The fact that Tony might have travelled to Paris and met up with Monique, or to further the investigation, or might have had her phone number and just made contact that way, or might have bumped into her randomly, or might have done any number of other things, is utterly irrelevant.
I think Bourg knew what had happened to Ollie..that is why he killed himself...he said he had guilt..I think.he was guilty of watching what happened..not just guilty of his pervy desires..he may of even helped with Ollie being taken away to were ever...he just had to do as he was told.
I know some people are saying the Russian boy at end looked identical to the photo fit in one of the papers as to what Olly would look like now but i disagree. Yes he did look similar but not identical and i am sure there are plenty of people who may look similar to that photo-fit.
There were a lot of people on here saying that Alain was in 1st episode at the bar when Tony meets Julien in present day and Whilst i could see slight similarity did not ever think it was him.The same way as others thought they had seen Karl Seig,Graham,the mechanic etc in various scenes and not one of them were right.Did they look a little bit like them yes but to most people it clearly was not them but some people see only what they want to see.
I think it is the same with the Olly "look alike" at the end does he bear a resemblance to what Olly would look like at 13 yes he does but that is all.The fact is if he really was Olly he would still remember his father 8 years later and have reacted differently.
To me the final scene in the car showing Tony's tortured,demented literally crazy looking face tells us all we need to know and that is Tony simply cannot accept the truth and just as Julien warned if he cannot control his doubts it would destroy him ,and it clearly has.
I think Bourg knew what had happened to Ollie..that is why he killed himself...he said he had guilt..I think.he was guilty of watching what happened..not just guilty of his pervy desires..he may of even helped with Ollie being taken away to were ever...he just had to do as he was told.
He knew something otherwise he wouldn't have gone to Malik. I can't understand why Malik told Ziane that he knew what happened to Olly.
The fact that Tony might have travelled to Paris and met up with Monique, or to further the investigation, or might have had her phone number and just made contact that way, or might have bumped into her randomly, or might have done any number of other things, is utterly irrelevant.
How he made contact is irrelevant, the reason for traveling to Paris is not.
Comments
He looked like a young Bourg.
There were happy endings for some.
Baptiste and his daughter
Khalid's son visiting his father's grave
Malik and his family.
How on earth did Olly manage to draw the big ears drawing and when did he have the time?
He climbed out of the boot of the car, made his way to the window before he was dragged away by the Romanian and killed. I don't think he would have had the strength. It's not easy drawing on a brick wall.
Romania shares a border with Russia. I reckon he went to Romania first then moved on to Russia.
Edit- I think it does. Maybe it's Ukraine.
The question is why did he go to Rumania and Russia, he had to go for a reason, he wasn't aimlessly going from one boy in a one particular town to another somewhere else, he must have had information and leads.
Opinions given now is he is wandering aimlessly around Russia just picking boys at random in different city's because he is going barmy.
When he was in the boot of the car, he was presumed dead. So he was probably left alone for quite some time. He drew the picture on the wall before he tried to escape, because it was there on the wall when the Romanian guy discovered him missing and made his way upstairs So, it seems that Oliver went to that corner near the stairs and probably hid there for a while, and drew the picture, before making his way upstairs and trying to escape.
Seems an unlikely thing to do, but that has to be the sequence of events.
I can believe that actually. Maybe he clung on to that image to remind himself of his former life and continued to draw it as he grew older. Maybe he didn't even remember the significance of it anymore and yet still continued to draw it hence the flicker of dawning realisation as the police dragged Tony away.
I continue (on occasion) to draw a simple doodle that I first drew as a teenager some 30 year ago... Yeah I know I'm weird!
At the end of the day, the writers appear to have left enough room for doubt so not sure why so many on here appear to know definitively what their intentions were...
It's not a question that matters, is it?
We don't need to know precisely what has led Tony to Russia, or what potential leads he is following up. It could be absolutely anything. Could be as simple as a tip-off that there's a boy matching Ollie's description in Russia. But it doesn't matter. The scene tells us what it's supposed to - despite an attempt to move on with his life (appearance of Monique at the wedding), Tony has not accepted that Ollie is dead, and has remained obsessed with finding him.
That's right. Something can be "just" without due process. We have laws to prevent people taking the law into their own hands. But these are only man-made conventions, introduced to make it easier to govern society.
In this case Garrett was a self-confessed child killer, the law required he should have been tried in a court, given a smart lawyer to plead his case, and all the rest of the trimmings. But we know (even if Tony didn't at that time) the Mayor would have impeded any investigation. I consider there was a "natural justice" in his killing. Should Tony have been put on trial for Garrett's murder ? Probably he should, because in a civilised society we can't all be judge, jury and executioner. But I would like to think that given the circumstances, he would have walked free. He wouldn't of course, because the law and justice appear to be different things.
The wedding scene with Monique tells us Tony went to Paris.he investigated the Caid De Citadel.
If you are looking for a long lost child you would not disguise your appearance to make recognition harder.if that was ollie he would remember his father .he was five not two or three when he went missing.He would remember learning a new language too.He wouldnt be having the cloudy memory of an adult as it was only 8 or so years.
I don't disagree with any of that. In fact, I meant to say in the post you quoted that I wasn't in any way sorry to see Garrett killed, and I wouldn't have taken any pleasure in seeing Tony brought to justice (in legal terms) for his death.
I was just really using that as a counterpoint to the outrage around Bourg being portrayed as a sympathetic character. It's a lot easier to write a one dimensional monster, and arguably we already had that in Garrett.
The reason for Monique being at the wedding scene was to make us believe for a few minutes that Tony had heeded Julien's words about home not only being where you live but about the people you keep around you, and had started to move on.
You're trying to fill in gaps that don't need filling in. It doesn't matter what led him to Russia. It's not part of the story. It's like asking why they chose to go to France on holiday.
Yes, I've just checked and it does seem odd that he's drawn a picture first before trying to attract attention at the window.
The fact is when you look at the reconstruction of the events on that fateful night back in 2006 as shown last night it ties in with everything we had seen before.It explained Why No one at the Bar saw any kind of struggle because Ollie was not abducted simply chasing a fox which to him reminded him of his toy.Then we see how he ended up at the house and we even get to see the scene captured at end of episode 3 when we see Olly in Video clip being grabbed away from window by unseen assailant but this time we see who it really was.
Then when Georges goes down to the basement we see the exact same pool of blood that karl steig described in Episode 6 which ties in and also it explains why he was watching the road where Zain found the Sobriety coin because he was probably told to go and make sure no evidence of Alain's involvment at the scene of the accident.
I think everything we saw and especially the reaction of Georges when he looked in back of Van and his face when he left the house tells us the horror of what he has just witnessed.Also The Romanian says to Georges "you brought me here to get rid of the boy it IS done" not it WILL be done before showing him what we can be almost 100% certain was Ollie lying dead in back of Van.
As i said a tragic yet mesmerising tale so beautifully written and acted and it played on all our human emotions fear,horror,doubt,hope the lot.In the end i think the writers are pretty clear in their intentions as to what happened to Ollie .
Just as Tony cannot accept the awful truth and has literally been driven mad by his obsession and hope that somehow Olly is still alive there are quite a few viewers who have the same sense of disbelief and are clinging to the same hope that he has no matter how unlikely or in plausible that is.It is a summation of life itself and let's be honest even if misplaced without Hope we Humans would never have gotten anywhere without it.
He didn't travel to Paris just to meet up with her for romance.
No probs I didn't think you was anyway
Maybe I want to believe it is Ollie as others have said that the poster looked like that boy.
Going through all the posts and their views I am totally confused as we are all seeing different versions and understandings of what happened.
I think they have left us the viewers to assume what happened when and where.
There was absolutely no evidence to support that in the reveal. It's based on nothing.
The thing that really annoyed me about him shooting himself is that all the armed police that were there should have shot him in the arm or leg so they got the truth out of him.
But the writers didn't want us to know did they >:(
Edit. I may have confused Bourg with the mayor
The fact that Tony might have travelled to Paris and met up with Monique, or to further the investigation, or might have had her phone number and just made contact that way, or might have bumped into her randomly, or might have done any number of other things, is utterly irrelevant.
I highly doubt that.
There were a lot of people on here saying that Alain was in 1st episode at the bar when Tony meets Julien in present day and Whilst i could see slight similarity did not ever think it was him.The same way as others thought they had seen Karl Seig,Graham,the mechanic etc in various scenes and not one of them were right.Did they look a little bit like them yes but to most people it clearly was not them but some people see only what they want to see.
I think it is the same with the Olly "look alike" at the end does he bear a resemblance to what Olly would look like at 13 yes he does but that is all.The fact is if he really was Olly he would still remember his father 8 years later and have reacted differently.
To me the final scene in the car showing Tony's tortured,demented literally crazy looking face tells us all we need to know and that is Tony simply cannot accept the truth and just as Julien warned if he cannot control his doubts it would destroy him ,and it clearly has.
He knew something otherwise he wouldn't have gone to Malik. I can't understand why Malik told Ziane that he knew what happened to Olly.
How he made contact is irrelevant, the reason for traveling to Paris is not.