How could the journalist possibly know anything about Garrett's murder? Only 1 person knows and that's Tony. Even if he let Emily in on it, she's hardly likely to blab to anyone else. We know Garrett's body was never found although we don't yet know about the boat. Even if the police find the boat with Tony's dabs on it nothing is proven as he could say he was invited there by Garrett well before he disappeared.
The only problem he may have is that Garrett's wife may have spoken to the journalist (before she went insane) and told him she was visited by Emily who found out about her husband's activities. But if the police knew nothing about that visit the journalist could find himself in trouble by withholding vital evidence for years. There's also the problem that Tony told the police officer Laurence that Garrett fitted up Bourg with a false alibi, but that was never taken seriously and seems to have been forgotten.
Well its 8 years between the murder and the meeting of the journalist and Emily in the Kings Cross cafe. An investigative hack could realistically have unearthed something - we don't even know yet how Tony has disposed of the body or whether he will have confessed to anyone else. Maybe Emily has told somebody ( her new husband who has then tipped off the hack?) All pure speculation I know but I am pretty sure the journalist knows.
Well its 8 years between the murder and the meeting of the journalist and Emily in the Kings Cross cafe. An investigative hack could realistically have unearthed something - we don't even know yet how Tony has disposed of the body or whether he will have confessed to anyone else. Maybe Emily has told somebody ( her new husband who has then tipped off the hack?) All pure speculation I know but I am pretty sure the journalist knows.
Thinking about it if the journalist does suspect Tony has killed Garrett, then this shows Tony has never been charged let alone been to prison for killing Garrett. the fact that he is practically telling them. I know your little secret but i cant prove it must mean he has never faced charges. i think your right but i would have been done for wrongful arrest after episode 2 so wont be surprised if am changing my mind after the next episode.
Only just caught up with this episode on iPlayer - heart is still pounding from the events on the boat and the reveal re. Garrett's wife. Phew! Excellent stuff!
Watching ep5 I thought that Mary Garrett was both the woman in the photos that Vincent was looking at and that she was his mother who he had pleaded with Ian not to hurt. After reading this thread I started to doubt myself. However, trawling back through the thread a fair way:
Vincent Bourg's police file shows his father was Pierre Bourg and mother was Mary Scotts. Not a very French sounding name. Possible link to the association with Stott's character?
Have seen a screenshot elsewhere of the file. Vincent's mother Mary Scotts' place of birth was given as Dartford. Now convinced that Mary Garret was indeed Mary Scotts and therefore Vincent's mother. The alternative is that there are two different Marys in the story, both English and around the same age.
My current theory is that Vincent was abused by his stepfather Ian Garrett and that possibly he was sent away (perhaps to live with his French father Pierre Bourg?). Would be one explanation for them not having a close mother - son relationship.
Well its 8 years between the murder and the meeting of the journalist and Emily in the Kings Cross cafe. An investigative hack could realistically have unearthed something - we don't even know yet how Tony has disposed of the body or whether he will have confessed to anyone else. Maybe Emily has told somebody ( her new husband who has then tipped off the hack?) All pure speculation I know but I am pretty sure the journalist knows.
Can anyone remember what the name of the book was that the journalist wrote? I can vaguely recall a photo of Tony as a cover of the book but the rest is hazy. Did the sleazy journalist write the book on Tony alone?
Watching ep5 I thought that Mary Garrett was both the woman in the photos that Vincent was looking at and that she was his mother who he had pleaded with Ian not to hurt. After reading this thread I started to doubt myself. However, trawling back through the thread a fair way:
Have seen a screenshot elsewhere of the file. Vincent's mother Mary Scotts' place of birth was given as Dartford. Now convinced that Mary Garret was indeed Mary Scotts and therefore Vincent's mother. The alternative is that there are two different Marys in the story, both English and around the same age.
My current theory is that Vincent was abused by his stepfather Ian Garrett and that possibly he was sent away (perhaps to live with his French father Pierre Bourg?). Would be one explanation for them not having a close mother - son relationship.
Yes. am thinking along the same lines but think it's more likely Ian Garrett just had a relationship with Vincents mother rather than marry her, in one episode, Garrett tells Bourg, our relationship is finished, We never met.
Garrett is as good as telling Bourg if your questioned tell them we have never met. police would only have to go through Bourgs file to know Garrett is his stepfather.
Doesn't change a thing really. main point is Garrett abused Bourg while having a relationship with his mother.
Molly is already dead. Tony calls Garrett a murderer while watching the tape of Molly's abuse. Garrett cannot deny it as the evidence is in front of Tony.
I don't think anything is said about Molly being on the tape Tony finds on the boat. He asks Garrett if it's Ollie.
I don't think anything is said about Molly being on the tape Tony finds on the boat. He asks Garrett if it's Ollie.
At first he thinks it may be Ollie but after watching more of the tape he realises it's Garrett and Molly , he then tells Garrett. you raped and murdered your own daughter.
At first he thinks it may be Ollie but after watching more of the tape he realises it's Garrett and Molly , he then tells Garrett. you raped and murdered your own daughter.
If he had a brother hiding in the plot he would have a Scottish accent? I tend not to think of Vincent a member of the family but very likely one who spent some time with the Garretts as a child.
Haha, yes he would. ( if he's still alive) Vincent wouldn't have a French accent either, would he.
When Vincent travelled to England, did he stay there for 8 years? Why did he go to England? Has he got relatives or did Garrett send him there?
In one of the episodes, Baptiste's wife tells him she had another awkward visit from "her."
"Her" could be Mary. Maybe they're sisters....or maybe she was talking about Baptiste's daughter.
As someone has already pointed out. Garrett's brother would have a Scottish accent. ;-):D
There are many reasons that could mean that two siblings grow up in different countries etc and with different accents etc. Look at Davina McCall. She grew up in Britain but had a completely French (half)sister. I am not saying I am right but there are things like Baptiste's wife being English that I do not think is just a coincidence. There is more to this plot to come that I think we haven't thought about yet.
There are many reasons that could mean that two siblings grow up in different countries etc and with different accents etc. Look at Davina McCall. She grew up in Britain but had a completely French (half)sister. I am not saying I am right but there are things like Baptiste's wife being English that I do not think is just a coincidence. There is more to this plot to come that I think we haven't thought about yet.
You could have a point about Baptiste's English wife. There might be some connections linking her to Vincent, Garratt or Mary. Did they go over to France at the same time?
Maybe Vincent was born England and went over to France as a young boy.
Somehow, I can't see Baptiste being Garratt's brother.
there are things like Baptiste's wife being English that I do not think is just a coincidence.
Or it could be that the producers wanted to keep the series as 'authentic' as possible and have people speaking in their first language when necessary. Baptiste having an English wife meant that their dialogue could be written in English rather than French and avoid sub-titles..
I'm wondering about the 2 Marys. Why call Vincent's mother Mary and Garrett's wife Mary, unless they are one and the same or... to mislead us into thinking they could be one and the same.
I have a very long-winded theory. Please feel free to pull it apart:
Random thought, but could the women of the town be responsible for providing the wild goose chase which lead to the Romanians?
Thinking of what’s led Tony, and the police to that conclusion:
1) The picture on the wall – if it was the Romanians, who are apparently involved with a cleaning company, it is VERY unlikely it would still be so visible eight years later. Surely they would have scrubbed down every inch of the cellar, if they’d been keeping Oli there.
- could be the house owner is responsible in some way
2) The scarf (1) – stays in the house until 2010 (four years before Tony goes back)
- again the houseowner could have deliberately kept it until whenever necessary. Could the actions of 2009 been the catalyst for this to be released into the wild (as it were)?
3) The scarf (2) – remains unsold in the charity shop for four years, until it is sold to the German family whose son happens to like it so much he wears it for the Bastille Day celebrations.
- it could be the charity-shop owner, a woman, deliberately hung on to it until the time was right, and then persuaded the family not only to buy it (perhaps at a reduced price…?) but then suggested it so suited the son that he wear it right away
4) The photo of the scarf on FB – put up by Sylvie
5) The video footage – when the investigation starts slowing down, the neighbours just happen remember they were videoing their party, which happened to show the boy at the window, and then the next morning the wife accidently turns it on and catches the cleaning van outside, which spells out just who is behind the abduction…. All rather iffy, unless you assume the film, both times, was deliberately filmed, with the boy at the window scene staged purposely to make sure it appeared on the film. Perhaps it was known the cleaning company was going to be there the next day, which made the timing even more perfect than it already was.
These seem to be the weak points in the story, where plausibility has been stretched, which seems a bit to coincidental to be believable, but what if it wasn’t mean to be coincidence, but an orchestrated series of events? Who would suspect such a set up? And I think it is deliberate that it is women who have acted the parts above, to keep suspicions away from the men.
So we come to why? I think it’s obviously to do with the paedophile ring that’s running in the area, that no doubt infiltrates all layers of the society, and which is possibly the raison d’etre for the town’s existence. This was the first time a mistake was made, and the above was staged to cover it. If 2009 was another abduction / disappearance, perhaps they thought they’d got away with Ollie’s well-enough to risk another outsider, but then Tony came back with a vengeance and they realised they hadn’t, so the above series of events had to be put in place, slowly and carefully.
Perhaps the comment about people not coming to Chalons du Bois so much now wasn’t a reference to tourists, but paedophiles. They realised their safe haven wasn’t so safe anymore so kept away.
Hotel Eden – a paradise for paedophiles?
Which comes on to the Hughes. If they are innocent it was all just a terrible case of wrong place, wrong time:
If the town is set up to collect children it might be that Hotel Eden was the drop-off point for children. The mechanic mistook their purpose (‘We’re on holiday, do you know where we can stay’ – taps nose) and sends them there to drop their son off. The usual pattern springs in to action, and the child is taken (perhaps by Sylvie, who befriends the children at the hotel and thus is able to entice them away later. This possibly grates with the idea of the usual ‘parents’ being in on it, but perhaps the act has to be played, so the ‘parents’ can leave with a clear conscience. Alain’s ‘meeting’ is called in anticipation of the child being delivered to them.
Of course, it doesn’t take long for the town to realise its mistake, the Hughes promptly respond, and the obvious question is why isn’t he returned straight away? I suspect there was too much at stake, if Ollie had turned up questions would have been asked that couldn’t be answered. As mad as it seems, perhaps an investigation into his disappearance was easier to control. But seeing as how quickly it all kicked off, the steps mentioned right at the start could be set in motion within the hour. (And if nec, the camera’s clock could be changed slightly in order for the scene of the boy at the window to be set up.)
But perhaps not both the Hughes were innocent? I suspect there were two Olivers, one, the baby at the time Greg was attacked, who later died, and then a later child who was given the same name. But Emily’s guilt was too much – she hoped to replace her first child with the second (as she later replaces that Oliver with James), but found the first could never be replaced. Perhaps it was her father who told her of Chalons du Bois. This could explain why she doesn’t go swimming with them – she knows what is about to happen. It could also explain the split between her and Tony – she can’t bear the guilt of knowing she is the reason he is so unhappy, and her part in it all could also account for the ‘Ugly Truth’ of the journalist’s book title.
Finally, I was considering the title, ‘The Missing’ as opposed to, for example, ‘The Disappeared’. Two thoughts – it refers to the first Oliver, who is the original missing part of the Hughes’ family, and the Hughes’ family history. And perhaps all the children who end up being swallowed up by Chalons du Bois don’t officially disappear – their families know fine well what happens to them, they just happen to be missing from the family (as is Baptiste’s daughter – she is around, but the family is missing her).
Comments
Yes, I was thinking that. Quite convenient that the murder took place next to a building site...
Well its 8 years between the murder and the meeting of the journalist and Emily in the Kings Cross cafe. An investigative hack could realistically have unearthed something - we don't even know yet how Tony has disposed of the body or whether he will have confessed to anyone else. Maybe Emily has told somebody ( her new husband who has then tipped off the hack?) All pure speculation I know but I am pretty sure the journalist knows.
Have seen a screenshot elsewhere of the file. Vincent's mother Mary Scotts' place of birth was given as Dartford. Now convinced that Mary Garret was indeed Mary Scotts and therefore Vincent's mother. The alternative is that there are two different Marys in the story, both English and around the same age.
My current theory is that Vincent was abused by his stepfather Ian Garrett and that possibly he was sent away (perhaps to live with his French father Pierre Bourg?). Would be one explanation for them not having a close mother - son relationship.
Can anyone remember what the name of the book was that the journalist wrote? I can vaguely recall a photo of Tony as a cover of the book but the rest is hazy. Did the sleazy journalist write the book on Tony alone?
Garrett is as good as telling Bourg if your questioned tell them we have never met. police would only have to go through Bourgs file to know Garrett is his stepfather.
Doesn't change a thing really. main point is Garrett abused Bourg while having a relationship with his mother.
I don't think anything is said about Molly being on the tape Tony finds on the boat. He asks Garrett if it's Ollie.
Ah, OK. Thanks.
When Vincent travelled to England, did he stay there for 8 years? Why did he go to England? Has he got relatives or did Garrett send him there?
In one of the episodes, Baptiste's wife tells him she had another awkward visit from "her."
"Her" could be Mary. Maybe they're sisters....or maybe she was talking about Baptiste's daughter.
As someone has already pointed out. Garrett's brother would have a Scottish accent. ;-):D
Was confirmed it was a visit from his druggy daughter.
There are many reasons that could mean that two siblings grow up in different countries etc and with different accents etc. Look at Davina McCall. She grew up in Britain but had a completely French (half)sister. I am not saying I am right but there are things like Baptiste's wife being English that I do not think is just a coincidence. There is more to this plot to come that I think we haven't thought about yet.
You could have a point about Baptiste's English wife. There might be some connections linking her to Vincent, Garratt or Mary. Did they go over to France at the same time?
Maybe Vincent was born England and went over to France as a young boy.
Somehow, I can't see Baptiste being Garratt's brother.
He came over as a nice guy, and managed to give a good interview without accidentally giving anything away!! It would have been so easy to slip.....
They did show a clip from tomorrow's show mind, which filled in a little detail about his daughter.....
*does excited jig*
Random thought, but could the women of the town be responsible for providing the wild goose chase which lead to the Romanians?
Thinking of what’s led Tony, and the police to that conclusion:
1) The picture on the wall – if it was the Romanians, who are apparently involved with a cleaning company, it is VERY unlikely it would still be so visible eight years later. Surely they would have scrubbed down every inch of the cellar, if they’d been keeping Oli there.
- could be the house owner is responsible in some way
2) The scarf (1) – stays in the house until 2010 (four years before Tony goes back)
- again the houseowner could have deliberately kept it until whenever necessary. Could the actions of 2009 been the catalyst for this to be released into the wild (as it were)?
3) The scarf (2) – remains unsold in the charity shop for four years, until it is sold to the German family whose son happens to like it so much he wears it for the Bastille Day celebrations.
- it could be the charity-shop owner, a woman, deliberately hung on to it until the time was right, and then persuaded the family not only to buy it (perhaps at a reduced price…?) but then suggested it so suited the son that he wear it right away
4) The photo of the scarf on FB – put up by Sylvie
5) The video footage – when the investigation starts slowing down, the neighbours just happen remember they were videoing their party, which happened to show the boy at the window, and then the next morning the wife accidently turns it on and catches the cleaning van outside, which spells out just who is behind the abduction…. All rather iffy, unless you assume the film, both times, was deliberately filmed, with the boy at the window scene staged purposely to make sure it appeared on the film. Perhaps it was known the cleaning company was going to be there the next day, which made the timing even more perfect than it already was.
These seem to be the weak points in the story, where plausibility has been stretched, which seems a bit to coincidental to be believable, but what if it wasn’t mean to be coincidence, but an orchestrated series of events? Who would suspect such a set up? And I think it is deliberate that it is women who have acted the parts above, to keep suspicions away from the men.
So we come to why? I think it’s obviously to do with the paedophile ring that’s running in the area, that no doubt infiltrates all layers of the society, and which is possibly the raison d’etre for the town’s existence. This was the first time a mistake was made, and the above was staged to cover it. If 2009 was another abduction / disappearance, perhaps they thought they’d got away with Ollie’s well-enough to risk another outsider, but then Tony came back with a vengeance and they realised they hadn’t, so the above series of events had to be put in place, slowly and carefully.
Perhaps the comment about people not coming to Chalons du Bois so much now wasn’t a reference to tourists, but paedophiles. They realised their safe haven wasn’t so safe anymore so kept away.
Hotel Eden – a paradise for paedophiles?
Which comes on to the Hughes. If they are innocent it was all just a terrible case of wrong place, wrong time:
If the town is set up to collect children it might be that Hotel Eden was the drop-off point for children. The mechanic mistook their purpose (‘We’re on holiday, do you know where we can stay’ – taps nose) and sends them there to drop their son off. The usual pattern springs in to action, and the child is taken (perhaps by Sylvie, who befriends the children at the hotel and thus is able to entice them away later. This possibly grates with the idea of the usual ‘parents’ being in on it, but perhaps the act has to be played, so the ‘parents’ can leave with a clear conscience. Alain’s ‘meeting’ is called in anticipation of the child being delivered to them.
Of course, it doesn’t take long for the town to realise its mistake, the Hughes promptly respond, and the obvious question is why isn’t he returned straight away? I suspect there was too much at stake, if Ollie had turned up questions would have been asked that couldn’t be answered. As mad as it seems, perhaps an investigation into his disappearance was easier to control. But seeing as how quickly it all kicked off, the steps mentioned right at the start could be set in motion within the hour. (And if nec, the camera’s clock could be changed slightly in order for the scene of the boy at the window to be set up.)
But perhaps not both the Hughes were innocent? I suspect there were two Olivers, one, the baby at the time Greg was attacked, who later died, and then a later child who was given the same name. But Emily’s guilt was too much – she hoped to replace her first child with the second (as she later replaces that Oliver with James), but found the first could never be replaced. Perhaps it was her father who told her of Chalons du Bois. This could explain why she doesn’t go swimming with them – she knows what is about to happen. It could also explain the split between her and Tony – she can’t bear the guilt of knowing she is the reason he is so unhappy, and her part in it all could also account for the ‘Ugly Truth’ of the journalist’s book title.
Finally, I was considering the title, ‘The Missing’ as opposed to, for example, ‘The Disappeared’. Two thoughts – it refers to the first Oliver, who is the original missing part of the Hughes’ family, and the Hughes’ family history. And perhaps all the children who end up being swallowed up by Chalons du Bois don’t officially disappear – their families know fine well what happens to them, they just happen to be missing from the family (as is Baptiste’s daughter – she is around, but the family is missing her).
It's been a long week but Tuesday is here at last
Great series and an equally great thread - thanks to you guys and gals!