I think she is just the tool used to show how unstable and volatile Hays is - can't maintain a normal relationship....
*** TRUE DETECTIVE (SEASON 3) ***
126,974 Views |
791 Replies |
Last: 5 yr ago by mhayden
She's BSC. Run from any woman that says some bad stuff happened in Cali.
I think Zombie Jon Snow's theory is close.
However, I think the theories that Julie is referring to Kindt are off. I think she just got brainwashed by whoever took her that Tom isnt her real dad and that he abused her, so she was saved from him. The easiest way to take her from her dad and control her is to convince her that he was the boogeyman that kidnapped her from her real family. So now she sees the press conference and is worried the boogeyman is after her.
However, I think the theories that Julie is referring to Kindt are off. I think she just got brainwashed by whoever took her that Tom isnt her real dad and that he abused her, so she was saved from him. The easiest way to take her from her dad and control her is to convince her that he was the boogeyman that kidnapped her from her real family. So now she sees the press conference and is worried the boogeyman is after her.
mazzag said:
She's BSC. Run from any woman that says some bad stuff happened in Cali.
This
And Dorff is absolutely awesome in this. Ali is good, but IMO Dorff is on another level.
We're only 5 episodes in. It's possible that everything we're learning is to set up the real meat and potatoes of the story. All our theories might not even be close to what really happened.
And that's one reason why this show is so damn good.
And that's one reason why this show is so damn good.
No way Amelia is playing any sort of sinister (even indirectly) role in this. She is just a typical woman who loves drama. They wouldn't make a black woman one of the twisted villains, especially in a show set against the backdrop of rural Arkansas. We KNOW that the ultimate villain or group of villains will be white men (maybe a complicit female or two). That is just the current reality, only bringing it up to narrow our focus. If it is revealed that the one eyed black dude is involved, it will show that he had good intentions and thought he was helping the kids to safety. No way he knowingly did anything bad with those kids. They're not going to make a poor, one-eyed black man a bad guy.
It's 2019.
It's 2019.
Whatever you say champ. You realize you are making it about that right? Almost as tiresome as people who would actually think that way.Boo Weekley said:
No way Amelia is playing any sort of sinister (even indirectly) role in this. She is just a typical woman who loves drama. They wouldn't make a black woman one of the twisted villains, especially in a show set against the backdrop of rural Arkansas. We KNOW that the ultimate villain or group of villains will be white men (maybe a complicit female or two). That is just the current reality, only bringing it up to narrow our focus. If it is revealed that the one eyed black dude is involved, it will show that he had good intentions and thought he was helping the kids to safety. No way he knowingly did anything bad with those kids.
It's 2019.
I am just noting the current trends. Not losing any sleep over it, but I am utilizing these trends in my predictions. I could be wrong. We are all just guessing to some degree.Malcolm52 said:Whatever you say champ. You realize you are making it about that right? Almost as tiresome as people who would actually think that way.Boo Weekley said:
No way Amelia is playing any sort of sinister (even indirectly) role in this. She is just a typical woman who loves drama. They wouldn't make a black woman one of the twisted villains, especially in a show set against the backdrop of rural Arkansas. We KNOW that the ultimate villain or group of villains will be white men (maybe a complicit female or two). That is just the current reality, only bringing it up to narrow our focus. If it is revealed that the one eyed black dude is involved, it will show that he had good intentions and thought he was helping the kids to safety. No way he knowingly did anything bad with those kids.
It's 2019.
Anyone think Hoyt is part of the 5 Horsemen/Kings theory? Rich dudes doing what they want...seems they're going that way and tying Season 1 & 3 tighter together.
Just rewatched episode 5 for probably my 6th or 7th time. This has been my favorite episode so far, but I do have a few things that annoyed me about this episode.
1) When the redneck kicked in Woodard's door, most, if not all, of the people in the front yard were definitely in the killzone of the claymore that was attached to the front door, so it is unlikely that any of them would have been involved in the ensuing fire fight.
2) The 3 rednecks who ran into the trip wire attached to the hand grenade in the backyard most definitely were in the killzone of the grenade, so the guy who shot Roland in his leg probably wouldn't have been able to get the shot off .
3) When Purple takes the picture of the pristine backpack that was supposed to have been in Woodard's house, he says that there is no way that backpack could have been in the crawlspace of that house when the mortar went off. Purple was a LRRP in Vietnam; there is NO way he would have confused a Claymore mine with a mortar.
I know these are minor issues, but they were bugging me. Also, in episode 4 when Purple was having the flashback, I think it was Woodard who was second or third from the left behind Purple , not Amelia, as some people have speculated
1) When the redneck kicked in Woodard's door, most, if not all, of the people in the front yard were definitely in the killzone of the claymore that was attached to the front door, so it is unlikely that any of them would have been involved in the ensuing fire fight.
2) The 3 rednecks who ran into the trip wire attached to the hand grenade in the backyard most definitely were in the killzone of the grenade, so the guy who shot Roland in his leg probably wouldn't have been able to get the shot off .
3) When Purple takes the picture of the pristine backpack that was supposed to have been in Woodard's house, he says that there is no way that backpack could have been in the crawlspace of that house when the mortar went off. Purple was a LRRP in Vietnam; there is NO way he would have confused a Claymore mine with a mortar.
I know these are minor issues, but they were bugging me. Also, in episode 4 when Purple was having the flashback, I think it was Woodard who was second or third from the left behind Purple , not Amelia, as some people have speculated
finally caught up last night and this season is as good as season 1 so far imo
zgood10
Joined:
Sep 21, 2011
Posts:
11,571
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Damn cliff hangersSailor said:
This was the best part of season 1, 2, 3, whatever they end up making...
Well the theory's on here were pretty much spot on
Great episode.
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
yeah.....wow ok..... i know i got a lot right. just finished the episode. that was mesmerizing to watch a lot of it...... Dan's gambit, interaction between 1990 West and Hays deteriorating, interactions between 2015 West and Hay and how he came back from the bathroom so confused, but the fight with Dan and Tom and then Tom at the Hoyt estate was just ....wow!!!!!The D said:
Well the theory's on here were pretty much spot on
I'm actually disappointed I did not post one other theory though - not directly pertinent to the case really and I did not want to throw too much out there at once - but now I'm pretty convinced it is true so I'll get to that.
But damn. A lot revealed here.
Ya the mortar comment bothered me too.
if I am remembering correctly.....duck79 said:
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
The church lady Patty Faber only said a black man with a dead eye and that he said he had nieces and nephews and was likely from over in Davis Junction.
The farmer only mentioned a black man and a white woman and brown sedan. Not an eye but from a distance it may not have been visible.
The liquor store owner was the one that mentioned Mr. Whitehead having a dead eye - I'm not sure but he might have said it was the right eye which it was on Mr. Whitehead.
I'd have to review those scenes but that was my recollection.,
The one-eyed black man at Amelia's book signing is a different one-eyed black man than the one from 1980.duck79 said:
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
Zombie Jon Snow said:
My own theory is somewhat similar although i do not really have cousin Dan as a suspect per se.... I think he gets involved sort of after the fact.
I can't really figure out 2015 timeline that much and don't trust almost anything from Hays perspective there - is he imagining it all, is he faking at times, is his memory solid, are we seeing what happened or what he thinks happened, is he sitting in a crazy home and staring into a snowglobe and imagining it all. who knows.
There are 5 main culprits and possibly a 6th here of the original crime of kidnapping Julie and the death (accidental I believe) of Will; and one complicit (knowingly or unknowingly) organization.
Lucy Purcell mother of Julie and Will
Unnamed Hoyt daughter (UHD) the woman briefly shown in photo that lost a child (Hoyt's granddaughter)
Unnamed Black man (UBM) likely worked for Hoyt, and later UHD or was involved with her in some way
Harris James cop who we now know covered up some stuff on 1980 investigation and planted the evidence that framed Woodard
Gerald Kindt prosecutor in 1980 and AG in 1990
Dan "cousin" might only be after the fact
The complicit organization is the foundation set up by the Hoyt's.
Theory:
UHD lost her child and is distraught for years. UBM worked at the plant for years, was injured sometime and ends up (maybe as a settlement) in the employ of UHD and the family/company take good care of him. She instructs UBM who she trusts implicitly for some reason to find her a replacement child rather than go through adoptions. UBM knows Lucy from the plant, knows she is in an unhappy home, knows she might want better for her kids and could be bought off possibly if she believed her daughter (who bears some resemblance to the missing child) would go to a much better home. Lucy knowing the child is not Tom's accepts this idea and arranges for the kids to meet the "aunt" in the field several times to get to know her and bribing will especially with new toys, games, etc.. UBM buys those dolls for example. Lucy figures Will stays with his dad and Julie gets a better life and she gets out of motherhood and all that she hates with some cash to live the life she wants. They are instructed not to tell their dad. In fact Lucy may convince Julie that UHD is really her mom and not herself and Tom. UHD and UBM are the two seen by the farmer in the area a few times in the "new" brown sedan. They go out there to meet the kids UBM stands watch and plans the abduction eventually. The peephole was where Will passed little notes rolled up to Julie he was very protective of her. Eventually they decide to take Julie once trust has been established but they want a plausible story for Will and while he is distracted playing the game she disappears. Will is distraught and looking for his sister although somewhat casually (asking Freddy if he has seen her) so it does not appear she was snatched violently. In his search though Will falls or is chased by Freddy and hits his head and dies. Lucy and UBM go back looking for Will and find him. Lucy is upset but they can't undo what they've done already so she and UBM place him in the peaceful repose in the cave. And I think Julie was shown he was ok and "resting" before she leaves for good. Later Lucy writes the note as a way (she thinks) of giving Tom some peace of mind about Julie.
Meanwhile the investigation begins and the Hoyt family being powerful in the area owns certain cops (Harris) and the prosecutor Kindt. And they use that to make the case fail in certain ways. Harris interviews the farmer and some neighbors but leaves key things out of reports. He also plants the evidence of the sweater and backpack after the fact at Woodard's house. Kindt may be a lover of UHD or they own him some way and he does his part to derail the investigation as well and close the book on Woodard quickly without argument. And the foundation (directed by Hoyt directly or through his daughter UHD) acts like it helps but their actions only lead to hundreds of false leads that distract from the truth. Perhaps the organization is in on it they may act to place at risk girls/women with wealthy families at the direction of the crazed UHD who thinks they are doing good for people.
Prior to 1990 Lucy hightailed it out of town to Vegas and cousin Dan showed up there too eventually they were probably lovers before or he just knew she had money. He may also know certain things but I doubt he was in on it except to stay quiet and they could be together. Or he is simply opportunistic. Lucy blows the money mostly in Vegas gambling and on drugs and she finally ODs. And he either knows or was told about it by Lucy before she dies. Dan tries to extort UHD for more money so he is killed by UBM cleaning up the mess again and dumped in a quarry in Missouri.
In 1990 Julie shows up in the pharmacy and with the fingerprints and this reopens everything of course. Somehow she escaped the family and has been living as a drifter for a while. She does not know her brother is dead or her mother Julie and fears returning to her "real" family that she thinks sold her out to this fake family. Her call and recording was talking about AG Kindt (might be lover of UHD) and him pretending to be her father. She wasn't talking about Tom actually. Kindt was standing right next to Tom in that video. And her mention of her "aunt" is referring to UHD or Lucy not sure which way they convinced her or brainwashed her. In looking into it again Hays and West discover the cover up by Harris. They track him down and kill him in an act of vigilante justice - this is the part they refer to when they say what "they did" in 1990. They may in fact kill UBM also. Hoyt knows what happened but not the details his concern was his daughter and he keeps her out of it they got some justice and it goes dormant again.
Bolded some parts above that are definitely true now (more or less)....and a lot of the speculation still fits pretty well.
I did not highlight stuff about Kindt because it is not proven yet - but his behavior in 1980 sure seems like it. He was was too quick to blame Woodard and wanted the conviction because that gave his office access to all the evidence the police had. If the case were simply closed without a trial the DA does not need the evidence. that provides opportunity to cover up what is needed.
Seems the UMB is now known or at least shown - that guy was pissed and about more than just her making money off the book. He wants it all to go away and was verifying she did not know anything while remaining a bit anonymous but she recognized his description and connection to the dolls. I personally have no doubt thats the guy with the white woman (UHD) in the brown sedan and we will find out his connection to the Hoyt's later.
Confirmed vie innuendo that Dan and Lucy were lovers - his statement about reaching certain "milestones" together was not so subtle of course and the fact that Lucy had lived with him from age 4 to probably adulthood.
I guess Lucy being killed and not just ODed was a miss on my part - I considered that possible but wasn't sure. she clearly tried to extort more money and Dan's comments about these people not renegotiating was telling. I guess they felt it had been long enough and the cover story of OD was good enough - I'm pretty sure we willl find out that UBM did that.
Of course TexAgs can't tell them apart.Aggie12B said:The one-eyed black man at Amelia's book signing is a different one-eyed black man than the one from 1980.duck79 said:
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
I also love it when certain posters are CONVINCED they're right, and argue 'til they're blue in the face (whoever that was saying there's no way the kids could pass notes through the "peephole"), and sure enough, that's exactly what they were doing.
All in all, a pretty good episode with a hell of a great ending. I love that we're finally into the conspiracy phase. I just wish it would have happened an episode or two sooner.
Nice work.
Awesome episode.
So everything is pretty much known to us now, right? Thanks to the reveal at the end?
So everything is pretty much known to us now, right? Thanks to the reveal at the end?
Why would the kids pass notes in their own house?
Just a dumb game?
Just a dumb game?
It was an unhappy house. He was helping her out.
"Don't Listen" and "It's Okay".
He was helping out as a big brother.
"Don't Listen" and "It's Okay".
He was helping out as a big brother.
In all fairness, normal wall construction would make it difficult at best. I believe dramatic license was used to make it possible. Also, I can't remember, but where was the hole in the girl's room? I don't think it was in her closet. Wouldn't it have been noticeable from her side?TCTTS said:
I also love it when certain posters are CONVINCED they're right, and argue 'til they're blue in the face (whoever that was saying there's no way the kids could pass notes through the "peephole"), and sure enough, that's exactly what they were doing.
Well... they never showed it from that side.
But part of the reason it maybe wasn't noticed was the closet was normally dark of course. Hays saw it because light was pouring in from the other side (Julie's Room). With the closet door closed and any light off you would not see light pouring through from Julie's side so it would not be as noticeable.
We also were not shown where it was on her wall - perhaps it was concealed in a collage of drawings or who knows what.
As for the wall - I still maintain it could have been a simple sheet of plywood or paneling or something - in a cheap, poor house built in the 60s probably, in Arkansas, on an interior wall it could have been very cheaply done and not a typical stud and drywall.
However I had a bit of a quibble with his little experiment last night - he definitely used a much longer piece of rolled up paper when he tested it. Perhaps it was just an oversight on original concept and only when filming that did they realize it should be longer.
As for the peeping concept - I also always noticed the view through it was directed at like a desk or something not her bed so I'm not sure you would have seen much.
It perhaps would have worked better too if notes had been found in both kids rooms - like if she answered on the back of some and passed them back.
A weakish plot point meant to misdirect the viewer really.
But as far as the "truth" within this plot - yes the hole was only used to pass notes by the kids.
But part of the reason it maybe wasn't noticed was the closet was normally dark of course. Hays saw it because light was pouring in from the other side (Julie's Room). With the closet door closed and any light off you would not see light pouring through from Julie's side so it would not be as noticeable.
We also were not shown where it was on her wall - perhaps it was concealed in a collage of drawings or who knows what.
As for the wall - I still maintain it could have been a simple sheet of plywood or paneling or something - in a cheap, poor house built in the 60s probably, in Arkansas, on an interior wall it could have been very cheaply done and not a typical stud and drywall.
However I had a bit of a quibble with his little experiment last night - he definitely used a much longer piece of rolled up paper when he tested it. Perhaps it was just an oversight on original concept and only when filming that did they realize it should be longer.
As for the peeping concept - I also always noticed the view through it was directed at like a desk or something not her bed so I'm not sure you would have seen much.
It perhaps would have worked better too if notes had been found in both kids rooms - like if she answered on the back of some and passed them back.
A weakish plot point meant to misdirect the viewer really.
But as far as the "truth" within this plot - yes the hole was only used to pass notes by the kids.
I was almost going to say I remembered a scene early on where they discussed splitting the room up from the brother/sister and that likely a crappy wall was used to do that then I realized that scene was from the gross Abducted in Plain Sight when the dude made the suggestion to split the rooms up.
Oh I get it...bc Texags (aside from you and a couple others) is racist right???? LOL! No one in Cali would make such a dumb/ignorant mistake!TCTTS said:Of course TexAgs can't tell them apart.Aggie12B said:The one-eyed black man at Amelia's book signing is a different one-eyed black man than the one from 1980.duck79 said:
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
I definitely thought the guy in this ep was a different actor but was wondering if they were trying to portray him as the original one eyed black dude who had just changed a lot over the years like some people do. But yeah, they don't look much alike, aside from similar skin tone and having one eye and being country AF.
Yep, in the real world it would be impossible to pass a 2-3' paper note through a normal home wall. But people forget that in Hollywood, anything is possible.benchmark said:In all fairness, normal wall construction would make it difficult at best. I believe dramatic license was used to make it possible. Also, I can't remember, but where was the hole in the girl's room? I don't think it was in her closet. Wouldn't it have been noticeable from her side?TCTTS said:
I also love it when certain posters are CONVINCED they're right, and argue 'til they're blue in the face (whoever that was saying there's no way the kids could pass notes through the "peephole"), and sure enough, that's exactly what they were doing.
Boo Weekley said:Oh I get it...bc Texags (aside from you and a couple others) is racist right???? LOL! No one in Cali would make such a dumb/ignorant mistake!TCTTS said:Of course TexAgs can't tell them apart.Aggie12B said:The one-eyed black man at Amelia's book signing is a different one-eyed black man than the one from 1980.duck79 said:
In 1980 wasn't the glass eye in his left eye? If that was the same guy it was the right eye in 90
I definitely thought the guy in this ep was a different actor but was wondering if they were trying to portray him as the original one eyed black dude who had just changed a lot over the years like some people do. But yeah, they don't look much alike, aside from similar skin tone and having one eye and being country AF.
1) The original one-eyed black man (Whitehead) was older in 1980 than this guy was in 1990.
2) One of the larger points of the entire original scene with Whitehead a commentary on the idea that cops have to chase leads but citizens have to deal with being profiled, and in this case specifically the racial aspect of it. Whitehead even commented that he isn't the only black guy with one good eye IIRC.
Anyway, TC's post was a bit smarmy but I thought it was presented pretty clearly that the guy at the end of last night's episode was absolutely a different person than Whitehead
Featured Stories
See All
22:40
1h ago
908
9:38
6h ago
1.4k
Around CFB: Predicting the top 12 teams in initial CFP rankings
by Olin Buchanan
CoppellAg2009
Sark says Texas hosting "arguably the best looking team in SEC"
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
53