How did Amelia die? Huge question with absolutely no clue and Nic says the scene was cut to make room in the last episode? Even with some of the extraneous stuff in the last episode? She's the third protagonist with a very major part and her death is just vaguely referred to and cause completely left out?

No freekingway. Nic purposely left out how Amelia died to spur further post season conversations. I think he owes more to his viewership, particularly the Ladies and Gentlemen from Texags who did such an outstanding job of pretty much figuring everything out two episodes ago.

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) *EDIT we now know this was Isabel
• Unnamed Black man (UBM) likely worked for Hoyt, and later UHD or was involved with her in some way. *EDIT we now know this was Junius:
• 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:

Isabel lost her child and is distraught for years. Junius worked at the plant for years, was injured sometime and ends up (maybe as a settlement) in the employ of Isabel and the family/company take good care of him. She instructs Junius who she trusts implicitly for some reason to find her a replacement child rather than go through adoptions. Junius 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.. Junius 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 Isabel is really her mom and not herself and Tom. Isabel and Junius 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 junius 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 Junius go back looking for Will and find him. Lucy is upset but they can't undo what they've done already so she and Junius 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 Isabel 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 Isabel) 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 Isabel 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 Isabel for more money so he is killed by Junius 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 Lucy 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 Isabel) 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 Isabel 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 Junius 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.

---

Well I got quite a bit right but missed on a few things. What I got right (more or less) is bolded above I replaced the UHD and UBM with Isabel and junius now that we know their names..

What I got wrong was mostly minor:

Minor: I thought Isabel likely instructed Junius to find the girl - but it was actually Isabel that spotted her at the corporate picnic, her obsession caused Junius to seek out her mom Lucy and arrange play dates. And it wasn't some plot to take Julie (except in Isabel's head).

Minor: Lucy did rationalize things about Julie going with the Hoyts and Will like I thought - but after the fact not before - it wasn't anything but playing with her until Isabel tried to grab Julie and Will was killed accidentally. Once it was done Lucy just took more money.

Major: Lucy's death. I thought she legit OD'd. But Harris took her out. It was related to trying to extort more money though which I assumed Dan had done (he may have or was just there when Lucy did).

Major: I thought Kindt was involved here - I'm still not convinced that he wasn't but we were not shown that - seemed so eager to close the case every time but maybe that was just him or maybe it was pressure from the Hoyts but not where he was in on it.

Minor: The foundation of the Hoyt's does not appear to be involved - just worked out for them that their involvement caused more distraction in the case.

Minor: Dan - well I was right that he was not directly involved, only basically living off Lucy and the money in Vegas. but I suspected he was killed by Junius and that appears to not be the case. I can only assume now that Harris did that along with killing Tom.

Minor: Julie's confusion about her family is now explainable by the drugs they gave her and lies Isabel told for years. I thought it was just brainwashing and/or she was talking about Kindt.


Basically almost everything I had wrong had to do with the mental states of some of the unknown characters:
Isabel - had no idea she was basically being treated for psychosis with Lithium
Junius - so I thought he was more acting on her orders as opposed to a caretaker for her
Julie - had no idea she was being drugged so a lot of her actions were unknown

Nice job, ZJS!

And, one more time: thanks for all the posters for being cool and respectful of everybody's theories and questions!

Really enjoyed the interaction.

I just rewatched the car scene with Becca.... and Hays' hand was most definitely not white. Also, even though Roland didn't verbally acknowledge Becca in the front porch seen.... he did look over and make eye contact with her. So I'm not buying into that theory at all.

Now, in watching it last night there was one instant when I thought we were going to see something semi mind-bending. When Hays hands Henry the piece of paper with Julie's address on it.... Henry crumbles it up and starts to open a kitchen drawer to throw it in. I seriously thought they were fixing to show several pieces of paper in that drawer with the same address on them. I'm glad they didn't go there.

None of the stories have been about the actual villain in the end, they are vehicles to delve into the psyche of the cops and the way a crime splits people apart. They are the interest for the writers, and they do a great job of it. Nothing will ever beat nihilist MM and the allegory they used, but as far as total portraits, this season was right there.

I could post about the deuece all day but I feel like it's a subject matter a lot of folks don't want to openly discuss even on an anonymous forum for whatever reason. It's an incredible show.

Compared to the rest of the season, that finale was terrible. Not only was the mystery horribly anticlimactic, but the idea that the mother would not have broken and told all is beyond reasonable belief. Then you have no explanation for the wife's death whatsoever - that's laughably bad.

The biggest mystery of season 3, ep 8 (to me anyhow), is how Junius Watts receding hairline didn't move at all between 1980 and 2015.

claym711 said:

---

but the idea that the mother would not have broken and told all is beyond reasonable belief.

---

Harris James going out to Vegas ended the possibility of her breaking and spilling the beans.

Wheatables02 said:

---

He was upset about losing his partner. It was the only person in his life at the time that he loved. He was likely done with that girl and he found the love of a dog soon after the fight. The future would show us his only loves were his dogs until Hays reappeared and they resumed working on the case.

"What about us?" he asked when Hays was quitting.

---

I think your timelines are mixed up; the bar fight happened in '90 and the "breakup" happened in '80. I took the bar fight as Roland being completely f'd up about killing a man and wanting to either physically punish himself for it or to get himself killed outright. The dog coming up to him while he was in tears was resolving how/why Roland became a recluse until 2015.

I wonder how a true timeline version of this story would work..... I mean I definitely think it would not be great as a first viewing. But I wonder if I might like to see that now.

They released a Godfather I and II version with the timelines in order and I liked that a lot. But it wasn't such a mystery. It also added in deleted scenes. It was a 7 hour thing called Godfather Epic on HBO. I watched it in 2 sittings.

If they did this chronologically and with those deleted scenes it would be interesting at least.

I thought they did a decent job of wrapping it up. I really enjoyed the characters, but I'm struggling a bit at how farfetched the underlying kidnapping/raising scenario was, and that a mystery that lasted 35 years and tore people apart ends with a tidy kitchen table explanation of it all. That seemed a little Scooby Doo-ish.

Blindside05 said:

---

Yea, I still don't understand why the higher-ups wanted the 80s and 90s investigations to be wrapped up so quickly when there was clearly aspects of the case that didn't add up

---

Hoyt putting pressure on them?

Blindside05 said:

---

Nagler said:

---

Blindside05 said:

---

Yea, I still don't understand why the higher-ups wanted the 80s and 90s investigations to be wrapped up so quickly when there was clearly aspects of the case that didn't add up

---

Hoyt putting pressure on them?

---

You saying that's why or giving a theory?

Hoyt put pressure on Purple, we know that. But outside of Harris, I don't remember any tie-in with Hoyt and the people involved with the investigation. Am I forgetting or missing something that showed Hoyt's pressure to close the case?

---

From what I gather - Harris planted evidence to frame Woodard. Woodard was an easy scapegoat especially considering he blew up and shot at police officers. The DA (knowing he wanted to run for office) wanted to get the case tied up in a way that would appease the public.

Ten years later the investigation opens up and the DA (now state attorney) puts pressure on the police office to conclude the same findings from a decade earlier, so he doesn't look bad. Once Tom "kills himself" and "admits" to the crimes, it was again a situation of tidying up the case quickly.