Only Speculation Without Spoilers In the Thread

[SourK]

I feel like, so far, the solution has to involve:

• A plate of cookies
• Someone blacking out under stress
• Frustrated ambition

Possibly one person tried to poison him and then another person pushed him down the elevator shaft.

Maybe Loretta will turn out to be the poisoner, but she messed up because she can't cook, and then it will be revealed that Tobert or Dickie pushed him.

That's my current guess, but it doesn't feel totally right.

[paigow]

The Pickwick Triplets killed as a team... Life will imitate art and a conspiracy connecting Loretta, Joy & Tobert will be revealed. 

[shapeshifter]

15 minutes ago, paigow said:

The Pickwick Triplets killed as a team... Life will imitate art and a conspiracy connecting Loretta, Joy & Tobert will be revealed. 

…and Loretta, Joy, & Tobert will get their own spin-off show set in prison, along with Season 1 Jan, titled “Stripes Are The New Solids,”
— said no producer ever
— unless maybe it was a fictional producer played by Martin Short
— so A Very Meta Christmas Special of the OMITB podcast.

[the fresh maker]

Wait a minute...

Aren't the lyrics to Charles's song "Which of the Pickwick Triplets did it?" That would make one of the triplets the murderer (Dickie), if we're dealing with literal triplets.

It could be that old trick of putting the answer right in front of the audience (or in their ears).

 

 

[ofmd]

On 9/10/2023 at 4:01 AM, shapeshifter said:

…and Loretta, Joy, & Tobert will get their own spin-off show set in prison, along with Season 1 Jan, titled “Stripes Are The New Solids,”
 

Switch out Tobert for someone else (he wouldn't be in a women's prison anyway) and I'd totally watch that! I really liked Jan, except for the whole, you know, super crazy obsessed murder thing, so maybe someone else. Whatshername... last season's killer? Or maybe someone new, who's actually innocent.

Sleuthing inside the prison... Our ladies proving some people's innocence, solving some other issues inmates have on the outside, plus the odd inside drama... Bad Girls/ OITNB goes Golden Girls? I'm in! *

Also, awesome title.

* At least I need this as a fanfic!

Edited September 11, 2023 by ofmd

[Dobian]

On 9/9/2023 at 6:38 PM, paigow said:

The Pickwick Triplets killed as a team... Life will imitate art and a conspiracy connecting Loretta, Joy & Tobert will be revealed. 

I predict that it actually is the Pickwick Triplets and the three dolls are the murderers.  And Charles will check into the white room permanently.  Would that be art imitating art?

Edited September 11, 2023 by Dobian

[paigow]

28 minutes ago, Dobian said:

I predict that it actually is the Pickwick Triplets and the three dolls are the murderers.  And Charles will check into the white room permanently.  Would that be art imitating art?

Charles is the formal version of Chucky ... so there could be an additional level of imitation...

[shapeshifter]

Back to our fictional reality: 
If Charles — while in a White Room fugue state — did push Ben Glenroy down the elevator shaft, could he get off on something *like* Temporary Insanity due to his other fuge states having been witnessed in public (and private) at least 3 times?

[Affogato]

I keep thinking about  'the twinkle defense'

 

[ofmd]

 

 

On 9/12/2023 at 2:24 PM, ofmd said:

oops, wrong thread, sorry.

 

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by ofmd

[sistermagpie]

Throwing out a theory a friend of mine has: Tobert did it. Glen wasn't killed by a fan of himself, but a superfan of Mabel who was giving her a new mystery to solve for the podcast.

[cardigirl]

Here's a bad screen capture of the hooded person at the silent auction. Maybe it was Uma trying to flog her hankie, but when I first watched the episode, the fact that the person carefully avoided being seen, stood out to me.

[Snapdragon]

20 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Throwing out a theory a friend of mine has: Tobert did it. Glen wasn't killed by a fan of himself, but a superfan of Mabel who was giving her a new mystery to solve for the podcast.

That's actually a really good theory except that it's so close to what they did last season (murder to provide podcast content) and I doubt they're going to repeat themselves two seasons in a row.  

[Clawdette]

While it's a little too on point for the show baby triplets to be a parallel for the Ben & Bros, it's an intriguing idea.  After all, one of those bebes may be a murderer.

[JenE4]

Linking to my theory in CoBro to see whether any single one of these factors make it into the resolution. 😁

 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

On 9/11/2023 at 8:00 PM, Affogato said:

I keep thinking about  'the twinkle defense'

 

Twinkie.

[cardigirl]

Re-watching from the beginning and I just noticed that Ben's stalker has the drawing of CoBro that was supposedly the original idea for the franchise. What if he stole the original? And figured out that Dickie was the originator?

Don't know if it means anything, just hadn't noticed it before.

[Affogato]

The next title is somewhat horrifying. 

[shapeshifter]

19 hours ago, Affogato said:

The next title is somewhat horrifying. 

Hah! I thought the same! 
And I bet the comedy writers were aware that many of us would find the unfamiliar term creepy.
But apparently a “sitzprobe” is “The first run-through of an opera or musical in which the orchestra and singers rehearse together…” (wiktionary.org/wiki/sitzprobe).

[WearyTraveler]

On 9/1/2023 at 3:09 AM, WearyTraveler said:

I'll see your long lost mother and raise you a legitimate son. Here's the scenario:

* Dickie's parents adopted him because they tried and tried to have a baby and couldn't

* Dickie was the "star" for a while, enjoying all the attention and love from his new parents

* As it sometimes happens, Dickie's mom eventually did get pregnant, even though they were no longer trying to have a baby. They thought she was barren or he was shooting blanks and were not using protection

* Ben is born and is considered a "miracle baby". As such, he gets even more attention than a second child would normally get

* Dickie gets sidelined hard. He's not the biological son and he's not special

* The family's finances tank because they were not able to afford two children and had only been planning on having just the one

* Dickie is old enough to understand the situation and perhaps interprets (or the parents outright tell him) that he (Dickie) is the extra burden. They can't send him back now and they will never give up their bio son (Ben)

* Perhaps Ben is also sickly during his first few months (born prematurely of a womb that wasn't supposed to be able to carry him, maybe?). This adds to the amount of care and attention baby Ben gets, and conditions Dickie to always be watching over Ben, taking care of him, etc. 

* Ben eventually pulls through but mom is always worried for him and fusses over him constantly, adding more kindling to Dickie's resentment

* Ben becomes a child actor and starts supporting the family financially. More praise, love and gratitude goes to Ben, while Dickie's contributions are ignored

You get the idea. 

All of this is wild, wild speculation on my part, off course. If I end up being right, I will submit this post to a writer's room somewhere in the hopes of getting a job 😁

 

 

OMG!!! I just caught up with the last two episodes and was so excited when Dickie confirmed so much of my theories (quoted above because yes! I'm gonna brag 😜).

That said, now that our fearsome threesome think it's Dickie, I am going to change my mind as to who the killer is.

Way too early to have the murderer revealed. They will only do that in the final episode. So, back to the drawing board for me. Although I still have the satisfaction of guessing that Dickie was adopted because his parents thought they couldn't have children, then Ben was born (real bio son), then Ben got all the attention, nobody ever saw Dickie's contributions but Dickie took care of Ben all the time anyway, and Dickie has resented Ben all his life.

It's nice to see that I can still read the unspoken nuances of a show.

Now, onto new speculation! I am going to guess that it was Loretta who tried to poison Ben. That exchange she had with Dickie by the theatre 's staircase was pretty telling, IMO.

Later, in a "blink and you miss it" moment during Loretta's "confession" she says she poisoned Ben's drink. I found that interesting because everyone has been talking about the cookies and how they could be poisoned. Obviously, all the attention the show put on the cookies in that first episode was meant to do just that. And here Loretta goes and says she poisoned Ben's shake. If you think about it that makes a lot more sense than poisoning cookies when there was no guarantee Ben would eat them and Dickie was always fussing over Ben taking care of him. Plus, you risk poisoning other people too. So, I think this is a big clue that Loretta did indeed try to poison Ben.

I don't know for sure if she intended to kill him, or just temporarily neutralise him, or just acted impulsively because he made her mad right before the opening night show was about to start. 

From what we have learned so far, Loretta already knew Dickie was her son, and she even said in one of her voiceovers (internal dialogue) that she thought Dickie having a brother was a good thing. So, a part of me thinks she didn't intend to kill him. She was a bundle of nerves in the first episode when everyone thought Ben had died onstage. And later when resurrected Ben addressed her, she was pretty jumpy too. Perhaps she thought he had figured out that she had poisoned his shake as she was probably the last person in his dressing room before curtain call and she left him a convenient lipstick message on the mirror.

But I don't think she was the one who pushed him downstairs. So, that leaves us with.... Tobert?

I don't want it to be Tobert because I want good things for Mabel, but we are  8 episodes in, out of 10, and no one else has had enough screen time to be the killer. And no suspicious has been put on him at all. He's not the mousy introvert our last killer was, but he is being portrayed by the show like our previous two killers have been: non-threating, non violent people you are meant to sympathise with.

The past two killers have been women, so I think this season it will definitely be a man. Except for Tobert, all the men who are left as possible suspects are all from the play; right after Ben's first death they were all pretty sure of the fact that their show was dead without Ben and they were all elated when he was "resurrected". So, motive is flimsy. No one from the play would kill their Broadway meal ticket, there was too much at stake. 

Tobert, on the other hand, was shooting his own documentary. The play succeeding was immaterial to him, he wanted Ben's life drama (the baby elephant struggling in the mud). Maybe Ben fired him and refused to give him any footage he had. Tobert did go to Ben's apartment to get something. We don't know enough about Tobert's career status as a documentarian. He's not famous (no one ever heard of him before on the show), so, this could have been the break he had been waiting for, and when Ben pulled the plug he got angry and pushed him.

Also, during the first episode, Tobert's first words really struck a chord with me "It's Robert with a T. Hey Broadway! I am just an observer. This is literally the last time you are gonna hear my voice". I immediately thought: "opposites! That's a highly recognizable actor, this will not be the last time we will hear his voice and he is definitely not just an observer. He could be the killer."

That's all I got.

Edited September 20, 2023 by WearyTraveler

[ofmd]

Tobert is definitely a contender, but if he did it, I think it was to have more interesting material for his documentary. Maybe he and Ben planned the first "death" together, to push his career (both probably realizing the play was a dud). And after the "resurrection," well, either Tobert decided a real death might be even more intersting, or Ben really threatened to fire him, or to make the scheme of the first death public...

Or, of course, the final murder was committed by another person, and I wouldn't completely rule out Loretta, either. She might go for a double jeopardy situation. (Not thatthere is enough time left for showing a trial, so...) Otoh, the reason she was rattled earlier could have been because of seeing Dickie and planning to tell him the truth about being his bio mum.

[shapeshifter]

-

9 hours ago, WearyTraveler said:

Maybe Ben fired him and refused to give him any footage he had. Tobert did go to Ben's apartment to get something.

Maybe they struggled over the footage and the fall was an accident?
Then there’d have to be more footage back at the apartment that Tobert was looking for.
The footage could still be related to drug dealing if Tobert is secretly a Federal agent.

 

28 minutes ago, ofmd said:

I wouldn't completely rule out Loretta, either. She might go for a double jeopardy situation. (Not thatthere is enough time left for showing a trial, so...)

Ooo. I like the double jeopardy scheme — assuming getting acquitted of one attempted murder of someone means they can’t be tried for a successful murder of the same person — but I don’t think it works that way.🧐

[SourK]

On 9/20/2023 at 11:11 AM, WearyTraveler said:

Now, onto new speculation! I am going to guess that it was Loretta who tried to poison Ben. That exchange she had with Dickie by the theatre 's staircase was pretty telling, IMO.

 

Later, in a "blink and you miss it" moment during Loretta's "confession" she says she poisoned Ben's drink. I found that interesting because everyone has been talking about the cookies and how they could be poisoned.

...

But I don't think she was the one who pushed him downstairs. So, that leaves us with.... Tobert?

I think Tobert did the push and either Loretta or the producers did the poison. There's a theory in the episode thread that Only Murders is referencing The Producers in that the producers are trying to make the play fail for financial reasons.

Loretta being the poisoner would be a good fake-out, though, because we know she's covering for Dickie, but maybe the twist is that she's covering for him by confessing to a crime she attempted but didn't succeed at.

On 9/20/2023 at 7:55 PM, ofmd said:

Tobert is definitely a contender, but if he did it, I think it was to have more interesting material for his documentary. Maybe he and Ben planned the first "death" together, to push his career (both probably realizing the play was a dud). And after the "resurrection," well, either Tobert decided a real death might be even more intersting, or Ben really threatened to fire him, or to make the scheme of the first death public...

Same, but I don't think he planned it with Ben. I think someone else tried and failed to poison Ben and, when that happened, Tobert got excited because it seemed like his documentary was going to bring him a lot of attention. Then, when Ben survived, he was disappointed, so he pushed him to make him dead again.

[cardigirl]

Wondering ... 

Spoiler

What if Loretta was mistaken, and Ben really WAS her son. Dickie could be lying about being adopted. Not sure how widespread Ben's story was, but as everyone has been speculating that there are twins and possible triplets involved, why not a lie about Dickie's origins. For all we know, the adoptive parents may have wanted to claim Ben as their own, when he actually was the adopted child. So they fibbed to the boys. Longshot, of course, and how tragic for Loretta if she was involved in killing Ben. 

If Dickie IS older than Ben, this theory doesn't hold water, but Ben was obsessed with appearances, so he may have wanted to be the YOUNGER brother for acting purposes. 

Ben said that he thought Loretta was weirdly obsessed with him (I forget when) and of course she was obsessed with Dickie it looks like, but I wonder ... 

 

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, cardigirl said:

What if Loretta was mistaken, and Ben really WAS her son. Dickie could be lying about being adopted. Not sure how widespread Ben's story was, but as everyone has been speculating that there are twins and possible triplets involved, why not a lie about Dickie's origins. For all we know, the adoptive parents may have wanted to claim Ben as their own, when he actually was the adopted child. So they fibbed to the boys. Longshot, of course, and how tragic for Loretta if she was involved in killing Ben. 

If Dickie IS older than Ben, this theory doesn't hold water, but Ben was obsessed with appearances, so he may have wanted to be the YOUNGER brother for acting purposes. 

I think we do know that Dickie's older, since he told the story of his own life as being about being pushed aside by the new baby. And Loretta seemed to have learned about Ben when he was born and have pictures of them growing up.

[Snazzy Daisy]

On 9/21/2023 at 7:55 AM, ofmd said:

And after the "resurrection," well, either Tobert decided a real death might be even more intersting, or Ben really threatened to fire him, or to make the scheme of the first death public...

Tobert told Mabel that Dickie ended his contract on the opening night. Not sure whether this happened before or after the first “death”.

Maybe this was one of the reason why Ben took the camera away from Tobert. Maybe he needed to retrieve some footages etc before giving it back to him.

Where’s the camera now? In police custody? Tobert went to Ben’s penthouse to retrieve a drive. He says nothing about that camera, isn’t he?

 

On 9/23/2023 at 1:13 AM, cardigirl said:

Wondering ...

If we were to take the closing credit images seriously, the date on the bus ticket displayed at the end of S03•E08 doesn’t really make sense. Are we supposed to assume Loretta gave baby Dickie away in March 1976? Ben was born in 1973 and Dickie is supposed to be his older brother. Messy.

And why Charles couldn’t remember that he got 8yo Ben fired from Brazzos? Maybe Ben used a different name back then and/or it’s a different Ben.

Throughout the 8 episodes of S3, we keep seeing “Richard II” posters around Gooseberry Theatre. Is this name supposed to mean something? Or the attention should be paid to the theme/plot of the Broadway play with the same name? Dick or Dickie is a common nickname for Richard. Is there a 2nd Richard?

Was there some kind of identity swap between the brothers?

Ben could possibly be Loretta’s son. A director father and an actress mom. Acting is in his blood.

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Snazzy Daisy
Removed the spoiler tag since it's pure speculation.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

And why Charles couldn’t remember that he got 8yo Ben fired from Brazzos? Maybe Ben used a different name back then and/or it’s a different Ben.

 

I doubt Charles would remember some rando kid he got rid of years ago. Especially meeting him again decades later as an adult. I can't see why a child actor would get anywhere switching identities with a brother, and again, if Dickie is the true blood son everything he's said about his character is useless. And Loretta's motivations are completely off because even though she's been keeping track of these kids she also got it wrong?

Plus we lose the irony of Ben as usual thinking that it was all about him (accusing Loretta of being obsessed with him) when it was really Dickie, just as everyone overlooked Dickie in the scrapbook. 

1 hour ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Throughout the 8 episodes of S3, we keep seeing “Richard II” posters around Gooseberry Theatre. Is this name supposed to mean something? Or the attention should be paid to the theme/plot of the Broadway play with the same name? Dick or Dickie is a common nickname for Richard. Is there a 2nd Richard? 

Richard II is unfit for the role history would have him play, right? Maybe that's it. Or else they just wanted the name Richard out there and it was either that or Richard III, which they avoided because he's more of a baddie in Shakespeare.

Btw, why are there spoiler tags around speculation? Guesses aren't spoilers.

1 hour ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

[shapeshifter]

42 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Btw, why are there spoiler tags around speculation? Guesses aren't spoilers

Being allergic to spoilers, I haven’t read the spoiler-tagged portions.

FWI, there’s this thread too:
All The Spoilers In The Building Thread

 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

2 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Throughout the 8 episodes of S3, we keep seeing “Richard II” posters around Gooseberry Theatre. Is this name supposed to mean something? Or the attention should be paid to the theme/plot of the Broadway play with the same name? Dick or Dickie is a common nickname for Richard. Is there a 2nd Richard? 

Richard II is unfit for the role history would have him play, right? Maybe that's it. Or else they just wanted the name Richard out there

Not being a Shakespeare scholar, I looked at the Wikipedia Synopsis for the play, but was confused as to whether this…

Quote

…1st Duke of Lancaster, meanwhile, believes it was Richard himself who was responsible for his brother's murder.

is referring to King Richard’s brother or the  Duke’s brother, or…? 
And I didn’t determine who actually murdered the brother.

Heh, I got so confused that I didn’t consider that it might have just been a sign pointing us to Dickie — which is a diminutive of Richard.

But the suggested fratricide might be a clue too. I just don’t know if it’s a clue to his being innocent of fratricide or guilty.
🧐🤔💭 

There’s also the Historical Context and then under Themes and Motifs “The King’s Two Bodies” for literature scholars here to consider, but not me.😉 

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by shapeshifter

[Snazzy Daisy]

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Richard II is unfit for the role history would have him play, right? Maybe that's it. Or else they just wanted the name Richard out there and it was either that or Richard III, which they avoided because he's more of a baddie in Shakespeare.

18 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Not being a Shakespeare scholar, I looked at the Wikipedia Synopsis for the play, but was confused as to whether this…

Am not an expert in history, Broadway plays and Shakespeare stuff so I can’t elaborate further.

@shapeshifter Thanks for all the links, will check it out later. 🙏🏻

A snake drawing in Loretta’s room, could that mean she isn’t that innocent after all?

ETA:

Alternatively, fratricide can be an effective red herring. It puts too much focus on Dickie. The real killer could be another "son" - Cliff.

 

19 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Btw, why are there spoiler tags around speculation? Guesses aren't spoilers.

Just to be safe. Some are allergic to both spoilers AND speculations. 😔

 

Edited September 23, 2023 by Snazzy Daisy
Rephrased some sentences.

[KittenPokerCheater]

New Theory (for me anyway).  The Celebrity Doctor came and gave Ben some medicine that made it appear like he was dead because Ben wanted the spotlight, knew the play was bad etc, so while Loretta poisoned his shake, he never drank it. 

And I’m still thinking that Tobert did it. Either that or the creepy guy in the attic.

[Snazzy Daisy]

Jerry Blau could be the poisoner! 

 

 

Edited September 24, 2023 by Snazzy Daisy

[cardigirl]

On 9/22/2023 at 5:12 PM, sistermagpie said:

I think we do know that Dickie's older, since he told the story of his own life as being about being pushed aside by the new baby. And Loretta seemed to have learned about Ben when he was born and have pictures of them growing up.

We only know what Dickie told us. We know that Loretta gave up a son for adoption, and that the family let her know that they had conceived and had another child. But we really don't know for certain. We'd have to trust that Dickie is telling the full truth, that Loretta was certain which child was which. I think there is room for a reveal or two left. 😁

[ofmd]

Any ideas about the title of the next episode? Mabel's birthday maybe?

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, cardigirl said:

We only know what Dickie told us. We know that Loretta gave up a son for adoption, and that the family let her know that they had conceived and had another child. But we really don't know for certain. We'd have to trust that Dickie is telling the full truth, that Loretta was certain which child was which. I think there is room for a reveal or two left. 😁

Right, but that's why if Dickie and Loretta have told us isn't true, then Dickie was just, for some reason, lying when he gave himself a motive first to Mabel and then to Loretta and Loretta has somehow been mistaken about which child she's been following his whole life. All the emotional stuff about these characters is lost and replaced with really complicated plot twist.

[Snazzy Daisy]

4 hours ago, ofmd said:

Any ideas about the title of the next episode? Mabel's birthday maybe?

A call time - 30 mins before the play begins.

We will see how things unfolded for Ben leading up to his death.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Right, but that's why if Dickie and Loretta have told us isn't true, then Dickie was just, for some reason, lying when he gave himself a motive first to Mabel and then to Loretta and Loretta has somehow been mistaken about which child she's been following his whole life. All the emotional stuff about these characters is lost and replaced with really complicated plot twist.

Yes. I don’t think there’s room for a brother switcheroo, especially given the scrap book. 
But it could have been a great, 4th-wall-breaking reveal joke if Ben was the older brother after all, since Paul Rudd is jokingly supposed to have a non-aging face.

 

7 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Jerry Blau could be the poisoner! 

Yes —
bitter, washed up director Jerry Blau does seem like a good candidate for murderer:

Quote

Jerry was fired from Death Rattle early in its production. Out of work, he was unable to help pay his mortgage, leading to his husband kicking him out. He took to living in a small room in the Goosebury Theater. When he nearly got caught by Howard Morris, he pretended to be the ghost of Gideon Goosebury to scare Howard off his trail.

Later, he brought Oliver into his secret room and told Oliver that he saw Loretta and Ben fighting on opening night and then Charles punching Ben, which Oliver didn't know about. After talking to Oliver, he encouraged Oliver to decide what he wanted and make it happen.

https://only-murders-in-the-building.fandom.com/wiki/Jerry_Blau

If it is Jerry, Detective Williams will want to yell at Oliver for not telling her about a fired director living in an attic room of the theater, barbecuing rats!🐀 🐀 

 

Or —
in re-watching this scene for the 3rd time…

…I finally caught that at the end of the song, when Charles points to a possible killer in Death Rattle Dazzle, singing “I. Pick. You!” he points at Maxine, the critic, who, in the darkened theater, does seem perhaps a little taken aback.
And given Ben’s penchant for getting into conflict with theater people, I can imagine him getting in Maxine’s face about giving them a good review, and Maxine pushing Ben away — down the elevator shaft.

 

On the 3rd hand —
I had counted out Howard because he was so sincerely piecing together shredded paper from that night, but:  

• For all Howard’s claims to be able to repair shredded print, he didn’t,
• and, he was against Mabel doing it,
• and, Ben’s death did give the lead role to Howard’s lover —
  which should be on Detective Williams’ radar.

Edited September 24, 2023 by shapeshifter

[cardigirl]

On Ben's poster for his funeral it said 1973 through 2023. Loretta's bus ticket, shown at the end of episode 8, says 1976. 

[shapeshifter]

On 9/24/2023 at 10:55 AM, cardigirl said:

On Ben's poster for his funeral it said 1973 through 2023. Loretta's bus ticket, shown at the end of episode 8, says 1976. 

That is odd:

Possible explanations of seeming discrepancies to Ben’s birthdate:

1. Prop error 
2. Loretta had returned to St. Louis from NYC and last left in 1976.
3. As a child actor, Ben had pretended to be 3 years older so he could get roles at 15 that would have gone to 18-year-olds who could legally work longer hours.
   
   If so, Ben said he was playing a high school student when he was 31. Maybe he was “only” 28, and resented being professionally aged up as a child?
4. Loretta had another child 3 years later in NY, and gave that child too to the Glenroys. 
   If so, why is there only one brother now? 
   Note: This feeds into the Triplets theme.

Edited October 1, 2023 by shapeshifter

[cardigirl]

I doubt it's a prop error. Also why show Loretta on a bus looking at a couple with and infant in their arms indicating she was leaving her child with them, yet show a bus ticket with that date?

It might not mean anything at all.

 "No Strings," the musical Loretta was watching as a child (possibly 7-8 years old), debuted on Broadway in March 1962 and ran til August 1963, if she was watching it in New York. If the baby happened during her senior year, she could have been 18-19 in 1973, which is coordinated with the date on Ben's poster.

If she had the baby in 1976, and left for New York then,  I don't know what it means. 

It may never be explained. 

[sistermagpie]

Maybe the ticket isn't Loretta's. Ben's family wouldn't have stayed in the Midwest if he was a child actor. They may have come to NY when he was 3.

Not sure if Dickie would have been old enough at that age to have run away on a bus to find his bio mom...

Edited September 24, 2023 by sistermagpie

[Affogato]

I am assuming that if Ben worked in New York, potentially with Charles, the family would be in the same place as Loretta, so why wouldn't the family have contacted her? If they were communicating via mail, I mean? 

I'm assuming there are so many disparate clues that we are going to find out they probably slot into three different mysteries, two of them are probably who poisoned Ben and why Ben took the fall. There is probably a producer mystery, a loretta family mystery, and maybe something we don't imagine, but it will all make sense when we have the connecting parts (I can hope). 

I wonder if Mabel will move to the penthouse to redecorate, as part of a 'decorate the empty units' job. 

[ofmd]

Crackpot theory: I just remembered that Iast season, I found Jonathan suspicious. He seemed to turn up out of the blue, his whirlwind romance with Howard, even risking his health (cat allergy)... I thought as a stage actor/ singer, he might have been harmed in that infamous musical swimming pool incident. Or his family/ a close friend/ lover. And he might have wanted to take revenge. Obviously, he had nothing to do with last season's murder, but what about this season's...

[Affogato]

On 9/24/2023 at 12:21 PM, cardigirl said:

I doubt it's a prop error. Also why show Loretta on a bus looking at a couple with and infant in their arms indicating she was leaving her child with them, yet show a bus ticket with that date?

It might not mean anything at all.

 "No Strings," the musical Loretta was watching as a child (possibly 7-8 years old), debuted on Broadway in March 1962 and ran til August 1963, if she was watching it in New York. If the baby happened during her senior year, she could have been 18-19 in 1973, which is coordinated with the date on Ben's poster.

If she had the baby in 1976, and left for New York then,  I don't know what it means. 

It may never be explained. 

If it was expedient for Ben to seem 3 years older, maybe they switched the paperwork. If they moved for Ben's work, maybe they had Dickie use Ben's birth certificate and records and Ben use Dickie's birth certificate and records. 

I wonder if it is possible that Donna knows the family?

[sistermagpie]

33 minutes ago, Affogato said:

If it was expedient for Ben to seem 3 years older, maybe they switched the paperwork. If they moved for Ben's work, maybe they had Dickie use Ben's birth certificate and records and Ben use Dickie's birth certificate and records. 

 

I can't imagine why it would be and how it wouldn't easily be checked. The cliche would be Ben pretending to be younger a la Baby June in Gypsy, but he's not a vaudeville star doing a baby act. He'd be judged more on the age he looked than his birth certificate. Charles worked with him briefly when he was 8, and at that age he's not going to be able to pretend to be three years older. Three years is a really long time when you're a kid. The only reason he might need to be older is if he needed to not be a minor to do sex stuff or something like that, but by then he was already a long working actor.

Plus from what we've seen everything Dickie said lines up with him being the adopted child and feeling like he was in Ben's shadow. If he was really the bio kid it seems like it would make him feel more entitled in his resentment. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by sistermagpie

[WearyTraveler]

After having watched episode 9 and seeing no suspicion thrown Tobert's way, I am more convinced he will be the killer.

Also, Mabel saying she wouldn't want to do anything else for her 30th birthday than spend it with the boys doing the podcast, and not even thinking about having a coffee or something with her lover on such an occasion might be a sign that he is the killer. It appears the show is preparing us for the blow by showing Mabel wouldn't be too hurt about Tobert being a murderer.

Another possibility, if Donna did indeed poison the cookie, is that Cliff did push Ben to his death. We might see a scene where Cliff is crying to his mom after Ben's first "death", lamenting that his play was now over. Donna would then tell him that he had actually been saved from certain failure, sharing with him the fateful review stating that Ben was going to be the reason the show tanked. Then Ben shows up, alive and well, and Cliff "saves" the show a second time. 

I previously thought people in the play would have no motive to kill Ben because it had been stated many times that he was the big draw that would bring the crowds to the play, so no one involved in it would want him dead. But the review does open up the possibility that someone in the play would have a motive to kill him. And, if that's the case, Cliff would be the one, as no one else was in a position to know about the negative review.

I don't think Donna pushed Ben to his death, even if she did poison him, because I don't believe the show will  reveal the killer until the very last episode, so that takes her out of the running. And I also still think that this season's killer will be a man, given that the two previous killers have been women.

Of these two possibilities, I lean more toward Tobert because no suspicion has been thrown on him at all. Thus making the reveal of him as a murderer more "shocking". And because I can't get his first words on the show (which I quoted in a previous post) out of my head.

That said, I will try to rewatch Donna and Cliff more closely in the first episode, to see their reactions and placement, given the new information we got on the last episode.

Edited September 27, 2023 by WearyTraveler

[ofmd]

On 9/24/2023 at 6:45 AM, shapeshifter said:

I finally caught that at the end of the song, when Charles points to a possible killer in Death Rattle Dazzle, singing “I. Pick. You!” he points at Maxine, the critic, who, in the darkened theater, does seem perhaps a little taken aback.

 

I just noticed this for the first time! I mean, I saw it but didn't think anything of it.

Also, I assume it's deliberate that we don't know who the killer in the musical is... probably a parallel to the 'real' murderer?

Regarding the ticket... Are we sure it's really Loretta's bus ticket? Could it be someone else's? Maxine? Donna? No idea what that would mean, but maybe someone else is being 'switched' here (for us, to confuse us), not babies.

I think I need to rewatch episode 1...

I also don't believe there are real triplets or twins to be discovered; if anything, maybe there'll be a third mother/ son relationship we don't know about. (Maxine/ Tobert? Donna/ Tobert? Maxine or donna/ Jonathan) Or parent/ daughter? After all, one of the babies is a girl, Penelope. Blau/ Maxine, Anyone/ Kimber or Mabel...

My top candidates are still Tobert and Loretta... The latter mostly because of a) the double twist and b) I suspect they'll want to make Loretta's/ Steep's exit as dramatic as possible. (Hey, don't kill her off, show!)

Otherwise... Tobert all the way.

Edited September 27, 2023 by ofmd

[Katie W]

59 minutes ago, ofmd said:

 

My top candidates are still Tobert and Loretta... The latter mostly because of a) the double twist and b) I suspect they'll want to make Loretta's/ Steep's exit as dramatic as possible. (Hey, don't kill her off, show!)

Otherwise... Tobert all the way.

I think Loretta did the poisoning, someone else did the shoving into the elevator, and Tolbert watched and did nothing when it happened. Just like the elephant story he told Mabel about.  I agree Tolbert has to be involved somehow. 

[ofmd]

12 minutes ago, ksutton625 said:

I think Loretta did the poisoning, someone else did the shoving into the elevator, and Tolbert watched and did nothing when it happened. Just like the elephant story he told Mabel about.  I agree Tolbert has to be involved somehow. 

Agreed.

After watching episode 9, I assumed that Donna was probably really the attempted poisoner; after all, there is only one episode left. But now I believe they'll serve us more than just one twist in the finale. Plus, let's face it... our trio are not exactly great sleuths. All they know is she had Cliff bring him a cake, and she was alone in a room with rat poison. Doesn't mean she used it.

Ghost director would be a good candidate, what with the rats in his residence... Just how old is he? Maybe he's not Dickie's father, but his grandfather...

Edited September 27, 2023 by ofmd

[shapeshifter]

32 minutes ago, ofmd said:

Ghost director would be a good candidate, what with the rats in his residence... Just how old is he? Maybe he's not Dickie's father, but his grandfather...

Dickie’s bio-father was seemingly old enough to be Loretta’s father in those pre-MeToo times.🙁