Speculation for True Detective

[Gobi]

15 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Visually there's a lot of similarity with regards to a guy always seen on a riding lawnmower (season 1 perp)  and the guy always seen hauling trash with what looks like a not-so-glorified riding lawnmower.

I think the trash man is a red herring. I also think that he was the one convicted of the crime, and it is that conviction that the '90s investigation is seeking to overturn. Moving along, I agree with those speculating that the girl's real father is the one who took her.

 

Here's my theory.

Purcell is not the girl's father, as the Grandmother suggested at the funeral. The farmer who wanted a search warrant before allowing a search, and of whose kitchen the daughter made a drawing, is related to the real father, he's likely the girl's grandfather. He seems to have lied about being interviewed by the police before Hays and West did.

The kids had been going to the farmer's house after school, where the father played with the daughter and bought them toys. The boy would play D&D outside. The boy fell accidentally and died (Hays found the blood stained rock near the farm, along with toys). The father decided to take the daughter and run away, and make it look like the boy was murdered by a cult. The father may have been the one who gave the girl the doll on Halloween.

The mother did not know at first what happened, but may have found out later and decided the daughter was better off with the real father.

In the later times, when the detectives are talking about the girl and her father, they mean the real father. Notice that they do not use Purcell's name.

It was poor detective work not following up on the possibility that Purcell was not the father.

The trash man was wrongly convicted of the boy's murder, possibly confessing after a beating by West. He may also have confessed to killing the girl, which meant the case had to be reopened in the '90s, when it was discovered she was alive.

[Hoo]

Black man and a white woman in a fancy car could be related to Amelia, no?  Let's say Amelia and Lucy are sisters.  Lucy never knew her mom.  "Children should laugh: was on the note and a shared thought between Lusy and Amelia.  Amelia's book is important.  Amelia was part of the case investigation, always close to it.

[ozamataz]

I've suspected Amelia was involved in the murder/disappearance for a while now. Made a video detailing all the clues I picked up on. Thought you guys might be interested: 

[Jextella]

On 1/23/2019 at 4:55 AM, Gobi said:

I think the trash man is a red herring. I also think that he was the one convicted of the crime, and it is that conviction that the '90s investigation is seeking to overturn. Moving along, I agree with those speculating that the girl's real father is the one who took her.

 

Here's my theory.

Purcell is not the girl's father, as the Grandmother suggested at the funeral. The farmer who wanted a search warrant before allowing a search, and of whose kitchen the daughter made a drawing, is related to the real father, he's likely the girl's grandfather. He seems to have lied about being interviewed by the police before Hays and West did.

The kids had been going to the farmer's house after school, where the father played with the daughter and bought them toys. The boy would play D&D outside. The boy fell accidentally and died (Hays found the blood stained rock near the farm, along with toys). The father decided to take the daughter and run away, and make it look like the boy was murdered by a cult. The father may have been the one who gave the girl the doll on Halloween.

The mother did not know at first what happened, but may have found out later and decided the daughter was better off with the real father.

In the later times, when the detectives are talking about the girl and her father, they mean the real father. Notice that they do not use Purcell's name.

It was poor detective work not following up on the possibility that Purcell was not the father.

The trash man was wrongly convicted of the boy's murder, possibly confessing after a beating by West. He may also have confessed to killing the girl, which meant the case had to be reopened in the '90s, when it was discovered she was alive.

4

I think this is a great theory.  My only reservation is Lucy's storyline.  It's odd that Alan would have her file and that her cousin was in Vegas and then died at similar times as Lucy. 

I wonder if there was some bribery or something going on.  The cousin was in jail for writing bad checks and likely needed money.  Maybe he and Lucy and the cousin threaten to go public with the truth unless paid.  It seems as if these two were involved, but then again, this is True Detective where culprits aren't part of the overall storyline.

[12catcrazy]

Ok, so I bit and looked at the Vanity Fair speculation and there might be something to that.   They see a Clinton/Tyson Farms angle, and in True Detective the names have been changed.  In other words, deal making and corruption at high State levels.   I think the chicken plant owner has something to do with the case and the the AG is part of a cover-up.  Hays probably goes digging THERE and this is why he gets busted down from Major Crimes to a notch above foot patrol.   I had thought something like that from Episode 1 when we find out that his career came to a halt while his partner kept moving up the ranks.  The blame got pinned on that crazy Vietnam vet and when Hays doesn't buy it and keeps digging, he pays the price for it.   While I find Ozamataz's theory interesting, I don't think that Amelia was part of the murder; maybe at some point, she becomes part of the cover up.  I do think that the mother (Lucy) knew more (or eventually finds out more) than we are led to believe at the beginning.  And I do like the theory that both she and her cousin are killed (in her case, made to look like an OD) because they knew too much or tried to monetized what they knew.      And I also wonder what the hell happened in 1990 where in 2015 we see Hays saying he was sorry to the "ghost" in the suit and we see West living this lonely, alcoholic life with only a bunch of rescued dogs as his companions.   We saw him in 1990 with a beautiful home and beautiful girlfriend and yet we learn that he never got married or had children.   Waiting for the rest of THAT story.  

[Drogo]

I never knew that True Detective was a long-running mystery-fiction magazine that started the true crime drama.

Spoiler

I was watching Public Enemies and saw the damn magazine in the background.

[LilaFowler]

I googled the actress who plays 21-year-old Julie Purcell and all I know is, I wouldn't be able to tell her and the actress who plays Shelly apart. They look exactly alike.

[Fable]

I wonder if this isn't all (or at least most of it) going to end up being Wayne's dementia dream.  

[12catcrazy]

I kind of doubt it's going to be a dementia dream.  Apparently the director stated that the ending will be satisfying as well as heartbreaking, and learning the whole story was some kind of dream would have most people throwing shoes at their tv sets.  

I was disappointed at how series 1 ended, like something out of a late 60s API hippie exploitation horror film.  This will probably be very Southern Gothic (as somebody else termed it) - crazy rich daughter wants pretty blond child for whatever reason , boy gets killed accidently (while probably trying to save his sister) and Rich Daddy with politicians in his back pocket covers up the entire sordid mess.   Cops who don't know when to quit keep digging and more cover ups lead to murder....

In the end, I think the story will be pretty straight forward.  I still think there is a reason we saw Hays with his almost grown daughter on yet an unknown timeline.  It will be interesting to see what happened to Amelia and if that plays into the missing girl case.  

[Hoo]

The main issue of S03 is that they practically solved the case by the end of Ep7.  Going into the final Ep8, we do not know what keeps Wayne Hays going after this investigation in 2015.

That was not the case in S01, we knew that the case was not solved and murders kept occurring along the Louisiana coast, and that is what drove Rust and Marty to keep digging.

Here, in S03, we have no idea what keeps Hays after this case in 2015.  The child is alive, there is no need to bring her home, there are no additional murders, Hoyt kinda took responsibility, child was in his home.  Hoyt is dead, parents are dead.  What is the purpose of investigation in 2015?  We do not know.  This is the problem with the script!  This is why S1 is better than S3.

So the best we can say is that Hays knows something that the audience does not, or is simply going on sixth sense, that keeps him digging for solution, to something.  We do not even know what he is after.  Whether it is a grown Julie Purcells, or Lucy's and Dan's murderer, or whether he is simply after information to write the second book in honor of his wife.  We do not know, and that is the problem with the script.  Why are we in Ep8?

Now, just like in Ep8 of S01, there will be a breakthrough in the case, a green-house clue, that solves it all, even though we do not know what we are solving other than filling extraneous pieces of info, and in spite of the previous three episodes telling us that the case is practically solved it will be solved again, but differently.  Almost as if the past three episodes were a waste of time.  It's weird.  And we do not know what kept them going to discover that last breakthrough clue unlike in S01.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Hoo

[Enigma X]

Isn't there still an unsolved murder with the little boy (forgot his name) though?

[12catcrazy]

But to Hays & West the case ISN'T solved in ep 7.  The viewers know that the missing girl was most likely in the pink room - our "heros" do not.  They killed the ex-cop in Hoyt's employ, before the guy talked.  The ep ended with Hays getting into Hoyt's car.  At this point, we the viewers don't know what was said.  I think that Hays & West were told to back off... or else.  So the case was closed and its still haunting Hays.  And yes, the boy was killed and the people in charge pinned it on Tom Purcell, the kids' father.  Which ultimately angered West enough to get involved when Hays wouldnt drop the case.

As far as we know, in 2015 none of the actual people involved in the girl's disappearence and the boy's death were brought to justice.  I think Hays also goes digging again because of the documentary and its obvious from that there are still unanswered questions about the crimes.

[Hoo]

No, because Hays told West to go rough up James in order to get to the boss man.  That is where the investigation was headed.  And after killing James, Hays met with the boss man.  They knew the investigation led to the Hoyt estate.  That's where the Ep7 ended.  Hoyt is dead, James is dead, they will not bring them to justice, parents are dead, the girl is alive, they will not bring the girl to parents.  The case is therefore closed, there is justice.

However, they are continuing their investigation.  The question is why?  There are no other disapperances after 1990 or after Hoyt's death that keeps pushing Hays to investigate.  The problem is we do not know why they are continuing.

In S1 we knew at the end of Ep7 why they would continue, because there were murders along the coast.  They knew they did not get the killer.  In S3 we do not know why they are going on about it.  We may find out in Ep8, but that is too late.   It's not good enough to leave the viewer to speculate that Hoyt gave Hays indication that others were involved and not him, Hoyt, so Hays is pushed to continue the investigation.

To say that there is reason to believe there is more to this case because they are continuing is not good enough, it's circular conclusion.  There has to be a firm reason to continue the investigation.

Then Elisa plainly invited Hayes to help her investigate some larger child trafficking ring, and he refused.  It's not about that to him.  That is not the reason to continue.

He wants to go after June Watts.   

How does he know in 2015 that Hoyt is not the guy when in 1990 he did not know?  How does he know that he should continue, and for what purpose? 

We are not told that.  We are not told what the reason for this continued investigation is.

Edited February 21, 2019 by Hoo

[aghst]

So season 4 premiered and at the end of the first episode, they show what happened to the scientists, who are stuck in ice, posed it seems.

That made me remember the crime scene which was discovered in the very first episode of TD, with all these creepy, ritual overtones.

How often do murderers stage the crime scene like that?  Most murders don't try to conjure some strange narrative.  Whether planned or unplanned, murderers don't stage the crime scene in a way to confuse cops.

Seems like staging a crime scene is to taunt or troll the cops.  We've had that in real life, like the Zodiac Killer or some serial rapists who leave clues or notes.

But in general, as a layperson who know nothing about policing or detective work, I don't think murderers are often trying to engage with police by the way they leave evidence, as if they're breadcrumbs for the detectives.

So are these baroque crime scenes mostly a TV/movies trope?

Or are they fairly frequent in real life crime?

I suspect this is a Hollywood convention to sustain audience interest in murder cases in which the evidence left wouldn't conjure up these themes of heathen rituals or the supernatural/occult?

There may be murderers who are satanists or members of some out there subcultures but are they trying to create a narrative for the police and the public with the way they kill, the way they mutilate their victims, the kind of evidence they leave?

I would think in most murder cases, any evidence left is unintentional most of the time?

 

[Affogato]

On 1/15/2024 at 12:13 PM, aghst said:

So season 4 premiered and at the end of the first episode, they show what happened to the scientists, who are stuck in ice, posed it seems.

That made me remember the crime scene which was discovered in the very first episode of TD, with all these creepy, ritual overtones.

How often do murderers stage the crime scene like that?  Most murders don't try to conjure some strange narrative.  Whether planned or unplanned, murderers don't stage the crime scene in a way to confuse cops.

Seems like staging a crime scene is to taunt or troll the cops.  We've had that in real life, like the Zodiac Killer or some serial rapists who leave clues or notes.

But in general, as a layperson who know nothing about policing or detective work, I don't think murderers are often trying to engage with police by the way they leave evidence, as if they're breadcrumbs for the detectives.

So are these baroque crime scenes mostly a TV/movies trope?

Or are they fairly frequent in real life crime?

I suspect this is a Hollywood convention to sustain audience interest in murder cases in which the evidence left wouldn't conjure up these themes of heathen rituals or the supernatural/occult?

There may be murderers who are satanists or members of some out there subcultures but are they trying to create a narrative for the police and the public with the way they kill, the way they mutilate their victims, the kind of evidence they leave?

I would think in most murder cases, any evidence left is unintentional most of the time?

 

https://www.biography.com/crime/g60732709/famous-serial-killers

Some do, some don’t. 

Edited August 21 by Affogato

[Affogato]

On 1/15/2024 at 12:13 PM, aghst said:

So season 4 premiered and at the end of the first episode, they show what happened to the scientists, who are stuck in ice, posed it seems.

That made me remember the crime scene which was discovered in the very first episode of TD, with all these creepy, ritual overtones.

How often do murderers stage the crime scene like that?  Most murders don't try to conjure some strange narrative.  Whether planned or unplanned, murderers don't stage the crime scene in a way to confuse cops.

Seems like staging a crime scene is to taunt or troll the cops.  We've had that in real life, like the Zodiac Killer or some serial rapists who leave clues or notes.

But in general, as a layperson who know nothing about policing or detective work, I don't think murderers are often trying to engage with police by the way they leave evidence, as if they're breadcrumbs for the detectives.

So are these baroque crime scenes mostly a TV/movies trope?

Or are they fairly frequent in real life crime?

I suspect this is a Hollywood convention to sustain audience interest in murder cases in which the evidence left wouldn't conjure up these themes of heathen rituals or the supernatural/occult?

There may be murderers who are satanists or members of some out there subcultures but are they trying to create a narrative for the police and the public with the way they kill, the way they mutilate their victims, the kind of evidence they leave?

I would think in most murder cases, any evidence left is unintentional most of the time?

 

Also most of the tv shows and movies are inspired by a small handful of killers. Gein, bdk, jack.