S01.E23: Why Await Life's End

[Andy]

I think the fishing memories were based on pictures that Oscar showed Jane.

[Andy]

On 5/24/2016 at 4:49 PM, AV8n said:

Finally, a minor point of order. Wasn't there a flashback in one episode where Jane rings the bell during SEAL training? I'm no expert on Naval Special Warfare indoctrination, but I have seen GI Jane (no relation, the one with Demi Moore) and a documentary on A&E many moons ago. Pretty sure when you ring the bell they tell you to pack your gear and go home. No backsies. So while Jane may have some SEAL training and is arguably still badass, it's probably inaccurate to describe her as a former SEAL.

I think the ringing of the bell was a fake deal to get her into Orion?  

[HunterHunted]

6 hours ago, Andy said:

I think the fishing memories were based on pictures that Oscar showed Jane.

It was, but Weller doesn't know this. The problem is that even if we didn't know that Jane faked that memory, it's a memory not distinctive or unique enough to indicate to Weller that she's lying. If we didn't know that Jane was lying, Jane as a child might reasonably had memories of fishing. It's something many kids do with their families. It's also possible considering the massive amount of trauma Jane's brain has undergone in the past couple of months that she could be conflating memories of a movie, TV show, or book featuring fishing with her own memories. The point is that there are dozens of more plausible explanations about why Jane remembered fishing than Jane is lying and secretly conspiring against the FBI. Narratively Weller doesn't have enough information to conclude that Jane is lying.

[Kendall]

I think if Kurt would ever have a serious session with Dr. Borden, he'd realize that his lost love for Jane is really his lost love for his father. Up until he killed Taylor, Kurt was very close with him and to have that man completely destroyed before him was his biggest heartbreak.

When Jane showed up, Kurt wasn't going to be able to resume his love for his father, because he still wasn't anything near the same man he once loved due to the fact that he had lived his life as an accused killer in limbo; everyone thought it, but no one could prove it.

So, Jane is a reminder of when he loved his life, a slight relief that the man he hated didn't deserve all of the hatred and she is rather attractive.

I mean, I guess that's what it is.

I'm sorry that they killed Mayfair, but I should've known that there were too many black people on the show. And man, am I going to miss that some kind of good looking Oscar! I know they didn't have enough time for egregious love scenes, but I was really hoping they would figure out a way to sneak one in, like Jane had a tattoo of a porn company or something.

[jhlipton]

1 hour ago, Kendall said:

I should've known that there were too many black people on the show.

And waaaaaay too many black women, amIrite? SMH.

[MissLucas]

5 hours ago, HunterHunted said:

It was, but Weller doesn't know this. The problem is that even if we didn't know that Jane faked that memory, it's a memory not distinctive or unique enough to indicate to Weller that she's lying. If we didn't know that Jane was lying, Jane as a child might reasonably had memories of fishing. It's something many kids do with their families. It's also possible considering the massive amount of trauma Jane's brain has undergone in the past couple of months that she could be conflating memories of a movie, TV show, or book featuring fishing with her own memories. The point is that there are dozens of more plausible explanations about why Jane remembered fishing than Jane is lying and secretly conspiring against the FBI. Narratively Weller doesn't have enough information to conclude that Jane is lying.

I can't believe I'm defending Weller but here goes. Yes, many kids have memories of fishing trips - including fishing on a bridge. And yes, all sorts of things can trigger those memories - but Jane claimed it was meeting Daddy Weller that brought the memories back. So we have several coincidences going on - first she has memories that match what Taylor would remember and second those memories are supposedly triggered by a face by way of unconscious familiarity. It's possible that Jane also had someone in her life who looked like Weller sen. And there's also the third convenient coincidence that Jane never brings up a memory that would not match Taylor's tale. (Leroy Jethro Gibbs would have to say a thing or two about all those coincidences).

For once Weller is wielding Occams Razor (a tool that hardly gets deployed in this show): Jane was lying. There might be a dozen explanations why Jane had those memories but in context  that's the one that makes the most sense. Together with the fact that the bureau has a mole AND all the stuff Fischer dug up (which actually made Reade suspicious enough of Jane to start his own investigation into Carter's disappearance) hand-cuffs out makes a lot of sense.

[Andy]

He doesn't have evidence to charge her, but I can understand him being pretty sure something very off is happening and wanting to detain her until it's sorted out.  Many strange things happened to the FBI in the last two episodes, the worst of which Weller is still unaware.  

Edited May 27, 2016 by Andy

[Saamia]

On 5/25/2016 at 6:21 PM, slf said:

Their backstory is: she was 5 and he was 10. She was raised by a single mother so she was always over at the Weller house. Sarah wasn't often with them having adventures because she was into dolls and Jane was a (I hate this term) "tomboy".

Why a ten year old boy was so close to a five year old that her disappearance left him damaged for the next twenty years is beyond me.

Yeah, its bizarre to see:  "a ten year old was so close to a five year old that her disappearance left him damaged for the next twenty years is beyond me".

On a personal example, me and my cousin are very close to each other and he is about 7 years old than me. So when I was 5 years old, he was 12 years old, and he still played with me, heck he even carried me around on his shoulders. I sometimes refer back to that relationship and maybe it could affect anyone (like if I was kidnapped or anything, maybe he would feel the same).  Maybe because Weller was in that age where he was loner (maybe?) and he liked being around Taylor, because he could be the "real" Kurt. Maybe he was bullied and upset over his parents (dad; alcoholic? and mom? Where is she?) 

I don't know but maybe that's why is so lonely and cut off from others, and takes him awhile to open up? 

[slf]

4 hours ago, Saamia said:

Yeah, its bizarre to see:  "a ten year old was so close to a five year old that her disappearance left him damaged for the next twenty years is beyond me".

On a personal example, me and my cousin are very close to each other and he is about 7 years old than me. So when I was 5 years old, he was 12 years old, and he still played with me, heck he even carried me around on his shoulders. I sometimes refer back to that relationship and maybe it could affect anyone (like if I was kidnapped or anything, maybe he would feel the same).  Maybe because Weller was in that age where he was loner (maybe?) and he liked being around Taylor, because he could be the "real" Kurt. Maybe he was bullied and upset over his parents (dad; alcoholic? and mom? Where is she?)

I'm not criticizing that Kurt and Taylor were friends at all, or that he was upset to lose a friend. What I find bizarre is that the show has laid out that Taylor and Kurt were so close, that Taylor meant so much to Kurt, that her disappearance (and supposed death along with the suspicion that his father was the killer*) left him profoundly altered for the next twenty years. He's made so many questionable and flat-out ludicrous choices since meeting Jane and all because he thinks she's Taylor. 

*And even then, the show has repeatedly presented the loss of Taylor as being, for Kurt, the bigger blow. Like, I understand thinking your dad is a killer would affect you; for me that would probably be the biggest issue. For Kurt? It's Taylor.

For me a very important question is: why did Weller's dad ask Taylor to describe a memory if he was only playing along with her to hide his own guilt? And if he did murder Taylor, if he was that cold (to murder such a child and then bury her beneath his son's fort), why confess at the end? 

I'm totally prepared to be wrong but I'm going with: "they" got to Weller's dad and his confession was a lie. Oscar lied when he told Jane she wasn't Taylor.

[Saamia]

20 hours ago, slf said:

I'm not criticizing that Kurt and Taylor were friends at all, or that he was upset to lose a friend. What I find bizarre is that the show has laid out that Taylor and Kurt were so close, that Taylor meant so much to Kurt, that her disappearance (and supposed death along with the suspicion that his father was the killer*) left him profoundly altered for the next twenty years. He's made so many questionable and flat-out ludicrous choices since meeting Jane and all because he thinks she's Taylor. 

*And even then, the show has repeatedly presented the loss of Taylor as being, for Kurt, the bigger blow. Like, I understand thinking your dad is a killer would affect you; for me that would probably be the biggest issue. For Kurt? It's Taylor.

For me a very important question is: why did Weller's dad ask Taylor to describe a memory if he was only playing along with her to hide his own guilt? And if he did murder Taylor, if he was that cold (to murder such a child and then bury her beneath his son's fort), why confess at the end? 

I'm totally prepared to be wrong but I'm going with: "they" got to Weller's dad and his confession was a lie. Oscar lied when he told Jane she wasn't Taylor.

I agree how everything has to be about Taylor, which it really doesn't have to be. (Writers mix-up maybe?) Honestly I would've like Kurt more if he was hurt about his dad killing someone, not killing childhood friend. I mean it is horrible that your own dad killed your best friend, but it's not like you were friends with this girl for many years. I would be more upset if my friend died who I am friends for more than 6+ years not someone who is my friend who is 5 years younger than me and I would be upset but I would be more upset on how my own dad killed her.  (God Forbid). 

For me a very important question is: why did Weller's dad ask Taylor to describe a memory if he was only playing along with her to hide his own guilt? And if he did murder Taylor, if he was that cold (to murder such a child and then bury her beneath his son's fort), why confess at the end? 

This is a great question because I know no one has come up with this until you mention it now. One a person is sick or is about to die, last final hours of death, maybe he was trying to see if Jane is being truthful to his son? Mr. Weller exactly knows Kurt and how hurt he has been for the last 35 years of his life. Maybe he wanted to see if Jane is the right woman for Weller? Maybe Mr. Weller thought someone saved Taylor and he killed someone else? And maybe the body Weller digs up is another girl? (they should do an autopsy). 

I'm totally prepared to be wrong but I'm going with: "they" got to Weller's dad and his confession was a lie. Oscar lied when he told Jane she wasn't Taylor. 

Maybe Jane is really Taylor and Oscar threatens him or something or maybe Cade came in and said a bunch of things.. Isn't Cade against the mission? 

I want her to Taylor but obviously she's not cause Gero said that in #201 we will find out Jane's real name and identity. 

[Xenith22]

On 5/27/2016 at 7:11 PM, slf said:

I'm not criticizing that Kurt and Taylor were friends at all, or that he was upset to lose a friend. What I find bizarre is that the show has laid out that Taylor and Kurt were so close, that Taylor meant so much to Kurt, that her disappearance (and supposed death along with the suspicion that his father was the killer*) left him profoundly altered for the next twenty years. He's made so many questionable and flat-out ludicrous choices since meeting Jane and all because he thinks she's Taylor.

Again there is a lot more to it.  First she wasn't just a friend.  Weller at the time thought of Taylor as more of a little sister than just a friend (remember her described her as basically "part of the family").  Out doing potentially dangerous stuff alone playing in the woods, in the creek, messing around setting things on fire he probably felt a sense of big brother like responsibility towards her.  (So he was already probably carrying around a sense of guilt over the tree incident where he caused her to fall and get injured.  Given the scar on her neck he might have even felt he came close to getting her killed).  Added to this was the fact that her mother also apparently hired him to be her babysitter on nights that she worked late.  It was on once such night that Taylor was taken.   Kurt was the only one in the house and it was his job to keep her safe that night.  He probably second guessed all the things he could have done differently.  What if he had let her stay up later?  He should have checked up on her after she went to bed?  He should have been paying more attention and maybe he would have heard something?  Was he sure he locked all the doors/windows? (there was no signed of forced entry)  As if that was not enough then you have the fact that his father was the only suspect.   This could have made Kurt feel even more guilty.  It was through his friendship with her that she came into contact with his father.  Not to mention the fact that he likely told his father what he was doing that night and so he knew they would be all alone.  That is a lot for a little boy to deal with.  (Which is why part of him refuses to believe Taylor is dead.  He doesn't want to bear that responsibility and as long as the body has not been found he holds onto that hope despite what everyone else says.)

Now on top of this guilt you have the issues it caused with Kurt's family.   It caused his parents to get a divorce.  Since there was never any evidence of his guilt it was probably a split custody so he probably had to spend at least part of eight years living with a person he suspected might have molested and abducted/murdered someone he cared about.  Throw in Sarah (do we know if she is older/younger/twin?  Stapleton and Spiro are about the same age so the show could go any way with their ages) whom seems to be more willing to give their father the benefit of the doubt, and Kurt may have been worried about her safety if their father was indeed a pedo (thus the origins of his overprotective behavior towards her now). That's a messed up situation.   And of course people especially kids at school likely would not let him forget that his father was a suspected pedophile.  Hell cruel as kids/teens can sometimes be it wouldn't surprise me is some might have even joked that Kurt was involved.  Do you get how this whole thing could leave him rather emotionally damaged and fixated on Taylor and what happened that night?   Because it completely turned his life upside down...

So when Jane shows up and is seemingly Taylor it relieves him of a lot of that guilt.  Sure she still got kidnapped, but she's not dead.  He's not responsible for her death and there is even a chance he can find out what happened that night as she gets her memories back.   That is a huge weight off him that he has been carrying around.  It's why he so desperately wants Jane to be her and brushes aside stuff like the tooth evidence.  Still he feels a strong sense of responsibility towards her because she is only in her current predicament because of that night.   So he is overprotective of her now, because like hell is he going to be responsible for her dying "again".

Now the father situation is still a bit complicated.  Even with Taylor seemingly alive it's still possible part of Kurt believe he still could have been involved in her being abducted for some reason as there is still the suspicious matter of his false alibi.   Or it's possible that Kurt now just felt a new sense of guilt for believing his father was guilty all those years and the damage that did to his family.  Which is why there is the initial reluctance to share the good news of Taylor being alive with his father or to spend time with him again as it would mean confronting those issues.

Then comes the deathbed confession and discovering the grave and the rug is yanked out from underneath Kurt Weller once again.  Once again he bears the full guilt for Taylor's death.   Plus as he emphasized in his talk with Jane, the messed up situation with his father where he opened his home and family back up to him only to find out once again that he was a pedophile (any other explanation as to why he snuck into Taylor's house/room?) and a murderer after all.   Again can you not see how this would do serious damage to Kurt's emotional state?  He is hurt and feels betrayed by his father and so yeah he jumps to conclusions and transfers that betrayal to Jane as well.  He is not in a right state of mind when he confronts Jane in her apartment, but to me that seems pretty understandable?

Quote

Sarah wasn't often with them having adventures because she was into dolls and Taylor was a (I hate this term) "tomboy".

Of course this seems kind of contrary to the fact that Taylor now apparently carried her own doll around everywhere... *sigh*

Edited May 29, 2016 by Xenith22

[saber5055]

Oh, man, you bring up a good point about Taylor, tomboy vs. doll carrier. I was (and still am) a tomboy, and I never EVER played with dolls, had and have absolutely no interest in them. So yeah, for Taylor to never be with her "doll" is another writer fax paus. Maybe Weller should have tested Jane with a doll question a few episodes back, hey?

[Margherita Erdman]

On May 24, 2016 at 2:49 PM, AV8n said:

I'm calling it now - RV guy is Mayfair's ex-husband. He's not really anti-government, just behind on some alimony payments.

Didn't we meet Mayfair's ex-husband in one episode? IIRC they had a sweet, rueful little scene and he encouraged her to get out more?

On May 25, 2016 at 4:21 PM, slf said:

Their backstory is: she was 5 and he was 10. She was raised by a single mother so she was always over at the Weller house. Sarah wasn't often with them having adventures because she was into dolls and Jane was a (I hate this term) "tomboy".

So much that is so wrong with this. A five year old is little more than a baby, still. Also, who here buys Weller as 35?

And yes, finally, Taylor was a tomboy who didn't have anything in common with Sarah who loved dolls yet Taylor couldn't sleep without her "favorite doll" -- what?

Edited May 30, 2016 by Margherita Erdman
Because first time around I missed the other comments about the doll thing

[slf]

@Xenith22 You bring up a lot of good points but some of them are assumptions or you're assigning them more weight than I think perhaps the show is.

Weller has never indicated that Taylor was like a sister to him (the 'like family' comment could just mean because she was always hanging around him they were close), and I don't see how he could feel like he came close to getting her killed because she got a scar on her neck; I have a scar on my elbow and it's from my cat catching me with one of her back claws accidentally. We saw the tree accident in a flashback and it looked like no big deal; she wasn't crying or screaming, there wasn't a lot of blood and she didn't even seem to be in a lot of pain. Also I don't remember it being implied that Weller Sr. was suspected of being a pedo at all. (Sorry if I'm wrong.)

I agree that her disappearing while he was babysitting had to be a mindfuck, but again, the show has had him say explicitly that it was the loss of his best friend that hurt him the most, that did the damage. For me, yeah absolutely, it would be my dad being suspected of murder and the havoc that caused in my family that would mess me up. But that's not where the show has gone. They've made Weller All About Taylor from the jump. It's a huge flaw with the show. I appreciate that we might be interpreting things differently, though.

And for me it hugely comes down to what @MargheritaErdman just pointed out: a five year old is little more than a baby. I had a next door neighbor who was six when I was ten and let me tell you, we were not besties. Huge difference between those two ages, intellectually and emotionally, not to mention physically. Most five year olds are still wetting their beds and mastering tying their shoes. A ten year old is adding fractions and subtracting decimals. You know? Let's say Jane is Taylor and she just moved away instead of being abducted- would she even remember Weller? Maybe, but likely not well. Because she would've been five the last time they saw each other.

I think it makes sense he'd be affected by what happened. But the show has gone overboard with Weller, in my opinion, to the point where it's hampering his character.

Edited May 30, 2016 by slf

[Saamia]

14 hours ago, slf said:

@Xenith22 You bring up a lot of good points but some of them are assumptions or you're assigning them more weight than I think perhaps the show is.

Weller has never indicated that Taylor was like a sister to him (the 'like family' comment could just mean because she was always hanging around him they were close), and I don't see how he could feel like he came close to getting her killed because she got a scar on her neck; I have a scar on my elbow and it's from my cat catching me with one of her back claws accidentally. We saw the tree accident in a flashback and it looked like no big deal; she wasn't crying or screaming, there wasn't a lot of blood and she didn't even seem to be in a lot of pain. Also I don't remember it being implied that Weller Sr. was suspected of being a pedo at all. (Sorry if I'm wrong.)

I agree that her disappearing while he was babysitting had to be a mindfuck, but again, the show has had him say explicitly that it was the loss of his best friend that hurt him the most, that did the damage. For me, yeah absolutely, it would be my dad being suspected of murder and the havoc that caused in my family that would mess me up. But that's not where the show has gone. They've made Weller All About Taylor from the jump. It's a huge flaw with the show. I appreciate that we might be interpreting things differently, though.

And for me it hugely comes down to what @MargheritaErdman just pointed out: a five year old is little more than a baby. I had a next door neighbor who was six when I was ten and let me tell you, we were not besties. Huge difference between those two ages, intellectually and emotionally, not to mention physically. Most five year olds are still wetting their shoes and mastering tying their shoes. A ten year old is adding fractions and subtracting decimals. You know? Let's say Jane is Taylor and she just moved away instead of being abducted- would she even remember Weller? Maybe, but likely not well. Because she would've been five the last time they saw each other.

I think it makes sense he'd be affected by what happened. But the show has gone overboard with Weller, in my opinion, to the point where it's hampering his character.

I like what you said. It doesn't make sense because there is going to be a difference between a 5 year old and a 10 year old, maybe the writers thought they were up to something but it didn't come out right? Or maybe there's a backstory which we haven't been told yet? (Probably not.)

They are just showing Weller to be a sexually frustrated loser crying over a long lost neighbor that was killed by his father. Heck he doesn't even care his father killed the girl, he is upset because he lost "his" Taylor forever. 

18 hours ago, saber5055 said:

Oh, man, you bring up a good point about Taylor, tomboy vs. doll carrier. I was (and still am) a tomboy, and I never EVER played with dolls, had and have absolutely no interest in them. So yeah, for Taylor to never be with her "doll" is another writer fax paus. Maybe Weller should have tested Jane with a doll question a few episodes back, hey?

Wait when did the show say that Taylor was a tomboy?

[Saamia]

22 hours ago, Xenith22 said:

Again there is a lot more to it.  First she wasn't just a friend.  Weller at the time thought of Taylor as more of a little sister than just a friend (remember her described her as basically "part of the family").  Out doing potentially dangerous stuff alone playing in the woods, in the creek, messing around setting things on fire he probably felt a sense of big brother like responsibility towards her.  (So he was already probably carrying around a sense of guilt over the tree incident where he caused her to fall and get injured.  Given the scar on her neck he might have even felt he came close to getting her killed).  Added to this was the fact that her mother also apparently hired him to be her babysitter on nights that she worked late.  It was on once such night that Taylor was taken.   Kurt was the only one in the house and it was his job to keep her safe that night.  He probably second guessed all the things he could have done differently.  What if he had let her stay up later?  He should have checked up on her after she went to bed?  He should have been paying more attention and maybe he would have heard something?  Was he sure he locked all the doors/windows? (there was no signed of forced entry)  As if that was not enough then you have the fact that his father was the only suspect.   This could have made Kurt feel even more guilty.  It was through his friendship with her that she came into contact with his father.  Not to mention the fact that he likely told his father what he was doing that night and so he knew they would be all alone.  That is a lot for a little boy to deal with.  (Which is why part of him refuses to believe Taylor is dead.  He doesn't want to bear that responsibility and as long as the body has not been found he holds onto that hope despite what everyone else says.)

Now on top of this guilt you have the issues it caused with Kurt's family.   It caused his parents to get a divorce.  Since there was never any evidence of his guilt it was probably a split custody so he probably had to spend at least part of eight years living with a person he suspected might have molested and abducted/murdered someone he cared about.  Throw in Sarah (do we know if she is older/younger/twin?  Stapleton and Spiro are about the same age so the show could go any way with their ages) whom seems to be more willing to give their father the benefit of the doubt, and Kurt may have been worried about her safety if their father was indeed a pedo (thus the origins of his overprotective behavior towards her now). That's a messed up situation.   And of course people especially kids at school likely would not let him forget that his father was a suspected pedophile.  Hell cruel as kids/teens can sometimes be it wouldn't surprise me is some might have even joked that Kurt was involved.  Do you get how this whole thing could leave him rather emotionally damaged and fixated on Taylor and what happened that night?   Because it completely turned his life upside down...

So when Jane shows up and is seemingly Taylor it relieves him of a lot of that guilt.  Sure she still got kidnapped, but she's not dead.  He's not responsible for her death and there is even a chance he can find out what happened that night as she gets her memories back.   That is a huge weight off him that he has been carrying around.  It's why he so desperately wants Jane to be her and brushes aside stuff like the tooth evidence.  Still he feels a strong sense of responsibility towards her because she is only in her current predicament because of that night.   So he is overprotective of her now, because like hell is he going to be responsible for her dying "again".

Now the father situation is still a bit complicated.  Even with Taylor seemingly alive it's still possible part of Kurt believe he still could have been involved in her being abducted for some reason as there is still the suspicious matter of his false alibi.   Or it's possible that Kurt now just felt a new sense of guilt for believing his father was guilty all those years and the damage that did to his family.  Which is why there is the initial reluctance to share the good news of Taylor being alive with his father or to spend time with him again as it would mean confronting those issues.

Then comes the deathbed confession and discovering the grave and the rug is yanked out from underneath Kurt Weller once again.  Once again he bears the full guilt for Taylor's death.   Plus as he emphasized in his talk with Jane, the messed up situation with his father where he opened his home and family back up to him only to find out once again that he was a pedophile (any other explanation as to why he snuck into Taylor's house/room?) and a murderer after all.   Again can you not see how this would do serious damage to Kurt's emotional state?  He is hurt and feels betrayed by his father and so yeah he jumps to conclusions and transfers that betrayal to Jane as well.  He is not in a right state of mind when he confronts Jane in her apartment, but to me that seems pretty understandable?

Of course this seems kind of contrary to the fact that Taylor now apparently carried her own doll around everywhere... *sigh*

I don't think Weller really looked at her as a sister, I'm not sure. I wish he did, but then the show would not have Weller and Jane as protagonists that are love. 

I like your explanation, maybe its the guilt that is killing him, and he blames himself because after Taylor was gone, everything was ruined. His parents got a divorce, he hated his dad, his dad went to jail, and he can't really trust anyone and can't let go of anyone that he loves. Sounds convincing. If the writers left it just here and not made Weller look weird on tv, the show would've made more sense in a realistic way.

[slf]

8 minutes ago, Saamia said:

Wait when did the show say that Taylor was a tomboy?

That's how Weller described Taylor to Jane. He said that Sarah was always playing with dolls but "you, you were a tomboy" and said she was always chasing after him whenever she saw him going fishing or out to play.

[kili]

Quote

And yes, finally, Taylor was a tomboy who didn't have anything in common with Sarah who loved dolls yet Taylor couldn't sleep without her "favorite doll" -- what?

I know, that kind of stunned me. Not only was it a doll, it was a pretty fancy looking doll with fine details on the clothes and what looked like a china face. Perfect for holding all the time when one is clambering through trees, fishing and mucking about. It must be a miracle doll because despite being buried in the mud next to a decomposing corpse for 25 years, it looks pretty darn fresh. Just a few flecks of dirt. That must be why it survived all that rough-and-tumble play.

Couldn't it at least been a raggedy dog stuffed toy? No? They needed it to look like a cross between Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" and Dorothy from the "Wizard of 0z" . Weren't not in Kansas anymore, Toto. We've fallen through the looking glass. Hit the viewers with another anvil, please.

Is the fact that the USB password "IMSORRY" and the key to get there is "David" a hint that David is still alive or that Mayfair's antics had more to do with getting David killed than we first thought? David was killed tracking people related to the tattoos and a spy dead drop. I could kind of see using "David" as the cypher since it would be a very good clue to Patterson that she was on the right trail, but "IMSORRY"? Is the sorry for David or is she sorry that in opening the file, they are all about to paint a target on their backs(both career wise and conspiracy wise)?

Kurt's dad knew all along that Jane was lying. He went along with it because he wanted his son back in his life before he died. He asked the leading question because he wanted to figure out what her game was. He confessed because lots of people confess when they are dying. He may have wanted absolution from his son, he may have wanted to avoid facing his maker without confessing, he may even have felt some guilt about her body lying in the muck forever. He said it was an accident because that's what those guys always say. He may not have intended to kill her, but he did take her to harm her. He took her from the house when his son was babysitter her. He is one messed up dude and its not likely that she is his only victim. He killed her, buried her in the mud and then attended her memorials? Ugh.

[Saamia]

22 hours ago, kili said:

I know, that kind of stunned me. Not only was it a doll, it was a pretty fancy looking doll with fine details on the clothes and what looked like a china face. Perfect for holding all the time when one is clambering through trees, fishing and mucking about. It must be a miracle doll because despite being buried in the mud next to a decomposing corpse for 25 years, it looks pretty darn fresh. Just a few flecks of dirt. That must be why it survived all that rough-and-tumble play.

Couldn't it at least been a raggedy dog stuffed toy? No? They needed it to look like a cross between Alice from "Alice in Wonderland" and Dorothy from the "Wizard of 0z" . Weren't not in Kansas anymore, Toto. We've fallen through the looking glass. Hit the viewers with another anvil, please.

Is the fact that the USB password "IMSORRY" and the key to get there is "David" a hint that David is still alive or that Mayfair's antics had more to do with getting David killed than we first thought? David was killed tracking people related to the tattoos and a spy dead drop. I could kind of see using "David" as the cypher since it would be a very good clue to Patterson that she was on the right trail, but "IMSORRY"? Is the sorry for David or is she sorry that in opening the file, they are all about to paint a target on their backs(both career wise and conspiracy wise)?

Kurt's dad knew all along that Jane was lying. He went along with it because he wanted his son back in his life before he died. He asked the leading question because he wanted to figure out what her game was. He confessed because lots of people confess when they are dying. He may have wanted absolution from his son, he may have wanted to avoid facing his maker without confessing, he may even have felt some guilt about her body lying in the muck forever. He said it was an accident because that's what those guys always say. He may not have intended to kill her, but he did take her to harm her. He took her from the house when his son was babysitter her. He is one messed up dude and its not likely that she is his only victim. He killed her, buried her in the mud and then attended her memorials? Ugh.

Yeah the writers messed up again, or thought the audience is dumb so let's just put in a doll next to the bones and boots. Smh. 

Lol miracle doll. They could've shown a action figure covered in dirt and that would've covered up the tomboy angle. 

I hope David is alive, he's my favorite on this show! Or was! I think the sorry was for David and opening the file because Mayfair did (kind of) separate Patterson and David because she didn't want Patterson to go over line and share classified things with a civilian. Obviously Mayfair didn't know that David would be killed by the Russian spy. For the USB files, I am hundred percent sure, Mayfair is guilty and did great on hiding her guilt (except for the time, briefly explaining to Weller about Daylight). She always felt she cheated her team and the bureau but she was kind of peer pressured into it but also used it in her advantage. She knows that her team is good and will get out of the trap but she knows that she has officially dragged them into the web too. 

As for Kurt's dad, he was a liar himself so he recognized another liar lying to his son, which is Jane. I feel bad for you, Kurt; but just shave and wear ironed clothes and get a good body, please. ;)

Its disturbing to even imagine how Bill Weller decided to abduct a child while his son was babysitting and do shit to her and then kill her and bury her at her favorite spot. Maybe he was drunk and angry and wanted to do a suicide but thought molesting a child is another way? Sick. Or Bill Weller was mentally sick and convinced himself that he didn't kill anyone and thought he obligated to go to Taylor's memorials. Or Bill Weller thought him going to jail made him repent his sins and thought he was forgiven by everyone? I'm not sure but the Wellers' had a messed up childhood. Really sad. 

[luckyroll3]

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 1:47 AM, jhlipton said:

On ‎5‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 0:29 AM, Kendall said:

I should've known that there were too many black people on the show.

And waaaaaay too many black women, amIrite? SMH.

A black woman with an interesting storyline.....of course she had to go!

[Xenith22]

And for me it hugely comes down to what @MargheritaErdman just pointed out: a five year old is little more than a baby. I had a next door neighbor who was six when I was ten and let me tell you, we were not besties. Huge difference between those two ages, intellectually and emotionally, not to mention physically. Most five year olds are still wetting their beds and mastering tying their shoes.

Well sure a five year old would not be first choice for a friend of most ten year olds.  However that is assuming that there were other kids around their own age in the neighborhood whom they got along with and could play with instead.  We do not known that this is the case with Weller.

I would also definitely strongly disagree that a 5 year old is like a baby.   Bedwetting is a genetic trait which typically goes away somewhere between the ages of 4-7.  Otherwise when awake a five year old is certainly potty trained.  I really see no relevance on the ability to be friends here other than that they are not going to be sharing any sleeping bags/beds.  Learning to tie shoes is largely dependent on when the parent decides to teach it, which in a lot of cases has gotten later and later due to the large influx of velcro/strap shoes allowing many parents to put it off until 7-8 years old now.  However there are other parents that teach it as early as 4 years old as by that age they typically have just enough fine motorskills to learn how with a few lessons especially if you use the bunny ears method.  Again though I don't see how this is relevant as the only place it would come into play here is that Kurt would probably have to tie Taylor's fishing line.

Look I'm not arguing that intellectually and maturity wise there is not a big gap, I mean they are not likely going to be having any kind of deep conversations together.  Depending on parenting the 5 year old can also often be more self centered which can certainly lead to unpleasant friction. But otherwise a 5 year old is perfectly capable of doing and enjoying most of the same basic things for play in the woods, creek, yard, and basic toys/games, etc that existed in the late 70s/early 80s?

I don't see how he could feel like he came close to getting her killed because she got a scar on her neck; I have a scar on my elbow and it's from my cat catching me with one of her back claws accidentally. We saw the tree accident in a flashback and it looked like no big deal; she wasn't crying or screaming, there wasn't a lot of blood and she didn't even seem to be in a lot of pain.

That is not a small wound, and that is a lot of blood coming out of it especially given that we are talking about the neck where some major important blood vessels lie.  Really there is no way that Taylor should not have been rushed to the hospital to potentially close that thing for possible risk of bleeding out at that young age.  I should also add that while that the lower hand in this scene could maybe be Kurt's hand, the hand pulling back the hair is not Taylor's.  Not only is it too big, but we saw Taylor's hand  when she was climbing the tree and it did not have the dark nail polish this hand does. I tend to think it seemed too big for Sarah too as although you can't tell if from this lone shot the hand looked bigger than Taylor's head when we saw the whole things seconds before.  Thus I believe it is either Kurt's mother, Taylor's mother, or possibly even a paramedic that was brought to check on her condition. The way this scene was shot was also interesting as before we see the neck wound we see the back of Kurt's head as if he were looking sharply down at her.  There is no obvious transition besides the camera panning right.  So to me we can not be sure whether Taylor is still laying on the ground having been rolled over, or else she is standing when this adult is checking the wound.  We never see Taylor move and there is no audible sound in this scene beyond Weller's narration in the present.  Finally I will add that this narration started almost immediately following Mayfair telling Kurt he should not feel guilty about what happened to Taylor since he was just 10 at the time.  His delivery as he reflected back narrating it contained some rather extended reflective pauses (even by his normal standards or broken delivery) and quite a bit of what seemed like poignant eye movement which to me indicated that this event was significant to him in its own right beyond simply indicating how Taylor shares the same scar as Jane?  So yeah I feel confident in my assessment that Kurt carried a fair amount of guilt for this serious incident which potentially exacerbated his feelings about the abduction because it was him failing to look out for her yet again.

On a different note, going back to that Mayfair-Weller conversation I feel the need to quote a bit of it.

M: How are you holding up? I know you don't do too well with missing kids.
W: I'm fine.
M: Kurt, I need to know where your head is.
W: I've been thinking about Taylor.
M: Then maybe you should start talking to someone again...
W: No, I don't wanna talk.
M: Listen to me. That girl's disappearance was not your fault. You were ten years old
(FULL 10 SECOND PAUSE)
W: One of my last memories of her...

That conversation right there with that massive pause with no objections offered seems like a fairly solid piece of evidence that Weller's Taylor obsession is mostly based on the guilt he carries over the incident and not Taylor herself.

Also I don't remember it being implied that Weller Sr. was suspected of being a pedo at all.

I believe it was quite clear when Weller told the abduction story to Jane that Weller's dad was indeed accused of being a pedo. The smoking gun line:  "People thought that he was...he was too close."  Is there another meaning to that?  On top of that just using common sense there are not a lot of other plausible explanations as to why else he would have snuck into his neighbors house, then kidnapped and murdered the five year old girl that his son was kid-sitting?   The only other explanation I can come up with that is that she saw him doing something, but that would not fit with the "too close".

I don't think Weller really looked at her as a sister, I'm not sure. I wish he did, but then the show would not have Weller and Jane as protagonists that are love.

Just because he thought of her like a sister/family when he was 10 (I mean I certainly hope he was not sexually attracted to her at that age) doesn't mean that about 20 some odd years later he would feel the same now?  Heck look over at the Flash where Barry and Iris are on track to being a couple despite living together as essentially foster siblings since before they were ten.  People's view of others can certainly shift over time.  Beyond that though I guess the main point I was trying to make was that given the amount of quality time he spent with her understandably cared about her on the level one cares about an actual family member and not just an casual neighborhood friend.

Is the fact that the USB password "IMSORRY" and the key to get there is "David" a hint that David is still alive or that Mayfair's antics had more to do with getting David killed than we first thought? David was killed tracking people related to the tattoos and a spy dead drop. I could kind of see using "David" as the cypher since it would be a very good clue to Patterson that she was on the right trail, but "IMSORRY"? Is the sorry for David or is she sorry that in opening the file, they are all about to paint a target on their backs(both career wise and conspiracy wise)?

The "I'm sorry" could have been any number of things such as:
- For ever being involved with Daylight and the other programs to begin with or for the particularly despicable actions that lead to them being shut down.
- For keeping massive secrets about these programs and previously lying to the team about what she knew before.
- For David dying because of Daylight (She certainly recognized the tattoo connection to those programs after all especially with the case file being stamped on Jane.)
- For the dangerous sh*tstorm the team was potentially getting involved in learning about this stuff now.

[slf]

We're going to have to agree to disagree then. I've been around way too many five year olds to agree that it's perfectly reasonable that she was Weller's best friend. I'm a younger sister to two older ones and almost all of my friends had siblings and it was the same: the older ones trying to ditch the younger ones because us younger kids couldn't do the same things, physically, and didn't 'get' intellectually some of the things they were talking about (or wanting to do). My bringing up bedwetting and shoe tying wasn't about how these things would factor into their friendship (though, yeah, most ten year olds don't want to have to tie their friend's shoes), it was about development. He was twice her age at that point. Farther along in every way. You believe that's not an issue, okay. I do.

I'm not going to get into analyzing the flashback. I mean, the actress they hired was 7 not 5. Are we then meant to assume Taylor was large for her age? Jane is described as having black hair in the show but Taylor is shown with brown hair. Taylor is covered in freckles with no mole, Jane has no freckles and a mole. I'm not sure we were meant to look for clues in the flashbacks (unless we're meant to take the same actress playing both little Jane and little Taylor to mean something). But I will say I don't think that's an alarming amount of blood; during recess in the fourth grade my teacher called us all to line up to go back inside and ran full-speed across the school yard, up the cement sidewalk, and about 20 feet away from the line I tripped and skidded - on my knees - toward my classmates. It took the skin off both knees, about two inches high and from the right side of my knee clear across to the left. I bled way more than that. It was determined by the school nurse and my mom that I did not require a hospital visit. They scabbed over so much, so thickly, that I could barely fully extend either leg for a few days. (Which was awesome: no school.) Or maybe I had a rougher childhood, though virtually everyone my age has similar stories and I'm Jane's age. 

As for him pausing and then bringing up the memory, I took it to be just about the scar. 

I still believe the show has taken the stance that he and Taylor were close and the loss of her is what impacted him the most.

 

Quote

I believe it was quite clear when Weller told the abduction story to Jane that Weller's dad was indeed accused of being a pedo. The smoking gun line: "People thought that he was...he was too close."  Is there another meaning to that?  On top of that just using common sense there are not a lot of other plausible explanations as to why else he would have snuck into his neighbors house, then kidnapped and murdered the five year old girl that his son was kid-sitting?   The only other explanation I can come up with that is that she saw him doing something, but that would not fit with the "too close".

When you said his father was suspected of being a pedo, I thought you meant by the police. Not whatever half-baked theories locals might've come up with. (Taylor's dead, Dad's a pedo. Taylor's not dead...all the things that made them say he was a pedo suddenly don't matter?) As in, there was something substantial that made the police think he might've been a child molester, not just people sitting around speculating. I don't think I lack common sense, but thanks for the suggestion.

If Kurt heard those rumors and believed them that yeah that would've been really rough for him. As to why he would kill her if he wasn't molesting her according to Federal reports most children who are murdered are not killed during an abduction or molestation. It's a small percentage of pedophiles that kill their victims. And they tend to have more than one victim and start earlier in life. Most children are killed by a male family member and are generally beaten to death during an outburst, IIRC. So, most children killed are killed just for the hell of it, really. Statistically, Weller Sr. wouldn't need a reason beside being mad.

Edited June 2, 2016 by slf

[Trini]

Bless you all who are trying to make sense of this Weller/Taylor/Weller Sr. twist; I can't even try.

[Xenith22]

Quote

We're going to have to agree to disagree then. I've been around way too many five year olds to agree that it's perfectly reasonable that she was Weller's best friend. I'm a younger sister to two older ones and almost all of my friends had siblings and it was the same: the older ones trying to ditch the younger ones because us younger kids couldn't do the same things, physically, and didn't 'get' intellectually some of the things they were talking about (or wanting to do). My bringing up bedwetting and shoe tying wasn't about how these things would factor into their friendship (though, yeah, most ten year olds don't want to have to tie their friend's shoes), it was about development. He was twice her age at that point. Farther along in every way. You believe that's not an issue, okay. I do.

But where your case seemingly differentiates from Kurt's is the presence of same age friends.  Again I am not denying that an older child would certainly prefer to have a friend their age.  In that case adding someone younger to the mix of same age friends can be purely a hassle/hindrance to what the older ones want to do together.  However if that is not an option for whatever reason which so far from the flashbacks and everything we have seen/heard so far there has been nothing to indicate Kurt had any other friends at the time...that's when things change.  It becomes a case of would you prefer to be always stuck doing things you don't enjoy like playing dolls with your sister, always doing everything you like all alone (no one to play games with or to admire your accomplishments), or would you prefer to do the things you like with someone else even if they are five years younger and not able to do everything?   I think given that situation most people would likely choose to try to adapt to the last option for the sake of the companionship?  (I'm actually even speaking somewhat from experience.  When my parents bought their house the year before I was born it was in a very small brand new plan just cleared out of the woods.  In this small neighborhood there were no boys the same age and thus as I grew up I ended up being friends with a couple girls in the neighborhood whom I was older than by 2-3 years respectively.  Yeah that's not quite the same as 5 years difference I know but still.  Unlike Taylor these girls were not total tomboys.  So although we did stuff like racing our power wheels, kicking a ball, and playing in the woods I also had to endure my fair share of tea parties and playing house.  I did it because there was no one else in the neighborhood and I did not want to be stuck always playing by myself.  I also didn't grow to the point of feeling like they were family...but that is probably because they actually had their own present families so we only played together a few hours on a couple of days a week not near the amount of time together as Kurt seemingly did with Taylor due to her parental situation.)

Let's look at this a completely different way...   Can a ten year old be like friends with a dog?  I mean a dog is certainly developmentally behind the boy by miles. It certainly can't tie shoe laces and does not always exhibit excellent control over its bodily functions.  You can only have a one sided conversation with a dog.  Basically a dog can't do a quarter of the stuff the boy can.   A dog can also have a mind of its own and be disobedient at times or show attitude not unlike a small child.   Yet would you argue that the boy can not feel very close to the dog?  Would you argue that a young boy can feel that the dog is like a friend and family member?   No?   So then how is this different from Taylor?   Like the dog the 5 year old was someone to play with,  someone to admire him, someone that he was responsible for and gave a sense of importance?

Quote

When you said his father was suspected of being a pedo, I thought you meant by the police. Not whatever half-baked theories locals might've come up with. (Taylor's dead, Dad's a pedo. Taylor's not dead...all the things that made them say he was a pedo suddenly don't matter?) As in, there was something substantial that made the police think he might've been a child molester, not just people sitting around speculating. I don't think I lack common sense, but thanks for the suggestion.

If Kurt heard those rumors and believed them that yeah that would've been really rough for him. As to why he would kill her if he wasn't molesting her according to Federal reports most children who are murdered are not killed during an abduction or molestation. {...} Most children are killed by a male family member and are generally beaten to death during an outburst, IIRC. So, most children killed are killed just for the hell of it, really. Statistically, Weller Sr. wouldn't need a reason beside being mad.

Well yeah actually most of the kids murdered are by their parents or parents significant other.  A mix of mercy kills, discipline going too far, post-partum depression, eliminating a nuisance to the relationship, drug/alcohol rages, etc.

This obviously was not any of that (Unless maybe Bill Weller was having an affair with Taylor's mother?) Had Taylor been in his house at the time then sure I could see it.  But again she was not around him and he had to actually silently sneak into her house without his son knowing it.  That screams premeditated and makes moment of rage seem far less likely?  So then where is the motive?

With no evidence at all to link Bill with the crime, why was he the number one suspect just because he was not home at the time?  The police too had to seemingly suspect there was possibly something else going on here...

Besides Bill's deathbed confession was that he did not mean to kill her and it was an accident.   Moments before he dies if he was confessing to killing her and burying her here why would he feel the need to still lie about that?  So then I will say it again why was he in the house and what was he doing with Taylor when he accidentally killed her?

Quote

It's a small percentage of pedophiles that kill their victims. And they tend to have more than one victim and start earlier in life.

Again if you take Bill at his deathbed word he did not intentionally kill his victim.  More than likely she probably fought back and in trying to keep her quiet so that his son downstairs did not hear the noise he accidentally killed her.  Also it's a myth that most pedos have many victims.  While you usually hear more about the ones with many victims, there are many more who actually just have a single victim often either a family member or someone else they get very close to.  
As far as the age of the pedo while it is true that they usually start getting the urges at a young age (sometime in the teens) that does not mean they always act on them at that age.  There are pedos that are strong willed enough to never actually act on these urges, while others only give in to them later in their life. (In this case Bill Weller would have been around his early 30s).    

To me especially assuming that Bill Weller's job did not put him in regular contact with children, it also makes sense that Taylor may have been his only real opportunity for an easy victim (besides his own daughter) and that it was her continued presence around him that made his dark urges feel too hard to fight.  He did not want to be a killer so after that night he never acted upon his urges again for fear of a repeat or else of being caught if he was around another such incident.

Quote

But I will say I don't think that's an alarming amount of blood; during recess in the fourth grade my teacher called us all to line up to go back inside and ran full-speed across the school yard, up the cement sidewalk, and about 20 feet away from the line I tripped and skidded - on my knees - toward my classmates. It took the skin off both knees, about two inches high and from the right side of my knee clear across to the left. I bled way more than that. It was determined by the school nurse and my mom that I did not require a hospital visit. They scabbed over so much, so thickly, that I could barely fully extend either leg for a few days. (Which was awesome: no school.) Or maybe I had a rougher childhood, though virtually everyone my age has similar stories and I'm Jane's age.

A cut is not the same thing as a scrape.  A scrape is just the surface which means you aren't likely to damage anything important.  (I too had a rather nasty scrape of a knee/elbow during a nasty tripping incident during playing kickball on pavement that required no hospitalization.)  A cut on the other hand can penetrate well beneath the skin to damage more valuable parts.  We never learn what exactly caused Taylors wound beyond the fall...which just falling on the flat ground would not cause that kind of wound on the neck alone?  So did she fall on a sharp rock or branch?  If so then there is a question as to exactly how deep it actually went.  The back of the neck is home to some major blood vessels (members of the jugular vein family) and arteries (vertebral) which if even nicked can be serious trouble since you can not exactly apply pressure to them to get them to stop bleeding and clot unlike the knee or other extremities.  You do not mess around with neck wounds especially with small children. 

Quote

I'm not going to get into analyzing the flashback. I mean, the actress they hired was 7 not 5. Are we then meant to assume Taylor was large for her age? Jane is described as having black hair in the show but Taylor is shown with brown hair. Taylor is covered in freckles with no mole, Jane has no freckles and a mole. I'm not sure we were meant to look for clues in the flashbacks

Eh, hair and eye  color can actually both darken as you age.  Heck even blonde kids are sometimes naturally brunettes by the time they are teenagers.  Freckles too are not always permanent.  Freckles caused by the sun can both go away or get bigger if given time.  I have nothing to say about using a 5 year old actress vs a 7 year old as Hollywood does that all the time.  7 year olds are probably just easier to control...    And while a 7 year old may have bigger hands they should not be bigger than the 10 year olds nor does that explain the sudden appearance of nail polish which was not there during the tree climb.  Would they have really needed to shoot that short flashback over multiple days?  I still think that was a different person.

Edited June 3, 2016 by Xenith22

[slf]

Her hair color could've gotten darker, her eye color could've changed, her freckles could've disappeared, he could've been the only kid his age in the neighborhood, narrow this field, expand that one, etc. It all just seems like too much, frankly. Yeah, her eye color could've gotten darker and her freckles could've faded but Occams' Razor, right: the simplest explanation is usually the right one. The flashbacks weren't filmed with hidden clues in them, we weren't meant to pick them apart. These writers had Kurt say that Taylor was a tomboy who'd rather run around in the mud with Kurt than sit inside and play dolls with Sarah (to whom she was likely closer in age), and then in the last episode, oh look, Taylor actually had a favorite doll she always carried. Nothing about the writing so far suggests the sort of attention to detail you're arguing for. 

By the way, I wasn't arguing that the nail-polished hand belonged to Taylor. My point was, as I said, that Taylor in the flashbacks clearly isn't 5 so are we meant to take that as a clue? Or dismiss it because it doesn't fit in neatly?

The assumption was that Taylor was taken out of the house by someone she knew because there was no sign of struggle. For all we know she might've left the house herself, god knows she would've been tall enough to reach the locks, and then Weller Sr. killed her.

Even if I could buy that a 10 year old could have such a close relationship with a 5 year old, I still don't buy it so profoundly affecting him twenty years later. Nope, not buying it.

Edited June 4, 2016 by slf

[Beatriceblake]

I was a bit disappointed with the finale. It felt like the episodes were ramping up and getting better and then this just felt messy and didn't follow on from what we'd seen, like a bunch of crucial stuff got cut.

In show, how could Jane have known Cade was still alive?

Also as almost everyone has pointed out did they cut a scene where Weller finds some actual evidence Jane knew she wasn't Taylor? It's extremely plausible that she could have taken something half-remembered from her own life and tried to make it fit something she was told was a fact or alternatively that she had a similar memory from childhood that coincidentally fit Weller's recollection.

I liked the Reade/Zapata/Patterson stuff as much as anything in this.

I can't decide if it would have been more interesting to have Jane get memory wiped again and Weller know something is up but not have any proof (not that he has much now).

Edited June 9, 2016 by Beatriceblake

[John Potts]

For most of this episode (and indeed the series as a whole) I can't decide whether TPTB want us to see our "heroes" as the villains ad the Mysterious Conspiracy that's working against them as the Plucky Resistance. Now that might have been interesting, but it seems TPTB can't have any of that ambiguity and so had to make it clear that actually the insurgents (who have been exposing government corruption, after all) are all about bringing down the government and so, even if they are well intentioned, they are pretty much committed to causing massive anarchy. But if they're the bad guys, then making our hero a judgemental asshole for whom "It's all about MY PAIN!" (I mean, the guy regards the fact that his dad killed the girl next door as being a sin against HIM and then arrests an amnesiac for going along with his fantasy that he thought she was somebody else!). Although other than Stubbly, I do like Team Fed - the team running down what had happened to Mayfair was actually pretty compelling. And I thought Oscar really sold the tragedy of having to lose the woman he loved AGAIN only for Jane to end up killing him (I guess we didn't actually SEE him die, but that had to be one of the more definitive offscreen deaths).
 

Quote

 

jhlipton I kept waiting for someone -- anyone -- to make the obvious connection to John Donne.

 

 

I thought that too - either Donne or Hemmingway (since the quote was from "No Man is an Island")

[slf]

On 6/7/2016 at 5:50 PM, Beatriceblake said:

In show, how could Jane have known Cade was still alive?

She doesn't. Cade's body was never found so she used that ambiguity to her advantage when trying to make contact. And then pinned Oscar's death and the fire on Cade.

[Beatriceblake]

16 hours ago, John Potts said:

For most of this episode (and indeed the series as a whole) I can't decide whether TPTB want us to see our "heroes" as the villains ad the Mysterious Conspiracy that's working against them as the Plucky Resistance. Now that might have been interesting, but it seems TPTB can't have any of that ambiguity and so had to make it clear that actually the insurgents (who have been exposing government corruption, after all) are all about bringing down the government and so, even if they are well intentioned, they are pretty much committed to causing massive anarchy. But if they're the bad guys, then making our hero a judgemental asshole for whom "It's all about MY PAIN!" (I mean, the guy regards the fact that his dad killed the girl next door as being a sin against HIM and then arrests an amnesiac for going along with his fantasy that he thought she was somebody else!). Although other than Stubbly, I do like Team Fed - the team running down what had happened to Mayfair was actually pretty compelling. And I thought Oscar really sold the tragedy of having to lose the woman he loved AGAIN only for Jane to end up killing him (I guess we didn't actually SEE him die, but that had to be one of the more definitive offscreen deaths).
 

 

I thought that too - either Donne or Hemmingway (since the quote was from "No Man is an Island")

Hopefully they are looking to strike a more morally ambiguous tone, since both sides have their faults. Mayfair might have been corrupt but they should have tried to get her caught for something she did rather than framing her for something she didn't and then killing her when she tried to clear her name by looking into it. As for the rest of the team Weller, Zapata and Patterson showed themselves capable of being compromised this season. Obviously Weller has truckloads of emotional baggage, Tasha was compromised by a secret gambling addiction and the subsequent debt and Patterson shouldn't have been sneaking classified stuff home. Reade was probably the agent with the most integrity but even he dropped something he should have kept looking into.

Meanwhile Jane's side have a laudable aim (fighting corruption) but are clearly willing to go a country mile too far in the service of achieving it since they were prepared to try overthrowing the government. It was messed up for Oscar to even consider wiping Jane's memories again against her wishes. I'm curious about Shepard and Jane's relationship to him. I get the sense that Jane might be more of a tool/pawn than she/the audience thinks.

Edited June 9, 2016 by Beatriceblake

[rubyred]

For me the underlying problem of the show is I don't care about Weller's manpain. I don't care if it's guilt, I am unmoved by his daddy issues, and I am teetering on squicked out by his obsession with Jane.

I am, however, still intrigued with Jane and whatever the hell she is mixed up in. I am interested in the traumatized amnesiac, not the neck-bearded super-agent with zero objectivity.

If the show were to focus on her and the new Reade/Zapata/Patterson Scooby group I could stick around for another season. If it once again revolves around Weller's "anguish" and "guilt" and "pain" - I'm out.

[edra]

François Arnaud is the main reason why I returned to watch this show, and now he is most likely gone. I just don't see any chemistry with the Jane and Weller actors, and them together on screen, exacerbates each actors quirks and default to bad acting.

Also there was only so much current event, a pre-drawn tattoo could lead to, so I guess the show just decided to change the theme of the show, ala Alias and the Rambaldi plot in the later seasons. Wonder how it will all play out...

Edited June 28, 2016 by edra