S03.E07: The Final Country

[formerlyfreedom]

Following up on new leads, Wayne and Roland track down a man who left the police force in the midst of the Purcell investigation. Meanwhile, Amelia visits Lucy Purcell’s best friend in hopes of gaining insights into the whereabouts of the mysterious one-eyed man.

Airing Sunday, February 17, 2019.

[AimingforYoko]

All the time Wayne was talking with Hoyt, I thought, "Damn, that sounds like Michael Rooker." End credits confirmed.

I knew as soon as Elisa said James disappeared that they offed him. That's why Wayne dropped it and quit the force, he made a deal with Hoyt.

Other tidbits: Connected world confirmed and a new timeline.

[Starchild]

How would Hoyt know what happened? And I watched the first season but I don't really remember much about it, what are the connections?

[Dminches]

Just now, Starchild said:

How would Hoyt know what happened? And I watched the first season but I don't really remember much about it, what are the connections?

Maybe Roland told him. 

[ShadowHunter]

A connection to the first season that was nice.

I figured Roland and Wayne killed someone back in 1990. Intense scene and great acting. 

Since Lucy sold Julie I don't think that meant she wanted Will to be killed. I assume that.

Lucy's friend finally had dialogue. 

Knew that was Michael Rooker on the phone. 

[WaltersHair]

I've stayed away from spoilers, so this is a gut feeling. The pedophile ring is complete bunk. Another slight of hand with a call back to season one to make it seem legitimate. I think Julie was just used to make Hoyt's daughter feel better and not slide into complete disassociation from reality.  I think the one eyed man may have even helped her get away from her bio mom, the pretend mom, cousin, Hoyt and the pink rooms. The brother was collateral damage.

The only way Hoyt knows about what happened in the woods is from Roland. I don't know how or why, but Roland had to have been the one who told him.

I hope there are more surprises for next week. I don't feel that weird urgency that a big piece is missing. I hope I'm wrong.

Edited February 18, 2019 by WaltersHair

[ghoulina]

Did Wayne make a deal with Hoyt to protect Roland? Or his family? And then the dementia made him forget it all. Does Roland know about the deal? Did we ever find out how exactly Amelia died? 

I feel like, at this point, I have more questions than answers. 

But I don't think there was a pedophile ring. I think the mentally unstable Isabelle was given Julie, after her daughter died. That's why the staff's access to the home was restricted from 81 onward.

But, more questions, how did she get away? I'm worried of all this can't be wrapped up in one episode!

[Dminches]

Roland was clearly in bed with Hoyt but reluctantly agreed to pick up and question James.  Roland also knew that James wasn’t getting out of the barn alive since if he did he would go back to Hoyt and tell him what Roland and Wayne did.

[Cardie]

21 minutes ago, ghoulina said:

But I don't think there was a pedophile ring. I think the mentally unstable Isabelle was given Julie, after her daughter died. That's why the staff's access to the home was restricted from 81 onward.

I agree. There may be a pedophile ring that is also operating but the Purcell case is about obtaining Julie to replace Isabelle's daughter and killing off anyone who was involved and threatened to make waves. She might be Tom's daughter after all, although it would make sense if she were Hoyt's. Lucy only started work at the chicken plant in 79, so it could be simpIy that her daughter appeared on Hoyt's radar. I did love the self-own of citing the S1 case as one in which the powerful people involved got away with it.

I hate to think that Roland is a Hoyt mole. Has Hoyt threatened to out him after Harris discovered he was gay (if he is?) Also, did anyone think that the Roland who helped Hays photograph the license plate in 2015 wasn't really there?

The one thing I want from the finale is to see grown-up Julie and find out what her story is.
 

[clack]

Was it Tom's mother who doubted that Tom was the father of Will and Julie? Maybe Julie wasn't just a replacement for Isabelle's dead daughter, but an actual blood relation -- Isabelle's husband was Julie's father, or perhaps Mr Hoyt himself.

[thuganomics85]

Yep, as soon as I heard that voice, I was like "Merle!"  And then "Yondu!!"  In all honestly, Michael Rooker is always great in my book, and hopefully we will get more of him in the finale.

Heh, I remember hearing rumors and rumblings about this being connected to the first season case, so that was nice touch.  But I also wouldn't be surprised if it ends up being another false flag, since whatever flaws they clearly have, I just don't see Lucy and Uncle Dan actually giving Julie to a pedophile ring.  Or I hope they wouldn't.

So, Tom was executed and his death was made to look like a suicide, while they pinned William's death on him.  Tragic end for him.  I guess he show up in the finale viva more flashbacks, but if not, another great performance from Scott McNairy.

Wherever they go next, I certainly hope this show won't be the last time Mahershala Ali and Stephen Dorff act together.  These two have been simply fantastic together.

Still worried that there is too much going on and too many questions for the finale to hit its mark next week, but I'm certainly intrigued, which is a step up from last season.

[LoveLeigh]

Wow. I am probably the only person on the planet that finds this has totally deteriorated into a garbled mess of preposterous nonsense. 

The acting is phenomenal but for me the story is very layered and not that interesting any more. I think that too often a writer will stick in some red herring about a pedo ring, and the solution to the mystery has nothing to do with pedos. 

These detectives were just not very good. They were drinkers and harassers and abusive to suspects. Then, they became murderers. 

What's so great about season 3 other than the acting? 

[shapeshifter]

So, when Harris was wheezing and saying he had a punctured lung, did he?
Or was that just a ploy to get unshackled so he could get Wayne's gun, kill them, and escape?
 

1 hour ago, WaltersHair said:

The pedophile ring is complete bunk. . . . I think Julie was just used to make Hoyt's daughter feel better and not slide into complete disassociation from reality.  I think the one eyed man may have even helped her get away from her bio mom, the pretend mom, cousin, Hoyt and the pink rooms. The brother was collateral damage. . . .

36 minutes ago, Cardie said:

1 hour ago, ghoulina said:

But I don't think there was a pedophile ring. I think the mentally unstable Isabelle was given Julie, after her daughter died. That's why the staff's access to the home was restricted from 81 onward.

I agree. There may be a pedophile ring that is also operating but the Purcell case is about obtaining Julie to replace Isabelle's daughter and killing off anyone who was involved and threatened to make waves. She might be Tom's daughter after all, although it would make sense if she were Hoyt's. Lucy only started work at the chicken plant in 79, so it could be simpIy that her daughter appeared on Hoyt's radar. I did love the self-own of citing the S1 case as one in which the powerful people involved got away with it.

This^^ makes sense. I'm assuming the quick look at the season one Easter (chicken--heh) egg of Matthew McConaughey/Detective Rust Cohle &  Woody Harrelson/Detective Marty Hart was just an in-story misdirect. The Hoyt family and/or their flunkies (one-eyed dude or whoever) wanted to plant the idea of a pedophile ring -- I guess because Julie disappeared -- so nobody would look at Hoyt. But that may have backfired when the detectives got the idea that Hoyt was part of such a ring.

This series is always so emotionally dark that I'm glad when the season is over.
This season has been worth it for Mahershala Ali with Stephen Dorf, but I doubt I'll watch another. 
Right now I'm watching the English subtitled False Flag on Hulu. It's got a ton of misdirects, but it fits together neatly and doesn't use gratuitous violence to tell the story. I think those of us who are only masters of the English language tend to expect too much reading between the lines by our readers--like I'm doing right now, heh.

[MrWhyt]

2 hours ago, Starchild said:

How would Hoyt know what happened? And I watched the first season but I don't really remember much about it, what are the connections?

Hoyt could have had them followed.  As for the connection, the reporter brought up the first season storyline, even had a newspaper article with Woody and MM on the front page.

[shapeshifter]

40 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

As for the connection, the reporter brought up the first season storyline, even had a newspaper article with Woody and MM on the front page.

That was the 2015 reporter's connection? If so, I missed that. Or was she just saying others had suggested the connection in the 90s?

.

40 minutes ago, MrWhyt said:

Hoyt could have had them followed.

Yes, and the 2 cars outside Hays' home--one following the other one with him in it--kind of suggests that cars following each other is Hoyt's people's standard operating procedure.

Edited February 18, 2019 by shapeshifter

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Inside the episode:

 

Clip:

[Dminches]

In an interview Pizzolatto said there is no connection to season 1 (other than the picture on the computer) and Roland is not gay. 

[Jextella]

9 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

Wow. I am probably the only person on the planet that finds this has totally deteriorated into a garbled mess of preposterous nonsense. 

The acting is phenomenal but for me the story is very layered and not that interesting any more. I think that too often a writer will stick in some red herring about a pedo ring, and the solution to the mystery has nothing to do with pedos. 

These detectives were just not very good. They were drinkers and harassers and abusive to suspects. Then, they became murderers. 

What's so great about season 3 other than the acting? 

The detective work has been horrible since the beginning.  That's probably my biggest beef with the season so far.  I do want to know what happened, but I'm mostly interested in seeing how Roland and West end up, although I'll be really bummed if Roland is part of the crime.  It's looking more and more that way.

[BonnieD]

Unrelated to the case... the fact that Wayne's daughter is never shown interests me. We're to assume they had a falling out a long time ago. Her brother said she's doing fine in California or something like that early in the series, but I'm starting to wonder if she died and Wayne's dementia has blocked it from his memory. Too far fetched, or just the kind of twist the writers would think was cool? Thus his desperate need to find out what happened to Julie and recover her.

[Dminches]

Are we to believe that the DA was aware of Hoyt's kidnapping and agreed to just find different people to pin the murders on, including Tom's suicide?

Was there any significance to Amelia writing a book other than the fact that she was Hays' wife?

As I think about this more and more the story itself becomes very disjointed.  Who cares about Hoyt?  He appeared briefly in one of the first few episodes and then not again until #7.

If this really was a conspiracy to let a wealthy local who employed a lot of the people in the town kidnap someone, the writers spent a whole lot of time on other, less important, stuff.

[12catcrazy]

I guess the head scratcher for me is that rather than "buying" a local child, couldn't Hoyt have just gone and got a child for his daughter from an adoption agency or foster care?  There has got to be more to this - I think maybe the daughter saw Julie and wanted her and/or Julie is related to the Hoyt's  in some way (possible bio dad if not Tom).  Bottom line, I think Hoyt's daughter was behind the entire mess and Daddy was doing his best to clean it up and keep his daughter out of trouble.   My guess is the black/white couple in the expensive car was probably Hoyt's daughter and "Mr. June" (one eyed black guy), and they took Julie and accidently killed her brother.  

I'm really hoping that Roland is not part of this.  He may suspect the case goes high up and really wanted to wash his hands of it but Tom being murdered dragged him back into it.   I think he valued Tom as a human being (not "trash" as Hoyt's henchman termed Julie's family) and he wanted some answers.   Anybody notice the cross on the wall at Roland's house?  And I consider it ironic that he helped Tom stop drinking, yet Roland himself seems to be an alcoholic.  

And yeah, the AG was part of a cover-up.  I still think that the springboard for this story was all the rumors of Bill Clinton covering up Tyson misdeeds, while he was AG of Arkansas.  

[clack]

I've watched Season 1 three times. I'll never re-watch this season. Not entertaining enough.

Not fun, not exciting -- but damn, it is compelling in it's own slow-paced way.

[Bannon]

12 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

Wow. I am probably the only person on the planet that finds this has totally deteriorated into a garbled mess of preposterous nonsense. 

The acting is phenomenal but for me the story is very layered and not that interesting any more. I think that too often a writer will stick in some red herring about a pedo ring, and the solution to the mystery has nothing to do with pedos. 

These detectives were just not very good. They were drinkers and harassers and abusive to suspects. Then, they became murderers. 

What's so great about season 3 other than the acting? 

It is very hard to have terrific acting without good dialogue for the actors to speak. I would argue that the dialogue, particularly among Wayne and Roland, Wayne and Amelia, and with the scenes of the Purcell parents, has been among the best currently on television. This is how human beings speak to one another in our society, and damned few t.v. drama writers get this right.

I would agree that the plotting has turned out to be a mess. Unfortunately, very few writers do a good job with The Big Conspiracy as a central theme, for a lot of different reasons. The most compelling part of this story has always been the relationships that Wayne has with Roland and Amelia, and unfortunately The Big Conspiracy has detracted from that, and it was not needed. Evil Hoyt Chicken Magnate and the Mentally Ill Daughter is just stupid stuff that could have been eliminated. A simple case of a corrupt police officer, as perpetrator and concealer of the original crime, could have worked much better.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Bannon

[shapeshifter]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

. . . The most compelling part of this story has always been the relationships that Wayne has with Roland and Amelia, and unfortunately The Big Conspiracy has detracted from that, and it was not needed. Evil Hoyt Chicken Magnate and the His Mentally Ill Daughter is just stupid stuff that could have been eliminated. A simple case of a corrupt police officer, as perpetrator and concealer of the original crime, could have worked much better.

--or we should have at least seen the Evil Hoyt Chicken Magnate and the His Mentally Ill Daughter more than we did (did we ever see them)? 
I suppose this exceptionally opaque, confusing conspiracy was supposed to be as seen from someone with cognitive impairments (like Wayne) and through Wayne's view, the audience sees the case more realistically, since in real life people don't have any behind-the-scenes info, like we have in dramatic accounts.

[izabella]

I know there's been a trend since Lost to do the flashbacks and whatnot, but I hate that form of storytelling, and it's overused.  Way overused.  It makes me feel like they don't actually have a good story that can be told in a linear fashion, so they chop it up to make it more compelling simply because we are confused and just get pieces at a time.  I am weary of it here.  Especially because they expect me to believe there are two one-eyed men running around this little town in the same timeline.

So who killed Tom?  Was it Roland?

[Bannon]

7 hours ago, izabella said:

I know there's been a trend since Lost to do the flashbacks and whatnot, but I hate that form of storytelling, and it's overused.  Way overused.  It makes me feel like they don't actually have a good story that can be told in a linear fashion, so they chop it up to make it more compelling simply because we are confused and just get pieces at a time.  I am weary of it here.  Especially because they expect me to believe there are two one-eyed men running around this little town in the same timeline.

So who killed Tom?  Was it Roland?

The corrupt cop turned Hoyt Chicken Security Chief, who was seen entering the pink room behind Tom last week, hit Tom at the base of his skull, knocked him out, took him out to the tower, and staged a suicide. t

 

7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

--or we should have at least seen the Evil Hoyt Chicken Magnate and the His Mentally Ill Daughter more than we did (did we ever see them)? 
I suppose this exceptionally opaque, confusing conspiracy was supposed to be as seen from someone with cognitive impairments (like Wayne) and through Wayne's view, the audience sees the case more realistically, since in real life people don't have any behind-the-scenes info, like we have in dramatic accounts.

They had a great actor for Mrs. Purcell. It's a shame they didn't utilize her more, perhaps developing a relationship with her and the corrupt cop, and eliminating The Evil Chicken Magnate altogether.

[Jextella]

I just read an interview with the director of this episode.  He says the ending will be very satisfying but heartbreaking as well. 

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

6 hours ago, Dminches said:

In an interview Pizzolatto said there is no connection to season 1 (other than the picture on the computer) and Roland is not gay. 

I've been pretty sure from the beginning it wasn't a season 1 connection or pedophile ring, but Julie as a "replacement child"-thing.

I think that's because when I follow true crime in real-time, there's always people screaming about child abductions being the work of "human trafficking"(even though traffickers generally go after runaways, etc who won't be reported missing, etc) or a "pedophile ring" ran by people in positions of power, etc.  So I think the misdirection almost makes sense as far as alluding to the Rust/Cohle case, etc.

I didn't think Roland was gay, either.  I do think Roland didn't give any Fs about how anyone lived their private/sex life, though, and was progressive in that way. Maybe he had a gay cousin/family member/friend and that's why he reacted how he did when Hayes started talking about the "sick" stuff Purcell was into.  

I think whatever Hoyt has Hayes agree to in the car (which I guess we'll see next week) leads to him (& Roland) dropping the case and not pursuing it anymore. I assume it has to do with threats to Hayes's family and possibly to Roland's fiance'. I'm assuming that's why he never married her after all - he didn't ever want her to be hurt because of his job (and subconsciously, maybe that's why he'd been dragging his feet even before Hoyt).  I'm thinking about how Hayes said last week he used to be fearless (I'm paraphrasing) until he had his wife and kids.  He wasn't afraid of anything until then, when he became afraid of them being hurt (I loved that scene, because I really relate to feeling that way after I had kids. It's a type of vulnerability that's so unsettling and "exterior.").  I wonder if Roland pushed the fiance' away after Hoyt's threats for her own safety.  (Or maybe he just started drinking so much after Harris's murder that she left him.)

15 hours ago, WaltersHair said:

I've stayed away from spoilers, so this is a gut feeling. The pedophile ring is complete bunk. Another slight of hand with a call back to season one to make it seem legitimate. I think Julie was just used to make Hoyt's daughter feel better and not slide into complete disassociation from reality.  I think the one eyed man may have even helped her get away from her bio mom, the pretend mom, cousin, Hoyt and the pink rooms. The brother was collateral damage.

The only way Hoyt knows about what happened in the woods is from Roland. I don't know how or why, but Roland had to have been the one who told him.

I hope there are more surprises for next week. I don't feel that weird urgency that a big piece is missing. I hope I'm wrong.

Agreed, as I said above.

I just don't think - or don't want to think - that Roland is in on it. Please don't let it be so! 

I'm going with the Hoyt security team always travels in twos and somehow a second car managed to follow/see Hayes & Roland with Harris. 

Edited February 18, 2019 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[Bannon]

I really wish the writer had not written Wayne and Roland as being so dumb as to torture Hoyt's Security Chief in a way that left obvious physical injuries. It's one thing to make them brutal enough to beat the hell out of suspected pedophiles, as much younger men, when the pedophiles are people on the fringes of society that nobody cares about. It's another to make them dumb enough to take that approach as older men, with a suspect who has large status in his community. Especially since Wayne's experience in LRRP during Vietnam would have made him quite familiar with the more sophisticated torture techniques used in that awful war. 

I know the writer's wanted to get to having Wayne and Roland kill the cop, but up until now they had avoided using that most lazy of writers' tools, the "Let's make our major characters idiots for 10 minutes, so we can advance the plot!" device. They could have written this better. 

[DarkRaichu]

- When did Amelia die? The first scene with Wayne's daughter going to college made it seem (to me) that it was just the 2 of them for a while (assuming big bro went to college already)

- I think Roland is in it.  There was a moment where security guy (all tied up) looked at Roland and gave some kind of signal.  Then Roland kneed his ribs, etc etc..  Plus, how the heck did Hoyt figure out what happened the very next day?

- I do not think this was a pedo ring case, although the AG might think it was and tried to protect the "players".  The case had to do more with Hoyt's daughter looking for replacement kid.  Maybe the daughter died sometime in 1989 and Hoyt just let Julie go as she was no longer useful for him.  The security at Hoyt's was very tight, I just did not see how Julie escaped from there on her own.

- What kind of deal was Wayne going to struck with Hoyt? He left the force and Hoyt needed a new head of security, just saying...

- So who is the True Detective in this series?  To me, Amelia was a much better detective with her limited access to police files.  

ETA: Speaking of Mr. June, didn't the foster kid say adult Julie called herself Mary July ??

Edited February 19, 2019 by DarkRaichu

[WaltersHair]

I'm wondering if the documentary girl is the last piece? Maybe Julie's daughter. It's been bugging me who she looks like. To me she looks like a blonde blue eyed  Alyssa Milano.

Why do they have to tell us there's a tragedy next week? Haven't we had enough of that with a side of gratuitous murder and child enlargement x100?

[Cardie]

19 minutes ago, DarkRaichu said:

ETA: Speaking of Mr. June, didn't the foster kid say adult Julie called herself Mary July ??

Yes, good catch.

[spaceghostess]

I'm worried that the "heartbreaking" ending has to do with what Wayne told his son early on: that he'd kill himself rather than go into care. My dad suffers from senile dementia (as did his mom), so this has been a tough watch.

Seconding the hope that Roland's not in on it. I've always liked that the detective partners have each others' backs on this show.

[Razzberry]

8 hours ago, Dminches said:

Are we to believe that the DA was aware of Hoyt's kidnapping and agreed to just find different people to pin the murders on, including Tom's suicide?

🤣

These conspiracies go deep in the south, but now they mentioned it's happening in Nebraska as well.  Season 4 perhaps?   HBO and Pizzalotto must think season 2 was unpopular only because people wanted a carbon copy of season 1.  No, it was unpopular because it sucked.

Jury's still out on this one, but I suspect Nic P is a one-hit wonder. I think the acting is mainly carrying it.

Edited February 18, 2019 by Razzberry

[Bannon]

56 minutes ago, Razzberry said:

🤣

These conspiracies go deep in the south, but now they mentioned it's happening in Nebraska as well.  Season 4 perhaps?   HBO and Pizzalotto must think season 2 was unpopular only because people wanted a carbon copy of season 1.  No, it was unpopular because it sucked.

Jury's still out on this one, but I suspect Nic P is a one-hit wonder. I think the acting is mainly carrying it.

I strongly suspect, without evidence, that David Milch had input, especially with regard to dialogue, with the entire season, and not just the credited episode, #4, since that characters, in contrast to previous seasons, sounded like authentic human beings.

[tljgator]

1 hour ago, Razzberry said:

These conspiracies go deep in the south, but now they mentioned it's happening in Nebraska as well. 

As the Vulture recaps have done a good job of pointing out, this is actually a reference to a long disproven hoax about a pedophile (...and Satanist, cannibalistic, etc.) ring in Nebraska -- the credit union leaders were embezzling money, not selling kids. The show doesn't mention what an issue fake stories of this ilk were in their time frame, but that's not really the point of the show (even if you'd think the documentarian would know this and not toss it about, as though it were true). *shrugs*

[Cardie]

3 hours ago, spaceghostess said:

I'm worried that the "heartbreaking" ending has to do with what Wayne told his son early on: that he'd kill himself rather than go into care.

That might be a consequence of what I suspect the true heartbreak to be. Hays, and perhaps West as well, learned the whole truth about the Purcell kids' death and abduction in 1990 and although it never became public, the nature of that truth and their reaction to it ruined their lives. The dementia has been a mercy to Hays and his relearning the truth will be devastating.

[Jextella]

There are lots of clues that point to Roland, but IF (stress the "if") Roland is involved, the only way it makes sense is if Wayne knows and is trying to get enough evidence to implicate him.

According to Nic P, Wayne is doing the interviews to see what the reporter knows about his "secret".  This could be a big clue in a way.  IMO, I don't think Wayne cares much about his own freedom or name at this stage of life.  The only reason he would care about what the reporter knows about his secret is if she has information that would explain what happened or help solve the case.  

How could a skilled "tracker" who is also known for having stellar intuition about guilt and innocence not pick up on the person he's closest to at the time?  In the 80's, things turned quickly to Woodard.  Given what Woodard did, Wayne might not have looked too hard in other directions.

Wayne hones in on Roland in the 90's, but Wayne knows that nothing he could say or do would fly with the AG - especially since Tom was implicated.  Wayne decides to leave the force and part ways permanently with Roland.  Maybe Hoyt threatens him.

Wayne is very lucid much of the time, and it seems he's playing everyone  - the reporter, Roland, and his son.  With the reporter around, and awareness that he's losing his memory, it is the perfect time to revisit the case one final time - and quickly. 

He reconnects with Roland as if nothing ever happened.  He does so not to work the case with Roland but rather to get information about the case from Roland.  It's the same thing he's doing with the reporter.

Every once in a while, I think Wayne pretends to forget things in an effort to get buy-in and/or information from Roland and the reporter.

Having said ALL this, in true Nic P/True Detective fashion, it could be that NONE of the many clues leading to Roland mean anything at all.

Someone posted early in the series that the guilty party is usually the one least visible in the story - which would not be Roland.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Jextella

[Tighthead]

The Nebraska ring alluded to relates to the Johnny Gosch case I believe. His disappearance has fuelled several wild theories. 

This season reminds me of the occasional mystery novel I read. They don’t want you guessing the plot so they make it convoluted beyond reason. 

[shapeshifter]

Maybe it's just that now that there are (likely) no Hoyts or henchmen left to harm Wayne's family that Wayne wants the truth to come out--but he doesn't remember what the truth is, so he's going along with the documentarian in hopes of remembering what it is that he kept hidden.
But likely it's all water under the bridge now, and the only ones left to be brought to justice are Wayne and Roland for killing Harris--which would be heartbreaking, right?

[Cardie]

Wayne and Roland broke the law doing torture-interrogations in that barn but the killing of Harris was obviously self-defense.

[ganesh]

11 hours ago, Bannon said:

Unfortunately, very few writers do a good job with The Big Conspiracy as a central theme, for a lot of different reasons. The most compelling part of this story has always been the relationships that Wayne has with Roland and Amelia, and unfortunately The Big Conspiracy has detracted from that, and it was not needed.

They could have told the same story in a much more straightforward way and had been just as compelling. Not everything has to be a Thing. The kids got caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. The boy got killed, and they staged it to make it seem like a ritual killing, but the girl got away and got some help along the way. That's really all you need. 

8 hours ago, WaltersHair said:

I'm wondering if the documentary girl is the last piece? Maybe Julie's daughter.

I've said this a couple of times. I suggested she was the Julie herself, but then she'd likely be older, but someone else said it was Julie's daughter. There's got to be a connection. 

[DarkRaichu]

41 minutes ago, Cardie said:

Wayne and Roland broke the law doing torture-interrogations in that barn but the killing of Harris was obviously self-defense.

Is it? Or is it a convenient way to silence Wayne.  He obviously felt very guilty for goating Roland to torture James, not to mention kill him.  Plus, Hoyt now had something to hang over his head.  

[Enigma X]

What I don't get is if Roland was working for Hoyt with Harris, why would he risk stopping Harris and getting Wayne involved? That makes no sense. 

[Jextella]

3 minutes ago, Enigma X said:

What I don't get is if Roland was working for Hoyt with Harris, why would he risk stopping Harris and getting Wayne involved? That makes no sense. 

Maybe Harris was just a middle man.  Roland was working with Hoyt and killing Harris helped keep Wayne quiet.  

Another odd thing is that Hoyt reached out to Wayne - not Roland.  At least that we've been shown.   

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Cardie said:

Wayne and Roland broke the law doing torture-interrogations in that barn but the killing of Harris was obviously self-defense.

Yes, but—according to a bunch of L&O and The Closer episodes—if someone dies in the course of the committing of a crime, it's murder.

I will be very surprised if Roland was in any way a part of the crime, other than (like Wayne) covering up the aftermath to protect loved ones or to protect himself from charges related to the death of Harris.

[Blakeston]

I'm not seeing much reason for Roland to tell Hoyt that he had anything to do with Harris's death, even if Roland is on Hoyt's payroll.

Not unless Hoyt already has some sort of evidence pointing to him, that is.

[Gobi]

8 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

I'm not seeing much reason for Roland to tell Hoyt that he had anything to do with Harris's death, even if Roland is on Hoyt's payroll.

Not unless Hoyt already has some sort of evidence pointing to him, that is.

To me, it would make sense only if Roland was already working with Hoyt and killed Harris on Hoyt's orders. 

[Dminches]

13 hours ago, Jextella said:

Maybe Harris was just a middle man.  Roland was working with Hoyt and killing Harris helped keep Wayne quiet.  

Another odd thing is that Hoyt reached out to Wayne - not Roland.  At least that we've been shown.   

Roland must have already reached out to Hoyt.  How else would he have known already what happened to James?

 

13 hours ago, Enigma X said:

What I don't get is if Roland was working for Hoyt with Harris, why would he risk stopping Harris and getting Wayne involved? That makes no sense. 

It was a dilemma for Roland because Wayne had the evidence to show that Harris was involved in Lucy's death.  He tried to convince Wayne that they can't pursue it but Wayne wouldn't agree to just handing the evidence over to the DA.  

[Enigma X]

6 minutes ago, Dminches said:

It was a dilemma for Roland because Wayne had the evidence to show that Harris was involved in Lucy's death.  He tried to convince Wayne that they can't pursue it but Wayne wouldn't agree to just handing the evidence over to the DA.  

Still seems as if Roland would have protested more if he was involved in this huge conspiracy. Sorry but still not making much sense to me if it turns out Roland was part of it.