We want to share an important update with our Betfair Community users.
Over the coming months, the Betfair Community platform will be winding down. The final active day for the platform will be December 21st. From December 22nd, users will no longer be able to access the platform.
Your discussions, insights, engagement, and, most importantly, feedback have helped shape the platform and guided innovation. Your feedback continues to be important to us, and we will continue to listen via our dedicated feedback channels, as well as through product testing and innovations.
To share your feedback and experience, visit: https://support.betfair.com/app/home
Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Can anyone explain what is going on?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 62
|
By:
You have to keep up with the sub title that tells you what year you're in.
There's been sufficient pieces of the jigsaw given out to put you on the right track. It will all become clear. I think it's very good. |
|
By:
previous was very good with nesbitt in
|
|
By:
So, unless the DNA test results were falsified, Sophie came back impersonating Alice and put the real Alice's body in the shed before burning it and disappearing again.
Who is the third girl? What bad sh1t were Henry Reed and Adrian Stone into? (child abuse or trafficking? Or both?) It's superb. Outstanding performances from Keeley Hawes (as ever) and Tcheky Karyo in particular. |
|
By:
Or...it's the 3rd girl in the shed.
|
|
By:
Yes that was a bit of a shocker that they confirmed the dead body to be Alice. If the DNA results were falsified, that wouldn't work as an explanation as the burned out girl couldn't then appear 2 years later in Switzerland. So I came to the same conclusion as you that Sophie must have put the real Alice's body in the shed, burned it and then disappeared. How she could do that (she was locked in on her own) and why she would do that doesn't add up, so figuring there is surely a third explanation we haven't spotted.
|
|
By:
The girl in the shed shares a DNA match with David Morrissey so don't see why it would be the third girl and not the real Alice they put in there.
|
|
By:
It would mean that the 3rd girl was fathered by Morrissey.
|
|
By:
Accepting that he is a randy goat, what are the chances of him fathering two girls, who live separately and don't know each other, who both get abducted? I guess not implausible but it would therefore mean these are not random abductions and that they have been targeted to get at him.
|
|
By:
unless the Morrissey character is also the father of the third girl? (implausible I grant you).
Theoretically she could have got a copy of the key cut after her previous night in the shed (maybe that was reconnaissance mission for what she planned to do?) and passed it to an accomplice (Adrian Stone?) who let her out and helped put the body in there before setting the shed alight? Like you though, I'm struggling to identify her motives. |
|
By:
soz Ozy - did n't read yours before my last one.
|
|
By:
The necklace on the 3rd girl in the roller coaster.....was that not also on the skeleton in the shed?
|
|
By:
They definitely focussed on it like it was very significant so quite possibly.
|
|
By:
Did the brother not see his " sister " moving in the shed as she was burning to death ?
|
|
By:
OMG!
|
|
By:
OMFG!!
|
|
By:
looks like we might be right about it being the 3rd girl in the shed.....gettrick faked the dna match presumably?
|
|
By:
Yep, it will have been the 3rd girl.
It was already stated in earlier episode that the army lied about the DNA being a match. |
|
By:
Wow, this is shaping up to be a belter of a finale. I think it's the third girl in the shed and the DNA was faked by Getrick.
Interested to know how they will track him to that Swiss town though. And why Sophie felt the need to walk back into town in the first place, and why she felt the need to pretend to be Alice. No-one was on to them, couldn't they have all just fecked off to Switzerland without turning up in town? |
|
By:
They will track him because he didn't have cash to pay for the toy...will have used his credit card.
|
|
By:
Sophie needed hospital treatment for her appendix...hence her reappearance.
|
|
By:
Really? He would be that stupid knowing that everyone would be looking for him and that his card would be traced? If that's how it pans out it's a bit of poor plotting. Covering up 25 years of total abuse without ever getting caught and then using your card when you've legged it?
|
|
By:
But if she did need to come back for treatment, why come back as Alice and not Sophie?
|
|
By:
Yeah its weak alright...but why else make the point about not having cash?
|
|
By:
As for coming back as Alice......not sure......maybe Gettrick is connected soomehow to Sophie and for her to turn up in his town would have drawn attention to him?
|
|
By:
That will really disappoint me if such a slick programme goes that route to explain tracking him. He just wouldn't do that. Not sure you'd do it for vital supplies let alone a fecking monkey doll you don't need.
Any thoughts on why she didn't return as herself and pretended to be Alice? |
|
By:
The clumsiest and most irritating part of the plotting for me came last week when the Keeley Hawes character was left on her own in Eve Stone's Army office, and just happened somehow to be able to fish out of Eve's computer all the records of personnel who served in Iraq in 1991. and printed them off for good measure. Hence the French detective was able to go and see the butcher's wife tonight and learn about Gettrick's covered-up antics in Iraq.
That was pretty poor. Are we all now convinced that the David Morrissey character fathered (at least) two almost identical girls, with different mothers? BOTH of whom were kidnapped by Gettrick??? And can we now also assume that the body found in the shed was the 'third girl' on that rollercoaster photo, the DNA test result having been faked by the Army bods? Unless D Morrissey's character fathered a THIRD girl. The third girl wore a pair of glasses as I recall. The girl in Switzerland burned a pair of glasses in her fireplace in an earlier episode. |
|
By:
Why would he have needed to have fathered 2 girls if the DNA match for the girl in the shed was faked?
|
|
By:
Yes the few minutes with the other woman's computer which allowed her to somehow find and print records from 25 years ago was utterly crap.
|
|
By:
As was tonight's scene in Iraq where the two boys sat outside the house for hours, supposedly incognito.
All in all, apart from the few weak points discussed (every show has them), a great programme. |
|
By:
Why would he have needed to have fathered 2 girls if the DNA match for the girl in the shed was faked?
The two girls we saw at the end of tonight's show looked identical to me. That's why I'm guessing D Morrissey's character is the father of both. I don't know whether the third one is also his (surely a plot twist too far) or the Army just faked the result of the DNA test. |
|
By:
The D Morrissey character was also been rather reluctant to discuss that photo Keeley H tried to show him, just as he has been reluctant to discuss the possibility that the one who came back was not Alice Webster.
Something to hide? |
|
By:
I think the reason they are similar is a plot device to allow one girl to impersonate the other.
And/or Gettrick has a type. |
|
By:
Is Gettrick not now technically awol from the army, given that last week he said he had to hang on in Eckhausen a bit longer to get his full pension.
He might have left a clue as to his whereabouts because he left in a hurry leaving the soft toy behind - which I assume was originally Alice's? Nobody has raised the alarm about the murdered police officer yet either. Might Gettrick have neglected to dispose of the policeman's mobile which he used to text one of the policeman's colleagues saying he was ill and would be off work for a few days - and be traceable via that? |
|
By:
I have avoided this thread as have been playing catch up with recordings.
I presume Sophie had to get treatment for appendicitis and was released for that purpose, but why did she pretend to be Alice? Surely a very high risk strategy. I would say almost impossible to pull off considering that she was in pain, on painkillers, general anaesthetic for long periods. She should be up for an Oscar - the character that is! I think a DNA switch, or lying about the results is more likely than further extra-marital exploits from Sam. Agree about Gemma getting all that info while Eve had been called out of the room. Also found Nadia Herz being in charge of Stone and Reid as far back as 1991? a bit unlikely. |
|
By:
I guess next week we will find out what what happened in Afghanistan in 2001.
We know Gettrick was injured there, perhaps Sam (Morrisey) was also in Afghanistan....perhaps he was responsible in some way for Gettrick's injury or they had a run in...and Gettrick taking Alice was, in part, some from of revenge. Perhaps we will meet Sophie Giroux's parents too....perhaps her Father was also mixed up in Afghanistan at the time ('he used to be somebody important'). Alternatvey, Sam (Morrissey) was 'away' in 1992, aroud the time of Alice's birth, perhaps he was in France or met and had a ding dong wth M. Giroux.....leading to Sophie.....and Gettrick's discovered this. Seems a bit contrived to me. Simpler explanation is faked DNA. Lena, the third girl, looks **** she could be Irqai but looks too young to be the 13 year old girl from 1991, but could be the offspring of Gettricks rape in 1991. |
|
By:
My Guesses are that the 13 year old in Iraq is Stones older "daughter" that Eve gave the baby to, also could the rabic guy who was following Julian be the Iraqi girls younger brother.
|
|
By:
yeah, definitely possible that the 13yo is Eves 'sister' ("abalaster skin").
I had in my mind that the Arabic guy following Julien was a hallucination connected with his illness. Have we not met the younger brother...wasn't he the curator in the Museum? |
|
By:
"I had in my mind that the Arabic guy following Julien was a hallucination connected with his illness. Have we not met the younger brother...wasn't he the curator in the Museum? "
Yes, you are right, forgot about him  |
|
By:
Have to be wide awake to watch this . Any drooping of eyelids for a second or two, and you've missing a vital sub plot clue !!
|