The Missing BBC1- thread 2

[EauRouge]

Original thread here, disappearing scarves, grey-haired doppelgängers and twin theories abound. Has anyone done a spreadsheet yet?

Can someone tell me why Ian would want to offer a big-price-tag reward in this case? I'm struggling to think why.

If he was involved in the abduction then surely encouraging information to be brought to the police would indict him. He would be wanting to hush things up, not encourage them to be brought into the open.

If he wasn't involved then what is it to him? Yes, there is the talk that something similar happened to him, but that isn't why he is offering a reward - there is something in it for him. He isn't a philanthropist.

And totally agree that Olly went off with someone he knew. But the only people he knew in France were the two hotel owners and his mother (aside from his dad). Or perhaps he recognised the grey-haired chap who had been sitting around the pool who was perhaps waving his yellow scarf at him to entice him away, meaning the paedophile gang are involved and are not a red herring?

I don't think Ian is dead. Can't wait for Tuesday.....

Marking my place.

Some good theories on this thread. I'm getting mixed up with all the character names. Dh and I sit watching it in a state of confusion and we keep forgetting what has happened the week before

Can someone tell me why Ian would want to offer a big-price-tag reward in this case? I'm struggling to think why.

To ingratiate himself with the parents, steer them, get close to the investigation and keep up to date with progress?

If everyone who knew about his involvement in the crime also heard about his involvement re reward it woud certainly deter tipsters.

If he wasn't involved then what is it to him?

He admitted to 53 abuse tapes. So he's heavily involved in child-abuse in the region (whether or not he was directly involved with Oliver's disappearance). The investigation is bound to look at child abuse in the region.

Originally Ian told Tony that he emphasised with his situation because his own child, Molly, had gone missing.

On the boat, after Tony had discovered the tapes, Ian seemed to think that his putting up reward money made him feel less guilty about his paedophile activities, that it expiated them in some way. Both Ian and Vincent have talked about guilt being like a cancer. Maybe the reward money meant that Ian could still seem himself as a man who was capable of doing good things.

Of course, this is taking Ian at his own estimation. I suspect that it was also about getting close to Ian and Emily and exerting control over the investigation. He has constantly used his friendship with Tony to try and steer him away from Vincent.

I thought that Mary was Vincent's mother because in one episode we see a document on Vincent which states his mother as "Mary Scotts" (i think). But when he goes to see Mary he doesn't act like she's his Mum but talks of her also being Ian's victim.......

I'm sure it's mark. There is something just plain dodgy about him

Yes. Mark's a wrongun.

ATM my suspect is Mary. I think she probably turned a blind eye to Ian's behaviour until he started abusing molly- according to ian himself a mistake (as his usual victims were boys). I think she might have engineered Molly's disappearance and might very well be behind Ollie's disappearance as well. Perhaps she witnessed something either at the pool or even before then. I still think the scene at the pool is how someone might want to remember it (tony?), not how it actually happened. Ollie probably didn't want to get out of the pool, tony wanted to slip into the pub to catch the footie, dried off the boy a little too roughly...etc. Would have made alarm bells go off for Mary, made her think that his attitude towards his son was abusive, and she decided that the boy has to be removed from Tony.
Something happened to her between Ollie's disappearance and the present that put her into a wheelchair and she has obviously gone completely loopy.
Just speculating though ....

I've been catching up on iPlayer.

In the first interview when Juilen treated Tony as a suspect, there were only 9 minutes of Tony's movements unaccounted for. He sounded quite random about what he had been doing. It was, according to Julien, time enough for something to have happened in vicinity of pool/lake.

Malik the journo has told Emily he knows what they both did (ie both Hugheses). Was this covering up Ian's murder? After all employee said he'd simply vanished, and had been declared legally dead 8 years on. If his car had been found at house under renovation, or his blood in the boat, then would the suspicious nature of the disappearance be more widely known? Who could Tony trust, other than Emily, to help with cleaning up and moving cars so no-one ever though that's where an attack took place?

Ollie must have been abducted (or else the video footage is fake, but that brings far too many people into the conspiracy, and would also mean that Pronettoyage is being framed (for no-one would, if guilty, leave their company logo on a tape showing the boy alive).

But I am not convinced that Ian's abuse ring (which may include all sorts of french officials) had anything to do with an opportunist abduction of Ollie.

Was anyone else identifiable on the 52 tapes? Was Tony caught for assault/murder, but somehow 'exonerated' ?

Mary can't have witnessed anything by the pool.
She was in England when Ollie went missing.

Do we know for sure that she was in England at the time?

Emily went over to England to talk to her.

Emily was able to visit Mary Garrett and get back to France in a day (I think) so presumably Mary could have got to France and returned home within a week.

Like a previous poster I find it odd that she said that she had not been watching the news, had had no recent contact with Ian and said she knew nothing about Ollie's disappearance but then called Emily Mrs Hughes, when Emily had only given her her first name.

I also thought that Mary seemed rather odd during the meeting. She pressed biscuits on Emily, who I think had already said she didn't want them, saying they'd go stale if she didn't eat them. Strange to put the responsibility of using up biscuits on a random stranger. Then she kept scratching at a mark on the table and talking about how white wine wouldn't get the mark off. It really was an odd conversation. When I watched it I thought it was early signs of dementia or the strain of being married to a paedophile but perhaps she was nervous for other reasons.

On the boat, which I know was a fantasy sequence the conversation does seem to suggest that Mary was complicit to some extent in what Ian had done. I'm sure he said something about a plan for the two of them to disappear.

yes emily went over to england and once she said her surname, mary knew who she was

but mark could have flown over to frnace and back again, or euro tunnel etc

I think she knew who emily waz because she knew what her husband was and was always scared he was involved in yet more abuse. I really don't think that she was involved in yhe abduction - she has spent her life pretending it isn't happening and has lost her daughter. I think her odd behaviour was the sign of a nervous breakdown.

How did Emily persuade Mary to see her in the first place? Especially as she hadn't really explained who she was, or why she wanted to see her.

I don't think Mary had anything to do with Ollie's abducton but she knew who Ian really was but turned a blind eye and lived life in her own bubble not facing the reality - that's why she couldn't properly face Emily - little chit chats about biscuits and stains to avoid 'the elephant in the room'. I think the Indian Ocean was the extension of it - her imaginary life- but there was clear guilt. Covering up for for Ian meant she had part in his dirty secret.
We know there were 52 tapes but we don't know how many children involved- it could be old tapes too, maybe just of Vincent as a young boy?

Molly puzzles me, pictures of her are fairly dated....I can also see a link between name Mary-Molly; Molly-Ollie. Not sure what to make of it. Although I think Ollie knew and would approach/happily walk with his abductor.

I agree that the first scene by the pool could be partly a fantasy. And I still don't like sunlight-dusk-darkness that quickly happened between getting out of the pool and walking to the bar - though I realise no one agrees with me on that !

In this weeks TV guide it says something about "now Tony has murdered Ian" so I'm guessing he doesn't get up and disappear, which I did think may happen.

How can Tony get away with that! Ian's car is there so they will know that's where he went. Tony's car tracks and DNA are all over the boat. This weeks will be interesting.

I bet it won't be anyone who has featured heavily. Hoteliers are my top ones I think. Mark is shifty but I can't see him having actually done it. Where would James have been? I don't buy the fact he is suppose to be helping the Hughes's though. He doesn't seem to be sharing info with them which is what I thought he was meant to be doing.

Whoever said he sinks the boat with Ian's body still on it might be onto something.

And then Ian's car being left at the waterside (if it was) might not look so odd (?) because the assumption could be (from Police, Mary, everyone) that Ian missing + boat missing = Ian sailed away.

And that could also be partial inspiration for Mary's hallucinations of cruising (???)

Yes, and all the blood is on the boat, so as long as that disappears, Tony is off the hook.

Yes, DNA gone too.

Could Mary have bought the biscuits for ollie?

Is the stain on the table a reference to a Lady Macbeth guilt stain?

The comment about using white wine to get rid of red wine might be significant - a crime can't be resolved by another crime?

I bet that the actual ending of the programme will be nowhere near as good or as detailed as some of the theories on here.

I wouldn't be surprised if we don't find out what happened to Ollie, and that the title may be very apt.