I have a theory. It is long.
Random thought, but could the women of the town be responsible for providing the wild goose chase which lead to the Romanians?
Thinking of what’s led Tony, and the police to that conclusion:
-
The picture on the wall – if it was the Romanians, who are apparently involved with a cleaning company, it is VERY unlikely it would still be so visible eight years later. Surely they would have scrubbed down every inch of the cellar, if they’d been keeping Oli there.
- could be the house owner is responsible in some way
-
The scarf (1) – stays in the house until 2010 (four years before Tony goes back)
- again the houseowner could have deliberately kept it until whenever necessary. Could the actions of 2009 been the catalyst for this to be released into the wild (as it were)?
-
The scarf (2) – remains unsold in the charity shop for four years, until it is sold to the German family whose son happens to like it so much he wears it for the Bastille Day celebrations.
- it could be the charity-shop owner, a woman, deliberately hung on to it until the time was right, and then persuaded the family not only to buy it (perhaps at a reduced price…?) but then suggested it so suited the son that he wear it right away
-
The photo of the scarf on FB – put up by Sylvie
-
The video footage – when the investigation starts slowing down, the neighbours just happen remember they were videoing their party, which happened to show the boy at the window, and then the next morning the wife accidently turns it on and catches the cleaning van outside, which spells out just who is behind the abduction…. All rather iffy, unless you assume the film, both times, was deliberately filmed, with the boy at the window scene staged purposely to make sure it appeared on the film. Perhaps it was known the cleaning company was going to be there the next day, which made the timing even more perfect than it already was.
These seem to be the weak points in the story, where plausibility has been stretched, which seems a bit to coincidental to be believable, but what if it wasn’t mean to be coincidence, but an orchestrated series of events? Who would suspect such a set up? And I think it is deliberate that it is women who have acted the parts above, to keep suspicions away from the men.
So we come to why? I think it’s obviously to do with the paedophile ring that’s running in the area, that no doubt infiltrates all layers of the society, and which is possibly the raison d’etre for the town’s existence. This was the first time a mistake was made, and the above was staged to cover it. If 2009 was another abduction / disappearance, perhaps they thought they’d got away with Ollie’s well-enough to risk another outsider, but then Tony came back with a vengeance and they realised they hadn’t, so the above series of events had to be put in place, slowly and carefully.
Perhaps the comment about people not coming to Chalons du Bois so much now wasn’t a reference to tourists, but paedophiles. They realised their safe haven wasn’t so safe anymore so kept away.
Hotel Eden – a paradise for paedophiles?
Which comes on to the Hughes. If they are innocent it was all just a terrible case of wrong place, wrong time:
If the town is set up to collect children it might be that Hotel Eden was the drop-off point for children. The mechanic mistook their purpose (‘We’re on holiday, do you know where we can stay’ – taps nose) and sends them there to drop their son off. The usual pattern springs in to action, and the child is taken (perhaps by Sylvie, who befriends the children at the hotel and thus is able to entice them away later. This possibly grates with the idea of the usual ‘parents’ being in on it, but perhaps the act has to be played, so the ‘parents’ can leave with a clear conscience. Alain’s ‘meeting’ is called in anticipation of the child being delivered to them.
Of course, it doesn’t take long for the town to realise its mistake, the Hughes promptly respond, and the obvious question is why isn’t he returned straight away? I suspect there was too much at stake, if Ollie had turned up questions would have been asked that couldn’t be answered. As mad as it seems, perhaps an investigation into his disappearance was easier to control. But seeing as how quickly it all kicked off, the steps mentioned right at the start could be set in motion within the hour. (And if nec, the camera’s clock could be changed slightly in order for the scene of the boy at the window to be set up.)
But perhaps not both the Hughes were innocent? I suspect there were two Olivers, one, the baby at the time Greg was attacked, who later died, and then a later child who was given the same name. But Emily’s guilt was too much – she hoped to replace her first child with the second (as she later replaces that Oliver with James), but found the first could never be replaced. Perhaps it was her father who told her of Chalons du Bois. This could explain why she doesn’t go swimming with them – she knows what is about to happen. It could also explain the split between her and Tony – she can’t bear the guilt of knowing she is the reason he is so unhappy, and her part in it all could also account for the ‘Ugly Truth’ of the journalist’s book title.
Finally, I was considering the title, ‘The Missing’ as opposed to, for example, ‘The Disappeared’. Two thoughts – it refers to the first Oliver, who is the original missing part of the Hughes’ family, and the Hughes’ family history. And perhaps all the children who end up being swallowed up by Chalons du Bois don’t officially disappear – their families know fine well what happens to them, they just happen to be missing from the family (as is Baptiste’s daughter – she is around, but the family is missing her).