The Missing BBC1- thread 2

[EauRouge]

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

Just thought of something:

We were told that Oliver was 5 years old - even BBC synopsis task about missing 5 year old Oliver

However! Tony attacked Greg in February 2000 -
BBC website says "Tony was never charged for attacking Greg Halpern, a friend of his wife Emily, but his financial records show that in February 2000 - around the same time as the attack took place...."

Emily's dad explained his involvement in helping Tony avoiding charges because Oliver was a BABY at the time.

Now it's strange because:

1. If Ollie was a baby, lets say at least a month old that would mean he was born Jan/Feb 2000. Abduction happened in July 2006 - that would make Ollie 6 years old (6.5 even) - so 6 perhaps even 7 years old ( if he was more than a newborn at the time of Tony/Greg incident)

1. The reason for beating up was that Tony suspected Greg and Emily had an affair - unusual timing for the affair as Emily must have just had a baby or be heavily pregnant before Feb 2000. Unless the affair was a long while before Feb 2000 or Oliver was more just a newborn in Feb 2000. Of course there is no proof that the affair really took place but Tony must have had some reasons to suspect it unless he is really madly violent.

So if we look at what Emily's dad said about Ollie being a baby in Feb 2000 then that would make him at least 6.5 years old at the time of attack.

If we believe that Ollie was only 5 in July 2006 that he must have been born in 2001 so after the Tony/Greg incident. But then where is the baby mentioned by Emily's dad.

Unless the writers got the dates wrong!

I remember Julian questioned Tony about the time when Ollie had a fractioned bone - need to check the dates now...

There is lots more discussion on the Digital Spy thread about Ollie's age, I don't think it is a mistake.

Julien said that in September 2004 Ollie was almost 3 years old.

Ok so that would make him in July 2006 - 5 almost 6 years old that could be correct and his date of birth would be Sept/Oct 2000.

So if suspected affair was just before Feb 2000 that could mean that Greg was possible father but then where is the baby Emily's dad mentions when taking about Feb2000?

but then where is the baby Emily's dad mentions when taking about Feb2000? James?

Wrt FIL saying Tony had a baby to look after (I can't remember the exact words now ) but I was under the impression at the time that she was pregnant not that she had had the baby. Did FIL say he was about to become a father or something along those lines?

This would mean Ollie was born sometime later that year so would fit in with the ages/years. They said he was 5 but he could have been about to turn 6.

I think the point about someone who Ollie knew luring him away is credible. Surely in a packed bar someone would notice if a child was abducted in their midst?

Just watched it again and Emily's father said:

'Ollie was just a baby. I didn't think that the prison sentence for the father would benefit anyone'

I might be wrong but I understand it as Ollie was already born at the time of the incident.

I wonder if Tony and Emily split up for a few years after February 2000. Someone on the thread mentioned that he might have been abusive.

Ok, I am wondering whether the drawing has significance. So far it has just been used to link the basement to Ollie but what what about if the drawing is of his abductor...someone he knows and draws as 'daddy big ears'......I think this would point to greg (can't remember if he has particularly big ears though! Mark is quite large of ear but though I think he is dodgy there is nothing to suggest he has met anyof them before becoming their FLO.

Another of my theories (based on the revelation above) is that the hotel owners abducted him to somehow save him from something...I just can't bring myself to think they are baddies!

We also know very little of Emily and tony's relationship...Tony has shown himself to be violent and Emily a potential cheat...

"I didn't think that the prison sentence for the father would benefit anyone"

I'm probably reading too much into everything this, but does anyone else think 'the father' is an odd choice of words?

Reem...that's an interesting choice of words "for the father" ...to me that wreaks of the fact that Tony is not Ollie's dad... a normal person would just say 'you' not the father....

Something else troubling me...I am not convinced that Tony murdering Ian is real.... would Tony go ahead with a big cover up knowing that would mean that all of the parents of the abused and murdered children would never know what happened to them? To me, that doesn't ring true...

Yes Crap, I agree; someone he knew (went instantly and willing with) who had the yellow scarf (from the hotel?) and might even have been wafting it at him in the same silly way his mother had been earlier (as if he was a kitten, I might be getting carried away now ).

Something else troubling me...I am not convinced that Tony murdering Ian is real.... would Tony go ahead with a big cover up knowing that would mean that all of the parents of the abused and murdered children would never know what happened to them? To me, that doesn't ring true...

Staying out of jail to continue the search might be a more pressing immediate motivation, though? He might have decided he could reveal all later...

I think Emily helped him cover up/ dispose of Ian's body. Hence her reaction to the author's "I know what you both did"...

Overall I think that:

1. The whole pedophile ring/ Romanian gang/ Ian & Vincent is just to show the viewers how people around us are not crystal clear/ have hidden secrets/ actions to cover guilt etc etc. When police started to search for Ollie they uncovered those secrets and Tony is catching every single one in hope to uncover something.

1. However in reality most abductions/child abuse is done by someone known by the child not a random stranger that happens to be next to the child in the bar. The way Ollie was abducted also supports the view that the person was familiar to him. In my view anyway.

1. I think the abductor is much closer to home.

I find it interesting that we've never seen Tony in the UK as we've seen just about all English characters back home but not him. We know that he just returned to the French town in 2014. What was he doing before? He has no family that we know about (parents, siblings no one ever called to ask about Ollie...), we don't know about his employment (except that it was a demanding job) and when Monique asked what did he do he answered he is Tony Hughes - it might be that he lost everything but nevertheless it's unusual answer.
Also the potential grudge that Emily's dad was thinking about - I think it is unlikely that it was Tony/Greg issue as Greg accepted out of court settlement money and later in 2014 even arranged a hospice room for Emily's dad. Clearly they didn't think that Greg would be holding a grudge. It think they were taking about someone/something else.

Maybe the fact that Mark was so keen on being involved in the investigation was to do with his interest in Tony.

In an interview James Nesbitt did about his role he said, referring to Tony's relationship with Emily, They were good for each other and, because of Tony's childhood, Emily had been a very good stabilising force for him. I did think it odd that we saw nothing of Tony's family, his whole background seems to be an enigma.

I thought we had seen how Julien gets his limp- as part of the car chase when he's driving after someone from the Romanian gang after finding Leon dead in the train station, Julien crashes his car and gets out and limps away?

Just remembered that when Emily & Mark were running after Mark and his son shouting Ollie! Ollie! Mark didn't event turn until Emily caught his son. Ok maybe he didn't hear but if he knew that he is going to be involved and someone shouting abducted child's name wouldn't you stop to see what's going on? He just kept on walking.

But when he finally stopped his first words were 'Oh it's Mr & Mrs Hughes'
-he might have seen their pictures in the papers

• linked Ollie's name to the name of parents

but considering that they stopped him and his son wouldn't he wait for them to explain I think he knew who Tony was.

JuniorMint - Tony has been walking fine after the car crash, in fact he is still not limping in the past until now (only in present scenes)

Are we going to find out that Tony was abused as a child? His violence has been against those who have abused children....at least Ian and Vincent. I wonder if his violence towards Greg is along those lines too...?

FallonColby that's interesting I guess we are still to find out about Tony's background - abused child? violent parents?

I think people could describe a child as a baby anything up to 2 years old.

I don't think there's an issue with Olly's age.

I don't think Tony would let Ian get away with what he'd done.

The tapes could have been found, they just disposed of Ian's body
Nobody has mentioned Ian in present day, unless you count Vincent going to talk to Mary.

Why would the dodgy French policeman and VB be in prison in England? Were they accused? That's a strange one. Surely they stand trial where the offence has occurred?

Chefpapperjack- but Ollie would have been not been born in Feb2000 yet.

I'm getting confused here:

BBC synopsis- Ollie is 5 years old
Julian - Ollie is almost 3 in Sept 2004, so almost 5 in July 2006 (born in sept/Oct 2001)
Emily's dad - Ollie was just a baby in Feb 2000 - that would make him at least over 6 in July 2006

Looks like 18months-2 years age gap between Ollie according to Julian (who I guess was looking at hospital records) and baby Ollie mentioned by Emily's dad.

But I still think it could be writers error?

Did Emily's dad mention Ollie by name or just 'the baby'?