Line Of Duty Series 4. We Arnott Amused!

[FeralBeryl]

New thread as we're getting close to full.

numbers I think both kids were at home when Roz got the call. The phone rang, Roz said, to her kid/s: "I'll get that, then, shall I?" in a sarky voice.

Apropos of which - why DID Jodie ring Roz's landline? Why not her mobile?

out I get why Steve was at the scene of Ifield's murder, and found him. That's just an Arnott-ism. He joined up some dots, and went in.

But why Hastings? When questioned by Roz, I think he said "I'm the ranking officer, here, Darlin'". Roz said "I'm the Duty Officer; this is my investigation" or some such. Hastings buggered off, then, with his tail between his legs (or so it seemed).

It was here that Roz challenged him on the "gender neutral language" thing. Was it a scene set up to display a sexist side of Ted? A bit clunky, if so. We're used to his "fellas", "wee girl" and "sons", but the use of "Darlin" was not "Ted", somehow. Didn't ring true for me. Unless of course, Ted said it deliberately in order to provoke a reaction from Roz in front of witnesses. To be used later as evidence? (Evidence of what, I've no idea)

I thought the "and I've put the bins out" comment was just another example of her contempt for her husband...she's done something she probably asked him to do.

Oh and Hilton - saying "as you were" constantly as he walks by the masses, like royalty!

bugger - I know we, the viewers, know why Arnott was there, but why didn't any of the police wonder?

'Darling' is gender neutral anyway, can be used with either gender. It's just demeaning.

Jodie is up Roz's arse more than Kate so I am thinking she is AC9....?

Apropos of which - why DID Jodie ring Roz's landline? Why not her mobile?

I wonder what phone Jodie used to contact her for that phone call? Would that call be totally off any records that might be inspected? This series has shown a lot of mobile numbers on people's screens and talk of burner phones.

Darlin IS gender-neutral, yes, but I think Ted meant it to be demeaning, hence Roz's response. Maybe she's gathering evidence for later (as we've already seen in Ep 4) or maybe Ted is calling her bluff. Could Ted have set up that interview, anticipating Roz's reaction?

Are Hilton and Ted working together somehow? There's lots of steak and sea bass eating going on...

So, rather than Roz setting Hilton up to call off AC12, Hilton and Ted were already plotting to do this, leading Roz to believe she'd turned the tables. Maneet is the go-between. She was at the bus stop at a prearranged time because Hilton already knew his proposition of Roz would fail. So he could go to meet Maneet, precisely as planned.

As you were!!.

Right, just watched ep 4 again - the number Hilton writes on the napkin is the same number Nick has in his phone as 'Jimmy Lakewell' - at least they both end 784.

They aren't the same, OutToGetYou. One starts 07700 and the other 07706. Quite a lot of speculation up thread and on Twitter about whether this is a continuity error.

Grr - annoying. I only ever memorise the last three numbers of any mobile number. Hmm.....yes, I wonder if it was supposed to be the same then, or just they used a number and didn't realise how similar it was.

My mobile ends in 784 😁

Right Kinky tell us everything you know and be prepared to hand over all your call logs

Ros' breakdown in the garage came after AC12 had shown her the biometric pic, which she genuinely hadn't seen. In the garage she searches Tim's laptop and finds that he sent it to AC12, so she knows it's Tim that's set her up with AC12. Which could account for her breakdown or that she never received that pic and it's evidence which might have made a difference
Yeah, why did no-one wonder why Steve was concerned about Tim to be the first to find him.

Well, she obvs knew by then that Tim was dead, as he had her laptop and phone (and body parts - urgh!) so kn owing he'd sent that to them (it was labelled with his initials anyway so not sure why she needed to check) she would know that they'd suspect her of something since he dobbed her then, then suddenly he was dead.

But Steve and Kate think she doesn't know Tim made a report to them when they find the body, so have no reason to suspect her then.

I wonder why she didn't get the BM biometric pic originally though - did she overlook it, did Tim withhold it from her, did someone intercept it if it exonerates Farmer?

Isn't it the evidence that Tim tried to alert her to but she ignored it?

Or did he? Tim did try to alert Roz to some evidence, but she seemed genuinely surprised by the biometrics pic during the interview with Hastings. Asked where AC 12 had got it.

Could Tim have withheld that - was he trying to bring Roz down for some other reason, by not showing her the most compelling piece of pro-Farmer evidence and going straight to AC 12 with it. Maybe because she's been dismissive of Tim in the past (judging by their first encounter in ep 1)?

think the original email was 'i need to talk to you about some evidence' but not specific. He went to AC12 - but didn't take the biometrics thing at first did he?

Wasn't it all about the planting of evidence initially? She was cutting/horrible to him from the get go (obv history, no idea what that is though) and ignored him, poss because the pressure was immense to make an arrest. I don't think she's the baddie, nor do I think her husband is (bar having dodgy friends and clients etc.)

I thought what he was trying to get her to look at in the corridor was the jewellery?

2 quick, general questions re outgoing calls from 'burner phones', if anyone could answer:
(Worry not, I won't ask you how come you're so knowledgeable about them).

1. Wouldn't most 'burner' users deploy a one-off separate number, pre-paid, disposable mob/ sim for literally every single...er...'transaction'/ potentially incriminating conversation, then get rid of it and buy new one?

(i.e. no danger of logged record by call recipient leading back to you, or signal trace?).

1. I don't have smart phone experience (I know, I know...I probably am the UK's last remaining Nokia user ), so am confused:

aren't apps legally available which keep your (contract) main number within your privately chosen list of contacts, yet disguise with randomly generated number (not just 'withhold' your usual one) any outgoing calls to people outside that private list?

(i.e. to appear on call recipient's log as if originating from different source, legitimate number(s), despite actually coming off same mob/ sim.
Thus doing away with need to buy single-use, disposable burners in the first place?).

So if it wasn't the biometric pic, then something else?

Didn't he say "there's something you've overlooked" ?

I thought it may have something to do with the jewellery too. The earrings? With the backs still on? There was a discussion way upthread about this; that the earrings had backs still on and therefore unlikely to have been torn out of Hana's ears. A possibility?

It was the amount of carpet fibres or dust or something on the jewellery that indicated that they hadn't been present in the house for very long. Therefore highlighting the possibility that they'd been planted there.

1. burner phone can mean that but it doesn't have to. Simply a phone you are prepared to dispose of. Usually used for calling one specific type of person (sat, prostitutes) and unregistered.
   They may be mistaken with Tim's, he could simply have one phone for work and one for personal, like I do.

2. never heard of that but just looked it up and it does seem to exist, not sure how effective, the reviews are mixed. Presumably forensic examination would be able to trace the original number as they must come off the original account to be paid for. It also wouldn't work for calling, say, your cleaner as she'd never know it was you calling if it gives a different number every time, that would annoying unless you were into something very dodgy.
   My phone has two SIM slots, so I could have a burner SIM in my main phone, just switching to that if I wanted to obscure my number or use one for something specific, but I guess that only works if the police don't get hold of your phone! (no reason they should get hold of mine, I thought the second slot might be useful for if I ever had a long period abroad and wanted a local SIM!)

I thought it odd they said the jewellery showed the DNA from each of the women but then said they had very few fibres on and her response to this was that they were trophies and he had kept them clean. So clean enough to remove fibres but not clean enough to remove DNA? Hmmm. It does seem she has been taken in by flimsy evidence doesn't it.

Maybe there's something more to the biometrics pic too. What does it tell us? That BM has size 10 shoes? A shoe size that matches to a print in Farmer's house? But can't be Farmer's as he takes an 8?.

That print could potentially belong to a number of people, though. Tim himself said that Roz's team had been all over the house before Forensics got there. He pulled her up on it outside the scene.

Apart from Tim, who else would have had access to the pic? He showed it to Steve, apparently to discredit Roz, but could there be more to it? Could Tim have invented the biometrics not just to direct the enquiry away from Farmer, but to frame/implicate someone else?

How do we know that the conclusions of the bio pic are genuine?

The thing is, it looks like Roz has been set up to frame the wrong man, Tim saw some discrepancies and was offed, she was somehow complicit in that.
But how complicit? And is Tim totally innocent?

I think there's something in the 'cleaners' thing - like in pulp fiction, Winston Wolfe was the 'cleaner'.

I think Roz killed Ifield by accident (after waking up to a saw in her face), and phoned someone who brought in 'the cleaners'.

Balaclava man is not one person, just the heavies of the criminal mastermind (I've no idea who that is though!) - the dead women are prostitutes, but also crime-scene cleaners (for the criminal gang).