LOD Series 4 Big Fellas and Wee Girls-this way, we need to look further Ifield.

[FeralBeryl]

New and maybe our last thread

This 360 piece puzzle has 5 pieces missing - grrrrr

I might be misremembering but Roz said her phone was off, or actually Nick did, because Roz was ill, which tallied with her being late in to work next day and saying it'd been a bad night. When they got the call log and saw that the kids had messaged about pizza, that's when they knew Nick wasn't home, which they also tied to his car being picked up on the traffic cameras.

On the timeline, Nick's car went through the camera at 18.36. As he was supposedly following Roz in the minicab, she must've been not-too-far in front.

WRT Tim's look when he got to the crime scene, I think that it was a knowing look about somebody who was also there (most likely Roz). It was an 'Oh, they're here' look, not a 'WTAF are they all playing at?!' look!

Phone was definitely off.
Magpie, I thought that.
Leaving the phone and getting a taxi does smack of some sort of pre-meditation

Now I've just rewatched the first episode of series 4, I'm convinced that Roz is good. If anyone was hanging around the forensics it was Ifield, but we all know it was Roz who made the change (maybe she was changing it back to where it should have been). Jodie was spying on Ifield long before Kate went.

Before Roz went to Ifield's, she and Nick are in the house together. She tells him she has to go back to work. Then.

Then. HE leaves the children on their own to follow her. WTF? Nick Huntley left his children alone as his wife went out to work. Who does that? He should be prosecuted for that alone.

Also when Roz mets Ifield at his flat she says Tim. He says Roz. There is something going on here.

So Roz lied about going into work. Perhaps she had form about just going and turning the phone off.

It still means Nick Huntley left his children alone. Not crime of the century for a man.

Thanks Carrie

Oh and one more thing. I think she gets her wound on her arm prior to her head wound (which was cleaned up very well, despite copious amounts of blood).

So Roz changed a forensic bag in order not to implicate her being in the flat of a man obsessed - sorry my mistake earlier, I've been up since 4am and am about to go to bed.

Why would you prosecute a man for leaving his teenage kids in the house alone? They're definitely old enough to be left.

In other news, episode 1 is now available until Sunday, 10pm!

She wouldn't have wanted to be traced going to Ifield's flat would she, as what would that look like when she was already being investigated by anti corruption officers, then she goes round to intimidate have a chat with the bloke who made the allegations! I don't think it was because she intended to kill him.

I always wonder how (in LoD ; obviously in RL the police are above such things...) they know which police are susceptible to corruption and who not.

So far, Buckells is a twat, for example , but not corrupt. Kate never has been . Steve is vulnerable and more ambiguous but none of us believes Ted could be and are gutted Maneet might be. And as for Roz... God knows.

How does 'H' know who to pick!!?

Who remembers Lovely Simon from Series 1 ??

The gang usually find a vulnerability and exploit it.

Gates the affair with Jackie.

Denton had money issues.

The colleague of Danny Waldron I think had a gambling problem , as did Dot

Dryden who they were planning to blackmail apparently liked young girls.

In each series there is a pattern- crime,blackmail and a frame job to cover it up.

Well, Roz's vulnerability would seem to be her need to get back into the job and to get on. But isn't that too obvious? She makes quite a big deal of it

True ktel ... food for thought....

Or maybe they are just all corrupt!

Was Simon the rookie cop who was nice to the boy in S1? He was lovely. He was with lazyarse cop who didn't take things seriously when the guy who had Jackie's remains in his freezer called them? He walked around "The Bog" being nice? That him?

I disagree slightly about Kate. I'm not saying she's corrupt, but she's not whiter than white. She was bonking Akers' husband for a start, before and during the investigation into her death in the ambush.

There's something a bit "off" about Kate in this series, imho. .

Just watched EP 1 again before it disappears. There was a funny exchange between Ted and Hilton in the restaurant. Hastings is talking about coppers being under pressure to clear up crimes. Hilton says "we have to light a fire" and Ted replies "indeed". Ted definitely suspects Hilton of something; I've always been of the impression that Hilton set up the kidnapping/fire deliberately so that Roz could step up to the plate and solve it-bingo! Something a bit off about the way Hana was so calm, that she was interviewed standing up after having been abducted, knocked over and rescued from a burning house. And that the interview was filmed before Hana was finally taken off to hospital.

The whole thing seemed a bit...staged?

Could Hilton have "lit a fire" quite literally? Were Roz and Hana in on it?

Yes, I think so!!

Simon was who you say. Lovely Simon.

True about Kate ... she always seems a bit off though. It's that slightly immoveable face!

I've been re watching season 2 and everything Hargreaves says and does looks suspicious to me .

He hid information on the the car tracker leading AC12 to only focus on Denton.
He was responsible for the guards on duty in the hospital when the witness and Georgia were killed.
He had the Ronan Murphy which was redacted before it was give to AC12.

When Dryden is asking for progress reports on the investigation he is very non committal showing no real inclination to get to the bottom of things.

He is incredibly obstructive and unpleasant towards AC12.

He also had Dryden's ear and it was Dryden who recommended Dot's transfer to AC12 .

Out the phone was definitely turned off and placed face down on the kitchen island. Roz left saying she was going back to work and Nick picked it up, saw it was off and followed her.

He picked it up and the screen was black, that doesn't mean it was off. If I pick mine up now the screen is black, until I press the screen 'on' button, but the phone itself is on, just sleeping while I don't need the screen lit up. There would be no reason for Nick to turn the screen on.

Kate def said "so her phone was home but she wasn't". That was what led Steve to interview Nick.

She swiped it off, definitely.

The phone record showed that the phone was last traced at home, which is why Kate said that.

I think they said phone was off because kids message about pizza came through when phone was switched back on. That's why she asked Nick where he'd been because she had assumed he was home all evening.

You're mixing up two things.

She got the message whenever she picked up her phone later (we don't know when that was, we don't know how long she stayed out, only that she turned up for work the next day late), nothing to do with it being switched on again, just that she got hold of it again so got the vm. She may well have left it on silent, mine nearly always is - then no risk of anyone else answering if it was also face down.

AC12 found the message later, after they sequestered her phone (it being a work one) and after she had told them she was home all night - they then said 'hang on, if she was home, why were the kids calling her?' and Kate said 'her phone was home but she wasn't' - it didn't just 'come through' because they turned it on, Roz had heard it before that. Then Steve went off to ask Nick where Roz was that night.

The only thing this helps with is whether she went out intending to attack Ifield.

She definitely did something to the phone before turning it over. I thought she had switched it off. It was an iphone, I think? I'm not familiar with those.

Did Nick actually take the phone when setting off in pursuit?

Here she is swiping it off!

...bites nails 😬

I thought nick did take the phone as that's why he went after her? Most normal people would just yell out the front door. But if switched off would it still be "set" at the last place it was when switched on - i.e. home?

Totally over invested in this and as usual, all the theories on here might end up being better than what actually happens!

He picked it up and the screen was black, that doesn't mean it was off. If I pick mine up now the screen is black, until I press the screen 'on' button, but the phone itself is on, just sleeping while I don't need the screen lit up. There would be no reason for Nick to turn the screen on.

She pushed the button at the side and swiped off definitely. When Nick picked it up you didn't see what he saw on the screen, it was a long shot of his face and you didn't see him replace it. The phone records confirmed it was turned off.