Mother of God - it's the final LOD! Watch as Roz Buckells up for the ride-has she managed to Lakewell enough to uncover Big Fella H with no reciprocity?

[FeralBeryl]

Non gender neutral DARLIN'S welcome! and anyone else
Ready for when the previous thread fills up. Obviously I'm incapable of linking it but someone clever will be along...

I think the top corrupt coppers see Steve as a real long term threat. If you think about the fact that he stood up to the intimidation about the accidental anti-terrorist killing in series 1, and as a very young DS, he's the one who has shown the most moral integrity. Kate less so - she asked Mr Dakers to lie to the police. Oh hang on though Steve lied about whether he did hanky panky with Denton, so maybe not...Still, continuing anyway...

So maybe the top dogs have got their eye on Steve, and when Hilton got the call from L-A-K-E-W-E-L-L it was more of a general 'let's get rid of Steve now' response than because they were particularly worried about him going to see Nick. And then it would of course pin suspicion on Nick, which would prevent the attack being linked to the top dogs.

I think it's too obvious for it to be Hastings now - though the look he gave Kate when she was pointing out the similarity to the social worker death was quite alarming!

Ah - crossposted, I see others recognise Steve's 'price beyond rubies' quality as well!

I didn't really understand the balaclava man thing. OK the baddies and H had a thug/s in a balaclava who got rid of inconvenient people.
Why the rush to get Roz to frame Farmer as that meant no more balaclava man killings.
Why not just kill the inconvenient people by different methods in "accidents" without the serial killer drama.
Why freeze bits?
It all seemed rather pointless and silly.

Steve didn't even get so much of a snog this series. In fact, he turned one down. Presumably to how he has learnt from his errors.

the legend of beans

No having babies wasn't what upended her career but it was mentioned that she'd taken timeout to look after her children. As they appeared to be teenagers that didn't make sense so I thought there was another more nefarious reason she'd taken a career break but 'for the children' was the official reason.

I'm disturbed that Ros ended up going down for manslaughter now I think about it.

Even excluding the fact we as the audience saw the whole 'waking up at the point Ifield was going to chop her up' bit, we know that Ifield went out that night to buy tools (albeit not the saw). We know that this is after Ros arrived at the flat. Did she really intend to kill him?

On the other hand, she pleaded guilty, perhaps in return for keeping her family safe from the gang?

Ah tribpot, you assume she is telling the truth, I see... what if she isn't. manslaughter seems a good deal then.

On a legal note, self defence isn't an allowable plea. You will still be charged with manslaughter. This has been much debated in DV cases.

Look at how happy they are

.

Rebecca

Why the rush to get Roz to frame Farmer as that meant no more balaclava man killings.
Why not just kill the inconvenient people by different methods in "accidents" without the serial killer drama

I think the second question there answers the first.

I guess they themselves tired of this scheme and so decided to fit someone up so they could adopt a new method, as the net may have been closing in on them; once bodies started being found (which they hadn't intended) they needed a 'serial killer' to throw everyone off their scent. Hence why Jackie's body ahs never been found because it would be more connected to them all and more thoroughly investigated.

It's also a way of getting rid of their prostitutes, and using the collateral for their own ends, rather nastily.

... and using balaclava men as serial killers takes the focus off the fact that they are actually just hired heavies - they managed successfully to make it look like one man. That's why Ifield's shoe size find was so inconvenient to them (although I'm not sure 'they' ever knew that?)

Nick has to have been involved in something, or why did he lie about where he was the night of Leoni's murder, which they also arrested him for?

Roz has to have killed Ifield, as her DNA was on everything and she had the fingers and hardware (did they find all that in the end? Need to rewatch), and the file with the passwords in on the phone makes sense, I have one though it's not called 'passwords' and would hopefully not easily be found! .

I assume Roz tried to fit Nick up for the murder of Ifield because she believed he murdered Leoni (and others?) and if he was going down for that he may as well go down for her crime - hence her comment 'our kids need one parent', she hoped he'd go down for both rather than her go down for one and him go down for the other.

Her explanation on why she didn't report Ifield's death was weak. Also, cuts both ways, why didn't he report 'hers' - although she wasn't dead, he thought she was. I think we're supposed to just think he was a bit of a freaky single guy who sleeps with prostitutes, hoards forensic evidence and has a thing about cutting up bodies.

It should have been a longer episode really, a lot suddenly got tied up out of nowhere which would have been better being explained. They threw Steve down the stairs just to prevent them getting too close to the truth - the truth about Nick, which must be about something else, one of the other murders, Leoni maybe.

I can totally buy that there are numerous BM all run by a gang, the BM are just muscle for hire.

After Nick was interegated by Hargreaves and Steve's ex, he pleaded with Lakewell to get AC12 involved as Roz was scared of them, according to him.
Yet when Steve's ex asked Lakewell was he happy with how impartial the questioning etc was he said everything was fine. Why? Had the head honcho now decided that Nick was a better bet to pin everything on and why?

He knew AC12 were getting closer to the truth. But it does suggest Nick isn't involved.

So where did Tim get his balaclava? It really makes no sense. I really don't think we will see him the next series as that's not been the pattern from the others series

Do you mean Tim or Nick, Stella? Tim got it from the evidence store, presumably intending to carry out his own investigations on it. If you mean Nick (given that no-one seriously expects Tim to come back from the dead), he didn't have a balaclava.

I still don't know why they were killing people.
Why Roz framed Michael.
What did her rogue solicitor do?
It's like all of you posters know what's going on. I'm mystified. I thought it would be a stand alone series.
Aghhh.

OutToGetYou Yes, the destroyed laptop and the fingers were found where Ros had stashed them out in the countryside, along with Tim's forensic suit covered in blood, and her clothes.

However, I see that Mercurio's poor grasp of IT has let him down again - like JamieNotJames having a ridiculous username and willingly tossing his password over to Maneet so she could 'reset it' (WTF), we're meant to believe meticulous Ifield kept all his passwords in a clear text note, rather than (say) a password manager like LastPass or Keeper?

OwlDoll at various points both Nick and Ros request AC-12's involvement specifically. And you're right, L-A-K-E-W-E-L-L ignored the request.

On a legal note, self defence isn't an allowable plea. You will still be charged with manslaughter. This has been much debated in DV cases.

Not so. If it is accepted that someone has acted in self-defence then, provided that reasonable force was used, no crime has been convicted at all. It is a basic principle that you are entitled to use reasonable force in defence of yourself or another, therefore if in doing so you cause injury or death you have not committed any crime. For the same reason, Ted wouldn't be charged with manslaughter for shooting the Balaclava Man holding the police officer hostage.

Look at another fiction example - Helen Archer. Her defence was run on the basis that she was not guilty because she was defending her son. Correctly, no-one suggested that the jury had to find her guilty of manslaughter instead if it accepted her version of the facts.

Why Roz framed Michael

I don't think Roz framed Farmer intentionally. That was dodgy Jimmy's crew who set that up. Roz just ignored any evidence that she might have the wrong bloke, as the pressure was on from higher up to get someone for the murders.

As for the other murdered prostitutes, it looks like they were killed to be used as blackmail material against god knows who (having watched previous series helps with that bit).

I feel there was quite a bit of misdirection in this series and loose ends haven't been tied up, much more so than in S1-3. I think this series could easily have stretched to at least 8 episodes.

Even excluding the fact we as the audience saw the whole 'waking up at the point Ifield was going to chop her up' bit, we know that Ifield went out that night to buy tools (albeit not the saw). We know that this is after Ros arrived at the flat. Did she really intend to kill him?

You don't have to have an intention to kill to be guilty of manslaughter. However, I suspect it's manslaughter in Roz's case because she did nothing to try to save Ifield - as he took some time to die it's at least possible he might have survived if had prompt medical attention.

Ah yes Ceto but not generally whilst using a power saw!

There have been people who have punched people in a fight , citing self defence and been done for manslaughter , to give a better example. I agree that Roz technically could have got off a charge but it would be unlikely given the evidence and lack of witnesses!

There was great programme on a few years' back about a woman who killed her abusive husband and was put on trail. It was either called The Trial or the Jury or something. Ben Wishaw was in one of the series.

Look at another fiction example - Helen Archer. Her defence was run on the basis that she was not guilty because she was defending her son. Correctly, no-one suggested that the jury had to find her guilty of manslaughter instead if it accepted her version of the facts

I don't listen to The Archers at all, but that infers to me she was tried for murder, not just not charged?

Nick and Lakewell go way back as far as law school. I think they were so close still because they were both involved in the criminal gangs dodgy dealings and Nick was another of their connections to the Police, hence something Roz said about the things she'd done for their family. I said on the other thread that her admission of guilt is a tactical move rather than that it all happened as she said.

Steve I'm seeing almost as a super hero now, with Jed sitting down to think about what he can possibly throw at him next time.

Can I just say I loved Marylin's sub plot last night and would've howled if the neighbours had called in a potential burglary in progress