Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Telly addicts

Related: Film discussion forum.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Mother of God: Line of Duty thread 5 - **MNHQ edit**; "We are obliged to warn you that any spoilers will be taken down and used against you. No spoilers, even upcoming characters, please, in the name of the wee man. (aka Steve Arnott)

999 replies

IstandwithJackieWeaver · 13/04/2021 11:00

Hope no one minds me starting a new thread as 4 was filled on one episode.

Ted has been the police so long that they won't necessarily have his DNA on file from him joining. He was arrested and interviewed last series so his DNA may be on the nominal database from then.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
23
CheekyWeeShite · 18/04/2021 07:50

If it is Laverty then fair play to Jed. It literally wouldn’t have occurred to me at all if I hadn’t been rewatching S1 at the time. Seems a few of us came to the same conclusion. Hope we are right!

GlassBoxSpectacular · 18/04/2021 07:52

If it is Laverty, I doubt he has any big convictions. Apparently you can be added to the DNA database even if you’ve only been arrested so it could be for anything and wouldn’t have to have led to a charge. Could also have been covered up by those on the inside somehow.

I thought too that he could be on the database for relatively minor reasons - but that’s where my AL theory falls down, because Steve seems to suggest that had Jo’s connection to this person been spotted when Jo entered the force it would have been flagged as a concern. So it has to be someone who is on there for fairly significant reasons. Confused

Mother of god, my head is fried with all of this! Only 13 hours and 9 minutes to go!!!!!!!

CheekyWeeShite · 18/04/2021 07:58

For some reason I’m really not sure that Steve meant that the person would have been flagged up at the time if they’d run a comparison - it felt to me like an explanation for why this is new info and hasn’t been noticed before.

Mind you, if it is AL I imagine a large proportion of viewers going “who”?

I’m interested in the clue you mention - if it has already been discussed here, I don’t see why we can’t talk about it! Was it in one of the episodes or outside of that (seem to remember people talking about Jed tweeting something)? If from an episode I don’t see how it can be a spoiler

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 07:59

We don't know why they got divorced. Maybe he was convicted of something and they'd managed to convince the police that Jackie wasn't involved (or maybe she wasn't). Therefore it was either a tactical divorce to show she didn't approve or it was a genuine divorce as she didn't want to be linked. Then, at some times after that, when she's no longer under police eyes, she picks up where he left off (got used to the money / was already involved).

CheekyWeeShite · 18/04/2021 08:04

@NoWordForFluffy

We don't know why they got divorced. Maybe he was convicted of something and they'd managed to convince the police that Jackie wasn't involved (or maybe she wasn't). Therefore it was either a tactical divorce to show she didn't approve or it was a genuine divorce as she didn't want to be linked. Then, at some times after that, when she's no longer under police eyes, she picks up where he left off (got used to the money / was already involved).
Yes, I said something similar upthread.

The thing that got my attention was the fact they kept mentioning him and his wealth but never anything really about him. Given her OCG links it has to be a strong possibility that this wasn’t new after her divorce which I think they said was only recent.

In fact maybe they got divorced (or said they did) so she could get back in touch with Tony, so they could get another cop involved. She obviously was priming him for favours / blackmail before the hit and run.

GlassBoxSpectacular · 18/04/2021 08:07

I’m interested in the clue you mention - if it has already been discussed here, I don’t see why we can’t talk about it! Was it in one of the episodes or outside of that (seem to remember people talking about Jed tweeting something)? If from an episode I don’t see how it can be a spoiler

It was a clue hidden in an episode, but it links directly to the second spoiler that was leaked this week. If I point out the clue, it makes that second, unconfirmed spoiler much more concrete.

I know I probably sound like a paranoid loon, especially as there’s a very good chance my theory is totally wrong, but there’s no way to flag up the clue again in light of the AL theory without giving what might be a massive spoiler.

OneRankSuperior · 18/04/2021 08:07

I’m interested in the clue you mention - if it has already been discussed here, I don’t see why we can’t talk about it! Was it in one of the episodes or outside of that (seem to remember people talking about Jed tweeting something)? If from an episode I don’t see how it can be a spoiler

There clue is pretty obscure so I very much doubt anyone would have put 2 + 2 together without the spoiler. But the clue points directly to the spolier so it’s hard to mention it at all without spoiling.

GlassBoxSpectacular · 18/04/2021 08:08

She obviously was priming him for favours / blackmail before the hit and run.

Indeed, we saw that she was a fan of the persuasive blow job! Grin

CheekyWeeShite · 18/04/2021 08:11

I don’t actually think there’s anyone in the list of possibilities where every detail will fit and they’ll have to do a bit of rewriting history. Laverty would require less than most though I think.

I could believe it would be Terry Boyle, and even get over how she truly seems not to know him as maybe she could act that way, but surely Terry would have shown he knew her. Or maybe he doesn’t know about her as he was put into care at a young age or similar? Maybe her tough questioning of him was an attempt to harm any case against him, then her shutting the interview down was actually concern for him. She seemed distressed by the Terry Boyle situation.

But that wouldn’t fit with the possibility it’s someone who’s been in the database since she joined.

Also, some have criticised Jo’s accent and that she seems to be acting - maybe she is and maybe the accent is put on?

Argh, can someone fast forward today?

GlassBoxSpectacular · 18/04/2021 08:12

There clue is pretty obscure so I very much doubt anyone would have put 2 + 2 together without the spoiler. But the clue points directly to the spolier so it’s hard to mention it at all without spoiling.

Thank you, yes that’s exactly it.

When I first saw the ‘clue’ I just thought it was a Jed being a bit ‘cute’. In light of the second spoiler that went around this week, it becomes more significant and there’s no way to mention it without pointing directly to the second spoiler.

Or, JM is messing with us big time and laughing his head off at all the brainpower that’s being expended on something that means nothing at all! Grin

OneRankSuperior · 18/04/2021 08:14

On the retcon needed if it is AL - if he is on the database with any significant criminal past, Steve could have saved himself a lot of snooping around hairdressers and market stalls, and nearly getting his fingers cut off sleuthing into JL’s OGC links! Just look up her ex-husband on the database and voila!

I know it wasn’t the focus of the plot in S1 so it’s forgivable it wasn’t mentioned, but AL would surely have been a suspect in JL’s disappearance.

GrandmasNightgown · 18/04/2021 08:17

What relation would she be to Terry Boyle? His DoB is not goven in fandom, but the actor was born in 1985, so working assumption mid-80s

Jo would be around 6 at the time - so younger brother? She joined the police when he was around mid-teens, and I think it's unlikely he would have been on the DNA database that young. But suppose he could have, but why would the connection disturb Ted so much now?

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 08:19

The question is: does Jo know about her dodgy connection? And would it be severe enough to be blackmailed over? If not, then I'd assume that a) she knew and b) it's that relative who got her involved in the OCG.

GrandmasNightgown · 18/04/2021 08:21

I wonder if any mystery about Chloë will be because she will be an AC-3 UCO working against Hastings primarily and also Arnott.

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 08:23

I think Terry Boyle as relative is as outlandish as Ryan. People are just throwing names round without logic!

OneRankSuperior · 18/04/2021 08:34

@NoWordForFluffy

I think Terry Boyle as relative is as outlandish as Ryan. People are just throwing names round without logic!
Agree with you there!
ContinuousMonotoneBeep · 18/04/2021 08:50

@CheekyWeeShite

I don’t actually think there’s anyone in the list of possibilities where every detail will fit and they’ll have to do a bit of rewriting history. Laverty would require less than most though I think.

I could believe it would be Terry Boyle, and even get over how she truly seems not to know him as maybe she could act that way, but surely Terry would have shown he knew her. Or maybe he doesn’t know about her as he was put into care at a young age or similar? Maybe her tough questioning of him was an attempt to harm any case against him, then her shutting the interview down was actually concern for him. She seemed distressed by the Terry Boyle situation.

But that wouldn’t fit with the possibility it’s someone who’s been in the database since she joined.

Also, some have criticised Jo’s accent and that she seems to be acting - maybe she is and maybe the accent is put on?

Argh, can someone fast forward today?

The way to explain away Terry not knowing her is that he was given up for adoption by her mother. That would explain the difference in where they grew up.

She finds out at a older age, feels obliged to protect him as he is her brother but doesn't know him which explains the disconnected emotion. Also would be a reason for her anger at her mother. The idea that his DNA needing to be on the database before 1999 obviously negates all of this. So a wild theory that's a grasp at a few straws.

Everything suggested so far us us grasping at straws really!!

We'll just have to wait and see who will claim it's bad writing because it turns out not to be their wild theory!!! 😜

PomLikeTheBattle · 18/04/2021 08:50

Isn’t that the joy of this thread though ?!

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 08:53

@PomLikeTheBattle

Isn’t that the joy of this thread though ?!
Honestly? Not for me! Some might say so though.
PomLikeTheBattle · 18/04/2021 08:56

If there could only be evidenced theories there wouldn’t be many posts. Personally I enjoy the speculation but I also think Ryan somehow invoked with the dna so I’m one of the people with no logic I guess 😳

In shrine of duty this week- Simone had tweeted about dna only laying 2 years but this isn’t true - if frozen lasts many years.

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 09:01

It's a nominal, that was specifically pointed out!

PomLikeTheBattle · 18/04/2021 09:06

Sorry loads of typos in my post.

Yes I know they said it was nominal.

ContinuousMonotoneBeep · 18/04/2021 09:06

@NoWordForFluffy

It's a nominal, that was specifically pointed out!
Yes, a nominal who's DNA is in the database now.

This is the only definite thing we know. It keeps it quite wide open.

NoWordForFluffy · 18/04/2021 09:09

Ryan isn't a nominal, either historically or now (as in known nominal).

CheekyWeeShite · 18/04/2021 09:10

@NoWordForFluffy

I think Terry Boyle as relative is as outlandish as Ryan. People are just throwing names round without logic!
Why?

Terry Boyle would make sense in terms of what we know - that the OCG have something over Jo, something big enough to persuade her to throw a murder investigation and fit up someone she seems to care about.

The OCG have Terry under their control. They have his DNA, and evidence in his flat linking him to a couple of cases plus drugs.

I don’t think it’s outlandish at all compared to Ryan, which would make little sense in relation to the plot.