SaveFerris wrote:
karathraceandherspecialdestiny wrote:
I would be more worried if I didn't have any other interests and watching tv was ALL I did all day, but I also like to read and listen to music so I think I'm OK.
I don't think it's going to be the dad in TD--statistically when someone goes missing or is killed it's more likely to be someone close to the victim than a stranger, which is why cops' attention goes there immediately, but it would be too easy an explanation for a tv show so I doubt they will go there. The first person a show will direct you to suspect is almost always a red herring so they can pull out a twist later. The only exceptions are the double twist, where they introduce suspicion for one person, then surprise you by going in another direction, then there's the double twist at the last minute where it turns out it was the first person after all. Not sure if they will go for the single or the double twist ending, we'll have to wait and see.
One thing I do suspect is that the reason the parents split up is that the mom had an affair with her cousin who was staying with them before and left just before the couple split up. Also he's the one who drilled the hole in the boy's closet wall so he could watch the little sister undress--unless the hole goes to the parents' room in which case he wanted to watch his cousin. Either explanation for the peephole in the closet is pretty gross.
I don't do much but TV and here. I need to diversify or at least that's what I'm advised , I'm fine with this lifestyle at the moment.
After reading what you just wrote , I realised I can't of been giving it my full attention ( probably posting here ) as I don't remember the peep hole ( I'll have to watch it again
).
I remember laughing out loud when Brett Woodard was interrogated and Roland West asks him if he likes kids , his answer "What the f***s the right answer to that?!"
I think it's OK to watch lots of tv, I don't think it necessarily "rots your brain" like they used to say when I was a kid--I think it really depends on what kind of stuff you watch. There's lots of informative and inspirational (and even instructional) stuff out there. It can even be practically useful if you count things like Youtube videos: for example, I used Youtube videos to teach myself how to adjust the brakes on my bicycle and how to replace an inner tube in the tire. So it really depends on the quality of what you're watching, imo.
In regards to the peephole: Hays found it when he was first searching the boy's room, when he looked in the closet. He noticed what looked like sawdust on the baseboard when he turned the light on, and that led him to the peephole that had been cut in the wall of the closet. He looked into it, but the camera didn't show us where the peephole looks into yet. I don't remember if we were shown previously to that what room is next to the boy's room. I think we're not supposed to know yet who was peeping and what/whom they were peeping at.
Yeah, when in that sort of interrogation, in the context of children being missing, there doesn't seem to be a good answer to that question from an angry cop. It's an entrapping sort of question--West probably thought of it as fishing, but I agree with Woodard that it's not really fair and there's no right way to answer. They do want to push someone emotionally though, when they are questioning them, to see how they react to emotional situations, get an idea for how stable they are. You need to needle them a little to see how they react to pressure, because if he's the perp he might start to crack and let things slip if you can get him riled up. That's probably what the cops were going for.
EDIT: Looking at this comment of mine, I wonder if perhaps I watch too many police procedurals.