Warning - This review contains some spoilers ⚠️
Well, that's episode two finished and we are more eager than ever to find out the truth. We first see Sophie Giroux's mum fall from a building in 2002, the year Sophie went missing. Baptiste tried to stop her but now Sophie's dad blames the wonderful detective...
Alice told us Sophie was ill long before she was. They had been kept apart at times and Sophie was starved since she spoke back to her abductor. When Alice realised the door was unlocked, she tried to get them both out. Unfortunately, Sophie was so ill, Alice had to run away herself but promised she would return to save Sophie.
But then the moment we all kind-of saw coming (but still left us in shock) was when Baptiste said "that's not Alice". When he came to question her, he noticed her 'nervous hand movements' were the exact same as Sophie's was back in a video released to the public. Too good to be true? Is Alice actually Sophie? If so, his theory would make sense.
Later, Alice agrees to go back to the forest to try and re-trace her footsteps, but before leaving (without her parents), her mum brings her a scarf and asks her if she remembers it. She tells her that she made it with her Art teacher "Mrs Hammond", to which Alice replies "Don't you mean Mrs Barker?". Was this her trying to see if it actually was her own daughter? It seems as if Baptiste isn't the only one who seems to think she isn't who she says she is.
Trying to catch-out 'Alice' again, Baptiste says "Sophie" before pausing. He continues to say "I knew her parents when she was taken". Again, the saying of her name followed by the long pause was to see for any reaction when he celled her Sophie - and of course, she did the nervous hand movements again. He did say it was a "tragedy what happened to her mother", but if she was Sophie it either means A) She knew what happened to her mother so had access to the outside world, and therefore this is a but darker than we think or B) she has been held a captive too long and can't remember much of her family so isn't bothered by it...either way, something isn't right with Alice (or Sophie).
Alice does identify an underground bunker from WW2 (pictured below) and the team investigate it. They find a receipt and trace it back to the Butcher. But is this a set-up? or have we found the abductor? This all seems a bit too easy.
Daniel Reed visits the Butcher and his wife. They have a heated discussion and the wife says "You can't talk to me like that, trooper". Now, believing the story about Sophie being starved by talking back and now the Butchers wife angry how Reed spoke to him, it does make you think if they're both involved.
Below, we see Brigadier Stone and Alice sitting outside her home after identifying the abductor as the Butcher. During their private conversation, he tells Alice a story about a turtle. To sum up rather than quote, he tells Alice to keep quite and not to identify anyone else. But who is he trying to protect? Himself? If so, the obvious question is why? But if we weren't worried enough, Alice then says "How can you live with yourself after what you've done". So what does she know that we don't?
I believe he is involved. Perhaps he knew the abductor (assuming it was the Butcher) and tried to help her. Maybe it all back fired and he was made to stick with the plan, hence why she is angry at him.
If this isn't Alice, how did she know so much about her such as her brother nickname, her parents, her art teachers name and that they argued over a toy monkey (which is kind-of like the one in Season 1...are they connected?). Did Sophie and Alice plan this so they assume each others identity? But again it all leads back to the question of...WHY?
Photo credit - BBC
No comments
Post a Comment