SPOILERS BELOW
Who the heck was the ex-con?? Were we suppose to know who he was or his significance?
I also thought it was so obvious that the dude had poisoned his wife cause how would someone else know where she kept her water glass?
I also knew her mum must have some disease purely from the way she struggled with the spoon, although I didn't get the homo goblin thing until the end.
Overall disappointing and not enough mystery.
Yes, he was a bloody research scientist for god's sake - surely someone would have concluded "oh, as such, he could know of and have access to poisonous compounds?". Load of bollocks!
shareIt also wasn't explained how Jonathan working out how she was poisoned was proof that the husband didn't do it.
shareHe didn't prove that the husband didn't do it, but he established reasonable doubt. He showed that the killer didn't have to be in the room with her as it was all set up in advance.
Still very silly and unlikely, though.
It's very easy to poison someone without being in the same room as them.
All Jonathan proved was that someone could have set it up that way but it must have been fairly obvious that that someone could be the husband.
Yes it could be the husband but it could also have been someone else.
Jonathan's testimony meant that there was resonable doubt amoung the jury.
Proof the husband didn't do it wasn't needed.
The tiny priest tells you who the con is near the start of the episode.
shareWho the heck was the ex-con??
Yes, he was the unseen killer of Elliot Strange in the episode "The House of Monkeys". I can't recall whether he was referred to by name back then.
shareI got the antimony clue straight away, surprised that JC missed that!
I think the ex con was in it as a bit of a red herring and to then end up cremated in the pit of doom.No inconvenient questions asked by the police there!
Sir Guy Grand-I like school of Rembrandt
Youngman Grand-St.Rembrandt's high
The antimony clue doesn't necessarily suggest that the husband being the murderer, the real killer could have used that name to implicate the husband on purpose. I couldn't understand why Creek jumped to that conclusion after discovering the antimony clue.
shareThe antimony clue doesn't necessarily suggest that the husband being the murderer, the real killer could have used that name to implicate the husband on purpose. I couldn't understand why Creek jumped to that conclusion after discovering the antimony clue.I actually thought he was going to say that the murderer was after Stephen the whole time, and everything ended up targeting Imelda (the murdered wife) by mistake or something, and the antimony symbol being Stephen's initials was basically the murderer's way of saying "I've been after you the whole time." or something.
What I meant was that the word antimony jumped off the page to me. I didn't work out the killer from it though.
Sir Guy Grand-I like school of Rembrandt
Youngman Grand-St.Rembrandt's high