Explaining criticisms of the murder conspiracy (SPOILERS)

A poster criticized that the conspiracy concocted by Brian (Rachel's soon-to-be-divorced husband) and her supposedly best friend, Sharon, had too many variables to be believable. For instance, the plan's success depended upon Rachel visiting the lighthouse island and meeting "Angus" (aka Patrick). But this wasn't true. If she hadn't visited the island in the first several days Angus could've just stopped by her cottage and introduced himself as her handsome, single neighbor. Actually, he could've met her anywhere in the local area where she liked to hike and take photos.

Another criticism is that the success of the scheme depended on Rachel falling in love with "Angus," which also isn't true. Patrick (Angus) was paid to put on an act and maybe win Rachel over, but their falling in love turned out to be more real than fake on Patrick's part, which is why he goes back to the lighthouse at the end after experiencing guilt at the train station. And the scheme was not dependent upon Rachel falling in love with "Angus." Patrick's job was to simply pose as Angus in order to cause the already emotionally unstable Rachel to act crazy enough in public that, when the conniving couple make her murder look like a suicide via drowning tied to an anchor, no one would suspect foul play. That's it. In other words, it wasn't as complicated as crtics make out.

The wicked scheme makes sense when you factor in Rachel's extraordinary success as an author and the “little foxes” of envy, bitterness and greed, not to mention the fact that Brian was a failed novelist who would have a knack for concocting creative plots. Yes, the conspiracy is Hollywoodish, but the real-life cases seen on Forensic Files reveal that these kinds of diabolic trickeries aren’t as unlikely as we might think.