MovieChat Forums > Red Riding: The Year of Our Lord 1983 (2009) Discussion > [spoilers] Three key questions relating ...

[spoilers] Three key questions relating to Part 3 (1983)


I've watched this series through a couple of times (the first time back to back) and it's one of the most amazing mini-series I've ever seen.

There are a lot of characters, side-players and plot lines in this series and I think after a few runs through I understand most of them but I have three big questions in relation to Part 3:

1. DOBSON - towards the end of the series it's suggested that Dobson was told by Mishkin the real identity of The Wolf way back when he was arrested for the crime. When Dobson goes to see him in hospital he says "I told you back then" or something along those lines. Does this suggest that DOBSON knew that Laws was the man they wanted the whole time and chose to ignore the fact all those years ? If so, why the charade with the psychic etc ?

2. PIGGOT - I have two questions in relation to Piggot. After he finds out that his father was involved in the pedophile ring, he goes to his home where he finds a crowd, police and a dead body hanging out a window... is this a flash back to when he was younger and found his father dead ? (you hear "daddy") at the end of the scene.

The other question I have is this: was Piggot such a broken man because his father had abused hHIM when he was younger ? Mere mention of his father a few times seems to either stun or enrage him (the old woman mentions his fathter as a young man and PIggot appears shell-shocked). Later, he is seen dazed and drinking heavily alone in his flat) and finally, he attacks the other lawyer at his home when the lawyer says something like "I heard about your father, I understand you feel like you might need to write some wrongs".

Does this all suggest that the father was abusing his son, and if so, who exactly killed the father, did he commit suicide ? Or did the father get caught as a pedophile in some other circumstance and off himself etc ?

3. THE YORKSHIRE POLICE - did they actually know that Laws and Dawson were completely responsible and choose to turn a blind eye to the abductions ? It seems that at least some of them had their suspicions but chose to ignore the truth for the sake of their business investments with Dawson.

Cheers

Chris

reply

Just watched all three back-to-back, and I think:

1. Dobson didn't know for a fact that Laws was guilty and so convinced himself that he wasn't. Dawson provided him with an alibi and although Dobson didn't seem to believe it then he was more interested in the investment than he was in justice.

2. Yes, it's a flashback from when he was younger. It was pretty obvious that his father had abused him when he was a kid given his reaction to any mention of his father. As for who was responsible for his father's death then that's something I can't work out. The likeliest possibilities are that he was either consumed by guilt and offed himself or went to the police to confess and implicate Dawson so they offed him to protect their investment.

3. Yes. They forced a confession out of Myshkin to make the issue go away because they knew that Laws and Dawson were implicated and that threatened their investment.

Hope that helped.

Cheers, Will

If the opposite of Love is indifference, what's the opposite of Hate?

reply

Regarding your 3rd question, Jobson and the Captain confronted Dawson about The Wolf and Dawson admits to it by denying Laws involvement and giving him an alibi. This gets Jobson to tipoff Eddy because he knows that they are going to cover it up. Jobson knew but withheld the information and didn't bring it to light after Mishkyn took the fall and the case "closed" and probably too for his own protection. The Police did turn a blind eye and set up Mishkyn for the fall after Eddy started getting close to unraveling the entire conspiracy. Particularly when he confronted Dawson at his estate where seemingly the entire force was present. The force decides to almost sway Eddy into taking care of Dawson, this is acknowledged in a few scenes. Two in '74, the first is when the Captain (sorry, can't remember this guys name) says to Eddy, "Of course you didn't kill her (Paula) but we know who did didn't we?" almost implying something along the lines of, "you're going to take care of this right?" and later when he is given the gun. In '83, through a Jobson flashback, we are taken to a meeting where the brass discusses Dawson meeting his end by the hands of Eddy. They got Eddy to take care of it therefore protecting their "investment" and tying up a loose end in Dawson, in case he were to ever be exposed. Knowing he was already leaking information and using it for blackmail about them in an attempt to save face with Eddy. Nolan and the crew come in to clean it up afterwards and it becomes the case that Peter was the lead investigator on before being assigned to the Ripper.

I can only assume that they (The Police) didn't expose or "take care" of Laws either because of his clout, or his low-risk to expose everyone as the Police had just as much on him as he did them. It is possible too that because of Dawson's protection they never pursued any further on Laws, they instead set up a man for the fall, made it seem as though it was tied up thus protecting their investment with Dawson, and prayed it would never happen again. They didn't need to either because they already "caught" their man in Mishkyn. I would imagine they never knew to the full extent the level of Laws or Dawson's involvement. The entire conspiracy runs pretty deep, so it's hard to tell on some of the specifics about the cover-up. What we do know is it came down to a decision to take care of Dawson, probably for financial reasons, and let Laws continue on after they tied up the case by pinning Mishkyn. It would have been nice and neat for them if Laws could of resisted his urge to do again.

reply

[deleted]