Line of Duty

Yes, all that! (I think I'll change my user name to 'confusedoftumbridgewells'!)

I don't think Balaclava Man is any one in particular. I think he's a series of hired thugs. Why would Lakewell, Nick or any one else do the dirty stuff themselves?

I'm glad Jackie Laverty is back! Her disappearance was never solved. Steve saw her remains in the freezer, and was beaten and tortured by men in balaclavas.

I haven't seen next week's trailer yet, but apparently it features a few blasts from the past. Sam, Steve's ex, a sergeant with Murder Squad, is in it. Rogerson and Hargreaves, from Violent Crime, are in it. Sam put a block on the investigation into the death of Oliver, the social worker who had sussed the paedo ring in S2/3. Hargreaves supressed evidence of the ambush in S2. He detests AC12, and was well in with Dryden, the dodgy paedo cop in S2. He is one of the senior officers whose names begin with H.

Lakewell is well placed to be involved in a ring of some sort. It could be prostitution, paedos, or something else. He was Farmer's solicitor on his "rape" case, and could easily target/manipulate him. Farmer thinks someone is going to protect him if he "says the right things"- could that be Lakewell? Roz could also manipulate him , via Jimmy. Roz is using Farmer to frame, but why? Is it simply to cover up a crime, or does she need to solve a crime urgently for some other reason? I still don't know what Hilton has on her.

I'm inclined to think she's covering for the hopeless, hapless Nick, but, when she learned of her amputation it was a step too far and she turned tables on him, blaming him. If he goes down, she won't care-she's done with him.

Did Roz kill Tim? Maybe. If she did, she'll have his dna on her. What would her motive have been, though? There must have been someone else involved; how the heck could she get a crime scene so clean? And leave behind the single bit of evidence that implicated her?

I think that scene was cleaned by someone with forensic knowledge and skills. I was thinking Kevin. Kevin was a smoker and Tim had cigarette stubs in his cache of "evidence". Kevin is the only one we've seen who smokes, and we know he's corruptible. He has access to evidence and in a position to doctor it. He was the FI on the scene of Ifield's murder, and able to doctor/plant/clean evidence at will.

And another thing -and this is way off beam- when Rupal did the briefing I noticed that the shoes/boots she was wearing were very similar to those worn by Steve's attacker. Could Kevin have those same boots? Could he be one of the Balaclava Men?

I'm not sure about Maneet. Now we know she's dodgy we have to question all of her activities. She looked very uncomfortable when pointing out the sighting of Nick's car on the night which he was supposed to have had an alibi for.

I'm surprised Ted let her go without question, unless of course he is already suspicious of her. She could easily be the leak for Kate's personal information.

And there's something a bit off about Kate in this series, to my mind. She was crap undercover, not convincing at all. Roz was probably on to her from the off.

I love Patrick Baladi too - he's good at doing 'unlikable'.
He's also good at doing 'likeable'
[mmm]

Crikey gettingonabit what a forensic analysis. You didn't write it did you? I think this series is superb and can't wait for some resolution next week, but they'll probably leave some loose ends for another series. If Hastings is ever found to be corrupt I will have to stop watching. He's the only one I trust.

lazi I didn't write it, alas, but I admit to being a tad overinvested.

I love this thread!

I agree Kate a bit off but I put it down to the fact that she wants to get promotion over Steve - but she has only recently got the Insp. Exams whereas he did them some time ago.

Although Steve is not a very big man it would need a strong person to lift him up and over the. banisters- I would say therefore a man.

Want to see the end but I don't want it to end if you know what I mean!

I don't like the fact that the forensic scientists are not independent of the police and have to bow and scrape to superior officers therefore could, as you say, be open to corruption.

I have watched any previous ones and was hoping this was a stand alone like missing etc but after reading gettingonabits post realise I m well out of it and not got a clue about half of that ah well I m enjoying it in my own little way

Wow gettingonabit, that is some analysis and what a memory from series 1 and 2. I didn't see all of series 1 and plan to watch it properly after the final episode in this series next Sunday. I'm with you Welshwife in thinking that Kate being not quite on top was down to her feeling put out that Steve was promoted but she should realise, she only just became a sgt and passed the Insp exams.

I'm off to read the link provided. It's a great series and like everyone else here, I'm already looking forward to series 4. If Ted Hastings is found to be corrupt I'll be in the devastated of gransnet gang.

I didn't see any of the previous series and have only just caught up on episode 1 of this series; however, I would be joining the 'Devastated of Gransnet Gang' too, although I acknowledge it could be a possibility as he looked quite shifty last night.

It's a red herring surely?

It has to be a red herring Jalima. His character has been so well drawn. I confess to enjoying the one liner thrown at him implying he'd gone "all Ian Paisley" on someone.

whoops, need an edit button - hasten to add I am not and never have been promoting Ian Paisley as a Ted Hastings character.

it's fiction

That should have read I haven't, not have, bah

iam I've watched LOD several times over, and notice something different every time. That's the beauty of it-it seems to raise more questions than it answers.

It WAS supposed to be a standalone series and I don't think you need to have watched previous series to enjoy and appreciate this one. I do think you need to watch the episodes more than once, though. I watched Ep 1 5 times and I'm still none the wiser.

There are always loose ends and it's good to see some of them being tied up!

Even if she is innocent I hope she gets some sort of comeuppance - there have been few fictional characters recently that I have disliked do much!!

Well, she has to be found guilty of something even if she didn't murder Ifield!!

Chopping off his fingers and keeping them for a start
Tampering with evidence
Perverting the course of justice
ooh, I could think of lots more

Neglecting her children?

Neglecting her children?

Yes, Jamila! Those poor mites!

although they always seem to have their eyes fixed on their phones/ipads

Just caught up with this episode, very exciting.Still don't know who balaclava man is (the solicitor maybe? Friends of Roz Huntley and husband?) Or.....criminals from the first series.
Am surprised at the (ahem!) romantic interest on here about Hastings ( I find him repellent) but then I find Bill Nighy and David Tennant unattractive too ( sorry)

Alan Rickman is my all-time most fanciable actor...such a shame he's no longer with us.

I don't get Hastings, either. Or David Tennant. Bill Nighy? Wtaf!!.

Now the bloke who played Dryden....phwoarrh. Or even Paul Higgins, who plays Hilton . Must be a Scottish thing.

In the first episode, Roz sat on her bed and told husband, in a relieved way that 'it' was over. Implying that by charging the young lad for all the murders they were off the hook.Then they hugged.

I suspect the back story will unravel with many implications. Can't wait.

Is this the last ever series ? Thought I read that somewhere. We may have to send the GN persuaders out to talk to the writers

I once found myself standing next to Alan Rickman in a queue going into an event at the Opera House in Manchester. Not sure I've ever recovered.