I do wonder how exactly they are going to get Theo for Billy's murder?
There is no physical evidence that went up with the car.
No, video or audio evidence.
No tech evidence.
There is just Carl's word that he overheard that Theo supposedly confessed to Billy's death.
That wouldn't amount to much in a court of law. Especially not after any lawyer worth their degree could bring up the kind of man Carl is.
He was the real person who was drunk driving, but switched his own mother and put her in the driver's seat. Then try to extort Summer's inheritance from Billy to give her proof. Not to mention everything he pulled with Kevin, Abi, Tyrone, and the others.
All they have is Carl's word, and Carl's word means nothing, especially in a court of law.
There is no real proof.
I can't see Carl working with the cops, getting mic up, and goading Theo into confessing. Couldn't that be seen as entrapment, and Theo might not give up the goods, also become aware that people are on to him.
What are they gonna use Todd as bait and try to get Theo to confess to Todd?
Deviating from Swarla for a brief moment to discuss the whole Debbie situation, because I've decided that that's annoying me too
(under a cut, 'cos I rant a lot)
In what possible world can the death of someone who got caught up in a multi-vehicle pile up, be pinned on any one single person? Is it exclusively because 'Debbie' was the only person involved who was driving over the limit? Carl's car ramming into the minibus wasn't even the 1st, or 2nd factor of the crash. Multiple crashes were happening on a dark narrow road in the middle of nowhere, emergency services hadn't yet arrived and there was nobody & nothing to indicate that there was a disruption up ahead. A single driver who happened upon an unexpected accident and didn't react in a timely manner cannot be blamed for one single fatality that the accident caused, surely? The link is tentative at best, and if they can 'blame' Debbie, then, surely by the same logic they could also blame Carla too, because she's the reason the minibus overturned in the first place?
Also, every single other passanger was still in that minibus when Carl crashed into it, and all but Billy got out & survived. How would it be 'Debbie's' fault that Billy just did not get out of the minibus?
Now, on to that joke of a police interview - Debbie, who has dementia *and* a concussion (both medically confirmed), was formally interviewed by a single police officer, without any legal representation or an appropriate adult? I'm sorry, but that interview is 100% inadmissable at best, and downright neglectful and illegal at worst. Also, there were several moments in that interview when Debbie contradicted herself and became very obviously flustered & confused, but for some reason, the court decided that she was fully copus mentis? Are they just taking the officers word for that? Or did someone actually listen to it? Also, from re-watching the interview, there was no mention of Debbie having been breathalysed? So there's absolutely no evidence that she *was* driving over the limit. And during the interview the officer mentioned that they'd be looking at the CCTV from where they (claimed to have) swapped places, but, given that that did not happen, surely the CCTV will clearly show that that did not happen?
And then there's the bruises, the actual undeniable physical evidence that Debbie was not in the driving seat. Is it not standard practice, when someone is involved in a car crash, to conduct a full physical examination? How did not one person at the hospital see that she had bruises from her seat belt? How has nobody noticed since? Surely bruises like that would be tender? Ronnie hasn't noticed, or seemingly even asked, if she's in any physical discomfort after being involved in a damn car crash?
Also along that same vein, was Carl not wearing his seat belt? Surely he would also have bruises? Doctors definitely gave him a thorough physical examination - he had a heart attack for goodness sake, they definitely saw across his chest where a seat belt mark would have definitely been. And even if he wasn't, surely *that* contradicts Debbie's statement about switching drivers for safety? "I made him swap seats because it was safer, but I didn't insist that he wore his seat belt at all"?
