(no subject)
Some questions about A2A 3.5, in the light of what we heard during 3.7. SPOILERS for everything aired to date!
Does the story that Gene told Alex hold up to what Bevan told her? He was allegedly the photographer at the crime scene. I'm sure he wasn't in on the plot--Gene wouldn't have trusted him with that--but what did he see that made him think that Gene killed Sam? Did he just catch details that weren't right somehow, suspected a cover-up, and jumped to the worst possible conclusion? What did he mean by "It's not what he does, it's what he makes other people do"? What did Bevan think Gene had made Sam do?
I know Bevan is twisted and we can't trust him. What I don't get is why he'd set out to discredit Gene to Alex. He doesn't even know Alex, and he didn't seem to know Gene or Sam very well. What's his motivation in telling her all those things in the first place? Sure, you could say he's just a trouble-maker, but it's odd that the first way he picks to make trouble is by hinting at the same thing Keats has been hinting at all along.
Does the story that Gene told Alex hold up to what Bevan told her? He was allegedly the photographer at the crime scene. I'm sure he wasn't in on the plot--Gene wouldn't have trusted him with that--but what did he see that made him think that Gene killed Sam? Did he just catch details that weren't right somehow, suspected a cover-up, and jumped to the worst possible conclusion? What did he mean by "It's not what he does, it's what he makes other people do"? What did Bevan think Gene had made Sam do?
I know Bevan is twisted and we can't trust him. What I don't get is why he'd set out to discredit Gene to Alex. He doesn't even know Alex, and he didn't seem to know Gene or Sam very well. What's his motivation in telling her all those things in the first place? Sure, you could say he's just a trouble-maker, but it's odd that the first way he picks to make trouble is by hinting at the same thing Keats has been hinting at all along.