Marna Inc.

Question: What’s the connection between Marna Inc. and Aunt Tara’s necklace?

marna

This week we discovered that the apartment in Connecticut is paid for by a bank account that belongs to a realty business named Marna Inc and that this bank account was most likely used to pay off Regina. We also learned that Vikram used to go up to Connecticut, with the full knowledge of his wife who would lie for him and say he was in Manhattan on business.  Up until this point it seemed likely he used the apartment for affairs. However between Karen’s knowledge his trips and the existence of the business, it seems likely there was much more to it.

We do not know for a fact yet, that it was actually Vikram who stayed in the apartment, but it seems likely. And the question still remains, who sent the $2000 to Regina two days before she died?

But one of the most intriguing parts of mystery was that Kyle discovered the logo for the company looked exactly like Aunt Tara’s necklace, which raises some interesting questions.

It definitely links the company to the Desai family, but if it is Vikram’s company why would he use the necklace as the logo? True he might have created the logo before Tara’s death, but why not change it? Wouldn’t he want to forget the woman his son murdered?

Furthermore, Danny told Jo that his father always hated Tara since they were children. So even before her death, why would Vikram want to use her necklace as the symbol of the company?

Danny said the necklace was a family heirloom and very important to Tara. However Tara wasn’t important to Vikram. So perhaps the use of the logo was not so much about Vikram being, for lack of a better word, obsessed with Tara, as much as both he and Tara were obsessed with whatever that necklace stood for.

Of course there’s the possibility that despite appearances the company doesn’t belong to Vikram. In which case it’s still a possibility that the logo is in memory of Tara. And there’s still the fact that Danny assured Jo and Rico that the necklace (and by extension whatever it stood for) had nothing to do with his reasons for killing Tara.

What do you think?

Advertisements

Danny Desai: Sociopath?

I’ve now read two very excellent posts which question whether Danny is a sociopath.

ABC’s “Twisted” attempts to live up to its name

and

It’s TWISTED When Someone Confesses To Murder…

DannyDesai

Whether Danny is a sociopath is probably one of the most intriguing questions of the show, and as pointed out in the second article I listed, very important in figuring out whether or not he really killed his aunt given the fact that the show has made a point of telling us twice that sociopaths very seldom kill.

When the show started I was absolutely convinced there was no way Danny could be a sociopath, but now between great writing and great acting, I’m actually beginning to wonder. I’m definitely not convinced he is, but I am curious.

If Devil dannyanny isn’t a sociopath, he’s still a guy with absolutely no regret over his actions (he may regret some of the consequences but not the actions themselves). While making out with Lacey on top of his aunt’s grave, Lacey ran away after looking at the gravestone. Left alone Danny glanced at the grave stone and then smirked. Whether he killed Tara or took the blame for someone else, the natural response would not be to smile. Looking at the gravestone of someone, let’s say, your father murdered, you’d still feel bad about it.

So either Danny is a sociopath or Tara was such a horrible person and/or was getting ready to do something so terrible to the Desai family, that Danny feels no remorse over her death. He has actually said to Jo ‘I don’t know if I regret what I did’. And so far the show has given hints that either of the options are possible.

Danny’s therapist described sociopaths as loving risk and not considering consequences. She said they find it easy to lie imitate human emotion. Danny showed an inclination for risk when breaking into the apartment. He’s also calmly and cleverly lied on several occasions about the necklace. He has also seemed to imitate human emotion when pretending to be upset and calling Karen ‘mom’ begging her to believe him, only to have his expression go curiously blank after she can no longer see his face. On top of it all the way every time someone confronts him he easily manages to manipulate the situation and turn it round against his interrogator shows an ability to manipulate.

However there have been hints that Tara was possibly a truly dislikable person:

1. Tess and Kyle mentioned that Tara always looked ‘pissed off’. Additionally in the photograph we saw from Danny’s fourth birthday that showed him with his aunt, he looked unhappy. Why would a four year old be so grumpy at his own birthday, unless he just wasn’t happy to be forced to take a photograph with his aunt? In the flashback that the show opened with Jo and Lacey also wondered if Danny was having ‘more family problems’. He seems to have gotten along well with his father, and while his mother and he have a somewhat strained relationship, it doesn’t seem from what we’ve been told that it was ever overly contentious. Did he have problems with his aunt?

2. His father and Tara always hated each other from something dating back to childhood. That’s a really long time to hold a grudge. What could have happened that was so terrible that they hadn’t gotten along since childhood? More curiously, why would his father would still let Tara babysit? And why Tara would still want to?

3. If Danny is to be believed Tara was going to do something really terrible to the Desai family and that was his motive for killing her. As I mentioned in a previous post, if Danny is telling the truth, whatever it was would have to be really terrible to have a worse impact on the family then Danny being convicted of murder.

Perhaps Tara was the sociopath?

So which is it? Is Danny a sociopath? Or was Tara such a dark person that Danny really can summon no emotion resembling regret over her passing?

Regina’s Letter

Question: What was the money for?

letter2

The biggest question raised in this week episode has to have been the letter sent to Regina. It’s the first big clue towards a possible motive. So far all we’ve had to go on was a nebulous connection between been Regina and Tara. Now we have a decidedly threatening note.

While going through the condolence letters sent to Regina’s mother, Lacey found a letter sent to Regina. Inside she found what looked to be, at an estimate, about $1000, and a note that said:

This is your final payment. Deal holds, keep your mouth shut. If you tell anyone… you know what’ll happen.

When I first watched the episode I automatically assumed Regina had done something for someone. I’ve read a lot of theories suggesting maybe Tara and possibly Danny’s father, where involved in some kind of organized crime. How a teenaged girl could have gotten mixed up in that is a little more unclear but it’s a possible explanation for her having the same necklace as Tara (especially if her necklace was a duplicate and not one in the same, something I admit I no longer feel is a strong possibility). However there are other things Regina could have been doing for someone, any sort of illegal activity, shady job or something school related?

But a closer look at the wording of the note seems to suggest a second possibility: blackmail. After all the note states that ‘deal holds’, this sounds more compatible with blackmail as the deal of silence would continue to hold even after the final payment. Was Regina blackmailing someone? While Lacey remembers her friend fondly, there’s no denying the fact that Regina had a very strong personality. And as Phoebe’s story of their falling out showed, Regina could be pretty mean. Honestly blackmail seems does not seem out of the realms of possibility to her.

I also find the amount pretty interesting. The bills were all $100’s, but you can’t see exactly how many bills there are. But look at this picture:

money

You can only really count about the top six and then they get a little hard to distinguish. As you can’t tell for sure, we’ll give some room for error and say the envelope contained somewhere between 10 to 15 bills which would be $1000 – $1500. And honestly that seems much more the amount a high school student would pay, then an adult with a steady job. If Regina were blackmailing someone like Kyle for instance, wouldn’t she have asked for more money? True this is only the final payment, so we can assume this was at most half the payment, possibly less, but couldn’t Kyle or Tess or even Karen be make larger payments?

Edit: It was stated in ‘Three for the Road’ that the letter contained $2000.

What do you think?

The Necklace, Part II

the necklace part 2

Since my previous post about the necklace, we’ve learned a bit more about it, which further complicates the question of whether or not Regina’s necklace and the aunt’s necklace are one in the same and how she got it. One of the conversations in the police station mentioned a very interesting fact about Tara’s necklace; that it was in her purse at the time of her death.

When the police arrived at the scene of Tara’s murder, the necklace was in her purse. Danny could not have taken the necklace at that point. We don’t know the exact timeline of how soon after the murder Danny was arrested, but given the fact he confessed to his two friends immediately after allegedly committing the crime, he was probably arrested pretty quickly. I don’t know the rules of parole for a child, especially after he confessed. Would he have had an opportunity after the murder to remove the necklace, after the police had already determined that it was in Tara’s purse? If so did he hide it somewhere? Maybe in the fort and that’s why he was so shocked to see Regina with it? But what possible motive would he have to put so much effort into hiding a necklace assuming he did somehow have opportunity?

If Danny could not have hidden the necklace after the police came on the scene then that leaves a couple of options. The necklace would have ended up back in the custody of Danny’s parents’ wouldn’t it? Unless one of the police stole it (for instance, Kyle). If the necklace was in Karen and Vikram’s custody, how could they have lost track of it so badly that it ended up in Regina’s possession? Maybe the necklace was worth a good bit and Vikram pawned it along with other items due to their money issues?

There’s still the possibility that Regina’s necklace is not the same one the aunt had, but if so the question would still remain how did Danny end up with the aunt’s necklace? Karen doesn’t seem to have given it to him on his return (and it would have been bizarre if she had done). So if the Karen and her husband had the aunt’s necklace all this time, and Regina’s necklace is a different one, wouldn’t Karen know they were different necklaces as Regina got the necklace 5 – 6 months ago, and Danny would only have taken the aunt’s necklace away from his mother a few weeks ago. So if the necklaces were different I’d think Karen would be much less suspicious of Danny’s motives in the current situation. But she clearly thinks they’re the same.

The last possibility I thought of was falling back on the Tara-was-his-real-mother theory. If Tara was Danny’s real mother and not Karen, it’s possible his dad gave him the necklace (would someone in juvie be allowed a personal item like a necklace?) or set it aside for him and possibly Karen didn’t know.

I’m honestly more and more coming to the conclusion that necklaces are actually one in the same. Which leaves us with one very important question, how did Danny get it?

What do you think?

Is There a Sociopath?

Question: Is one of the characters a sociopath?

The show was originally called ‘Socio’ before being renamed to Twisted. We’ve also been given the show’s definition of a sociopath. But is this only because they’re trying to build the suspense over whether or not Danny could really be one, or is it also because Regina’s killer is a sociopath?

The psychology teacher (by the way, can I just ask, what kind of teacher would think delving into the topic of sociopaths was a good idea in that situation?) says ‘most sociopaths don’t bother killing people, it requires too much effort’. Someone beat Regina to death; that seems like a lot of effort. That also seems like a crime of passion (hate, love or revenge, we don’t know, but still a crime of passion). Given the definition they give us of a sociopath, someone who does not feel normal human emotions but instead fakes them extremely well, how likely is a sociopath to kill someone in a crime of passion? That seems like a whole lot effort. Danny’s murder of his aunt, strangling her with a jump rope, that could have been done cold and calculating (I’m not saying it was), that feels like it could be the work of a sociopath. Regina’s death doesn’t. Of course, maybe I’ve just been watching too much Criminal Minds lately.

Of course, if Regina’s killer is a sociopath, that would at least clear Rico! He certainly doesn’t seem to bother with conforming his emotions to the people around him. He’s off in his own world, in the absolutely nicest way possible!

What do you think?

The Timing of Regina’s Death

Question: Was the timing of Regina’s death, on Danny’s first day back at school, a coincidence?

Regina Death

It’s one of the reasons all the characters in the show suspect him. Danny comes back to school and that night a girl is killed. It is suspicious. Was Danny’s return the cause and Regina’s death the effect? Or is it all a coincidence?

There’s some reason to believe Danny’s return might have led to Regina’s death. Not because he killed her, but because she did claim to know why he murdered his aunt. If his reason involves a third party, if he knew something about his aunt and someone else, Danny’s return might have led that person to panic. But why kill Regina? Or least, why only kill Regina? Wouldn’t the killer want to silence Danny as well? Just because he didn’t speak out when he was 11, that person has no way of knowing he won’t speak out now. Especially when speaking out might let him off the hook for Regina’s death? Of course maybe the killer is hoping to kill two birds with one stone by murdering Regina and letting Danny take the blame.

It could of course be a coincidence. Events that could have led to Regina’s death have been brewing for a while. She was given the necklace 6 -7 months ago. Vikram Desai went missing 5 months ago (we don’t know if that’s connected to Regina, but it could be). She has knowledge about a murder that no one else but Danny seems to have? Things were brewing. Danny could easily have just returned at a bad time.

Honestly I still can’t make up my mind. It seems to me more likely though that somehow Danny coming back to town set things off in some way.

What do you think?