I thought the wee nutter next door was the killer in the current day? Or at least the suspect? ie. Copycat through association (of course, this was 2 months ago, so my brain barely remembers a damn thing about it).
The rest you can read into in other ways, and there are a couple of flies in the ointment. Ambiguous stuff - Sam telling mum what to say, she could have asked anyone and got the same advice in the original timeline, with him just repeating it because that is what he remembers, because that is the kindest thing to say in the circumstances.
Gene may well have banged Vic up earlier, but that could just mean that the shootings never took place. Ultimately, you can't be sure of events that would otherwise have taken place, so whilst he may have been held, that doesn't prevent him from being free at the time of the wedding.
The biggest problem is Sam's memory of his Dad and Annie - the memory is (apparently?) clear of the level of the assault, however Sam's intervention distinctly alters that. (Not to mention that young Sam didn't go into the park after adult Sam tells him to go back inside). In fact, that also contradicts the memory of being told his Dad has gone away - why would his Mum be saying that at the wedding, when young Sam was/had been watching his Dad kicking Annie and escaping? Yet this 'memory' has been consistently seeping into the series.
Hmmm. At this point I need to sleep on it. It would seem that Sam has changed history by being instrumental in his Dad's escape (at least according to his own memory of it), but then that memory doesn't seem entirely consistent. And if he hasn't changed history, then his 'memory' never existed in the first place, so where has that come from? (I'll buy hallucinating the coma, but hallucinating the assault on Annie doesn't make sense.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2006-02-28 12:48 am (UTC)The rest you can read into in other ways, and there are a couple of flies in the ointment. Ambiguous stuff - Sam telling mum what to say, she could have asked anyone and got the same advice in the original timeline, with him just repeating it because that is what he remembers, because that is the kindest thing to say in the circumstances.
Gene may well have banged Vic up earlier, but that could just mean that the shootings never took place. Ultimately, you can't be sure of events that would otherwise have taken place, so whilst he may have been held, that doesn't prevent him from being free at the time of the wedding.
The biggest problem is Sam's memory of his Dad and Annie - the memory is (apparently?) clear of the level of the assault, however Sam's intervention distinctly alters that. (Not to mention that young Sam didn't go into the park after adult Sam tells him to go back inside). In fact, that also contradicts the memory of being told his Dad has gone away - why would his Mum be saying that at the wedding, when young Sam was/had been watching his Dad kicking Annie and escaping? Yet this 'memory' has been consistently seeping into the series.
Hmmm. At this point I need to sleep on it. It would seem that Sam has changed history by being instrumental in his Dad's escape (at least according to his own memory of it), but then that memory doesn't seem entirely consistent. And if he hasn't changed history, then his 'memory' never existed in the first place, so where has that come from? (I'll buy hallucinating the coma, but hallucinating the assault on Annie doesn't make sense.)