We all have theories...but if you have specific theories about what's going on with Charlie Crews, post them here and see if anyone agrees. And don't forget to check back to see the evidence others have collected as well.

I think that his friend who was with him a long time ago, or his "x" partner....i think he framed him for the murder...yeah

I agree with Charlie being behind the documentary. He gets to see how people are answering questions. Gets to look into their eyes.

Why is the lieutenant so out to get him? Did she have involvement in the original Crews case? Or is she just being told what to do by someone else who had been involved? Seems a little too over the top to be coincidental.

One possibility is the partner was involved in the initial setup of Crews---which is very likely---but he didn't quite carry out his role because he was torn. He then felt very guilty about his involvement and was not able to tell anyone because it would incriminate him. So he had to hold it all in. Yet he liked Crews so much that he went to great lengths to "save" his badge and gun----and hide it, as evidenced by how deep in the garage it was and him locking the door behind him. His wife doesn't know the whole story, but hated seeing how torn up her husband was all those years. Mix that with his lack of promotions and hitting rock bottom when no one would ride with him for four years. She has always blamed Crews because it started right after that.

I think the partner was an unwitting pawn and now knows it. Which would explain his seemingly candid disposition in frequent appearences on the documentry where it seems like he is forthcoming but definately hiding something. Moreover the badge and gun, the whole party scene for that matter, seems a sort of <i>apology</i>. actually. His wifes anger is out of pain...but something more to it.

As for the Lt. She's definately an orchestrater but she's not the one. As you can see from the diagram he's considering putting her into the missing slot of connection but there is someone behind her using her. Why is she serving this person? I need to go back and rewatch these episode. They're complicated in the least. When I do I'll post if I have anything more developed.

Come on don't you all think it's a little too early (and a little too obvious) to start saying the ex-partner did it? I hope the writers of this show are not that stupid or this whole thing was a complete waste of time. I admit that I have no idea who is responsible for the set-up. I think the lead detective is not involved, he seems too genuine. The ex partner "might" have been a pawn, but again that seems to easy. I agree that the Lt. is way too much of a pain in the a$$ and is probably involved somehow. Maybe the 9yr old daughter did it?
Anyway, to answer a question late in the second episode, yes Tina and Gina, we are still going swimming, please come over to my place right away Hope you didn't bring your bathing suits
Finally, did you see the look in his eye when he was shooting his old revolver at the range? He is SO not Zen! He might be trying to be Zen, but that guy is holding back some serious anger. He is ****** and ready to jack someone up. The Zen thing is going to fall apart soon I think.
Well that was my $0.02.

I don't have any theories just yet but I am pretty sure that we have not met even one tenth of the players in this conspiracy. The interactive conspiracy board changed from Wednesday night to now. There was a picture of his old partner and the Lt. One of the "+More" pages said something like "Dig too deep and your going to get burried" but that is not on the board anymore. It's pretty clear that there was some dirty people in the force and Crews was a threat to those individuals.

I played a game online once where there were hiden clues in images that would lead to further info. I tried playing with the URL on the www.whoframedcharlie.com page but couldn't find any "hidden" pages. I'm not very good at that kind of stuff but the newspaper article on the interactive page was also located at that address.

i think crews x partner set him up for murder or might have killed crews wife
i watched life i want to ask a question do you think his friend xpartner was trying to set him up again

I'm trying to understand rhe reconciliation between Charlie's seeming promiscuity and zen. Zen does not frown on promiscuity, but it doesn't approve of hedonism, and it's anti-ego, so one generally can't sleep with many women to satisy one's desire to feel, well, like a stud. So why?

And who is the documentarian? It's not Charlie - it's someone who Stark doesn't take seriously at all, with remarks that suggest his background is diametrically opposite a police background.

Speaking of Stark - Charlie has written that "He couldn't have seen" but from what we are allowed to access on the conspiracy wall, he was actually key in sending Charlie to jail for what he did say he didn't see which was Charlie getting cut during an arrest. So what couldn't he have seen? There's definitely something up, but it's hard to put my finger on what... Accused of being dirty and shunned by fellow cops for 4 years, his house isn't as fancy as Charlie's, so the money Charlie's wall advises to follow doesn't seem to lead to him. But his inscrutable smile and strange double entendres are a match for Charlie's poker face. The badge and service revolver "falling into his hands"... Hmm...

Rachel crossed my mind - everything is connected zenilly, but it struck me that other than Charlie's revelation that Rachel was in fact a witness to the murders, something he seemingly had not considered at the time nor during his time in prison, that there was little he didn't know about the kids at the time of the murders ("they _had_ to make their beds") and although he might not recognize a camera phone for what it is, Rachel would have to be stunningly transformed for him to not recognize her. He's going to be looking for Rachel, to be sure. Is she looking for him? The "8 year old" Olivia might be more than just a fortuitous coincidence, although that would be a rather elaborate way to get to Charlie...

That things haven't happened to Charlie randomly is the lynchpin of the show. But he seems to be getting come-ons in the double digits according to his talk with Constance. here are forces moving behind Charlie, for sure - Lt. Davis wants him gone, and seems to be one to deal in dirt. She's got a lever on Dani, and there must be something to having been Dani's dad's partner... Who is Dani's dad? Did Charlie know him - if he knew Davis, one would think... And what did Stark mean by remarking that it was tough having a female partner? Nobody rode with him for four years, but that leaves 8 years where somebody(s) did, and his partner now is new. Did he partner with Davis?

Lt. Davis is pushing hard on Detective Reese to get her dirt on Charlie. From her conversation with Reese it seems that she is overly anxious to kick Charlie out of the force. Either she knows something and is involved with this whole mess, she is getting leaned on by people higher up, or she is being threatened/ blackmailed into getting him kicked out. My money is on that she knows a little something. She seems almost scared.
Charlie's Ex - partner is a jerk but I don't think he is a killer. I think he was bribed or threatened to say he didn't see the cuts on his hand before. He feels a little guilty and what he did plus it came back to bite him in the butt (nobody would ride with him). Also his wife is just looking for someone to blame for her husbands misfortune. In the passing years she has been blaming Charlie for so long she cant seem to get it in her head that none of it was his fault. She still feels pain and needs someone to blame.
With the Detective in charge of the case, I think someone fed him information to make him think Charlie was a very dirty cop and adding a little push saying, "This is the only way to get him so find evidence to put him away." The cop, no matter how much evidence pointed in the opposite way of Charlie, refused to believe in Charlie's innocence even now which means he has some very personal feelings for this case. Why? He didn't even know the family. He probably found evidence and was like, "Now how can I connect this to Crews? Because I "know" he did this."
The little girl most likely hid under her bed and was found later by the police. The cop in charge wanted to protect her from Crews thinking he might come after her again. Protective custody probably took care of the rest of her disappearance.
Thats my theory so far with the episodes I have seen.

I think I covered charlie sleeping around in the other read but I'll repeat myself here.

He just got out of jail after 12 years. At the WORST he's making up for lost time. It's not interfereing with his proffesional life in the slightest as we saw near the end of the second episode. That's perfectly Zen.

I think "who" exactly the documentarian is, is rather irrlevevant to who is FUNDING the project. Hmm...who is THAT interested and has money?

I also sincerely doubt that the Ex-partner was directly involved. That would be way to cheesy and obvious for this show. However as 48park pointed out the theme of the show is: "Everything is zennily connected." I think the indirect nature of the Ex-P will prove to be a surprise twist down the road. Haven't put my finger on it after the 10th's episode but there was also little to do with the man in number 3.

Peace out & Cya next week,
-D

First the DOC is shot by someone other than Charlie. This can be understood by the reactions from the peoples answers. If it was Charlie their answers would be more personal and maybe not try to give an answer at all. IF it is set buy him to nose around, or have someone else snoop for him, that dont seem like him either. He is hands on, he wants to find out. Come on would a man have a reporter shoot a mock DOC to find out the person who sent him to jail? Especially when he is so bold as to pull over his ex wife and her husband to ask about the little girl. This clearly shows he isnt afraid to do what is needed to find out the truth.... even confronting the lead detective in a bar knowing or risking the money he won...

Im not going to give my guess as to who did it until i see more evidence. But I dont think it was his old partner.. AS for him not seeing Charlie getting cut and testifying as to such may just show that he is an honest cop/person and didnt see him get cut from the earlier arrest of the teen and told the truth on the stand. Maybe he feels a little guilt for telling the truth on the stand and it turned out to help put him away and Charlie was innocent. My be thats why he had such a hard time for all those years cuz he may of felt he was innocent. Thats why he held on to his gun and badge. If he felt he was guilty he would not of held those items.

At this point i think it is that coyote, he is a shape shifter and seems to have interest in Charlie.

I think there is more to Dani's father too. Also, there is a reason that Dani is fighting with her addictions. She might have some inside info on her Dad.In this last episode Dani could relate to the dead bride when her friends described her as "punishing herself" with drugs and men. That is Dani's behavior as well. What is she punishing herself for? Maybe she knows that her Dad is part of the puzzle and they assigned her as Crews partner so that she would be caught in the middle of everything, Crews discovering something about her father, she would be torn between family and doing what is right.

The only problem with thinking Dani's father might be involved is this...why would the powers that be let her anywhere near Crews? I think that would be really stupid on their part. But then again after seeing the 3rd episode last night, it is obvious that the writers are just messing with us. There is obviously misdirection going on here. They are just going to leave us all guessing and it will probably be a while before we really get any good info to go on. I did find it interesting how the lead detective seemed genuinely surprised at the photo showing the little girl's unmade bed. I am starting to think he is not in on any conspiracy but might have been used and fed information pointing to Crews. If that turns out to be the case and he figures it out, I think he will be the best ally Crews has in helping him find the real killer because he seems like a good cop who would want to make things right.
The fence scene was great, what a moron his accountant is for even thinking that would be a good idea, I wonder how he will trash Crews new ride.
Finally, and I think we all need to seriously think about this...where was OJ at the time of the murders?

Okay... That cracked me up...

Maybe it was the x-wife. Motive would be the fact Charlie was seen alone with the wife, did i get that point correct? and She did seem pretty eager for him not to find the girl. ....


The one thing i dont like with the story so far is how can a Investigator miss a detail like the bed not being made the night of the murder and even if the family made there beds everyday, why does charlie know this and why is that enough evidence for him to think she was home? I mean if the official story is that she was at a friends house would they have not tried to find the girl that night? would not the family she was suppose to stay with speak up? How could this be overlooked the nights of the murders, once the cops saw she was not murdered with her family they probably searched the house and yard and neighborhood for her, when did they realize she was at a night over with a friends? Did the family call? Was there a note with a phone number left for the parents to call? I just dont see how this Fact that the cops thought she was at a friends house the night of the murder was believed by everyone investigating the case. Lets just say everyone investigating the case IS NOT in on the murder and they are neutral and innocent how could they overlook this major detail , that being a key eye witness that could identify the killer, It only took charlie one visit to the murder site with a few photos realize she WAS HOME?! (were the cops ALL that incompetent?) Then if this was a cover up for what really happed to the girl, (lets say she was hiding in a closet or she escaped through a window and ran to a friends house easily confusing the investigation, until the family of the friends house explained she ran there) so if there was a cover up then this is where the story begins. Why did the police covered up the truth with lies about where the girl was and then why set up charlie to protect the true killer? who would the police be willing to do this for? To frame one of there own. If there was cover up of some truth (one truth being the wheres-abouts of the girl) then a member of the law enforcement ("I hate cops"??hmmm?) would have some involvement.

Here is who we can rule a suspect:

1. Charlie. Could he still have done it? And was wrongly released and is searching for the girl to finish the job? Let s hope not, i really like him.

2. X-wife. I stated why earlier.

3. the x partner. i don't think so my explanation is in an earlier post.

4. The lead investigator. Dont know of motive yet but can see where he would have covered up the evidence if he was in on it. But he did seem interested in charles findings. Then again if charlie thinks it is him, he is bold enough to confront him with the mind set as "im on to you".

5. The new partners dad. Dont seem likely since it would be a strange coincidence that she is now his partner. We will see how he ties in soon.

6. His new Boss. She does seem to want to get him fired, but i think that may be an order from a higher up. We will see howthis ties in soon.

7. The little girl who survived. Would she kill her family and then set up charle? How CSI drama. Not likely.

8. His new partner as a young drug infested junkie. She did it for money for drugs and her dad had it covered up and now she is his partner as a way to get rid of him...

9. someone that has not yet been introduce. Most likely this is what it will be.

10. the coyote the shape shifting devil. You never know.

Wow I can't believe I never thought of that one, but seems kind of out there. Why would Charlie even give a crap about all this if he did it.

Also you forgot about the black female officer in the documentary that said she was the first girl he was with when he got out of prison...I mean if you are listing ALL possible suspects lol.

Also, I am waiting to see how Charlie "Saved the life" of Ted while in prison...I wonder if he meant that literally?

I am way too much into this show....I hope it doesn't turn into crap like...well like every other show on television

The explanation as to why Charlie knew the girl was home but others did not, is because Charlie knew the family personally. Thus, he knew the daily routine of the family and that an unmade bed would mean the girl was home that night. Doesn't plug all the holes, but that's the concept.

I agree that his partner isn't the plotter, though he may have been blackmailed/bribed. He doesn't gain anything from Charlie going to jail, and in fact, loses much. His actions are also inconsistant with that theory.

I think the Lt. may have been coerced, and the promotion to position may have been part of it. If you notice in her picture on the wall, she's in street officers clothes. Her promotion may have been simply occured in the long time Charlie has been away, or it could be more contrived. In either case, she's now likely to be under pressure, whether she knows why or not, to get rid of Charlie from the force.

ROFL!!! YES!! Thats it!! My moneys now on OJ! Bahahahahaha!!!!

Here are some points to ponder:
1) It is very possible that the little girl, Rachel Seybolt, witnessed something and was removed (the unmade bed). Also, comparing the two pictures the blue stuffed-animal is nowhere to be seen in the bedroom shot. She probably still has it after all this time.

2) The lead detective has some serious apprehension, and has a hand in the frame-up but ONLY because his pension was in jeopardy. It was mentioned many times.

3) The news clippings raises some eyebrows because the ex-wife, Jennifer Conover, was quick to divorce Charlie and sell the first home. Interviewees are stating that there was no real love lost.

It gets the creative juice flowing, but no matter how much we don't like some of the characters, let's keep in mind that we can be biased. It's all about the truth. Also, Crews is pretty conviced It's about money. So far, we know that Jennifer Conover has money...

I think Jen-Ex might have spent the 5 minutes of her first and only visit to Charlie asking him if one of the things that was suggested in court by witnesses was true - if he had an affair with Paula Seybolt. The answer she got might not have pleased her, even if it was a no.

The rather belabored timeline of Charlie and Jen's relationship in the newspaper article kind of stumbles around exactly when they met, how long it took them to get married, and then how the murders were nearly a year after that - towards the suggestion that 5 year old Daniel would have been just old enough to have been conceived before Jen and Charlie met. If Charlie had been friends with Tom since childhood, it would seem likely he has known Paula since Tom met her - in fact, that Rachel is a 9 year old would suggest Tom and Paula had been together since the start of high school.

I think it's all about $$$$.. Strange how fast Jen-Ex went from being a police man's wife to marrying big time into money ( oil tycoon father in law, new husband hedge fund manager..) That's a totally different crowd to hang with... She was listed somewhere in her bio or so as having been a pharmaceutical rep. Did that get her into connections to major money movers? Did someone approach her? Some of the major players are most likely not introduced yet.

I also wonder how much Charlie and Jen could really have been friends with the murdered Seybolts: Tom and Paula Seybolt were about 8 to 10 years older than the Crews. Enough of an age difference - and also having 2 kids - to possibly be their mentors/business partners or something like that, but how much can early thirties people with two kids really be friends with early/mid twenties people? Different life agendas at that time.

Either Tom was into something shady, or onto discovering something that would be very "inconvenient" for a major player, so he had to go...
Anyhow, with some zennilly attitude, one should stay in the moment , not trying to figure out things from the past or the future.. so we all are so not Zen!

Since I've had to catch up to the show a bit. I've noticed a lot of things. The LT is definitely being asked to watch what is going on. Her ex-lead partner was Reese's father. She tells you that piece of information (however, useless at the time) in Episode 1. The LT isn't the mastermind by any means and they have truly yet to introduce any characters that are not cops. So, we can deduce that whomever the mastermind is, whether they are private or political, has had strong affliations with the LAPD. I agree with previous writers that Charlie is behind the documentary; looking and searching for how "everything is connected". Keep that quote in mind because it will be the basis by which they write this show. I believe the missing girl will not be introduced until sweeps week to offer a major turn or she will be the epitomy of the first season's climax. We have definitely only scratched the surface. The partner definitely is harboring guilt and trying to salvage the friendship he had with his partner. But, unless more comes to light, I don't believe that he had anything to do with his partner's incarceration. I think the guilt lies in his inability to not speak against the "blue wall of silence" and not believing in his partner. Reasons he didn't have a partner all that time tends to lead that way. When you're dirty and someone else is determined as dirty, they ride with you. "Birds of a feather...". A few things that we really have to have open up to us in order to unravel more theory. Who were the people killed? Who they were may tell WHY they were killed? Leading to who would want them killed? And why Charlie had to be the "patsy" for said deaths. I'll be watching like the rest of you.


[color="#000000"][/color][size="3"][/size][font="Garamond"][/font]

Detective Ames describes Tom as Charlie's "boyhood friend" in Tear Asunder so he and Charlie at least go pretty far back... I think this backstory could stand some illumination if they could get refocused on it in upcoming episodes.

Okay...PLAUSIBLE THEORY about the wife:

Prospective future husband/affair HIRES the job done by professional police contacts. This would explain:

Lead investigator's attitude & motive for covering up child witness. He would most likely be the one "paid off" as he retired immediately after the close of the case.

Lt. Bought with cash, a possible promotion or blackmail. Somehow I think the Lt. has deeper ties to Reese and possibly her father than just an apparent "savior". In fact, that disposition is what causes me to suspect ties. Compensative imaging.

Ex-Patrol Parter - Blackmailed most likely. Cops always keep dirt on each other, it wouldn't be unlikely that the lead investigator had dirt on the Ex-Partner.

---------------

On a seperate note, Relevant to the new show. Has anyone noticed the identity of Rachel??????? Come on...they practically shoved it down our throats in the last scene. Going from the file directly to her office...that was foreshadowing if I ever saw it coming.

[size="4"][/size][font="Arial"][/font]


What r u talkin' about? Crew's wife is still alive. She got remarried & Crews harassed her husband 2 times already.

ParadoxFox93420: I'm interested to know what you're referring to as "Rachel's Identity." So far, I've only picked up on her having seen the killer, and the pictures that she drew of him seem to look a lot like the lead investigator (black person, bloodshot eyes). I'm guessing that she's in a psychiatric institution, somewhere, perhaps being kept doped up so as not to reveal what she saw. She needs Charlie to rescue her from that prison just as much as he needs her to help further exonerate him.

I also have a theory, particularly after tonight's show ("What They Saw"), that Charlie's lawyer, Constance, is a far less-trustworthy, more manipulative person than what she was originally conveyed as in previous episodes. I mean, she's been flirtatious with Charlie ever since episode #1, but also kindof talking down to him like he's a dumb child and she's the only one that understands him and can make things better for him. That's just been plain annoying. And yet, with all of her flirtatiousness, and with her wanting to make Charlie feel needy of her, Constance also happens to be married. Hello! Tonight, I think she showed a more ugly side to herself by making it clear that she wanted to cheat on her husband with Charlie, and then by making Charlie feel bad for saying "No" to her because he knows that it just wouldn't be right. I got this feeling that Constance has known Charlie for longer than before he originally went to jail. Perhaps she always loved him and/or was obsessed with him - jealous about his marriage to his first wife - who knows? Perhaps Constance "loved" Charlie soooo much that she had him set up for murder, long enough so that he would lose his wife, his friends, etc., until she, Constance, could then step back in and be his only "Saving Angel". That would be pretty psycho of her...but, hey! Just a theory!
I have yet another theory, too, but I'm too tired to go on more tonight...hence, I'll continue on tomorrow! Hope everybody is getting a good night's/morning's sleep, out there!

So now we know that Ames stole the file on Rachel.
Rachel's drawings about the killer....now this is good, we have a clue about what the real Killer looks like....and it obviously doesn't look like Charlie.
The dirt on Ames just keeps piling up.
No wonder he's drinking.

When I saw those drawings, it make me think...."Wow, Rachel's life is in danger, the real killer would murder her in an instant if he knew about these drawings."




Am I the only one who can't access the whole 'Conspiracy Wall' in the official 'Conspiracy Wall' page?
All I can see is the newest part, Rachel's picture & drawings.

The real killer and Rachel... So Rachel witnessed the murders, but was overlooked by the killer, assuming he killed her brother to eliminate any possible witnesses. So Ames comes up with a sleepover story and conceals the fact that she witnessed the crime from what seems like everyone - including cops on the scene - that she was even there, by leaving that out of the report. But he can't conceal that she's alive. He keeps her file in his house so as to conceal it from... other members of the police department who might be looking for her information, but who should have no reason to suspect that she witnessed anything? Is our killer a cop?

Also it is interesting to think about how Charlie was dramatically exonerated for a triple murder, and with a triple murderer thus out on the loose, all of the seemingly relevant files are either still sitting around for Charlie to lift and bring home to his Conspiracy Closet, or hanging around the house of a retired cop - there is no cold case team pouring over those files, trying to restore the confidence of the taxpayers of Los Angeles who forked over mucho dinero for Charlie's settlement, and would probably at least like the satisfaction of putting somebody new away? Is it difficult to find "real killers" in LA?

Even with as much evidence as we've been given so far with the show, I think it's still kind of hard to come up with anything conclusive yet about what happened to Crews. This is what I've noticed:

1) Retired Det. Ames got involved with something much, much bigger than he realized with his role in investigating the murders Crews was accused of. He knew he did something wrong by lying about Rachel not being there, and who knows what else. Now he's retired and a drunk and is still defiant that Crews is guilty. He got used by somebody.

2) Crews's friends, Ted and Constance, have a role to play in helping him figure out what happened to him. There's a money trail in the frame-up of Crews, and guess who's good at that? And there will always be legal obstacles as he continues to sift through the evidence, and he has Constance help him with that. But those two have problems of their own, complicating things significantly. Which is why Crews keeps a conspiracy board for himself. Maybe one day, when he feels as if he can trust her, he will show it to his partner.

3) Crews and his murdered friend were partners in a bar. We need to know more about this.

4) Nobody on the force likes Crews, for obvious and not so obvious reasons, but the other officers and detectives are going to have to be careful about what they do and say around him. Especially if some of the ones who were involved in the frame-up are still there, around him on a daily basis.

5) Something's up with Crew's ex-wife. We know the backstory with her (didn't visit him in prison, divorced him after a few years and immediately married into money, had children). We still don't know enough about their relationship, though, to say anymore.

The whole Ames thing really has me going...my original thought was Ames was used by his superiors and fed bad information to make him go after Crews. That once he found out Crews is really innocent he would come around to Crews' side and help him find the real killers...so much for that theory. Now that I see the pictures the little girl drew, you have to know Ames saw them too and knows Crews is innocent. Maybe he is drinking so much because he feels guilty about going so hard after Crews only to see the pictures months later and realize he screwed up. OR maybe he was drunk when he was investigating the crime scene and screwed something up and now is just covering his rear. Either way my original prediction about Ames is shot to h*ll lol.
By the way...I am glad Ames got a bottle out of that cabinet instead of a .38 like I thought he was going for.
Other little items...did anyone else think it was odd that Ted didn't argue at all about Easley saying that Constance says he is a thief? I mean yeah he is a thief, but still he said nothing. Also like another poster on here pointed out, Constance started working on Charlie's case at about the same time Ted went to prison...could there be some Zen connection there? Did Ted rip off Constance? I dunno, might be a stretch, but who knows at this point.
I agree the Constance character really took a blow by that lame attempt to get Charlie to nail her right there on her desk. (I know I hate it when hot married women put me on the spot like that, so I really felt for him) She really cheapened herself.
Best line of the whole show - "what do you got a costco up there?"
Regarding the drawings, yeah they didn't look like they came from a 9 year old to me either, but they did look like something you would see from a TV show trying to make a drawing look like it was made by a 9 year old, so I guess I blew it off...thanks for messing with my mind even more than the writers now Also, the paper that said "refuses to speak" over and over was obviously printed all at once, not on a week by week or day by day basis...so it was either faked or printed off of a computer all at once.
As for it being hard to keep a 9 year old that witnessed a murder out of the papers, I think it would not be too hard for Ames to have just told everyone she was traumatized by hearing her family was killed instead of being traumatized from SEEING them killed. He might have gotten away with that story at the time.
And just to vent, can someone over at NBC please get off their lazy a$$ and do the ENTIRE conspiracy wall in flash instead of one little piece at a time? Come on this is just lame. Just put up what is visible on the show at least. With the 4000 commercials you show every episode I know you have the money.
Finally, I still think it was OJ. I think Rachel's dad stole OJ's sh!t to decorate the bar and OJ found out, got some guys, went to vegas...well you know the rest.
Till next week...

^^^Well, in the drawings there was that bloody knife...


I'm not so sure that you prediction was wrong. I think it's highly possbile Ames' superiors fed him misleading information, and he only started to drink after he found that out. Or, they could have held somekind of blackmail over him, forcing him to go along. He doesn't look like his pension is that great considering the trailer he lives in. Did he have a family, is he divorced, where did he live before, what's his backstory? Or maybe he's just thrifty.

And I don't think either Constance or Dani could be Rachel. They're both too old.

Oh I still think Ames was a pawn, but I just thought he really DID think Crews was guilty and once he learned the truth he would feel bad for helping put him away, come over to Crews' side and be an ally. Now that I know Ames KNOWS Crews is innocent, that part of it is shot. But yes I still think Ames was used in some way.

Also, come on people, Rachael is someone else out there that has not yet been introduced.

I agree I want to see the whole entire wall so I can see what's what

A

You all have interesting theories, but revealing the Conspiracy Wall would shorten Life's premiere season to 5-6 weeks max. Over. Done. This is not a mini-series like Band Of Brothers. This is a complicated story and is meant to go on and on. I've just finished watching "What they Saw" for the second time. Why do we think that Rachel drew the pictures when she was still 9 years old? A trauma such as what is inferred (witnessing the murder of her family) would leave deep psychological and emotional scars. She would likely have recurring nightmares. The drawings remind me of "The Scream", a textbook depiction of psychological terror. I see some distortion in the drawings that to me, indicate a repetition of the nightmarish vision she initially had. These drawings might have been made by Rachel at 9 or 15, or anywhere in between. And the psychological profile that Crews has where the symptom "Would not speak" is recorded has no year entries, only month and day.

I also believe we've not yet been introduced to the many more players in the story Charlie is piecing together on the Wall. Be patient. Let the story and characters be fleshed out.

[font="Comic Sans MS"][/font]

oh the zen center of it all and the heart of darkness must lie in dani's daddy~look at how she relates to men~mistrust & one night stands~the guy who takes this role needs a little captain kurtz in him...willing to go way up the river...so...who's yer daddy dani? omg get jack nickolson 4 this role! my bet he is the one pulling all the strings, or, at least knows all the players...for it's got to be an inside job and hopefully more than selling evidence room coke out of Tom&Charlie's bar.

these first shows are fingers pointing towards the unknown~and as far as antiheros go both Charlie and Jim Rockford see life as a game and a dream~lila and maya~and that a network TV hero could say he wants to be STILL~well? nevermind t.s. eliot, that IS very zenish:) kinda unamerican don't you think? but Charlie is gonna get alot of women to love him~intuition and insight and being in the moment ARE very attractive~and i must say~i admire the young feminine beauty and hopelessly twisted souls that this show mixes together~oh i loathe the day Charlie gives up his cupcakes:) and for one that will never be a cupcake~anyone think rachel could fit in that hamper @ the foot of her bed?

a few tidbits:

1.) in this weeks interview with TV guide http://www.tvguide.com/news/damian-lewis-life/071017-03, Damien Lewis says:
TV Guide: Will we find out who set up Charlie by the end of this season?
Lewis: There will be a big, satisfying revelation, though that might lead you to somewhere bigger.

2.) on http://www.whoframedcharlie.com/, the "mantra" goes:
a.) kill innocent people ( the Seybolts, we assume)
b.) frame inncocent men: now, why doesn't it say: frame an innocent man" ( Charlie) - but it's in the plural : will there be more people framed? - like it leads to something bigger, as Damien Lewis implies?
c.) and make billions : yeah, it's about $$$$...

3.) studying the picture of the murdered Tom Seybolt on the conspiracy wall: http://www.nbc.com/Life/exclusives/conspiracy/index.shtml , I seem to notice that his right hand palm is open, but he has something, like a sheet of paper, clutched in his left hand. A clue to his murder? like a contract/confession/statement he didn't sign, or crumbled up after he signed it?

I noticed in that ever-present documentary clip of Ames (having seen it so many times) that the way they cut it this week, they pulled back and took a really wide shot of the trailer as opposed to just the chair and the white wall. I think they might have been trying to make a point of how low rent Ames' place is. In fact, going back to Tear Asunder, and Theresa Stark's comments about Charlie's fancy house, as if to say that their place was shabby by comparison, well, that pool is looking bigger and bigger to me.

There is a remarkable contrast between Stark's house and Ames' trailer. Ames did his twenty and collected his pension, just like Stark said Charlie wanted to do when he first joined the force. If Ames shows what doing your twenty and collecting a pension gets you, how did Stark, with several kids, do so much better? Or is Ames, as VB suggests, squirreling money away/sending money off somewhere? Hmmm, fancy house indeed....

I also think that nobody in this show is innocent. The Lt seems to be connected to Reese, the retired lead detective seems he wants to hide evidence, which may mean he doesn't like Crews due to some past problem. Rachel is out there somewhere, and the killer may have learned she is alive and out to get her. This is a very good show!

Stark has to be in on the framing of Crews. How do you not remember something that happened a few days before? If one's partner were wounded in an arrest I should hope he could remember that. Don't officers have to file a report after every arrest or something? I have seen many movies in which this is the case and am not sure what to think. -.-

You may be right about that, and I agree that giving us all the clues so far would help in following the trail. I just don't want the story to be "solved" too quickly. If the writers know how to spin a good yarn, we might look at the conspiracy wall in its entirety as of now and still get it wrong. Still, the device is an interesting one. I think they want us to start building our own evidence walls. Charlie has been working on his for some time. The documentary vignettes are interesting especially as the camera shots become ever-wider. More tensions, more clues. Deeper story?

I agree with most posters to the list--Ames is dirty. He loathes Crews. Is Charlie taunting him by showing up in 'his' bar, and his trailer, knowing that he might be shot at? He wants the case files to be sure. Why does Ames have them at all if he isn't a prime suspect in our minds? Constance--is she the public defender or an attorney looking for causes to champion? And men to "save"? Need more back story. The Cudahey character will be back. Why is Ted so anxious to open a bar with Crews as a partner? Didn't Tom Seybolt and Charlie Crews manage a bar? Next week we will be introduced to Roman. Where does he fit? Don't count on any character to be gone from the story permanently.

I am thinking that Ames is trying to protect Rachel. He knows she was there, but wants the killer to believe there are no more witnesses.

Rachel will be only 21 years old and has probably not been introduced yet. I doubt she would want to try and get into contact with crews, especially if the lead detective has been keeping her hidden away and does know where she is; since he is still sticking to the line of "i don't believe all the DNA crap, crews killed them." Also why have the file but not have her new name or address in it even though he would be the one to have been instrumental in having her placed elsewhere. And why a new name if she didn't see the killings and if it was just a bad business deal and crews was the killer? I mean at the time of the killings why would she need a new identity? The she will not speak could possibly be in the same year and right after or in the year after the killings due to the trauma and doesn't necessarily have to be for many years; the drawings are done in black, gray and red to symbolize the darkness and viciousness of the attacks and doesn't mean the killer was black or dark skinned but just her mental state. Black and gray are always used as a symbol of darkness and depression; anger; trauma; and therefore is just showing that she was there and witnessed the whole thing and because the drawings are layered they do give way to the fact that they were probably drawn a few years later and therefore she is still very traumatized by the killings and still heavily into therapy.

Let's not forget the ex-wife and the fact that she was pretty adamant about him not looking for Rachel. Almost like she knew something about what happened to her after the killings. This hasn't been explored or fleshed out as much as it could be. Nor has the bar that Crews and Seybolt ran together been really looked at or shown. Its only been mentioned in passing as their connection. Also, there has always been a romantic connection between Crews and Connie from the first episode and he won't act on it because he is the hero, anti-hero and therefore if he acts on it, it will lower his status; but that doesn't mean that he doesn't want to or makes her a bad person, it just makes them both human and her status might change especially since her husband has never been introduced as a major or minor character but just as a fact; she is married yet she works late and always thinks of Charlie when she is home.....Plus why did she pick Charlie as her "project?" Did she know him from her past or from before when she was coming up in the ranks of law and he was a cop or perhaps when he was first being tried? Just some stuff to ponder....

I look at the pic of Tom Seybolt on board look like everyting is to neat. Thing are turned over but are in place or thing are not turned over at all looks staged.

Read newspaper that said Paula Seybolt cut killer.Maybe two knifes involved ?

Also thought prison gaurd looks like Roman in the preview for next show ?

What was Dani's undercover job ? Drugs and the Russian Mob ?

Okay, here's how I think the show is setting up so far:
1) Let me just get this out of the way now, the ex-partner is a pawn, even though Roman telling Charlie to ask him about the bank robbery lets you know Bobby knows more than he's letting on.
2) The Lt. is a higher-up pawn, she knows a base of what went on and what's going on, but no specifics.
3) The lead investigator on Charlie's case is a honest man, just mislead. And stubborn.
4) I don't think we've seen the last of the ex-wife. She knows where the girl is, but she won't tell Charlie, and he will keep coming after her until she tells.
5) I have no clue what Reese's dad had to do with this. I might've missed something.
6) This obviously goes into the very higher-ups of the LAPD, maybe even the feds. They were not counting on Constance getting Charlie out, or that Charlie would come back to the force. Now they're trying to get him out.
7) I realized something very poignant about the coyote. He appeared when Charlie got the file of Rachel Seybolt. Which, I think, means that Rachel's appearance has changed since the murders. (a shapeshifter)
8) Just a theory here, LAPD hires con for contract killing in return for freedom.
One final thing, do the pictures of the killer scare anyone besides me? If not, look at them in an empty house at 2 o'clock in the morning in a dark room. Then it will scare the poop out of you.

Yes! That is a great observation.. way too early now to want to pinpoint who Rachel is. My latest idea is that she might have been/be a "Natasha". But definitely, the coyote is O.J.! Go get him, Charlie!!

overall: in a zen kind of way, everything is interconnected.. meaning : all weekly episodes carry clues and references to the story behind. this will make sense as more is getting revealed. but starting to look for parallels might be a good idea.

Roman's suggestion about looking into the LA robbery from 15 years ago : bringing that up in connection with Reese, I think it will point to her dad. also another reference how all is about $$ - and more cover ups will be revealed than "just" who killed the Seybolts.
Like: What would carry the B story once we know who killed the Seybolts? That will probably be clear at the end of season one - and then there will be/should be more to come....sort of like the Fugitive...Let's just hope the show will survive to get into all of that.

I was thinking that maybe the Lt. wants to get Crews off the force to protect him? At one point she said to Dani that it would be good for him and for the department. Now that Crews is out, the killer(s) must know he is going to try and find out who committed the murders. As the shows progress it really doesn't seem like she dislikes him.

I've been reading everyone's theories, and wow, you've really got me thinking now! We need to find out more about Crews' dad - why he didn't want Charlie's mom to visit him in jail? Maybe his father was behind the killings somehow?

my farfetched theory - the struggle crews was involved in a few days before the seybolt murder was a set up so the people behind the murder (obviously someone linked to the cops) could get his blood and plant it at the scene of the crime. stark's response of not seeing the cut on crews' hand makes one think he was involved in this.

i also wondered how there couldn't be proof of this arrest as mentioned in one of the previous posts.