I was left greatly confused. Was this the methodical procedural drama it purported to be. Or were the writers playing games with the audience, sprinkling it with clues and red herrings?
When the perpetrators are initially seen, invariably in shadowy rear views, they are clearly identifiable long before the 'reveals' in the course of the story.
And did I miss where the car used in the abduction was located and brought in for forensic investigation, presumably without revealing its ownership?
If that never occurred, was it a deliberate red herring or a filming blooper to have it sitting in the police station carpark at the end of Episode 4?
Being unsure whether I was viewing a drama, or taking part in a game, distracted from the enjoyment of an otherwise excellent production.
When the perpetrators are initially seen, invariably in shadowy rear views, they are clearly identifiable long before the 'reveals' in the course of the story.
And did I miss where the car used in the abduction was located and brought in for forensic investigation, presumably without revealing its ownership?
If that never occurred, was it a deliberate red herring or a filming blooper to have it sitting in the police station carpark at the end of Episode 4?
Being unsure whether I was viewing a drama, or taking part in a game, distracted from the enjoyment of an otherwise excellent production.