Confused by the ending
-
bogwart-1 — 16 years ago(April 28, 2009 09:35 PM)
Roban's affection for Pierre is due to him thinking of Pierre as a son; he specifically mentioned that he had a son who was much younger than Pierre. He's a lonely man, and my guess is that he saw something of his younger self in the magistrate.
I think the new body/bodies are either 'business as usual' as a start for Series 2, or Surrier, the auctioneer whose son 'went missing'. -
ccscd212 — 14 years ago(May 20, 2011 02:45 PM)
"I think the new body/bodies are 'business as usual'" - this.
I found nothing confusing about the ending. The identity of the new body/bodies was irrelevant, hence they were left unidentified. This isn't a David Lynch film. -
JoshsDad — 19 years ago(August 12, 2006 11:01 AM)
i thought the body at the end was the father who was accused of molestation by his daughters i also interpreted the judge's 'chat' with the prosecutor as rather paternal whatever it all means i think they have set it up nicely for a second series what will happen to the disgraced lawyer? will the nasty female lawyer and laborde get it on and get their cumuppance together will laure continue to wear those very sexy vests????
i can't wait .
JoshsDad
'you look just like a scarecrow'
'i am your pallbearer' -
piticaillou — 19 years ago(September 02, 2006 08:52 AM)
This ending is indeed confusing I saw the last episode yesterday (yeah in France! It's funny to see that a french tvshow is shown in England before, but nevermind that, you were luckier!
) and I cannot believe what Karlsson did!! She's really terrible, I'm quite sure she destroyed the video and the papers so that Vincent would never be an opponent for her carrear! Totally despicable! And the more I think of it, I think she will be crazy enough to accept LAborde's proposition (this woman is mad and he makes me sick! I hope he's the one with the plastic bag on his face in the end!!)
What else? The case with Elina is really sad I thought she had done something "terrible" to be killed in such a manner, but she simply wouldn't give up the researches on her sister and then
I'm really sad for Benoit Faye as well, when we think of it, it must have been awful for him, he was really close to Sofia and then it's Elina the almost-love of his life who gets killed and then he is accused of the entire thing! I hope he will get out of his coma!!! I love Guillaume Cramoisan, he's totally good-looking and charismatic!
One last thing I'm happy to see that Laure and Pierre seem to be together! -
George_Mason — 17 years ago(May 10, 2008 12:26 PM)
Well I maybe the only one but something makes me think that the Vincent story is fully resolved, so we won't see more of him or an explanation for what Karlsson did soooowhile watching the serie a second time I noticed several hints making me think that Karlsson always believed that Vincent was guilty of the rape, for example in the episode where another man is arrested for rape and they have to defend him. So my guess is, she simply didn't admit she was wrong about her boss the whole time, and so preferred to destroy the proofs.
-
dsurte66 — 17 years ago(December 24, 2008 11:00 PM)
Thank you stellmar.
Just watched the dvd again & agree on your assessment of the characters esp Mme. Karlsson. Why would she want to play 2nd fiddle to Leroy after having had a taste of being no 1? Better him neutered, controlled & used when required.
The very last body had distinct sideburns leading me to believe it was a new victim. -
underwearbandit — 14 years ago(October 06, 2011 07:43 PM)
Wrong
He was clearly guilty. The mother of the child didn't get an abortion because of other reasons, but she was still raped.
Vincet took the jail time without saying a word because he was guilty of going too far and raping her, and felt that he needed to atone. He still loved being a lawyer though, so he was always bitter about losing that right.
The woman he raped now has cancer and will die, so who will support her daughter now? Her mother is old and has no money. This way, by saying her rape testimony was false, she can get vincent to take in his daughter and provide for her, since she feels he really repented because he didnt make a fuss when he went to jail, so she can trust him a bit now.
The redhead figured this out and you know how she hates rapists, so burned the evidence so he would concentrate more on his daughter instead of other stuff. -
MoragMacGregor — 12 years ago(September 17, 2013 06:56 PM)
I could only think of two reasons why Miss Karlsson destroyed the exculpatory evidence about the rape:
1 She didn't want Vincent as a competitor
2 She wanted Vincent to concentrate on his relationship with his son and not be consumed by work..because so many lawyers are consumed by work and their families suffer. It comes with the territory.
The first reason doesn't have much to back it up. There are plenty of criminals in Paris.
And as we learn in Season 2, she needs to ally herself with a more established attorney to get work.
The 2nd reason makes sensein a vacuum. But there is
nothing
in her character to suggest that she has any compassion for anyone, not even the child and certainly not for Vincent.
Someone else's theory that Karlsson believes Vincent to be guilty of the rape seems most convincing even though I
totally
missed it. The alleged victim, Elise, seemed sincere to me when she confessed that her charges were an act of vengeance. But maybe I should watch Season One again. The actual date-rape case that Karlsson defends strongly implies a parallel to the Vincent-Elise scenario.
p.s. I think Audrey Fleurot is beautiful and brilliant as the icy redhead!
Morag -
thelmaritter-1 — 11 years ago(May 18, 2014 03:46 PM)
I assumed the body they find at the end is the father in the case from Episode 7 (the woman who was accusing her husband of murdering their disabled son). He had confessed the murder to her, and while she was supposed to be wearing a wire, nothing came of his confession. So I think she murdered her husband in revenge for their son's death.
-
letess — 11 years ago(January 13, 2015 01:58 PM)
There are spoilers - but very old spoilers.
Well, it's January and it's 2015 - ten years after this aired. I just saw it on Hulu. What a great series. It's amazing in this day and age that it would take so long to get here (US). But I too was baffled by the ending and tried to find answers. I couldn't locate any synopses for Season 1 episodes at all. After looking at the last episode and weighing in that this was the last we ever see of these characters, i.e., Vincent, Laborde, Benoit, Pierre's wife and father - I can only think that at the time it was being written and aired, that the writers left some things "open" so that if there was another season, they could use it. It took 2-3 years for the next season and I think when the time came, they decided to ditch everything and start fresh with a new topic "BBQ in the trunk" and have the new story revolve around their regular characters.
Some of essence of what they introduced in the last episode of season 1, they did use, but in a different way and under different circumstances. For instance, Karlsson (the redhead) meets up with Laborde at a skylight bar. He wants to enlist her in his aspiration to now become a businessman and is appealing to what he sees in her as ambition and pursuit of money. He wants to get his people on board. He can read her and he believes she isn't going to judge him and will let the situation with "Romanian girls" rot. She knows he's despicable but she's interested in what's in it for her. She says - "I'm too old for you." And he humorously says, "You're right. Your age will protect you." Laborde is not in any future episodes however. He seems to be replaced in kind with Szabo. Also, the dead body wrapped in plastic in the woods at end of this episode looks to be a young male with red hair and beard. I don't think he's anybody we were introduced to in Season 1, but a story to be told for the following season that didn't pan out. I think the fate of Benoit is just left - the writers probably thought they could re-insert a storyline if need be when it was good to so. But it seems more realistic if he didn't magically awake from his coma. And we see the divorce is final in Season 2. But the most challenging was Vincent's - hoping the maligned man now united with his son will be vindicated. Why? Why? Why did she do it? What they showed us for certain was Karlsson wasn't such a good person and she has motives whatever they are. She did believe Vincent didn't commit rape - so the idea that some people thought her action to destroy evidence was attributed to that - well, see how she is in Season 2 - she doesn't care how bad a guy gets, she's kind of attracted to the association. So I think the makers of the show just passed on Vincent and decided to go with a whole new topic and in a way, it's kind of what happens in real life - some things you didnt expect appear and others pieces are just buried and missing. All because of a person or instance where he/she decides to drop the ball because they have the power to do so at that moment or just a series of small incidents that dont connect, and theres always timing. -
sugarzucker — 1 year ago(February 19, 2025 09:31 PM)
I was confused the ending when Karlsson destroyed the confession tape, which is the crucial evidence to reinstate Vincent. I thought about it and realized that she took Vincent as her mentor, and she was excited to grow under his supervision. There was some hint that he took some personal interest in her. However, right after he met his son, he dumped her and wanted to focus on his son. She realized that she didn't mean much to Vincent. Out of the spite, she destroyed his only chance to practice law again.
What happened to her in season 6 remined me of karma.