I doubt Ted Jr.'s sudden willingness to speak against Daniel will go anywhere. It will probably be small bump in the main story, removed when it comes to light that he's now happily willing to make himself useful against Daniel only after he may well have killed a guy for renting rims on an expired credit card. The…

If he did it, this whole show belongs in the toilet. But, as others have said below, it's clear he didn't. His motivation in the debrief is, as he said to Jon, to get the whole business over with. He wants to get out of his family's life and he doesn't want to go back to jail. That's what he's trying to achieve, but…

Others below have given the apparent reasons for Foulkes being hell-bent against Daniel, but I think there may well be something more sinister about him, such as that he's (and was) protecting someone.

You know, you got me partially right in your response to my previous post. I don't watch a lot of TV. No Game of Thrones, no Breaking Bad, etc. So, my reference points are few. But one of the common tropes I've noticed in my limited TV viewing is that of there being a Big Bad villain. That's where it looks to me that…

I'm with you in not wanting the show to get too deeply sucked into the murder mystery—which, IMO, it seems to be sinking—but I also think it needs to see the question of who killed Hanna through. In order for there to be anything to rectify at all—i.e., to satisfy the basic premise of the show, that, if violated will…

I'm still watching, but damned if much of what roped me in during season 1 is present in season 2.

Which is basically killing most of what's good about the show.

I've been consistently interested in this show, and I like the detail, pacing, and mood.
But this will be a less-than-positive post . . .