Subject: Re: 5/3 Episode and such (longish)
From: rlr@toccata.rutgers.edu (Rich Rosen)
Date: 1990-05-09, 09:01
Newsgroups: alt.tv.twin-peaks

In article <11356@shlump.nac.dec.com>, boyajian@ruby.dec.com (Cisco's Buddy)
writes:
> > I've disagreed with the proposed theories that it's really Madeleine
> > that's dead and Laura is disguising herself as Madeleine. But, I find
> > Tim Maroney's suggestion has merit -- that Laura is really Laura and
> > is really dead, but that Madeleine is really the wild child and was
> > disguising herself as Laura. The only problem is a logistical one.
> > How to explain that Madeleine was hanging around TP all the time instead
> > of being back in Missoula. And how to make sure that the two Lauras
> > (the real one and the Maddy-in-disguise one) weren't seen in different
> > places at the same time.

Why the hell not?  Sounds like a most interesting way for someone to figure the
whole charade out, to me.  People, especially people engaging in surreptitious
charades, DO make mistakes, you know, and this very sort of mistake could
certainly be the factor that leads to the uncovering of the whole charade,
and may even be part of the direct cause for the murder.  E.g., two unrelated
and uninvolved (with each other, at least not directly) people see "Laura" at
the same approximate time in different places, but do not relate this to each
other.  Cooper learns this from the disparate sources, and deduces a
conclusion.
--
"This isn't an argument... it's just contradiction."Rich Rosen
"No, it isn't."rlr@toccata.rutgers.edu
--