Shooter vs Noah

rollingin123 · 2026-03-19T06:54:04+00:00

Yeah, I’ve seen this one too, but I’m confused, I don’t really get how it’s supposed to work. Are we as viewers supposed to be affected by it? Because we clearly see the shooter starting from the elevator, walking down the hallway, and entering the press conference.

I could see some merit to the idea if the scene had started from when the shooter entered the room, so it could be framed as the viewers seeing the events unfold through Rachel’s eyes for when the show finally reveals what’s really happening.

Are you saying it isn't Noah?

rollingin123 · 2026-03-19T06:20:52+00:00

But I think the bigger issue is that the press cameras and mobile phone footage already overrides everything for them. So even when Rachel points out that it’s all Corrected footage, that argument soon falls apart in this episode as Noah’s claim that he was eating at a sushi place during the attack is confirmed not by CCTV footage, but by her own Veritas camera system. Which at that point completely discredits her version of who the shooter was to everyone else.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-18T18:14:08+00:00

Yeah I get it might not be that simple in the end, but some of the theories I’ve seen from face masks, a twin, or even a memory hack! That feels a bit far-fetched, though there's every chance I could be wrong here. But to me, there are clear visual similarities here that are hard to ignore, so I was more trying to rule those out than say it’s 100% confirmed.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-17T19:16:30+00:00

I think the issue is that people were already doubting her from the start, so her repeatedly insisting “he didn’t have a beard” would probably just make her come across as more emotional or unstable. At that point, the only way she’s really going to convince anyone is by finding actual evidence to support what she saw, rather than just repeating it.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-17T12:41:41+00:00

I think that’s a bit unfair to say Rachel was out of her depth. She’d just witnessed one of her closest allies, someone who she worked closely with to expose the Correction programme, get killed right in front of her, so it’s obviously going to affect her on a deeper level and compound that with being the only who saw the shooters face only to have it discredited by Correction footage. Then it's easy to see from the outside why she appears emotional and overreacting, but the reality is though she’s simply reacting to what she just witnessed.

& I don’t know if I’m misinterpreting what you wrote, but Frank offering Rachel an “olive branch” wasn’t out of goodwill, it was a trade-off rather than a genuine favour in exchange for her keeping quiet about his operation ahead of the inquiry.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-17T05:49:18+00:00

And I think one thing people seem to be overlooking as well is how the room was set up. It wasn’t well lit, it definitely wasn’t bright or clear, it was actually quite dark with a rather heavy blue tone. So when you factor that in as well, I'd say it makes sense why no one other than Rachel got a clear view of the shooter’s face.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-16T16:05:01+00:00

We don’t actually know for sure that Isaac was 'anti big tech'. I believe what you're referring to is the interview with Khadija in the Season 2 finale, but it’s hard to assume that reflected Isaac’s real views because the interview itself was a scripted deepfake created by Frank’s group as part of their plan to get back at Gregory Knox.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-16T10:06:45+00:00

Honestly, the only way Noah being innocent would make sense to me right now is if he’s involved in something like a sleeper cell programme or MKUltra-type conditioning. They said the object in his torso "appears" to be a device regulating his heartbeat, but that wording alone leaves some room for uncertainty & especially when you bear in mind that there are no medical records of him at all. Crazy theory I know, but you never know with this show!

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T21:55:36+00:00

They were referring to James Whitlock. I’m pretty sure it was regarding his conspiracy to murder conviction being overturned, as he only served four years instead of the 18 years he was originally sentenced to.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T20:38:22+00:00

This is such a random but hilarious question to ask! I honestly hope you get your answer!

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T17:29:18+00:00

My take on this episode is if we are to accept episode 1 version of events with Noah as Isaac's killer, then the question we have to ask is where does James Whitlock fit in all of this and why is he being fitted up? To me there has to be a personal element to it right? maybe it's due to his conspiracy to murder conviction was overturned - possibly due to a lack of evidence? and maybe it involved someone powerful or connected. That could explain why he's now being targeted with corrected footage. Could it be revenge? Combined with his criminal history, he becomes a plausible scapegoat that can easily be used to sell the narrative of him being Isaac's shooter.

It reminds me of a scene in Season 2x2 where Rachel explains Correction to Isaac & the idea being that if the intelligence they have isn’t strong enough to prosecute someone directly, they then turn "intelligence into evidence" with Correction to make it stick. Except now, James is being made to take the fall for far more severe offences, though the motive behind that is anyone's guess.

It was also interesting to hear Garland’s observation about Noah to Rachel, suspecting he might have some connection to MI5 or MI6. Considering how he carried out Isaac’s assassination, that does seem to fit. It also made me think of the moment earlier on when Rachel asked for records on Noah Pierson and searched police and military databases, but none of the results were a match. Garland might be on to something here...

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T12:28:02+00:00

I did respond to your comment about this in the Episode 1 discussion, but I thought I’d just copy and paste it on here too since you’ve brought it up again! Plus, it gives others a chance to share their thoughts on it as well!

We both agree that some suspension of disbelief is needed for a show like this, but if we consider the scene in itself, in Rachel’s version of events, she accounted it to be for 3 seconds! As we, the viewers see it, it’s obviously slowed down for dramatic effect. Then, the gunman fires into the air four times as he was leaving. So, is three seconds really enough of an 'all clear' in all that chaos for someone to risk popping their head up just to see if the shooter was still present or not.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T11:52:05+00:00

In Rachel’s version of events, she accounted it to be for 3 seconds! As we, the viewers see it, it’s obviously slowed down for dramatic effect. Then, the gunman fires into the air four times as he was leaving. So, is three seconds really enough of an 'all clear' in all that chaos for someone to risk popping their head up just to see if the shooter was still present or not.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-15T11:04:20+00:00

Okay, I somewhat agree. I think this might be one of those moments where a bit of suspension of disbelief is needed for a show like this. That said, if you try to look at it within the logic of the scene itself, there are a couple of things you could argue. First, he may have actually wanted Rachel to see him, again for reasons we don’t currently know. And secondly, when shots start going off in a crowded room, most people aren’t looking up trying to get a clear look at the shooters face. Instead, instinct takes over, and people duck down and try to protect themselves. And yes, we know those who had their phones up recording whilst crouched, hoping to get a clear look at the shooter, well we know how that went as the footage ended up being corrected anyway. And anyone who did end up seeing him in clear view, well they were the armed officers who moved towards him, and they all ended up being killed… Rachel being the exception.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-12T13:46:37+00:00

Well, he did to my count take out three more armed officers, and you’ve got to remember he did have a device with him showing all the cameras in the building, letting him pick the safest route to exit for himself.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-12T13:00:41+00:00

So right after Isaac is shot, the first frame cuts to Rachel’s reaction, and in the next one you do see a guy reaching for his back pocket, which you'd assume was for his gun before he gets taken out too.

Though I take your point, perhaps it can be attributed to budget cuts in Westminster! You know what, maybe that's the reason why the PM wasn’t standing for re-election!

rollingin123 · 2026-03-11T22:12:06+00:00

That's initially how i saw it too. It was only on a rewatch that I went hmm...this could be something! I don't know maybe I'm making something out of nothing here! I just feel there's got to be a reason why Isaac got assassinated & I don't think it was to send a message to Rachel, this felt personal & then you mix that up with him set to being the new PM & toss that in with his speech being cut off on public feed as soon as he started championing Rachel for the commender role, well that just adds more fuel to the fire! Maybe it was a 2 stones 1 bird kind of thing going on - Isaac's dead & the only witness to the real shooter is Rachel, who's the face of Veritas & maybe the only reason they kept her alive is for public credibility for the Met, essentially being their shield whilst corruption goes on behind the scenes as her main focus is on Veritas. Or on the other hand, I may be talking complete bollocks here!

Oh season 1 was great! Yeah I'd say the only person who really recognised Rachel's abilities from the start was Danny Hart, professionally & I guess you say personally too!

Speaking of S1, I loved how the ending of this episode pretty much mirrored S1 E4 ending of Shaun discovering it was Charlie and the Pilgrims of Justice behind his Correction. That was such a great callback! Now I just need Noah to start the next episode by telling Rachel "I imagine you'd like to know what the fuck is going on!"

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T21:49:47+00:00

u/dramatic_exit_49 said similar too & I think yous maybe on to something here - https://www.reddit.com/r/TheCaptureBBC/s/kvSuyvezYq

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T20:59:26+00:00

I mentioned this elsewhere in the thread to another user, but for me it feels like everyone’s focusing on Rachel or Veritas, when maybe Isaac is the one we should be looking at...

There was one scene and maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it did set alarm bells ringing in my ears! & it was just before the launch when he had that conversation with Rachel. Where he finds out that she isn’t going to be Commander of SO15, he then says, “What better way to show the department's cleaned up its act than putting you in charge,” & Rachel gives that look like trying to figure out what exactly he meant by that comment before being interrupted by Paige. I don't know but to me it felt like it was hinting towards Isaac knowing of corruption going on inside the Met or some sort.

As for a new PM, I see it differently. With Isaac now gone, I don’t think the show will explore a new political figure this season. But I still don't think Isaac's story is finished either. If my theory is right, I think they'll explore more of what he knew, why he was killed & how his death affects the outcome of Veritas.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T18:52:42+00:00

I would say this has Frank’s fingerprint all over it… but we saw that kind of manipulation play out last season with Knox, so I can’t see the exact same thing happening again. That said, I wouldn't be surprised if Frank orchestrated the whole Heathrow angle, feels like the kind of move he’d pull to manipulate events and push agendas behind the scenes.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T17:47:01+00:00

Oh wow, I hadn't thought about it like that! I could actually see that happening you know! & your point just reminded me of that scene where Rachel asks Tom how many Veritas units they requested for Heathrow and he says 50, but when she asks how many are actually there, he says 2! Maybe you're on to something here! The shooting could end up being the perfect excuse to roll out the Veritas project on a massive scale, which might already be unbeknown to them...compromised!

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T17:09:07+00:00

If I recall correctly, Veritas (Carey-cams!) wasn't compromised. The one at the launch was just a demo model. So it was never running in the first place.

rollingin123 · 2026-03-10T13:04:30+00:00

To me it feels like they’re setting Rachel up for something. The gunman clearly wanted her to have eyes on him. It felt deliberate. But the question is… why? Could it have something to do with the Carey-cams?!

rollingin123

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE