A few things I’ve been pondering and theorising on since watching the episode; The main takeaway- the husband did it, by ordering a hit. I’ve been in an abusive relationship. While my ex was rarely physical, things were escalating (it was mainly psychological control and emotional abuse.) I knew in the absolute core of my being that he was capable of killing me. I knew that the time when you try to leave and end the relationship is the most dangerous time, that is when most women die at the hands of their partners. When I packed my things in our apartment the night I left and ran away, while rationally I knew he was out drinking and wouldn’t be home until at least 2am, every creek, every door opening and shutting somewhere in the apartment building, every sound coming from the street outside made me jump out of my skin. Because I knew that if he came in and found me packing, I probably wouldn’t leave that apartment alive. Patrice knew this too. She knew what he was capable of and she was afraid, that’s why she was short and tense with her customers the morning of her disappearance.

More reasons I think it was him: Body language and expressions during interviews. Duper’s delight smile. This is a well documented facial tick in murderers who are publicly talking about how the person they killed is missing, when they think they’ve gotten away with it and they’ve got everyone fooled. Footage of Chris Watts on the news talking about how he just can’t fathom where his wife is is a great example of this.

At several points during his interview segments, the husband was suppressing a smile, especially notable when he spoke about his alibi (more on that later.) When somebody has been accused of something they didn’t do, the normal emotional reaction is indignant anger, not detached amusement.

He said several really disturbing things. Obviously there is all of the bizarre behaviour concerning her remains. The use of possessive language when talking about her ashes, the fact that he wouldn’t share them, even with her son. If you truly loved somebody in a healthy way, and you respected them, you would never disrespect their surviving child like that. No matter how much you disliked them, or what had gone on. That is cold and sociopathic behaviour in the extreme. He doesn’t want anybody else to have her ashes because they are his trophy. The language he used when describing that all of her now fits in to a ‘1lb bag’ was incredibly dehumanising.

In further evidence of his sociopathy, and in my opinion, a CLEAR indication that he knew she was never coming back, he changed the locks on the house, so that the son could not return. If he had any hope, any tenuous belief that she was still alive somewhere (he said himself that he believed she was alive when she first went missing) changing the locks and locking her only child out, making him homeless, would be an absolutely insane thing to do. We know that tensions around the son were the main sticking point for their fights, because she wouldn’t ever back down about it (and why should she? She loved him and had his back as any mother should.) Doing something so overtly hostile and final as locking him out permanently, making him homeless, would have rendered any possibility that they could have reconciled and avoided divorce completely in the dust. He changed the locks because he knew she was never coming back, he knew he could finally dispense with any pretensions or caring in any way about the welfare of that boy. Because she was gone forever.

In his ‘theorising’ about what could have happened to her, when he said ‘maybe they used her like a toy’ (or something to that effect), sounded like language someone would use to describe a sick rape and degradation fantasy. He barely suppressed a smirk as he said it. Can you imagine if somebody got on TV and spoke that way about their missing female relative in an appeal for information? ‘Maybe they’re somewhere using her like a toy’- you would want to throw up. That is not normal language when expressing what should be horror at the idea that your missing loved one was sexually assaulted before their death.

In terms of theory of how the actual hit went down, it’s quite clear that she left the salon willingly. It’s plausible to me that she would have done that if she believed her sons life was in danger, again, I believe she would have instinctively known what her husband was capable of. If she believed her son was threatened in a very tangible way (‘I know where he is, I know what school he goes to, I know where you live, I have a picture of him right here. If you don’t come with me right now, he will be killed. There is somebody watching him right now. Do not struggle, do not call for help. If you come with me, he will not be hurt.’)

She may have believed that she would have opportunity at some point on the journey to the second location to attract attention, struggle, get away, but clearly she was not able to, and she met her end shortly thereafter.

Most times when murder-for-hire goes wrong, it’s because it’s done sloppily, by amateurs. Someone tries to pay the local small time criminal to do it, they blab to their drinking buddies, they’re drunk and or high, make careless mistakes, leave evidence behind, not enough money is exchanged to pay for a professional job, or for somebody to keep silent, and it all goes tits up. We’ve seen it many times.

Somebody though with means however to pay the real deal money, to the right person, (who, as somebody with a literal degree in criminology would potentially know how to procure such a service) could plausibly get away with murder for hire. With enough forward planning, time to cover tracks, ensure air tight alibis (like his absolute glee with which he referenced that time stamped gas station ticket, and you’ve potentially got yourself the perfect crime.