There were parts of this episode which I enjoyed, but the ending reminded me of Hercule Poirot's comment at the end of a stage play in one of Agatha Christie's books. He protested that it was not fair to bring on a culprit that there had been no clues about.
Mysteries have that convention. It's often the person you least suspect that "dunnit," but if you read(watch) it again, there were clues pointing to their guilt. Not here. The culprit was presented as a good guy right up to the last scene where Lilly accuses him.
That is actually my only complaint about this series. They are great drama, show flashbacks accurately to earlier times (music, clothes, cars, etc), usually have many suspects and motives to consider, and have a unique "shtick": interspersing the characters now with themselves at the time of the crime. No wonder they won so many awards.
Mysteries have that convention. It's often the person you least suspect that "dunnit," but if you read(watch) it again, there were clues pointing to their guilt. Not here. The culprit was presented as a good guy right up to the last scene where Lilly accuses him.
That is actually my only complaint about this series. They are great drama, show flashbacks accurately to earlier times (music, clothes, cars, etc), usually have many suspects and motives to consider, and have a unique "shtick": interspersing the characters now with themselves at the time of the crime. No wonder they won so many awards.