Skip to main content

Orphan Black: I Don't Think Shay Killed Delphine

The big mystery at the end of season 3 of Orphan Black is the identity of the murderer of Delphine. They are off screen so it must be someone we have seen before. I've heard it suggested that Shay is the killer. Granted her military roots, I don't see it. I suspect it's a clone. Note only that, it's one we've seen before.

Image of Krystal taken from:
http://tiny.cc/8wk39x
Yeah, that's right. I think Krystal could be the killer. The rest of the post will establish that there's far more than meets the eye with Krystal and that she is not trustworthy. From there I will suggest why she fits as a potential killer of Delphine.

When we first actually meet Krystal, Delphine and Dr. Nealon converse about just how naive she is. Dr. Nealon declares her, 'not one to pierce the veil...' But when we meet her with Felix, she clearly has pierced the veil significantly. She's noticed a pattern in her life that is abnormal and she's written about it in a notebook with the Castor symbol on the cover. Of course Felix doesn't recognize it, but we the audience do. In fact, she doesn't begin to spill the beans about her trauma with Castor until Felix asks his suspicious question to try to steal her identity. She's not dumb and is more than capable. And Dr. Nealon certainly knows that if he's been overseeing her monitoring. Felix grasps it a bit, but doesn't realize that she may have caught on to him, Most importantly, Dr. Nealon already convinced Delphine that she's naive so he can execute his and Rachel's plan.

After Felix leaves, Dr. Nealon shows up at her nail salon. Clearly she's never met him, but he has a task for her. Now what did he say to get her to go along with his plan? Presumably he could have offered her answers to all of those questions she seemed to have from her journal (which Felix never really read by the way, it's more than possible that she's not naive at all) as well as a way to get back at those trying to steal her identity. That's plausible motivation. However, I think more has to be at play here. There's no way a Leda clone could just end up with a Castor emblem on her notebook accidentally (and it clearly predates her known encounter with Rudy and Seth). She must have some sort of ties to Castor or perhaps directly or indirectly into Neolution (we know Neolution is still guiding Castor and Leda from a distance). Either of those possibilities would provide stronger reasons for her cooperation with Dr. Nealon.

As an aside, I want to ask about the first time we see Krystal, to her earlier encounter with Castor. Why was her monitor killed? Was it perhaps a ploy to get rid of a monitor that she was having some sort of issues with? Was it helpful for Dr. Nealon and Rachel? Who knows, but it's pretty convenient. Why would Castor try to kidnap her? They needed a fertile clone, which she presumably isn't. And how likely is it that they would actually get stopped? It's too hard to believe. Add to that, when Seth rescues Rudy it almost seems like Rudy knows when to expect him. And Dr. Nealon is the one who finds out that they escaped. Again, how convenient. Did Marion set the whole thing up?

We next see Krystal lying on a hospital bed under sedation in Dyad. When she wakes she acts hysterical (in character) and she wants Delphine to think that Dr. Nealon abducted her and drugged her to take Rachel's place. It's all misdirection and Delphine has no idea. Rachel was long gone and Krystal was in on it. The question, is, when Dr. Nealon shows her Rachel on the screen, does Delphine understand that Krystal was in on the ruse? I think it's more likely than not, Delphine is quite sharp.

I tried to get a sense for who Delphine's shooter was by watching the brief glimpse we get repeatedly. I think it's too hard to tell. The shoes are very loud for men's shoes, but I don't know how much we want to press the details, and some men's shoes can be pretty loud. Obviously it's someone tied to Neolution. The only person we know has ties to anyone in Neolution is Krystal. Yes, she may seem too weak to be a killer, but Helena, Beth, Sarah, and Alison all had it in them (granted Alison's and Sarah's ties to death were not cold blooded). Cosima certainly is fierce and Rachel certainly has no issue with violence even if she would never pull the trigger herself. Why do we dismiss Krystal?

To go back to Shay. It's certainly possible she could be the killer. We know she can handle a gun and Delphine's last words, 'what will happen to her?' mesh nicely with that hypothesis. However, it does not rule out anyone else. Delphine's time of having to love all of the sisters was over since she was no longer in charge of Dyad. She could go back to just loving Cosima. That is the most natural thing for Delphine to ask for her last question. I also want to note that there is no surprise on Delphine's face as she's about to be shot, just disdain. Given that she has just given Shay a vote of confidence, I would expect more surprise from Delphine. Disdain is a very natural response if the killer is Krystal.

I realize this is a speculative argument, but any argument at this point is speculative. But given the evidence we have, I think there's a stronger case to be made for Krystal than for Shay or any other person, for that matter. Her ties to Neolution must run deep. Otherwise it's hard to imagine Dr. Nealon and Rachel betting so much if they didn't know her cooperation was in the bag. I can't wait til next season to find out for sure.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Commentary Series Overview

When I write commentary reviews, one of my main goals is to assess how well the commentator hit the intended audience of the commentary and utilized the format of the commentary. This often necessitates cluttering up the post discussing issues of format. To eliminate that, I thought that I would make some general remarks about the format and audience of each of the series that appear in my reviews. Terms like liberal, conservative, etc. are not used pejoratively but simply as descriptors. Many of you are familiar with Jeremy Pierce's commentary series overview. If you don't see a particular series covered here, check out his post to see if it's reviewed there. I am making no attempt at covering every series, just the series that I use. Additionally, new series (such as the NCCS) have been started in the five years since he wrote his very helpful guide, so I thought that it might not be completely out of order to have another person tackle commentary series overviews. This…

Paul's Argument in Galatians 3:15-29

15 Brothers and sisters, let me take an example from everyday life. Just as no one can set aside or add to a human covenant that has been duly established, so it is in this case. 16 The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say “and to seeds,” meaning many people, but “and to your seed,” meaning one person, who is Christ. 17 What I mean is this: The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the promise. 18 For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise; but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise. 19 Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator. 20 A mediator, however, implies more than one party; but God is one. 21 Is the law, therefore, opposed to the promises of God? Absolutely not! Fo…

Commentary Review: Daniel

In my opinion, Daniel is not the best covered Old Testament book as far as commentaries go. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon among Old Testament books. Though I've looked at them, I'm not going to review some of the older Evangelical Daniel commentaries (like e.g., Baldwin). They don't provide much that you can't get in either Longman or Lucas. If you're unfamiliar with the series that one or more of these commentaries are in check out my commentary series overview.

It was a very close call but my favorite commentary on Daniel is Goldingay's. While there were a few places where I disagreed with his interpretation, I found the commentary to be exemplary. If you're going to teach Daniel, especially the apocalyptic portions, you need a commentary that provides you with a lot of background material. Goldingay, while not as broad as Collins, certainly provides you with quite a bit. His exploration of the background to the apocalyptic symbolism is very helpfu…