It's TWISTED When Someone Confesses To Murder...

For those of you who watch ABC Family's show, "Twisted," I'm jotting down some notes on a developing, probably farfetched (but still awesome) theory.

Danny Desai has openly admitted to killing his aunt and he has served 5 years in juvie for it.  Jo has inquired a few times as to why Danny killed his aunt, and he has refused to give her an answer, although he's remained persistant that he had a good reason.  Whenever he's asked about it, Danny contends that he is withholding the information to protect his friends.  While Jo HAS pressed him on this issue, it is not discussed nearly as often as the other elephant in the "Twisted" room, whether or not Danny is a sociopath.

In the first episode, Danny was given the nickname, "Socio," a name that was the original title for the show before it was renamed "Twisted."  From day one, that has been Danny's nickname, and from day one people have suspected that he is a sociopath.  However, some of the same people who have wondered about Danny's socio-status have received interesting explanations upon exploring this possibility.

The show repeatedly places emphasis on the fact that a sociopath would NOT likely kill anybody.  Additionally, the audience seems to be getting steered in the direction of believing that Danny is not a sociopath.  This is intriguing. even after hearing Danny admit that he murdered his aunt and after hearing experts on the subject explain that sociopaths are unlikely to kill anybody, the audience tends to believe that Danny is an exception to this rule -- a sociopath who DID kill somebody.

The beginning part of the following video contains a conversation between Jo and Danny where he refuses to supply Jo with a reason for killing his aunt.  At around 1:45 of the video, Danny and Jo's psychology class begins, during which the psychology teacher discusses the definition of "sociopath" and responds to Jo's inquiry about the signs that somebody is a sociopath.  Part of this classroom discussion includes the unlikelihood of a sociopath killing anybody.  The conversation about the definition of "sociopath" begins at around 2:26.


Additionally, in episode 1x05, "The Fest and the Furious," (read my recap of the episode and broken laws here) Danny's mother asks Danny's therapist about the signs that someone is a sociopath.  The therapist mimics the psychology teacher's contention that a sociopath is unlikely to kill anybody.

Danny also has displayed a lot of charisma which has led some people to believe that he is not a sociopath.  Many others remain unconvinced.  A lot of people still believe that Danny is a sociopath, and a lot of people believe that Danny is guilty of two murders, the murder of his aunt Tara, and the murder of Regina Crane, a fellow student at Green Grove High School.

Danny's behavior is admittedly convincing, but this could also be a clever tactic on the part of the show's creators.  If Danny is not a sociopath, that supports the suspicion that he IS a murderer.  What if it's the other way around?  In addition to knowing that sociopaths are not likely to kill anybody, we have also learned that sociopaths have a talent for mimicking human emotion.  Danny could be doing just that, and the more people who believe him, the more possible it remains that Danny is capable of murder.  

I think that Danny might actually be a sociopath.  It would be an interesting "twist."  If Danny is a sociopath, not only has he fooled a lot of people, but he's also less likely to commit murder.  This would make him less likely to be guilty of Regina's murder, but it would ALSO makes him less likely to be guilty of his aunt's murder.

In the most recent episode of "Twisted," "Three for the Road," we learned that the threatening and cash-filled envelope that somebody sent Regina Crane came from an apartment belonging to VIKRAM DESAI, Danny's father.  In episode 1, we learned that Danny's father died but his body was never recovered.  Ever since I heard that the body was never recovered, I suspected that Danny's father might still be alive, and this episode supports that idea.

If we can doubt one "fact" that we learned in the first episode (the death of Danny's father), then how credible are the other facts we learned?  In episode 1, Danny unequivocally admits that he murdered his aunt, and viewers of the show, and the show's characters alike, took that to be a fact.  Maybe it's not true.  Maybe somebody else murdered Danny's aunt Tara and forced him to to take the blame, and perhaps Regina somehow knew about this.  The fact that Regina owned a necklace that once belonged to Danny's aunt Tara has caused a lot of suspicion.  Maybe this necklace is part of a murderer's MO, and maybe that murderer is NOT Danny.  Perhaps Tara Desai received that necklace as a gift from a person who would one day murder her.  We know that Regina received the necklace as a gift; perhaps the same person who gave Tara Desai the necklace and murdered her gave the necklace to Regina.  Maybe this murderer gives this particular necklace to his future victims.  That could explain why Danny was incredibly freaked out in the first episode when he saw that necklace on Regina's neck; it's easy to assume he was worried just because the necklace once belonged to his aunt, but perhaps he was worried because he knew that Regina's life was in danger.  

We ALSO learned in the most recent episode that Jo's mother, Tess Masterson, used to have a romantic relationship with Danny's father, Vikram Desai.  Perhaps Vikram Desai is Tara's real killer, and maybe Tess either helped him kill her or knew that he killed her.  Jo's parents refused to allow Jo to testify on Danny's behalf as a character witness when Tara was killed.  They claimed their reasoning for this was to protect Jo.  Don't forget, that's the same reason Danny used when he refused to tell Jo why he "killed his aunt."  Are people protecting Jo from danger, or are they protecting her from finding out the TRUTH because it might hurt her?

It would make sense.  If Tess was somehow involved in Tara's death and she needed to keep this secret with Vikram, she would not have wanted her daughter to testify on Danny's behalf; Danny was the person taking the blame for this murder.  BUT, Tess seems to believe that Vikram has really died now, and this could explain her nice behavior towards Danny now.  If Danny took the blame for a murder that he didn't commit, and Tess was involved in that murder, she must feel guilty.  While Vikram was still alive (or at least while Tess knew that Vikram was still alive), Tess was probably too afraid to help Danny or be nice to him in any way.  Now that she believes Vikram has passed away, it's a different story.


Popular posts from this blog

PLL: Why Lucas and Noel might be working together as "A" STARTING FROM THE BEGINNING

You Have Interesting Eyes My Dear... Ali's Eyes On The New PLL Poster Mini-Theory

Confessions of a Law School Grad LOOKING FOR A JOB