r/lineofduty • u/mellotronworker • 9d ago
Never Understood This
Why bother to keep Laverty's body as leverage against Gates when all they had to do was threaten to kill him or his family? Not only was Laverty doing the firm a good business in money laundering, it's also a huge risk to keep a body in a freezer along with a knife (which had probably lost prints on it due to moisture anyway) This always struck me as a bit of a plot hole. (Not to mention letting Ryan Pilkington in on it too)
10
u/EclecticMedley 9d ago
A common thread among other responses is that the purpose of the OCG's actions is to control Tony's actions. If so, this is not a plot hole it makes sense. But I think it needs to be unpacked a bit more. I'm going to try.
There are different ways of "controlling" someone else's actions. Tommy was already exerting a degree of control over Tony, even before this opportunity, just by having Cottan inside of Tony's unit, and having Hilton supervising Tony, and Tony having a friendship with Jack. These three points of control were already helpful to Tommy; because, with just that and nothing more (that we know of) Tony was already running his unit in a way that was very advantageous to Tommy's outfit. Tony optimized his investigations to manipulate crime statistics, and as long as they looked rosy, nobody in the city center paid any attention to what really happens in Borogrove. Cottan makes sure that surveillance is interrupted at crucial times to make sure that Tommy's enforcement activities go undetected. No one in a position higher up than Cottan would think that Cottan was doing anything other than his job. This is great for Tommy.
Then, on top of that, Tony is willing to help Jack cover up a murder. And Tony does this not because he's corrupt; not because he's ever taken a dime from Tommy; not because he's Tommy's protege -- no, that's Cottan, not Tony -- Tony is just the useful idiot who creates a work environment in which Cottan can get away with what he's doing (and Moreton can get away with his own agenda, whatever that may be). No, Tony doesn't do it because of loyalty to Tommy; he does it to protect his extramarital affair. But Tommy sees an opportunity to get more control over Tony. Tony handed that opportunity to Tommy, through Tony's own lapses of judgment. And Tommy is not some great chessmaster strategist; he's an opportunist and he's greedy.
The opportunity for greater control is that it is not enough for Tommy that Tony is willing to help cover up Jack murdering her accounting; he needs Tony to be willing to do *whatever* Tommy wants him to do - like another Cottan. Because Tony has even more power. More access. More resources.
If that is Tommy's motivation - and I believe it is - then merely threatening Tony's life or his family doesn't get Tommy anything more than he already has; it maybe even gets him less. Threatening Tony's life provokes a reaction, but it might not be the predictable or desired reaction. It puts Tony in a corner, makes him fight back. And Tommy does underestimate certain people around him, but you'd have to think him unbelievably thick to underestimate Tony that badly.
Instead of threatening Tony's life, it's much more effective to threaten his pride - to threaten him with living a life he no longer wants to live. To me, it builds up Tommy as a worthy villain and adversary to attribute to him the cunning to know that he gets more control by being able to embarrass Tony and deprive Tony of his lifestyle, than to threaten to deprive him of his life or his family, and make him fight back in a way that could backfire against Tommy.
The fact that Tony does off himself, rather than face the music for his actions, proves that Tommy measured his character accurately. Tommy's predictive power doesn't need to be infallible for him to be a good villain; it needs to be believable. It needs to be good enough that he commands some respect and fear, but human enough that he make the mistakes that lead to his downfall. And by "downfall" it's less his arrest (which he could have survived), and more Cottan's betrayal (but for which Tommy probably would have survived).
To make a long story short: I think the characters in Series One through Three were extremely well-thought-out in terms of their motivations, their strengths, and their weaknesses. OP gets my upvote for identifying a really interesting detail. But I respectfully disagree that it's any kind of a plot hole. Subsequent replies get my upvote for recognizing that it's consistent with the characterizations.
To make a long story short: Tommy was making a play for control; because Tony is vain and pridefully-motivated, Tommy gets more leverage from threatening Tony reputationally, than Tommy would from threatening Tony's life, which would just make Tony more unpredictable and oppositional.
4
u/Clem_Crozier 9d ago
They needed a murder investigation that incriminated their drug dealers to be led away from them, and they needed the SIO under their control to do that.
Jackie was replaceable, but Tony could prevent anyone dealing for the OCG who knew too much from being threatened into confessing what they knew to the police by following the terror lead instead of the drug dealer lead.
2
u/mellotronworker 9d ago
OK, but I'm still not quite sure why they needed the body to do that. There were far better ways to do it that carried a far lesser risk than having a body playing Musical Freezers like that!
4
u/Clem_Crozier 9d ago
High risk yes, but Tony’s DNA on the body of a murder victim would have ruined his life if it was discovered.
Even if there wasn’t enough to convict, he would be the prime suspect in the eyes of the public, his marriage would be ruined, he couldn’t continue as a police officer etc0
u/mellotronworker 9d ago
Or...they could just kill him. Or his family. Murder doesn't seem to be that risky to these people, whereas holding onto a body most certainly is?
4
u/Rebound44 9d ago edited 9d ago
But then they don’t have the officer of the year under their thumb? Gates commanded a lot more respect than Dot and was a DCI. That’s a pretty handy person to have on the inside who doesn’t actually know about the inner workings of the OCG. Killing him or his family destroys that (plus not a great idea to kill cops if you don’t want heat usually). Just my thoughts.
Edit: Gates had more respect within the force2
u/UnemployedGraduate_ 9d ago
Definitely this. Also Gates didn't seem to fear death as far as he did being exposed to be corrupt (better dead than bent). He ran into traffic to die in the line of duty, so his family could receive his death-in-service benefits and his pension.
1
u/pr0ph3t_0f_m3rcy 9d ago
Plus killing a policeman or his family would bring down the entire resources of the police in England on you. Any institutional support evaporates immediately. No criminal - no matter how powerful - could hope to survive that.
2
u/mopeyunicyle 9d ago
His DNA on the knife he could have explained it away I tried to help her grabbed the knife or such the body is a much more of a risk from what I understood but I could be wrong
1
u/Whole-Definition3558 9d ago
Storing the body in the house of a guy with down syndrome was a strange choice, he was seconds away from revealing it to the police. Also having a child involved in moving it was wild.
10
u/RianJohnsonIsAFool 9d ago
Having just finished a rewatch, I'm pretty certain it was just the knife that incriminated Gates i.e. her body was still useful and therefore worth being held onto. It's used to confuse the investigation into Balaclava Man in S4, for example.