Nobody else has started a thread . . . so I will
I was surprised that the researcher didn't come up with the obvious answer to the unmarried female relative with 4 children? Maybe, just maybe, the young lady was a prostitute? That has to be considered?
I really liked the format of 30 minutes to paternal; 30 minutes to maternal sides.
Never became too boring.
All-in-all a very good series this time.
I too thought the format was good, it allows for not just maternal/paternal sides to be balanced, but it can help provide an insight into how different two sides of one family can be.
I think the researcher was being diplomatic about the possibility of Louise being a prostitute by allowing Johnny Peacock to come to that conclusion himself. As I remember it, it was he who suggested the pub was perhaps 'more than a pub' and maybe a 'brothel'. The researcher - fairly in my opinion - simply said it was a possibility.
What did come across to me very clearly, was evidence that Louise may well have been subjected to abuse of various kinds. Abuse leads to a loss of self worth, and possibly opened the door to her - in the words of the researcher - 'turning a trick or two' when she needed money. The other possibility is that it led to her 'taking up with' some real rogues. 'Bad boys' can be very attractive!
To be totally fair to Louise (who isn't here to speak for herself) perhaps she was a prostitute, but the evidence presented only really showed that she had had sex less times than you can count on the fingers of two hands - and to me that doesn't automatically = prostitute
Lindsey