Comments and queries for the week of February 26

Murdoch Mysteries showrunner explains heartbreaking episode

I don’t agree with Peter Mitchell that “the mystery of where [Roland] came from was ultimately solved.” Detective Freddie Pink’s research was fuzzy on details that just did not add up. Example: there was an official record of the mother going into labour and a midwife attending, so how could the record also say, without raising eyebrows, that no baby was born? The record said that the mother went into labour “before her time,” but it must have been close to full term because Roland was a fully developed, healthy, energetic baby at nine months. (Julia made a point of saying he was physically “perfect”.)

Maybe the midwife, Joanne Braxton, pretended that the mother went into labour before the baby was developed and so it was a miscarriage, not a birth? OK, the birth took place on an “out-of-town” homestead, but it wasn’t all that isolated because a midwife was summoned from Brantford. Wouldn’t there be at least one person (a sister, mother, neighbour, friend, her husband) who knew the mother and would know how far along she was? Even if a baby is stillborn, it would have to be recorded as such and buried in a legal manner. With so many details not known, could it be that the mother did not have a complicated pregnancy after all, but Joanne Braxton, as midwife, murdered her in order to steal her baby? Murdoch should order the mother’s body exhumed. If the midwife’s report was correct, an autopsy would find the body of an unborn fetus in the mother’s womb. That would confirm that Roland was not Harold Connor’s child. An autopsy could also determine if a live birth took place, but not that the baby was Roland. The Braxtons were professional thieves and could have stolen baby Roland from any one of many couples, or from a hospital, orphanage, or even just bought him from a poor mother. —Patricia

X Company shines in Season 2

I said on Twitter a few weeks ago that it is not just good Canadian TV, it is just good TV.

I do wish people spoke their native tongues all of the time. But, I imagine that would require the main cast to speak German and French which might be difficult. I think audiences are no longer afraid of subtitles (if they ever were).

Seek out Heavy Water War (a Norwegian show about the German nuke program) and Generation War (a German show about WW2, amazing), they are both excellent. —Dave

Why are there subtitles for the German speakers when they are, at times, not on the screen long enough to read? Of course the Germans speak German. I get that! The French speakers speak English! It seems an unnecessary frill that does not add to the story and, in fact, takes away the obvious struggle of emotions that the German officer and his wife are dealing with. And, to top it off, “The Corporation” will slap a banner ad across the bottom of the screen at the most inopportune times: when there is a subtitle being displayed. Otherwise, we both love the series. It was an amazing period of history when ordinary people became extraordinary and made huge differences to the outcome of the war. We have been aware of the Camp X/Oshawa/ Whitby/Bowmanville contribution to the war for years. Thanks for letting me gripe about the language thing. —DB

Wolverine documentary: A CBC-TV first

I always record The Nature of Things and in particular I like the wildlife docs. I’ve only seen a wolverine once in the wild, while at a place called Wolverine Lake, B.C. (maybe three hours north of Prince George) and it was swimming. It took me a while to figure out what it was because it was all wet and I was looking through binoculars but after it went on land it dawned on me. I also saw a caribou swimming in the lake as well later the next day. Having spent a lot of time up in the northern forests of western Canada, I’ve seen plenty of wildlife but that remains my only wolverine sighting and it was incredibly exciting. —Alicia

Got a comment or question about Canadian TV? greg@tv-eh.com or @tv_eh.