There’s a fairly long story-arc involving Belko in “I’ll Let You Know When I Get There.” He seemed incredibly guilty for a good-chunk of the episode; Sarah’s interrogation was especially interesting as we get to see a different side of her.

I do have concerns about the case, however. Chiefly, why are there suddenly so many new clues? How had they not looked into the cab-driver earlier in the investigation? And why had there been no reference to the casino or the name Adela (which we learn is the ferry’s name) in episodes two or three? The Rosie Larsen case is obviously the show’s conceit, but it’s starting to get a little messy. I suppose that’s inevitable in a show like this.

Also, I know I promised not to compare this show to Twin Peaks, but I need to one last time. Once more the writers chose to take from a show with an identical premise. Did anyone else see the blatant parallels between this casino and One Eyed Jacks? I’m sure it’ll end up being very different in the next episode, but I wonder why the writers chose to include a casino at all.

In the end, however, the complexity of the case isn’t The Killing’s strong-point. This show is rooted in the human condition, and there are some great character moments scattered throughout “I’ll Let You Know When I Get There.”

Sarah’s personal life continues to hold the strongest emotional resonance. I loved the scene with her moving off the boat with Jack out of frustration. That was especially well-done, and her fiance’s return only heightened the stakes for the next episode. There was also a nice moment with Sarah having a drink in Richmond’s penthouse, as she voices some of her concerns.

As noted, this episode wasn’t bad in any sense. There are some really intriguing twists to come, as the case is starting to explode in a completely new direction. And with that being said, I’m off to watch “Missing.” No doubt, you’ve already seen it... I’m hoping it’s a good one!

-MP