Is Kate Innocent?

Written 18th February

I don’t know if this has been mentioned before but I’m wondering if in this NEW/alternate timeline that Kate might actually be innocent. After watching this week’s episode seeing John with Helen and apparently at peace with his father, it got me thinking that a lot of things aren’t what they were in the old timeline. Hurley seemed very at peace with his lottery winnings so maybe the money hasn’t caused him the grief it did in the old timeline. So perhaps Kate was being honest when she round about told Claire she was innocent.

 This leads me to some other assumptions. Maybe Sawyer didn’t end up killing that man in Australia, and maybe Jack didn’t have the same disfunctional relationship with his father. Some evidence against this would be that Charlie is still pretty messed up in the new timeline. Never the less this has been nagging at me so I wanted to get it out there.

Share with fellow Losties

Written by


11 thoughts on “Is Kate Innocent?

  1. Yes, this is very likely. And the reason that Charlie is pretty much the same in both time lines might be that he wasn’t touched by Jacob in any of them.

  2. I noticed this too.

    Although, I have a gut feeling that she’s guilty. I think that she was just asking Claire out of curiousity. She didn’t come out and say “I’m innocent”, only “Would you believe me if I said I was innocent?”

    Kate’s one of my favorite characters, and I would like to see her be innocent. I just don’t think she is.

  3. I don’t know if you guys listened to the expanded episode where they add comments at the bottom but when Kate says to Claire : Would you believe me if I told you I was innocent ?

    The bottom says : ”This is a timeline difference”.

    It’s not very clear but it might suggest that you’re right.

  4. @Jj23- Those comments aren’t canon and are just random statements by someone who doesn’t even write for Lost. You really can’t take any of that to heart.

    @MetalDude26- Yes I think this is a good catch. You should read my theory on Course correction. This would be an item to support my theory.


  5. I still think Kate may have killed him, it all comes down to trust again, “Would you believe me?” Her expression still seemed guilty as hell to me.

    Like on the plane with Locke telling Boone he’d been on the walkabout, “Why would I pull your leg?” at first I thought, wow… he actually did go! But then, ya know, wheelchair bound he was still unable to go.

    They will all still tell lies for personal gain.

  6. It’s a possibility that she’s innocent, Jacob touched Kate as a little girl as she was stealing, he paid for the New Kids on the Block lunchbox. She never had a consequence for perhaps her first crime, she got away with it in the previous timeline, but in this alternate maybe she didn’t, and that lead to a somewhat different lifestyle.

  7. i think charlie must have been affected in someway.. i say boone was, what i mean is the situation with shannon turned out differently, she stayed behind in australia, and so wasnt on the alt timeline plane and she never met jacob as far as we know..added to the points made previously, i want to believe that Kate was innocent after all.. maybe, possibly, she didn’t kill wayne, (but she still hasn’t had a good life with him) maybe it was an accident, but she was with him at the time and the cops (and her mum) jumped to conclusions?
    i see claire still planned on giving the baby up for adoption, but wasn’t it a bit of a quick turnaround for her to name him etc so soon after being told he wasnt able to be adopted?

  8. forgot to extend more on charlie.. what i was thinking was, maybe he was the one that introduced drugs to the band, meaning he was worse on them than he would have been, which would explain him trying to swallow the bag of heroin rather than hiding it (wherever he hid it in the pilot).

Leave a Reply