The Perfect Lie Ending Explained: Who Started the Fire and Who Visited Hanneke?

**Spoilers for all seven episodes of The Perfect Lie.** Babette starts the fire that kills her husband Evert. The finale explains her plan and the evidence that exposes her, but it does not identify the person who pushed Hanneke from the balcony or the hooded visitor who appears beside Hanneke’s hospital bed. Those are two different answers: the central fire mystery is resolved; the final scene opens another.

Netflix’s Dutch series makes that split easy to miss because it trains viewers to distrust everyone in its wealthy dinner club. Karen’s investigation pulls together multiple secrets at once, and a person guilty of one terrible act can look like the obvious answer to every other crime. The ending is more precise. It proves Babette’s involvement in the villa fire while leaving Hanneke’s case hanging over the group.

A quick recap of the setup

Karen and her husband Michel move with their family to Bergen in the Netherlands. A circle of well-off local couples welcomes them into an exclusive dinner club. Their appealing homes, friendships and parties conceal strain beneath the surface. Then the villa owned by Babette and Evert burns. Evert dies; Babette and the children survive. Karen begins to question what the group knew, what it hid and who wanted the family harmed.

The seven-part show is based on Saskia Noort’s novel The Dinner Club. Creator Dorien Goertzen and co-writer Jop Esmeijer changed the narrative structure and updated the characters for this adaptation, according to Netflix’s production announcement. That is important when a reader encounters a book spoiler: the series has its own ordering and choices.

For a spoiler-free orientation to the actors, relationships and source book, see our existing The Perfect Lie cast and adaptation guide. This article starts where that guide leaves off, with the finale’s answers and the one striking answer it withholds.

Who started the fire that killed Evert?

Babette did. The series initially invites the possibility that Evert was responsible for the disaster or that another member of the group had a hidden motive. The finale reverses that suspicion. Babette discovers that Evert plans to leave her and acts to destroy the family rather than face the life she fears will follow. That motivation is the finale’s account of her character; it is not a general explanation for real acts of domestic violence.

According to People’s detailed recap of the finale, Babette puts crushed sleeping medication into drinks intended for Evert and the children, then sets the house on fire. Her older son Beau does not drink his milk, wakes and escapes. Evert dies, while Babette and the younger son Luuk survive. A toxicology finding that the household had been drugged becomes one of the clues that the fire was planned.

The key distinction is intent versus outcome. Babette’s scheme aims at multiple people, but not everybody dies. Calling the fire “an accident” misses the plan; saying the whole family was killed is also wrong. Beau’s survival creates the possibility of both a witness and a piece of physical evidence that Babette cannot completely control.

Why does Beau’s phone matter?

Beau takes Evert’s phone when he escapes the burning villa. It later becomes important because Evert had recorded conversations with Babette after speaking with his lawyer. Beau initially keeps the device away from his mother. Karen eventually listens to the recordings, which help expose Babette’s role in the crime. In a mystery built around unreliable statements, the phone gives Karen something more concrete than dinner-club gossip.

The exact route of the evidence is as important as its existence. A child escapes, carries a phone, keeps it hidden and indirectly enables an adult investigation. It means the pivotal clue survives the fire by chance and by Beau’s action. It also gives him a consequential place in the ending beyond the simple fact that he lived.

When Karen confronts Babette with what she has learned, the conflict turns violent. People reports that Babette attacks Karen with a knitting needle and threatens her with a knife before police arrive and arrest her. The final confrontation externalizes what had been concealed in the conversations: the surface of a secure family can coexist with a dangerous plan underneath.

Did Babette push Hanneke?

The finale does not establish that she did. Hanneke has been pushed from a balcony and is in a coma, so the revelation that Babette caused the fire makes her seem a plausible suspect in that attack as well. Babette denies it. More importantly, the show’s last scene points toward a different, unidentified person who still has an interest in Hanneke.

In the hospital, Karen notices a small movement in Hanneke’s hand and leaves to get a doctor. An unknown person in dark clothing enters carrying a red heart-shaped balloon. Babette is being questioned by police during that moment. The editing does not reveal the visitor’s face or say what happens after the entrance. The viewer can infer that Hanneke’s danger may not be over; the identity of the visitor is not confirmed.

An unresolved identity should remain unresolved in a recap. It is fine to list possibilities and motives as theories, but a thumbnail claiming the ending “reveals Hanneke’s attacker” would overstate the available answer. Nor does the visitor’s appearance alone prove that the visitor pushed her. The scene establishes presence, concealment and threat; the earlier assault still needs an explanation.

What does the red balloon signify?

The balloon is a conspicuous visual detail in a hospital room where a harmless visit would otherwise be ordinary. Its heart shape suggests affection on the surface, while the concealed identity makes that suggestion sinister. That combination mirrors the series’ central idea: apparent closeness can hide manipulation or danger. It is an interpretation of the scene’s visual design, not an official identification code for a particular character.

The balloon also ensures the ending is memorable without a long speech. After seven episodes of conversations in which people explain, deny and reframe events, a silent visitor makes the viewer revisit earlier assumptions. Someone can look like a well-wisher to the hospital staff while having a very different reason to approach Hanneke. The series cuts off before telling us which kind of visitor this is.

Because the final image withholds proof, assigning a name based only on clothing or a prop would be guesswork. A good ending explainer can describe why the image works without pretending the camera delivered an answer it deliberately did not show.

Is the Netflix series the same as the book?

No. It adapts Noort’s novel rather than reproducing it page by page. Netflix says the creative team reworked the narrative structure and modernized the story and characters. Someone who read the novel or saw a previous screen version may recognize the premise yet still need to follow the Netflix series’ specific evidence and finale.

The adaptation difference helps explain why a search for “who did it” can produce contradictory results. A post about the book may spoil a different sequence, emphasize a different revelation or assume that events map directly onto the show. Use a recap explicitly about the 2026 seven-episode Netflix production when discussing Beau’s phone, the hospital scene and the last episode titled “Ivo.”

This is also why the mystery’s social setting matters. Karen enters a group that has already formed its rules and loyalties. She has to work out who trusts whom and whose version of a shared event serves an interest. The fire exposes the cost of taking polished appearances at face value, but the final scene reminds viewers that solving one crime cannot make every relationship transparent.

Will there be a second season?

As of September 28, 2026, Netflix has not announced a Season 2 renewal in the official sources consulted here. The hospital cliffhanger leaves narrative room for more, but open endings are not release announcements. A firm premiere date, episode count or returning cast list would require a new Netflix statement.

If another season happens, Hanneke’s condition, the visitor’s identity and Karen’s relationship with the remaining dinner-club members are obvious questions. They are story possibilities, not confirmed plot points. The safest way to follow updates is the official title page and Netflix’s show coverage rather than a forecast that treats an unresolved scene as a production order.

For viewers interested in another story about an affluent circle and concealed motives, our A Normal Family cast guide covers a separate film based on Herman Koch’s The Dinner. That is a different book from Saskia Noort’s The Dinner Club; their similar dinner-related English titles can easily lead to a mistaken connection.

The apparent division of the mystery also changes Karen’s role. By finding the recordings, she can resolve what happened at the villa; at Hanneke’s bedside, she reaches another moment of knowledge only to be called away. The finale gives the audience a view Karen does not have, yet it still withholds the stranger’s face. That difference creates suspense without pretending the original fire remains unsolved. It is a deliberate way to finish a thriller: offer a concrete answer to the principal case and make the final image a new question about the group that survives it.