S02.E02: Episode 2

[Constantinople]

Attorneys aren't supposed to speak to witnesses before trial (the family), except when they are (the police)?

 

 

This is a British thing. In the US, attorneys routinely go over testimony in advance with witnesses, but that's not allowed in the UK. As far as her talking to Hardy and Miller, I think that talking to the police involved in the case is OK. And she obviously went over the rules for the benefit of the audience. That kind of thing happens all the time on tv. Character are always having to talk about things they already know, or ask stupid questions, so that the audience can know stuff.

If they feel the need to explain to viewers that a prosecuting attorney tries to convict a defendant based on the evidence, and that some evidence is more important than others, then they should take a minimal amount of time to explain why a prosecuting attorney can speak to police witnesses before the trial but not other witnesses.

 

There were complaints about the depiction of the legal proceedings when it was shown in Britain, but Chris Chibnall had it all vetted by legal consultants and apparently they get up to these kinds of shenanigans all the time. The trial is meant to show just the dramatic highlights, not all the procedural details.

Law & Order did a good job of making pre-trial motions pretty dramatic even though they were procedural.

I'm also a bit dubious as to the quality of the alleged vetting unless/until the people who did the vetting go public to explain themselves. I easily found a few articles in which named English legal professionals criticized the first episode.

Why should I credit what are, in effect, anonymous sources that don't make sense when they conflict with named sources who do?

 

And confessions do get thrown out for all kinds of reasons that seem bogus to people outside the legal system. There was one in the news recently - http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-tosses-confession-teacher-murder-trial-philip-chism-n316841  That one got tossed because apparently the kid wasn't paying attention when they read him his rights.

Except that's an entirely different case where the confession was excluded for an entirely different reason.

In this episode, a confession was excluded because the defendant was beaten up by a police officer, who also happened to be the defendant's wife, after the defendant made his confession. The defense offered no evidence that the police beat a confession out of the suspect, only that they "may" have. However, there is, or should be, plenty of evidence that no such beating took place (photos and videotape of the defendant after he was taken into custody). Also, as some posters noted above, Hardy would be physically incapable of beating a confession out of the defendant.

If "might have" is the standard for excluding evidence, then they may as well toss all of the evidence and dismiss the case.

In short, excluding the confession makes no sense, except for the writer's desire to exclude it for greater drama. But a writer shouldn't, IMO, insult the viewers' intelligence to manufacture drama. Not at least, if Broadchurch is supposed to be a serious drama. If it's just Broadchurch the Soap Opera, that's fine.

[Pattycake2]

Jumping in with my impressions.  Yes, the throwing out of the confession was bogus.  There was no explantion, no rebuttal, no back and forth discussion.  Must have been mind rays between the proscutor, defending attorney, and the judge since it seemed fully understandable to them.  Seems to me the prosecutor is suffering from macular degeneration or something similar.  She asked someone to read to her and she didn't comment when Ellie went on about the view from her windows.  I also think that Claire and Lee were both involved with the murders.  Claire goes on about her icky attraction to Lee.  Maybe the murders had something to do with a kinky, sex kind of thing.  And yes, Beth can shut up.  Her anger towards Ellie makes no sense.

Quick question.  Has anyone seen the season two verson from the UK and the BBCAmerica one?  Are we missing things?

[DeeJayKay]

You don't have to buy the ebooks to follow the series. They just add a little flavour to the second series.

They are really short stories, and do not appear to be available in the US yet. Someone asked Erin Kelly, who wrote the stores, who asked the publisher, and the publisher said they would be available March 26. All or just the relevant ones at that point, I don't know.

[Bebecat]

Throwing out the confessions makes the judge look like an idiot, and I know it is just fictional TV, but makes a joke of the British justice system. Apparently the defense can suggest anything? Why not say the cop may have peed on him while reading his rights? May have made bad jokes about his mother? I mean, seriously, this is just bad writing.

[archer1267]

How did Beth know that Danny knew about Mark's affair with Becca? She didn't even learn about it until after Danny was dead. 

[staveDarsky]

No he's not her brother.  He was someone who loved her in the past, but lost her in marriage to Mark.

That was Gracepoint's Paul. Broadchurch's Paul and Beth have no history like that.

 

Beth saying "I'm at Mum's grave." is a pointer to her mum, Liz, seeking consolation from Paul after Danny's death and being one of the few faithful congregants at his Church. Beth didn't go to Church (much) before Danny was killed.

[Kat]

I know this isn't fair (and also isn't an uncommon feeling), but all I wanted to do after watching this was bang Nigel and Beth's skulls together! Gah!

 

 

How did Beth know that Danny knew about Mark's affair with Becca? She didn't even learn about it until after Danny was dead.

I was wondering that too, archer1267! 

Edited March 12, 2015 by Kat

[secnarf]

I think there is a scene in series 1 where Beth asks if Danny knew - however, I might be mixing it up with Gracepoint, since it's been a while.

[DeeJayKay]

The wording in ep 2 was something like, "Did Danny know about the affair?"

Beth: "Yes.  I found out later that he did."

 

No, I don't remember right off anything from series one that ndicated that he knew.  Recovered e-mails?  Chloe told him?

 

Hmmm, edited to add, was there an e-mail where Danny said that he knew what his father was doing?  (I'd have to dig out DVDs.)

Edited March 13, 2015 by DeeJayKay

[thuganomics85]

After enjoying the premiere, I found this episode to be a pretty big step down.  I"m usually lenient on courtroom drama, but there was so much stuff I found hard to believe.  Throwing out the confession really did seem flimsy as hell.  What was worse was that I felt like the prosecutor/Charlotte Rampling really didn't even try that hard to fight against it.  It was just weird.  And, there was other stuff too: I felt like there were several times that the prosecutor should have at least objected to some of the questioning, but didn't.  Honestly, right now, the prosecutor is looking kind of weak.  It's like the show thinks Rampling alone can make her compelling.  If they are paying her, the Latimers should ask for a refund.

 

I'm reminded again that even though Joe is a creepy killer and Beth can be obnoxious, Nigel is probably the character I want to smack the most.  He really is all about sticking his nose in things he doesn't fully know about, and causing drama for no damn reason.  I still think he played a huge part in Jack's suicide, and never really answered for it.  Of course, in the end, Beth is still responsible for her own jerkish behavior.  I knew Ellie would just let it happen since she's not that type of person, but I honestly was rooting for her to put Beth in cuffs, after the second shove.  I still feel for Beth on some levels, but this is getting bad.  I can't believe she claimed Ellie probably beat Joe to get the confession thrown out.  You can blame Ellie for screwing up, but lets not make up stories, Beth.

 

Then again, yeah, why did Hardy use Ellie's house of all places?  A hotel; with no back door or anything; would have made way more sense.  It was just an excuse for Lee to apparently kidnap Claire.  I do think there is going to be a twist to this.  I still think Lee is a shady dude, but I also think Claire isn't as innocent as she is acting.  Also, I still have to remember that James D'Arcy is Lee, and not Creepy Jarvis.

 

Still, I continue to love the scenery and Hardy/Ellie, so I'll keep watching.  But, I hope they get it together and this doesn't become a case of watching Olivia Coleman and David Tennant trying  to rise above sluggish material.

[LisaM]

I didn't get the sense that Lee kidnapped Claire. She appeared to be too large for him to easily carry plus it all happened so quickly. Either she went with him willingly and is an innocent or she is somehow involved in the girls' deaths.

 

Not sure why Jocelyn didn't object more forcefully to the confession being thrown out but perhaps that is why she didn't want to take the case: she isn't the same tremendous attorney that she once was?

 

I'm ready for Ellie to stop being such a pushover and to stand up to Beth and the others who think that she is somehow responsible for Danny's death.

[attica]

Another procedural question: Is there a set order to the way the case is presented at court in Britain? By that I mean: does the prosecution have all their witnesses go (with x-exam) and then the defense, as is the case in the US? It seemed like Jocelyn Rampling was rebutting Sharon Jean-Baptiste's argument about the confession, not the other way around. If that's just bad lawyering of Joce's part, that's one thing. If that's bad writing, that's another.

 

I loved Ellie's scandalized reactions to Claire's not-all-that-unusual sexual history. I also loved her use of 'twinkly' to describe Joe when they first met.

 

But no kidding, here, folks. WHY WON'T TENNANT GROOM THE NECK BEARD?!?!?!?  Sweet mother of marzipan, show, do not inflict such a disgusting follicle arrangement on me -- I really can't take it.

[staveDarsky]

Let's let the man talk about the beard himself.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqmK9wX-w8E

 

He did this appearance on the morning before episode 2 was broadcast in the UK. It's spoiler free. :)

There are more videos from this radio show in the media thread.

Edited March 13, 2015 by staveDarsky

[DeeJayKay]

 

WHY WON'T TENNANT GROOM THE NECK BEARD?!?!?!?  Sweet mother of marzipan, show, do not inflict such a disgusting follicle arrangement on me -- I really can't take it.

When has his character, Hardy, ever been well-groomed?  At least since coming to Grancepoint.  He has always looked crumpled, unpressed, tie not done up well.  Think of it as a comment on the mental state of the character.

[attica]

I understand all that, truly I do. (I've watched TV before.) I'm saying I HATE IT. And not for nothing, if a character has the personal wherewithal to be able to dress himself appropriately for a court appearance (and Hardy clearly does), he can groom the welcome-mat pelt on his throat, self-loathing be damned.

[staveDarsky]

David Tennant's default state of being these days is stubble, including the neck. He's doing a rare appearance at a U.S. fan event in North Carolina this weekend. If we knew someone who was going, they could plead with him to get rid of it.

[Eri]

I guess I'm in the minority because I think he looks attractive in stubble, boring clothes aside. He also has the temperament of an old grizzle-face which suits him :)

In terms of beardiness, that's about as rugged as I could handle but any scene he has with stubble AND glasses on and I just want to melt!

Edited March 13, 2015 by Eri

[editorgrrl]

Quick question.  Has anyone seen the season two verson from the UK and the BBCAmerica one?  Are we missing things?

 

I don't know definitively, but I always assume when watching anything from the UK on basic cable (and, sadly, PBS) that edits have been made.

[alias1]

I actually feel like I'm in the minority where stubble is concerned.  It seems to be the prevailing trend on almost every TV show that the male lead must now have some sort of stubble.  I hate it.  I can understand Hardy having this very unkempt look because that is his character.  But when we keep seeing it on people like Dr Henry Morgan, the chief medical examiner on Forever, I hate it.  Clean up for heaven's sake.  Most women must like it because the stubble is everywhere.  Sorry, I know this got a little off topic, but mainly i wanted to say that Hardy's slept in look is pretty much who he is right now.

[dbrits]

The neck beard doesn't bother me at all. I'm not too picky when it comes to David Tennant. Now on another guy I might hate it, but Hardy's beard is tolerable.

[SunShines]

After enjoying the premiere, I found this episode to be a pretty big step down.  I"m usually lenient on courtroom drama, but there was so much stuff I found hard to believe.  Throwing out the confession really did seem flimsy as hell.  What was worse was that I felt like the prosecutor/Charlotte Rampling really didn't even try that hard to fight against it.  It was just weird.  

 

 

I agree. How about a little redirect, madam prosecutor, such as:

 

"CI Hardy, Please tell us about your medical condition."

"I've got a heart condition. Doctor says I could drop at any minute."

"How has it hampered your physical ability in any way?"

"I'd say. I'm practically an invalid. Couldn't chase down Joe Miller the first time he tried to turn himself in. I nearly died."

"How about deliver a blow strong enough to break someone's ribs?"

"I can certainly bellow loudly enough but don't think that would break a rib, no. Had offers of sex turned down for fear I'd die. I couldn't beat a stick, if you know what I mean."

"Who else knows of your condition?"

"My doctor, of course. My boss. Miller."

"How has this impacted your work?"

"I've been pulled from active duty. Stuck boring cadets to tears."

"Your honor, I submit that the defense's theory is bullocks. We can call his doctor if you would like expert testimony, but I am sure you agree that won't be needed."

 

Of course, the plot gods required a complication. Toss the confession, they demanded. That will mess things up nicely. Since this is drama not an actual criminal trial I have more patience. It was not like watching the OJ trial--I was screaming at the TV.

Edited March 14, 2015 by SunShines

[beeble]

I agree. How about a little redirect, madam prosecutor, such as:

 

"CI Hardy, Please tell us about your medical condition."

"I've got a heart condition. Doctor says I could drop at any minute."

"How has it hampered your physical ability in any way?"

"I'd say. I'm practically an invalid. Couldn't chase down Joe Miller the first time he tried to turn himself in. I nearly died."

"How about deliver a blow strong enough to break someone's ribs?"

"I can certainly bellow loudly enough but don't think that would break a rib, no. Had offers of sex turned down for fear I'd die. I couldn't beat a stick, if you know what I mean."

"Who else knows of your condition?"

"My doctor, of course. My boss. Miller."

"How has this impacted your work?"

"I've been pulled from active duty. Stuck boring cadets to tears."

"Your honor, I submit that the defense's theory is bullocks. We can call his doctor if you would like expert testimony, but I am sure you agree that won't be needed."

 

Of course, the plot gods required a complication. Toss the confession, they demanded. That will mess things up nicely. Since this is drama not an actual criminal trial I have more patience. It was not like watching the OJ trial--I was screaming at the TV.

Thank you thank you thank you.  This drove me absolutely nuts.

 

Not to mention:

Prosecutor: "You were under pressure to arrest someone."

Hardy: "We're always under pressure."

Prosecutor:"So you thought you'd arrest Miller's husband."

Hardy: "He confessed. He admitted to being in love with Danny. Very creepy but I swear to all that is good and holy that he confessed this. And he had Danny's phone."

Prosecutor: "No, I think it's much more believable that you thought you'd just chuck the case and arrest the perfectly innocent guy married to your detective."

Hardy: "That makes no fucking sense."

Prosecutor: "It's perfectly feasible to anyone with only half a brain."

Hardy: "That…wow…your incorrect logic has me mesmerized and I can't think strait. I'm feeling dizzy. But that could be my heart condition."

Edited March 14, 2015 by beeble

[DeeJayKay]

BBC America has a reputtion for chopping up shows.

 

I swear, if you pay attention, you can see where the commercials were on ITV, but they are in different places on BBCA.

[staveDarsky]

I wondered why they didn't mention Hardy's heart condition as well, especially since he was medicaled out of active duty so that the police force obviously knew before the arrest.

 

Then someone pointed out that the Defense could have then argued that Hardy was not well enough to have led the case in the first place and that if he omitted such crucial information when getting hired, how could they trust that his police notes could be trusted as truthful and complete. They might have been able to get the whole case thrown out on that.

[catray]

Sympathy and likeability are not synonymous: I definitely dislike Beth right now, and my sympathy for her is slipping by the minute. She has targeted Ellie because she can't lash out at anyone else-- it's understandable to a degree but also infuriating. She is clearly in an emotional turbulent state, being pregnant and having to deal with the murder of her son and death of her mother, but she should be in counseling/therapy to deal with that; not taking it out on her former friend. The only time I felt remotely sorry for her was when she was pleading with Mark to go on a date and Mark was shoving her off (you suck, Mark) but otherwise she is grating.

 

Count me in (maybe too much Law & Order) as completely annoyed and befuddled by how quickly Joe's confession was thrown out. I get drama, but that was just poorly done all around. Why didn't the prosecutor argue it?! Gah. Regardless of whether they actually chopped anything up or not-- that was just sloppy writing.

 

Not sure where I stand on Claire yet-- I definitely don't think Lee kidnapped her; she's a grown woman and there was no sign of a struggle in the room after they disappeared. Not sure what's up with her yet-- it could potentially be an abusive relationship and she has some sort of Stockholm Syndrome, so seeing him again triggered the desire to be with him. I don't know. Definitely something weird there.

[Llywela]

When has his character, Hardy, ever been well-groomed?  At least since coming to Grancepoint.  He has always looked crumpled, unpressed, tie not done up well.  Think of it as a comment on the mental state of the character.

Hardy is in Broadchurch, not Gracepoint. ;-)

[mledawn]

David Tennant's default state of being these days is stubble, including the neck. He's doing a rare appearance at a U.S. fan event in North Carolina this weekend. If we knew someone who was going, they could plead with him to get rid of it.

 

Is he now? After Broadchurch aired, he did that stint on Absolute Radio and he was back to his Ten hair and clean shaven. Disappointing to see him schlub it up again.

[DeeJayKay]

Hardy is in Broadchurch, not Gracepoint. ;-)

I knew I'd do that eventually.

Edited March 14, 2015 by DeeJayKay

[Pattycake2]

I hate the neck fur, too.  Makes me think it continues all over his body.  Shudder. And unless it continues to grow throughout the show, it means he actually trims it to that length.

[shandy]

Struggled to remain interested in this episode ... lots of great little moments as always  (I want to eat fish and chips by the ocean, I would so buy that hideaway cottage, I love the snark between Millaaah and Hardy. Liked the conceit of the ethnic female judge in leisurewear) BUT not enough to sustain drama. Poor Charlotte Rampling has been given dialog stolen from early 90s daytime soap opera. Thank god she is still so extraordinarily beautiful.

 

I've always enjoyed Baptiste as an actress, and boy, she can give the audience someone to hate here, but it all feels so old-fashioned, and I'm not talking about British stuck in amber court procedures (which I have respect for), but the use of a court for dramatic tension. The tropes here feel 20 years old, tired and treating the audience like dumb hicks - the waters breaking even more so. 

[attica]

So I was bingewatching some L&O UK eps this week. And what to my wondering ears should appear but the prosecutor's speech about building a case like a wall, brick by brick, etc etc. that Jocelyn spoke in this episode. Now, Chris Chibnall wrote for that show 6 episodes, but not S4 "Skeletons", the ep in which the speech appeared. So my question: is this notion a cliché that gets spouted a bunch in UK legal circles, or do we have some appropriation going on?

[mledawn]

Ugh, saw footage of DT at a con today and his Ten hair is growing out and his neck beard is growing in.

 

Topic? Shut up, Beth.

[staveDarsky]

I just put a link to the convention videos in the media thread.

Getting back to series 2, episode 2: 

No, I don't remember right off anything from series one that ndicated that he knew.  Recovered e-mails?  Chloe told him?
 
Hmmm, edited to add, was there an e-mail where Danny said that he knew what his father was doing?  (I'd have to dig out DVDs.)

In series 1, episode 2, Ellie reads a few of Danny's social media posts to Hardy.

 

Twelfth of May: Dear Dad, remember me? I’m the one you used to play with.
Twelfth of May: I know what he’s doing.

 

Because these are one right after the other, it sounds like the second line was also referring to Mark.

Edited March 15, 2015 by staveDarsky

[Eozostrodon]

David Tennant's default state of being these days is stubble, including the neck. He's doing a rare appearance at a U.S. fan event in North Carolina this weekend. If we knew someone who was going, they could plead with him to get rid of it.

He's mostly clean-shaven these days for his new role. But he had a few days off from filming last week to do Comic Relief stuff, and he never shaves when he doesn't have to.

[molshoop]

I haven't re-watched the first season of Broadchurch. Did they get Joe to repeat his confession on tape and/or in writing when they got him to the station?

A verbal confession without witnesses that isn't recorded in any way or written down should be thrown out.

[staveDarsky]

It's hard to know for certain because they showed Hardy arrive in the shed and Joe said "I'm sick of hiding".

 

Then there was a commercial break. When the show came back, the words "59 days earlier*" flashed on the screen and then a sequence of what happened was shown without voiceover to indicate whether Joe was confessing this or not. Most people assume he was but we don't know whether he and Hardy were now at the station or still in the shed.

 

After the next commercial break we saw Hardy ask Joe some specific questions in the interrogation room. Joe was dressed in a white jumpsuit and shoes -- not his own clothes, which must have been confiscated. But again, we can't be sure if an officer was with him while he changed or not. After a few questions, Hardy left the room to go and tell Ellie.

[DeeJayKay]

 

I hate the neck fur, too.  Makes me think it continues all over his body.  Shudder. And unless it continues to grow throughout the show, it means he actually trims it to that length.

DT has done many things that require him to be shirtless, so hold your shudder and check out, for example, "Fright Night" or "Spies of Warsaw".  The appearance of the beard, the messy hair ... I don't know how much, if any, input he has in that.

 

 

Did they get Joe to repeat his confession on tape and/or in writing when they got him to the station?

It seems clear that any interview done in the station is taped, so, yes, his confession was subsequently taped.

 

And, given Jocelyn's discussion with Hardy and Miller, it almost sounds like she halfway expected that confession to get tossed, which might be why she didn't argue more about it as it seemed a lost cause to her. In any case, it's good that the mistakes that were made, in this case allowing Ellie to see Joe in the interview room, are going to come back to haunt them. The attack might have seemed emotionally right, but still wrong, and was because of a decision made by DI Trust-No-One.

[scarynikki12]

In light of Beth's behavior these two episodes and Nigel's meddling, I hope that, if Ellie is still afraid to stand up for herself, someone in her family does on her behalf.  I can't get a read on her sister or nephew, so I honestly don't know if they agree with Beth's assessment that Ellie is equally at fault for Joe's actions but, if they don't agree, I'd like to see them say that.  They can say it to Tom, Beth, Mark, or the court, but it'd be nice if Ellie had someone in her corner. 

 

I do understand why Beth is lashing out at Ellie.  She can't go after Joe since he's in prison and Ellie's a visible and easy target but I really want her to realize just how wrong she is.  And I think that's going to happen because nothing the show has done thus far has indicated that Beth is supposed to be seen as correct for blaming Ellie.  These two episodes have emphasized that Beth once again doesn't know what a member of her family is doing and I don't believe for a second that this juxtaposition isn't on purpose.  Beth's actions are wrong and we're supposed to see them as such, so it doesn't bother me much since I expect her to get her comeuppance sometime after the baby's born.

 

Also, I think the defense is going to present Mark as their alternate suspect and I'm actually looking forward to seeing if it works.  Mark hitting Danny is now on record, his secret meetings with Tom are definitely going to come out and be presented as sinister even though I think it's completely innocent (Mark and Tom spending time together is likely helping both to heal and it's being kept secret only because Beth would probably lose her mind if she knew).  Bring in Mark successfully keeping his affair from Beth and her general lack of knowledge as to where he is and that should create reasonable doubt now that the confession has been tossed.  Maybe it will work, setting up another Whodunit for season 3 surrounding Joe's murder (spec not spoiler), or maybe Jocelyn will find a way to get Joe to confess on the stand and render the defense efforts moot but I'm very interested in seeing how this all plays out.

[benteen]

Good episode but this storyline is still infuriating.  Agreed at how ridiculously easy the confession was thrown out, not buying that.

 

I hate to say this but this episode backs up Hardy being the worst cop in Britain.  His reputation started after inexplicably covering for his piece of garbage wife after she cheated on him and lost evidence.  He never should have allowed Ellie to see Joe alone and his idiotic decision for what's her name to meet Ashford at Ellie's house and not in public was a disaster. 

 

And there's there Nigel...seriously, the Lattimers might want to disassociate themselves from this "justice warrior" who only gets people killed because of his stupidity.

 

And apparently in the English justice system they don't even offer a chair to a pregnant woman when she testifies.

 

Acting continues to be good and James D'Arcy is awesome.  As is Hardy/Ellie.

Edited March 16, 2015 by benteen

[Wordsworth]

Not sure how it works in England, but everyone has a right to a defense attorney in the US and that attorney is not obligated to believe his client is innocent or to even like his client.  He is, however, obligated to defend the client to the best of his ability and that includes poking holes in the testimony of witnesses and bringing up questions of their credibility.  This was why the prosecutor warned them about being truthful on the stand.  Any lie is going to be exposed and, if done so on the stand, may cause the jury to deem that witness untrustworthy.

 

And, while it was explained above that, in the UK the prosecutor cannot meet with witnesses in the manner in which the Latimers had them congregate, I can see any attorney in the US being concerned about that as it gives the witnesses the opportunity to agree on a story, to collude in a way that may cause the prosecution trouble down the line.  Suppose, for example, they all agreed to the same story, even if one or two witnesses may have experienced something else.  The defense attorney could conceivably prove those witnesses' testimony as false and the result of collusion.  Even the police tend to be suspicious when every witness' version of events matches exactly...it increases the likelihood that they all got together and agreed to the same story.  Further, if the defense is going to argue that Joe Miller did not kill Danny, then they are going to have to demonstrate that someone else could have, even if that person is one of Danny's parents.  The line of questioning about Mark is not out of bounds.  Mark struck Danny...he could have killed him, too.  If that casts reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, the defense attorney has done her job in defending her client.

 

As for Miller's injuries, I agree that there should be some evidence to show that Miller was not injured prior to being attacked by his wife.  The defense attorney will argue that any eyewitness testimony by police officers will be biased due to loyalty to Hardy & Miller.  Any US defense attorney would do the same.  "Oh, so no police officer saw any bruises on Miller?  Of course, no one did.  They aren't going to say anything that doesn't fit what their buddies said".  But, yes, I agree that there should be some argument that Miller did not appear injured on the video, did not ask for a doctor, etc.

 

Finally, we learned that Beth's mother has died.  Beth's had a rough few months: her son has died, she finds out her husband is having an affair, she's pregnant, her friend's husband turns out to be the killer and her mother dies.    I definitely don't agree that she's right in blaming Ellie for this, but she's got to lash out at someone and, fair or not, she's picked her target.  So that's why we're getting these wild suppositions that Ellie knew her husband was the killer, protected him all that time, is part of the defense team that resulted in Danny being exhumed and deliberately caused injuries to him so that his confession would be tossed out.  Doesn't make sense to us...but we know the truth, don't we?

 

Marriages are often damaged when a child dies.  It's clear that Mark & Beth have a long way to go to repair theirs.

 

As for the Sandbrook Case, I'd have been happy if they'd left it behind, but I do agree that Hardy has got too much on his plate right now.  It may have been safer for Claire to have a public meeting place, but Hardy's priority isn't necessarily her safety.  Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying he doesn't care about it, but the only reason he was hiding her was to try to draw Ashworth out.  In Ellie's unoccupied house, he could bug the place and watch the doors.  A hotel room might have been a better place for that, but Ashworth might have been more suspicious of bugging there than in someone's private home.  He clearly believed that Hardy would try to get evidence since he asked specifically if Hardy was going to set up wires and he checked Claire to be sure.  

 

On the other hand, we also know Ashworth likes to swipe mail since he grabbed Hardy's medical document in episode 1.  So walking into a private home with mail on the threshold is probably somewhat of a temptation. Especially if he's smart enough to realize it's Miller's house.  

 

But I also agree that Claire left with him willingly.  She talked about how hard it would be to see him because she had an addiction to him.  She's one of those women that is so stuck on a bad boy that, even though her life is safer and saner without him, she can't keep herself away from him.  

 

 

 

 

 

[attica]

mail on the threshold 

 

Was anybody else puzzled about why nobody bothered to pick up all those envelopes? If only for health and safety reasons! Or am I just OCDing, here?

[staveDarsky]

Strangely enough, the mail on the threshold never came up till Episode 2 was broadcast on BBC America.

Ellie may not have been able to face looking at it, but you'd think Hardy would get it out of the way just to keep from tripping over it himself. The other query I saw about this was wondering if there could be hate mail for Ellie within the envelopes, in which case, Hardy should have called in SOCO to come and examine it as a favour to Ellie and take prints. I'm sure the important mail got redirected to Ellie's flat in Devon so it's not bills.

Re: Beth's anger at Ellie
Ellie seems to be the emotional centre for most Broadchurch 2 fans. It's hard for us to see her blamed/hurt/attacked. Naturally we dislike anyone who does. It would be easier for the viewers to sympathize if Beth was taking out some/all of her anger on Hardy because he was in charge and Cate Gillespie had warned Beth that Hardy was trouble.

This may be one of the origins of Beth's anger. In series 1, episode 1, she asked Ellie to promise she'd get the killer. They were talking on the beach.
Beth: Promise me, Ellie, because I don't know your boss from Adam and me and you go back. The boys go back.
I'm counting on you to get them caught.
Ellie: I swear.

(Credit for the script transposition: http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/episode_scripts.php?tv-show=broadchurch-2013)

Edited March 16, 2015 by staveDarsky

[staveDarsky]

Duplicate post deleted.

Edited March 16, 2015 by staveDarsky

[alias1]

Re: Beth's anger at Ellie

Ellie seems to be the emotional centre for most Broadchurch 2 fans. It's hard for us to see her blamed/hurt/attacked. Naturally we dislike anyone who does. It would be easier for the viewers to sympathize if Beth was taking out some/all of her anger on Hardy because he was in charge and Cate Gillespie had warned Beth that Hardy was trouble.

This may be one of the origins of Beth's anger. In series 1, episode 1, she asked Ellie to promise she'd get the killer. They were talking on the beach.

Beth: Promise me, Ellie, because I don't know your boss from Adam and me and you go back. The boys go back.

I'm counting on you to get them caught.

Ellie: I swear.

 

Their conversation made sense when no one knew how close to home the killer would turn out to be.  Beth doesn't have one iota of sympathy for Ellie that her world is turned upside down also.  I think Beth is a horrible, self-centered person.  This last, in your face, shoving encounter with Ellie is basically assault on a police officer and she should be in handcuffs.  I don't want to see them reconcile at any point.  I want Ellie to punch Beth in the face.

 

OK, Ellie won't do that because Ellie is not a horrible person.

Edited March 16, 2015 by SierraMist

[lucindabelle]

Also hate Beth.

Is this case going to be tried by the press?

An excellent and smart objection..

Edited March 18, 2015 by lucindabelle

[Black Knight]

I keep wondering if there was something that happened in the time jump that we don't know about yet, to explain why Ellie is Public Enemy #1. Why is her son so extremely angry at her he won't live with her? Why is Beth thinking that Ellie is actually masterminding a plot to get her husband off the hook? I get that Beth has been through a lot, but we saw her going through much of that (except her mom's death) in S1 and she still seemed able to think logically and act fairly reasonable. And in the S1 finale, she was angry at Ellie without coming up with crazy conspiracy theories.

 

(Plus, I feel bad for the actress, because I thought Jodie Whittaker together with Colman and Tennant were the true heart of S1 and gave it most of its power and punch. In return for all the lovely subtle work Whittaker did, her character's been turned into a shrieking banshee. So I'm really hoping there's something more to it than just "Beth's been through a lot.")

 

Some of the courtroom stuff seemed off to me, but I really don't know anything about UK courts except for the wigs, so I basically shrugged and let it go because I don't know what's true to UK courts and what's not. But I could not get past the stupidity of Hardy deciding to stage the big meet at Miller's house. Come on! That was beyond contrived. And I see Nigel has learned nothing from all that happened in S1. Get a life, Nigel. At least the shrieking banshee formerly known as Beth has the excuse that this is her life. Nigel is just a creepy hanger-on, who apparently constantly barges into the house without knocking despite repeatedly being told not to. If Beth's going to beat people up, she should start with him.

 

I had to laugh at the newspaper editor's excessively shocked reactions to the courtroom reveals. Seriously, how terrible is she at her job that she didn't already know that stuff?

[stopeslite]

 

I keep wondering if there was something that happened in the time jump that we don't know about yet, to explain why Ellie is Public Enemy #1. Why is her son so extremely angry at her he won't live with her? Why is Beth thinking that Ellie is actually masterminding a plot to get her husband off the hook?

I think everyone thinks that if it had happened to them, of course they would have known, therefore Ellie was covering up for him to begin with and probably in cahoots with him even now. I wish they had brought that tape of Ellie kicking the crap out of Joe into evidence, so Beth and the others could see how viscerally she reacted to finding out. 

[Black Knight]

It's debatable, but I thought in the S1 finale Beth's anger was at Ellie for being clueless. This conspiracy-theory angle is new. Plus Ellie so obviously feels terrible about the situation - she looks like an apologetic wreck every time she sees Beth. I just feel like S1 Beth was more reasonable. She had a temper, but she didn't jump to crazy conclusions. Some of that could be her mom's death, I suppose, but if so, I'd like that said. This is almost like Broadchurch and Gracepoint have gotten mixed up in the showrunner's head and BC's Beth knows what GP's Ellie did.

 

And I still don't know what Tom's angry about, exactly. Does he blame his mother for what Joe did? Is he upset that Ellie turned her back on Joe? Something else? What? How does he feel about Joe? Maybe it's partly the actor, but I get nothing from Tom, not even the anger we're hearing about. Tom is so opaque to me right now.

Edited March 18, 2015 by Black Knight

[staveDarsky]

In the e-book about Ellie, which accompanied episode 1, it says Tom believes Ellie was behind Joe's arrest in order to get out of the marriage.

[izabella]

In the e-book about Ellie, which accompanied episode 1, it says Tom believes Ellie was behind Joe's arrest in order to get out of the marriage.

 

Seriously?  Is Tom just dumb?  Does he not remember his friend Danny?  The one his father killed?  Why would Ellie want to get out of the marriage unless Joe was guilty of murder?  They were perfectly happy before that.

 

I cannot get past the wigs in court.  I'm sure there is some explanation based on centuries of tradition, but, sorry, the wigs look really clownish to me and it's hard to take anybody seriously with those on.

Edited March 23, 2015 by izabella