S02.E04: Episode 4

[jeansheridan]

I loved meeting Hardy's wife and daughter.  I actually liked the wife on sight.  And I loved Miller's reaction, "Oh, you're the wife!".  Snerk.  And Daisy was adorable.  Not at all the snarky teen I was expecting. 

 

Ellie's pajamas were the cutest.  I love their quarrelsome brother/sister vibe.  It just makes the whole idea that they could possibly have affair just seem so silly.  And I like the show for having some fun with us in an otherwise pretty grim show.  There aren't many light moments.  Ellie's whole posture was hilarious.  That's totally how you sleep next to a person you might respect a lot, but really don't want to know that well.  Even if he looks like David Tennant. 

[Primetimer]

An estranged couple reunites, an odd couple breaks up, and Hardy and Ellie hit the road in search of answers.

Read the story

[thuganomics85]

Vastly preferred this to the past two episodes.  Barely any trial stuff and plenty of Hardy/Ellie.  Now, that is what the show is best at.  Olivia Coleman and David Tennant are good in all scenes, but together, they are close to perfection.  Whatever issues I might have at times with this season, I do appreciate how they have formed the Hardy/Ellie relationship now.

 

Tonight in having evil thoughts: I would totally be on Team Lee/Creepy Jarvis if he beat the shit out of Ollie.  I forgot what an obnoxious tool he was.   Yeah, yeah, he's a reporter/blogger, so he's suppose to be about getting "the story", but he goes about it the most smug and obnoxious way possible.  So, by all means, Lee.  I won't be against you going full creepy on him.

 

Then again, now it seems like Hardy is starting to have doubts.  Sounds like this Ricky guy's original alibi, wasn't so airtight after-all.  I do wish the victim's mother would have told Hardy this earlier, then again I guess this wouldn't be Broadchurch, if we didn't get one scene of Hardy dealing with unhelpful witnesses.  Tennant sure is perfecting the art of exasperation and "WTF, guys?!!!"

 

Lee and Claire hooked back up.  And, it sounds like they might be into bondage.  Yeah, there has to be something going on here.  Even if Lee ends up not being the killer, there has to be a reason we've been spending so much time on this.

 

Hey, Beth was back to be tolerable here.  Probably since she wasn't near Ellie, so there was no need for her to go off and be judgmental, like she usually does.

 

Oh, boy.  Susan Wright is back and helping the defense, by claiming Nigel is the killer.  Fucking hell, Susan.

Edited March 26, 2015 by thuganomics85

[Constantinople]

Did Jocelyn Knight retire because she's suffering from schizophrenia?

 

Episode 2: "We can't afford to lose this confession."

 

Episode 3: "We do not get buffeted by daily winds."

 

Episode 4: "No fact unchecked, no detail too small."

[Broderbits]

The group that suggested Beth help "rehabilitate" pedophiles/child murderers must be out of their ever-loving minds. She should have hit them with all that venom she's been directing at Ellie.

 

Lee/Jarvis is so gorgeous I just forget the show when he's on camera. He and Claire remind me of a thoroughly evil Cathy & Heathcliff.

[Bebecat]

Tom might be a bit more sympathetic of a character if he did not suddenly look like a man in his twenties...he really should not have continued in this role after his growth spurt or whatever. I just can't see him as a contemporary of Danny's.

I find the other case completely uninteresting.

I find both lawyers to be intensely annoying. Of course that could be said of almost anyone on this show. Their sad sob stories do not move me at all.

Joe is one piece of crap. What a whiny, spineless waste of space. He does not care about anyone, not even his family, as long as he gets off. Also I found the idea of Beth getting involved with a group to work with pedophiles to be ridiculous. The only way that would ring true for me is if she had agreed but then smuggled a gun into the session and shot them all.

[staveDarsky]

Awww. I like Adam Wilson.

 

For all kids, puberty's a lottery. It's got to be horrible when you're an actor who needs to look a specific age. He lost his role as Mr Selfridge's son because he hadn't aged enough, so I'm glad for him he got to keep the role of Tom Miller.

 

I think the audience would have complained if they'd recast Tom.

Edited March 26, 2015 by staveDarsky

[alias1]

Did Jocelyn Knight retire because she's suffering from schizophrenia?

 

Episode 2: "We can't afford to lose this confession."

 

Episode 3: "We do not get buffeted by daily winds."

 

Episode 4: "No fact unchecked, no detail too small."

I know.  I can't get over how ineffective she is right now.  So I suppose she will be a real powerhouse down the road.  It will take a lot to make it believable for me if they try to do that kind of turnaround.  

[secnarf]

Tom might be a bit more sympathetic of a character if he did not suddenly look like a man in his twenties...he really should not have continued in this role after his growth spurt or whatever. I just can't see him as a contemporary of Danny's.

 

I think that's part of the point, though. Tom gets to grow up, while Danny doesn't. They're not going to look the same age forever.

Of course, Tom grew a bit more than you'd expect within the timeline of the show, but I don't think he looks THAT old.

[Sarah D. Bunting]

I liked that they used that close-up of him sobbing and rubbing his eyes; it did make the actor look much younger, and reminded you that he's really still a child.

[izabella]

Yeah, I haven't been impressed by Jocelyn.  When she said the prosecution rests its case, I was like, really?  I barely noticed her making a case.

 

And Tom looks like he's at least 15.  I don't really care, though.  Tom irritates me for so many other reasons and always has. 

 

This whole town irritates me.  First they are lemmings jumping on news stories to the point they made an old man commit suicide, and then they just keep ALL important information to themselves that would actually have helped the investigation.  Where's a tidal wave to take everyone into the sea when you need one?

Edited March 26, 2015 by izabella

[Bebecat]

The "kid" reporter (Oliver?) is despicable. He really turned into a toad over this case.

[Bebecat]

I am not hating on the kid playing Tom. It is just that he does not look like a child of about twelve. Beth hasn't had the baby yet, so it can't be that years have passed...he just really sticks out as not being right for the part anymore. He (Tom) would have been more compelling and sympathetic if he actually looked like a child, since he is acting the fool/childish. Sometimes actors outgrow parts.

[Maelstrom]

UCG of the night: defense barrister (Sharon?) snarling at junior defense barrister about "playing with people's lives" while still picking shredded Ellie out of her teeth. Whatever, show.

 

This whole town irritates me.  First they are lemmings jumping on news stories to the point they made an old man commit suicide, and then they just keep ALL important information to themselves that would actually have helped the investigation.  Where's a tidal wave to take everyone into the sea when you need one?

YES. I stand by my post from last week that the whole of Broadchurch is too stupid to live, so a tidal wave reclaiming the town would be a stroke of luck for humanity.

 

Oh, boy.  Susan Wright is back and helping the defense, by claiming Nigel is the killer.  Fucking hell, Susan.

I'm so glad that the townsfolk can work out all their group therapy issues in the courtroom instead of, you know, ensuring that justice is done for Danny. Why isn't Beth shrieking at the people who deserve it for a change?

 

Vastly preferred this to the past two episodes.  Barely any trial stuff and plenty of Hardy/Ellie.  Now, that is what the show is best at.  Olivia Coleman and David Tennant are good in all scenes, but together, they are close to perfection.

So much yes. Their scenes last night were just magic, especially the conversation on the drive to Sandbrook about why the case is so personal to him. DT just nailed it last night, and Olivia Colman was wonderful as always. I liked that as they got further away from Broadchurch and its horrible citizens, Ellie's spunk and happy-go-lucky attitude from season 1 crept back ("you can be Susan Sarandon"). Also fun was her disgusted look after he ticked his ex-wife off and she stormed out of the restaurant. I loved that she smacked his arm, and that he looked thoroughly unchastened. These two are gold. Thank you, show, for reminding me why I watch you.

Edited March 26, 2015 by Maelstrom

[DeeJayKay]

 

the conversation on the drive to Sandbrook about why the case is so personal to him. DT just nailed it last night, and Olivia Colman was wonderful as always

I am a big David Tennant fan and am so happy he had that scene last night.  So many people think of his character as loud and abrasive (and the one who falls over) and forget about the quiet character moments = the body language, the facial expressions, the emotions he conveys often in silence.  Think back to courtroom scene at the end of episode 3, where he was silently discomfited, appalled and then angry at the accusations thrown at Miller.  That reinforced everything the audience felt and gave the moment more power.  This scene gave him a chance to play out Hardy's emotions, something that helps explain why Hardy is both broken and driven.

[Constantinople]

Jocelyn is, in her own estimation, Willie Pep. Pep was a legendary American featherweight famed for his speed and touch. Jocelyn believes everything you need to know about a trial can be found by studying the boxing ring. She doesn’t mention that Pep wound up with dementia caused by being hit so many times.

 

Telegraph recap of this episode

[Bebecat]

I like Hardy because he is tough, grouchy and a bit condescending...not in spite of it. He landed in this town of lunatics, freaks and imbeciles...who,wouldn't be grouchy and disgusted much of the time...

[attica]

I liked the effect of Jocelyn's eyesight issue -- the expanding blind spot. Could be migraine, since she looked like she expected it to clear up, could be macular degeneration. Couple that with her discomfort with other cars' headlights and the subsequent crash, well, there's our 'why did Jocelyn retire' subplot.

 

Tennant's fine work aside, jesusjosephsaintmaryalive, Hardy is a crap detective. "Derp! What if Lee is innocent! I didn't do any checking to confirm Ricky's alibi, and now it seems he lied! Derp!" Seriously, Hardy: it's time to turn Sandbrook over to Kelly and Yolanda.

[Wordsworth]

Wow, this episode went everywhere.

 

* Claire:  Yes, she's definitely hiding something.  I strongly suspect she's in cahoots with Ricky Gillespie.  I wonder if Lee is protecting her involvement in the murder?  He seems far more into her than she is into him.  She says she's addicted to him and maybe she is, but she's pretty flighty, especially with other guys.  She clearly lied to him when said she hadn't been with anyone else.  She picked up a guy with Ellie last week.

 

Also, the way the scene played out in the hotel room. Ellie asked if Hardy slept with her, Hardy blew her off, turned over to his side and there is a quick shot of Claire on her side looking at someone. Now, at the time, she and Lee were together, but the juxtaposition of the scene could be interpreted to mean that Hardy is remembering Claire looking like that.  We could infer that he and she did indeed have an encounter.

 

* Tom:  He's a child.  His best friend has been murdered, his father has been arrested, his mother lives & works in another county, he's living with his loopy aunt and idiot cousin and now Mark Latimer is ditching him for a new baby.  I don't care if he hit puberty with a vengeance, his heart and his mind are still that of a wounded and grieving boy.

 

* Speaking of the loopy aunt...I don't know what they gained by putting Lucy on the stand.  Her testimony was always going to be suspicious.  Does the defense not know about her previous troubles?  I expected Sharon to jump on Lucy's credibility right off the bat.

 

* Susan Wright: Another one of Broadchurch's wounded souls.  She truly believes Nigel killed Danny because she can't believe he didn't inherit his father's violent tendencies.  And Nigel doesn't do much to assuage those fears.  I know he's upset because his biological mother showed up out of nowhere and wanted a relationship, but he looks like a maniac when he talks to her and threatening her isn't going to make her see him in any other way.  

 

 

 

 

[Bebecat]

It was ridiculous that Ellie and others were so shocked that her sister's testimony was a mess...give me a break...what did they expect?

[Wordsworth]

I know.  I thought all that business last season about Lucy having evidence for Ellie was just a ploy to get some money from her anyway.  All I can think of is that they're desperate to provide witnesses to Joe being the killer.  I wouldn't have put her on the stand lightly.  

 

 

[DeeJayKay]

 

I thought all that business last season about Lucy having evidence for Ellie was just a ploy to get some money from her anyway.

One thing I never understood was why Miller did not tell Hardy that Lucy had information she would not divulge to Miller.  Would you not have loved that Hardy/Lucy scene?

 

And I am quite sure that Lucy's had a slippery relationship with the truth for many years.  Because she now knows that Joe is the killer, she knows she saw Joe that night, so it would be good to say what she knows.

Edited March 27, 2015 by DeeJayKay

[Wordsworth]

Problem is that she may or may not have seen Joe that night.  The defense may be able to prove that she had no way of knowing who she saw.  Sharon certainly intimated that in this episode.  And she's easily discredited as a witness anyway.

[beeble]

OK, creepy anguished dad has a picture of bluebells. So he sent the card, obviously, because creepy people are known for leaving trails of clues. And he may possibly have a connection to the murder. BTW, has it been established whether Bluebells actually grow in France? Lee asked the question, but we have yet to get an answer.

 

I would be 100% on Team Lee if he'd punched Ollie. Keep on creepin' my friend, just don't hold back with the only reporter in town (who apparently only has a job because of his mom).

 

Ellie's sister held her ground in court, and it might work for her. There is no credible reason for a jury to not believe her. I am assuming that the jury was pulled from a local pool of people, all of whom were shocked by the murder and want to convict someone. Unless they are complete morons (always a possibility), they won't believe the stupid story being continuously concocted by the defense team, apparently on the fly. The trial is more than 1/2 way over, and only NOW they're trying to come up with an alternate theory to Joe Miller? Hey how about that guy over there? Or that one? Yeah, he did it. We'll just say he wanted to sleep with DI Hardy, or something else that can't be proven logically. 

 

Nigel is about 14 years old, emotionally speaking. Vince is the only one with any sort of wisdom in that family.

 

The babysitter's body was found, but the daughter never was. Hmmm.  My guess is that she is still alive. 

[pezgirl7]

The babysitter's body was found, but the daughter never was. Hmmm.  My guess is that she is still alive. 

 

It's the other way around. 12-year-old Pippa was found in the river. Her 19-year-old cousin and babysitter, Lisa, was never found. I'm guessing Lisa had an affair with Lee, and she is still alive. Maybe they accidentally killed Pippa, or just Lisa did? There was that super short flashback of Claire slapping Lee saying "What did you do?", so I'm also guessing Claire knows more about everything that went down, but am not so sure that she had anything to do with the murder. Although she's acting very fishy.

 

Also, James D'Arcy has the longest torso I have ever seen. That is all.

Edited March 27, 2015 by pezgirl7

[shandy]

I'm doing my best (Kathy Bates in Misery) fan twirl - "Broadchurch is alive, Broadchurch is alive" after a couple of weeks, or should that be a fortnight, of less than interesting eps.

Yay, Susan and Vince the Chocolate Lab are back. Susan combines being sinister, and heart-breaking, with just a touch of David Lynchish weirdness. How I've missed you. Gracepoint Susan, although perhaps the more compelling actress, had the subtlety of a cinderblock to the jaw. Susan's return also heralded one of Nige's comic yokel melt-downs.

I loved the Lucy and Ellie interactions. Lucy is so unapologetic small town blue collar, and really made me feel for Ellie all the more - the ambitious girl who wanted to be proper and respected. Question tho - why the **** would Ellie trust that space cadet of a sister to look after her kids?

That purple love hotel bed linen ... all the shippers must have been squealing.

[7-Zark-7]

If Tom realizes that all he has to do is hint to the defense that something shady was going on in the camper van during his clandestine meetings with Mark and cast suspicion on him to help get his dad off the hook, this trial is sunk. He may not be that wily, but Susan is, she may find evidence in her van.

Edited March 28, 2015 by 7-Zark-7

[pasdetrois]

Is somebody buried under the bluebell field we saw in the photo?

 

Does Beth own anything other than that teal blue shirt?

 

I've got a little script running in my head...DT's pronunciation of "Mullah" and "Peppuh." (Miller and Pippa)

[Pattycake2]

 

Something called Weil's disease may have contributed to Hardy's heart problems. It's caused by a bacterial infection and can attack one or more organs in the body. The sort of bacteria that might come from water that had rotting human or animal tissue in it. Hardy nearly drowned retrieving Pippa's body. He likely swallowed water. And in the book, in typical Hardy fashion, he checked himself out of emergency against the doctors' wishes to monitor him for infection, specifically Weil's Disease. It adds to the personal tragedy Alec suffered because of the Sandbrook case.

 

I just read up on Weil's disease and Hardy contracting it is an extreme stretch.  Comes from infected animals mostly in tropical and sub-tropical regions and causes a host of other serious symptoms way before affecting the heart. Seems unlikely, but, whatever, it's TV.     I don't know if Lee was having sex with Pippa's older cousin.  Maybe it was Claire.  Or both of them.  The mention of the furnace in the previews for this week's episode make me think that the cousin is no longer prancing through the bluebells.

 

ETA:  Per wikipedia, Bluebells do grow in France.  In France, H. non-scripta is largely confined to the northern half of the country.[29] It is not legally protected at the national level, but it is protected in many of the départements towards the edge of its range (Corrèze, Loiret, Gironde, Lot-et-Garonne, Dordogne, Cher, Eure-et-Loir, Indre-et-Loire and Loir-et-Cher).[29] In Wallonia, H. non-scripta is protected under Annexe VII of the Loi sur la conservation de la nature.[30]

Edited March 30, 2015 by Pattycake2

[staveDarsky]

Episode 4 is really where I started to see the richness of Broadchurch 2 and that it wasn't a straightforward linear story.

 

Parallels are starting to come up between characters and between the two cases, which show us opposite sides of reasonable doubt. If you were binge-watching episodes 3 & 4 together, then in the space between the midpoint of episode 3 to the midpoint of episode 4, you'd see

1. Ellie have a one night stand

2. Hardy and Ellie get accused of having an affair

3. Hardy and Claire accused of having an affair

4. Hardy and Ellie sharing a bed but in a very non-affair like manner.

The audience knows #2 is ludicrous because we saw H&E talking in s1e8 and we know where they were emotionally that night, especially Ellie. So do we automatically dismiss #3 as ludicrous too? No, we're split on whether that happened because Hardy wouldn't answer Ellie and then he pictured Claire. And we know Ellie just had an inappropriate encounter, so Hardy could be capable of it too.

Well, that's reasonable doubt. The jury in the Broadchurch case don't have our knowledge of what happened onscreen for either of the characters. All they can go on is what's said in court and they'd have the same doubts about Hardy and Ellie that we have about Hardy and Claire. It's no accident these all came up in such a short space of the series.

 

The other parallel I noticed was again Hardy not answering Ellie about the accusation he'd slept with Claire. It infers he doesn't think it's any of her business, though that will only serve to raise her suspicions. But within a few scenes after that, Cate Gillespie tells Hardy that Ricky snuck off with a bridesmaid. Then when Alec gets annoyed she didn't tell the police that the first time, she answers "What did that have to do with you?" It also echoes back to Mark refusing to admit to being with Becca when Danny was killed because he didn't see that it had any relevance to his son's murder. So there is Hardy doing the very thing with Ellie that angers him with Cate and Mark.

Edited March 31, 2015 by staveDarsky

[LisaM]

I thought that this episode was much better than the previous ones. Much less focus on the trial and much more focus on the comedy team of Millah(!) and Hardy. Loved seeing Hardy's ex wife.

 

Thinking that the bluebells in the photo were just too prominent to be anything other than a red herring.

 

Loved seeing Susan Wright show up; can't stand Nige. The best news is that Beth stopped being an asshat, at least for this episode.

[staveDarsky]

Almost forgot the podcast recap for this episode by the Sea Brigade.

http://seabrigade.li...h-podcast-s2-e4

[MaryPatShelby]

Back to the discussion about Tommy v Ellie for a sec, in an earlier thread someone referenced the accompanying e-book.  If memory serves, the book said that Tom wasn't living with Ellie because he believed she arrested Joe so that she and Hardy could be together. This made no sense to me because what indicators would there ever have been during Tom's life that Ellie wanted out of the marriage? Did he interpret her working long hours to solve the case to mean she was having an affair with Hardy?

 

The suggestions offered here about Tom's state of mind are so much more logical; thanks guys.

[staveDarsky]

If that came from me, I apologize. I paraphrased what another reader wrote about Tom & Ellie before I'd read the e-book myself. The e-book never refers to Hardy as part of the reason. Only that Tom was angry at Ellie about "that Joe business" and that Ellie was counting on Joe to plead guilty to prove to Tom what the reality was. Of course, Joe the weasel didn't and Ellie's broken hearted over Tom.

[Milburn Stone]

On February 2, 2015 at 8:01 PM, secnarf said:

Just because we saw the "flashback", that doesn't necessarily mean that that is exactly what happened.

No, but starting with the title "59 Days Earlier" strongly implies that we are being shown objective reality, rather than any one character's version of it.

Hitchcock got in trouble with the audience for a "false flashback" in Stage Fright, but he didn't deserve to. That flashback was clearly Marlene Dietrich's visual narration of events. When it proved false, logic was on the side of it being false, because we now understood her character to have motivation to lie. In the case of Broadchurch, it would be the show that was lying.

Unless there was something in that flashback that is consistent with the killer being someone other than Joe while creating the impression that it was Joe. But I don't remember the flashback well enough now to spot that clever manipulation, if it occurred.

Edited July 30, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[staveDarsky]

Looking at the posting date on Secnarf's comment, I see it was during the original British airing of series 2. At that point, any theory was possible. I remember that thanks to the story spinning going on with the Sandbrook case, I was doubting aspects of the Broadchurch case.

Edited July 31, 2016 by staveDarsky

[Milburn Stone]

11 hours ago, staveDarsky said:

Looking at the posting date on Secnarf's comment, I see it was during the original British airing of series 2. At that point, any theory was possible. I remember that thanks to the story spinning going on with the Sandbrook case, I was doubting aspects of the Broadchurch case.

I'm not clear on why that's relevant. Just like Secnarf, I'm only going from what I saw at the end of Series 1 and have not watched any episodes beyond the one being discussed on this thread. I have no idea what's about to happen. I do know that a flashback that begins with the title 59 Days Earlier strongly implies to the audience that the flashback is objective reality, not the testimony of one individual or another.

[staveDarsky]

At this point in series 2, things we thought we saw as being solid proof in series 1 were uncovered, largely by the defense attorney, to have holes. For example, in episode 3 (the one before this one), when Hardy took the stand, Sharon Bishop exposed that he'd made some assumptions such as "only Joe had access to the computer that was used to email Danny's alternate phone".  Viewers began to wonder if all of series 1 would turn out to have  holes like that, including the "59 days earlier" sequence. Could it, like on Gracepoint, have been a partial fiction according to Joe because he was trying to cover up for Tom or a conspiracy?

At this point (episode 4) we were also still in the dark about why Tom wasn't speaking to Ellie. It was possible, in viewers' minds, that Tom had been involved and he didn't want to be with Ellie because he didn't want her to figure it out.

All I'm trying to do is take us right back to the date of Secnarf's posting and why viewers were questioning the reality of the "59 days earlier" sequence and speculating what might be the reality in a way that couldn't happen once series 2 had been seen in full in the UK.

[secnarf]

8 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I'm not clear on why that's relevant. Just like Secnarf, I'm only going from what I saw at the end of Series 1 and have not watched any episodes beyond the one being discussed on this thread. I have no idea what's about to happen. I do know that a flashback that begins with the title 59 Days Earlier strongly implies to the audience that the flashback is objective reality, not the testimony of one individual or another.

For you, that caption may strongly imply that you're being shown the facts. That's fine. However, I disagree - I think that a character can show us their "story" of what happened 59 days earlier, with a caption there to orient the audience. I was never convinced that we definitely should not trust the flashback, but I was also not convinced that we could/should trust it. I was basically saying that the flashback is not set in stone and if the writers decided to re-work it and say that it was just illustrating the worlds the characters were saying and not what actually happened, then they could, because they left themselves that freedom. And, as I said in my original post and as staveDarsky mentioned, that is pretty much what happened on Gracepoint, so it's not like there is no precedent.

Anyways, staveDarsky explained it pretty well - certainly better than I can, a year and a half later!

[Roseanna]

On ‎28‎.‎1‎.‎2015 at 6:36 AM, staveDarsky said:

Getting back to Broadchurch, a real theme this year is about intimacy.

The parallel of Tom hanging out with Mark after Danny and Joe had previously been visiting privately is the most illustrative. While Joe and Danny were hugging and seeking some sort of comfort (according to Joe's account in s1e8), Mark ended up using Tom as a psycho-therapist of sorts. Neither seems appropriate to the general viewing public, but on description alone, are they so wrong to seek a hug or share thoughts and feelings.

The parallel is indeed interesting. However, Mark and Tom had more reason to hang out (Mark has lost his son and Tom his dad) as well as keeping the meetings secret (Tom dad killed Mark's son).

Instead, Joe used Mark's onetime failure to form with Denny a close relationship which alienated Denny from his dad as well as from his best fried Tom, Joe's son. And secrecy showed that Joe knew that he acted wrongly, although he claimed otherswise.

Also, although Mark acted wrongly to end his relationship with Tom so abruptly (and for an odd reason for how could his toddler daughter replace his teenage substitute son), that was nothing against what Joe did to Denny. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎31‎.‎3‎.‎2015 at 6:57 PM, staveDarsky said:

Episode 4 is really where I started to see the richness of Broadchurch 2 and that it wasn't a straightforward linear story.

Parallels are starting to come up between characters and between the two cases, which show us opposite sides of reasonable doubt. If you were binge-watching episodes 3 & 4 together, then in the space between the midpoint of episode 3 to the midpoint of episode 4, you'd see

1. Ellie have a one night stand

2. Hardy and Ellie get accused of having an affair

3. Hardy and Claire accused of having an affair

4. Hardy and Ellie sharing a bed but in a very non-affair like manner.

The audience knows #2 is ludicrous because we saw H&E talking in s1e8 and we know where they were emotionally that night, especially Ellie. So do we automatically dismiss #3 as ludicrous too? No, we're split on whether that happened because Hardy wouldn't answer Ellie and then he pictured Claire. And we know Ellie just had an inappropriate encounter, so Hardy could be capable of it too.

Well, that's reasonable doubt. The jury in the Broadchurch case don't have our knowledge of what happened onscreen for either of the characters. All they can go on is what's said in court and they'd have the same doubts about Hardy and Ellie that we have about Hardy and Claire. It's no accident these all came up in such a short space of the series.

The other parallel I noticed was again Hardy not answering Ellie about the accusation he'd slept with Claire. It infers he doesn't think it's any of her business, though that will only serve to raise her suspicions. But within a few scenes after that, Cate Gillespie tells Hardy that Ricky snuck off with a bridesmaid. Then when Alec gets annoyed she didn't tell the police that the first time, she answers "What did that have to do with you?" It also echoes back to Mark refusing to admit to being with Becca when Danny was killed because he didn't see that it had any relevance to his son's murder. So there is Hardy doing the very thing with Ellie that angers him with Cate and Mark.

Interesting points. However, I think that it tells of the jury's prejudices if they immediately believe that if a man and a woman meet alone, they must have a sexual relationship. 

Even if Hardy and Ellie had slept together in the hotel, that could have been only Hardy's ways to comfort Ellie (yes, we know that their relationship isn't like that but some other people might begave like that). Sex after Joe was arrested doesn't prove that Ellie and Hardy had fallen in love earlier and decided to frame Joe. As somebody already said, Ellie could simply have divorced him.  If Ellie and Hardy had decided to frame Joe, they could probably have been careful not to raise suspicous by being together in the hotel.

The whole idea that Joe was only beaten to confess is ideotic as Joe could have anytime told so but didn't until the trial.   

[Roseanna]

On ‎30‎.‎7‎.‎2016 at 9:59 PM, Milburn Stone said:

No, but starting with the title "59 Days Earlier" strongly implies that we are being shown objective reality, rather than any one character's version of it.

Hitchcock got in trouble with the audience for a "false flashback" in Stage Fright, but he didn't deserve to. That flashback was clearly Marlene Dietrich's visual narration of events. When it proved false, logic was on the side of it being false, because we now understood her character to have motivation to lie. In the case of Broadchurch, it would be the show that was lying.

Unless there was something in that flashback that is consistent with the killer being someone other than Joe while creating the impression that it was Joe. But I don't remember the flashback well enough now to spot that clever manipulation, if it occurred.

In the flashback there was also the scene between Mark and Becka that was shown so near that we hear their repliks. As it couldn't have been Joe's memory, it's clear that the flashback was objective. 

However, just that is the problem: we don't actually know what Joe said in his confession. Did he say only "I killed Denny" or did he also tell details that nobody but the murderer could know and that correspeonded with teh evidence? If the latter, how could the defence counselor succeed that the confession was left out in the trial? 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Roseanna