S02.E05: Episode 5

[applecrisp]

I also see series 2 about the character arcs of Ellie and Hardy. In series 1, Hardy was already on the slide and Ellie, who started episode 1 on top of the world, plunged to the bottom by the end of episode 8. In series 2, just when we think they can't get lower, both do. But now in episode 5, Ellie is really rising like a phoenix from the ashes, becoming the detective who deserved the DI job. We just hope Hardy soon starts his rebound -- especially with his health.

 

Just wanted to say I enjoy your posts, StaveDarsky and the extra info you have been giving us.

 

When they showed the young girl from Sanbrook who was killed it just broke my heart.  I think she was loved so I really do not want it to be her parents to be guilty. That would be too painful.  The thought of her not being loved and cherished would break my heart. Of course my emotional state is one where I would cry during a Hallmark commercial.

Edited April 3, 2015 by applecrisp

[pezgirl7]

Remember that Ricky did not seem to know where Lee was, and Hardy did not tell him, so Hardy had no reason to think that Lee was "in danger" (altough Ricky seems to vibrate not-nice, possibly dangerous).  So once Hardy had his will done, he got a cab and went to see Lee, probably just to question him. And the fight was ongoing when he got there, so it hadn't been long since Ricky found him (probably bumped into Ollie and asked him!) 

 

Lee called Hardy on the phone to tell him that Ricky had found him. That's when Hardy went Oh crap, and jumped in the cab. So who knows how long it takes to get a cab in that town, and then add in the driving time, and it must have been at least 10 minutes. I suppose Ricky and Lee could have had a conversation before Ricky started punching him, but I still find it very odd that Lee just let himself get beat up. I'm sad there are only 3 episodes left. :(

Edited April 3, 2015 by pezgirl7

[staveDarsky]

So once Hardy had his will done, he got a cab and went to see Lee, probably just to question him.

Didn't you guys see Hardy take Lee's call at home? Or was that cut out of the BBC America version? Hardy had been looking at Ellie's wall of evidence.

 

And thanks for the vote of confidence applecrisp. I'm one who loved series 2. Really loved it. Hate to see all the negative reviews.

Edited April 3, 2015 by staveDarsky

[Wordsworth]

Lee told Hardy that Ricky was coming to get him, Hardy take a cab and gets there to find Ricky pummeling him on the ground.  Yeah, I'm thinking that fight would be over in the time it took Hardy to hail the cab much less have it drive there.

 

 

[meep.meep]

But this is Broadchurch!  It's a magical distance-altering land. 

 

I don't see why the priest visiting a member of his congregation in prison is such a big whup either.  I think that's part of his job.

 

And, in 2015, when two unmarried people are depicted in a relationship, and presumably having sex, I think it's a pity that the woman has to be referred to as a "tart."  Why isn't Father Paul called a name?

[attica]

He is: Vicar.

 

(Oh, I keed.)

[Wordsworth]

 

And, in 2015, when two unmarried people are depicted in a relationship, and presumably having sex, I think it's a pity that the woman has to be referred to as a "tart."

 

 

In Becca's case, I think it's apropo, though.  She is the one who was having an affair with Mark Latimer, after all.  She's a kinder, gentler version of Claire.  

[meep.meep]

Had she moved on to another married man, it would be one thing. And no one refers to Mark as her tart.

[DeeJayKay]

Whoops

 

Lee called Hardy on the phone to tell him that Ricky had found him

and I had just rewatched the episode.  Got the timeline jumbled.

Edited April 3, 2015 by DeeJayKay

[pbutler111]

Joe is guilty. He confessed. This season is not about disproving his guilt and discovering a different killer after all, his guilt has already been established. This season is about the gulf that exists between knowing someone to be guilty and being able to prove it in court. It's about how the baggage carried around by every individual impacts on their actions and interactions, and has repurcussions, sometimes major ones. It's about the way human beings in pain behave toward one another and how anyone can make a mistake. And it's about how fine the line can be between a tiny mistake and a massive mistake. It's about the fact that solving a murder and then gaining a conviction isn't as simple as just assembling clues and presenting them in court, because flawed, fallible human beings are involved at every step along the way, and human beings stuff up very easily.

 

I sincerely hope that this is all speculation on your part and not you telling us what actually happened when you saw the season as it was first broadcast in the UK? Because, if the latter, that would really, really suck.

[alias1]

I have not seen the whole season, just what has been broadcast so far in the US and I would have said the same thing.  Joe is guilty.  He confessed. If they try to spin this any other way, I am done with this show.  I'm not saying that he will necessarily be convicted.  He might get off.  But he will still be guilty.  Apparently his lawyer is really creating doubt with the evidence that was presented.  But not for me.  I saw what happened last season.  If they try to show it happened any other way, it will be cheating in my mind. 

[staveDarsky]

I like that in Scotland, there's a third choice a jury can make ... "not proven". It's for the situation where the jury feels the person is guilty but the prosecution didn't prove it well, or the defense knocked too many holes of reasonable doubt into the prosecution's case.

 

As for the Broadchurch case, Chris Chibnall, the writer, tweeted out

a definitive answer about the identity of Danny's murderer the day after the series 2 finale aired in the UK.

[jeansheridan]

 

He's dying? Maybe Hardy is finally realizing his life sucked before. I hope his operation is a success! I like the kinder, gentler Hardy, who's still rough around the edges.

It's also nice to see characters in a procedural show actually change a bit.  Miller is harder (although her "Uncle Alec" comments felt like a return of Season 1 Ellie and I rather liked it.  Fred doesn't deserve all gloom and doom), Hardy respects Miller more.  He's seems genuinely concerned about her at the trial while not wanting to get into her space too much. 

 

His whole, "put the key back under the thing" says it all about their relationship.  It's not quite a friendship, but a good working relationship at this point.  I love it.

 

Regarding the fight, I fanwanked that a bit.  Just like I have to fanwank Hardy being able to dash up that hill in his condition.  I don't really want to watch a show with Hardy barely able to walk or function.  It would have been nice had they gotten the timing better.  Or if they had inserted a scene of Ricky calling Lee and saying he was coming for him.  Not sure how he would haven gotten the number.  Mysteries had hard with all the details!

[Llywela]

I sincerely hope that this is all speculation on your part and not you telling us what actually happened when you saw the season as it was first broadcast in the UK? Because, if the latter, that would really, really suck.

I'm telling you my understanding of what this show is all about, based on what's been seen up to this episode.

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 11:50 AM, Llywela said:

Joe is guilty. He confessed. This season is not about disproving his guilt and discovering a different killer after all, his guilt has already been established. This season is about the gulf that exists between knowing someone to be guilty and being able to prove it in court. It's about how the baggage carried around by every individual impacts on their actions and interactions, and has repurcussions, sometimes major ones. It's about the way human beings in pain behave toward one another and how anyone can make a mistake. And it's about how fine the line can be between a tiny mistake and a massive mistake. It's about the fact that solving a murder and then gaining a conviction isn't as simple as just assembling clues and presenting them in court, because flawed, fallible human beings are involved at every step along the way, and human beings stuff up very easily.

Splendid!

On ‎3‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 3:55 PM, staveDarsky said:

I also see series 2 about the character arcs of Ellie and Hardy. In series 1, Hardy was already on the slide and Ellie, who started episode 1 on top of the world, plunged to the bottom by the end of episode 8. In series 2, just when we think they can't get lower, both do. But now in episode 5, Ellie is really rising like a phoenix from the ashes, becoming the detective who deserved the DI job. We just hope Hardy soon starts his rebound -- especially with his health.

Good analysis!

On ‎3‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 2:56 AM, staveDarsky said:

The relationship between the two QCs is resembling Hardy/Miller with Jocelyn being very unsympathetic about Sharon's struggle as a working single mother. 

 

On ‎3‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 4:56 AM, Automne said:

But we start seeing the cracks in Scumbag Defense Barrister's façade. I loved how Jocelyn laid into her. I see ol' Joss and I have the same pet peeve of women wanting to fall back on the "I'm a poor single mawm!" excuse when things don't go their way, as if those are the magic words to immediately elicit empathy from everybody and has them giving in. The only person those words should be said to is the person who knocked you up because that's his responsibility. Don't say it to me because all I'm going to say is, "So? What's that got to do with shit or with me?"

Don't think I'm completely without sympathy; my best friend is a single mom and I help her out sometimes, but that's out of friendship and I volunteer. She never acts entitled nor blames anybody.

I agree with Automne.

Whereas it's true that it had been harder for Sharon to work because she is a single mom, it's stupid if she had regularly used it as an excuse she had failed in the work.    

On ‎3‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 9:08 AM, rozen said:

I felt punched right in the feels when Sharon's son was asking for his mother to save him, like a little kid would from a monster under the bed. 

That. 

I don't know whether her son was guilty or not, but he certainly sounded like he was - but because his mom was a lawyer, he thought she could simply "fix" it as she has promised.

It really sounded that Jocelyn was right in saying that to Sharon being a barrister was to search for holes in the justice system. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎3‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 1:21 AM, thuganomics85 said:

Susan's cross-examination was probably the most I enjoyed the trial.  Certainly the only time I thought Jocelyn showed any of the spark that everyone else hyped her to be, even though, really, Susan made it so easy.  Even when she is telling the truth, she comes off dodgy as hell, and just always caries the persona of a creep.  It was a risk for Sharon to even put her in the box.  But, it sounds like her strategy now is that Mark killed Danny, and Nigel disposed of the body.  Lets see how much more they're going to drag this out.

I agree. Susan's testimony is an good example how much it matters who the wittness it. People like Susan are always outnumbered in the wittness box. 

On ‎3‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 8:07 AM, catray said:

Susan, argh... what is she trying to accomplish?! I wanted to scream when she accused Nigel of dumping Danny's body on the beach, though I did enjoy that we finally got to see Jocelyn do her job, freaking finally!

 

On ‎3‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 4:46 PM, Wordsworth said:

Susan & Nigel:  Has Susan changed her opinion of Nigel?  Did she really actually see him on the beach that night or was it her mistaking Joe for him because of her preconceived notions of Nige's personality?  Or is it now just getting back at him for rejecting her?

When I first saw this episode, I thought that Susan only gave evidence against Nigel because she was angry at hm for rejecting her as his mother. But I rewatched S1 where Susan already told the same to Hardy. 

Now, her motive could also then be the same: that Nigel refused to have nothing to do with her. But it could also be that Susan spoke the truth: she saw in Nigel his father and her husband, a child molester and a murderer.

In the flashback Susan was so far that she couldn't possibly identify Nigel for sure. But she could genuinely believe that she had seen him because she couldn't think about alternatives.  We can't be sure which it was.

But Hardy said to Ellie that Susan made a mistake in identification (not that she lied), because Joe and Nigel were both bald and looked like in dark clothes.