S02.E06: Episode 6

[catray]

God, I wanted to stand up and applaud when Ellie read Tom the riot act. Good for her and about damn time!! This episode wins for that alone, as far as I'm concerned.

After seeing that Claire is definitely involved somehow with the murder of those girls, and that she and Lee had a plan-- I'm wondering if Claire, Lee, and Rick (and possibly Cate?) are all involved in murder.

Hardy's wife? Ugh, step off. You cheated on your husband and ended your relationship, and now you're acting all territorial. Ugh.

[kat165]

I was hoping Claire would give Miller a better haircut. What did she do, move the hairpins around?

[Wordsworth]

LOL.  I noticed that Ellie's hairstyle didn't seem to change all that much, too.

 

Ellie: Count me in with those who were glad to see her finally put her foot down with Tom.  Her whole family is messed up and she's finally not gonna take it anymore.  I didn't think she felt put out when Tess showed up.  I also noticed her failure to control her expression when she recognized the pendant on Claire's portfolio photo.  And she's such a good friend to Beth.  

 

Tom: Sorry, still a kid.  Life's in shambles.  His testimony about how Danny was his friend, not his father's was an attempt to dismiss any notion that Joe would have any reason to meet privately with Danny.  It was a good attempt, too.  Jocelyn did a bang-up job talking him through it.

 

Ollie: Her nephew is an idiot, though.  He reported on the Broadchurch case when it was going on and caused no end of trouble by hooking up with that big-league reporter from the Big Bad City.  His trusting what's-her-face led to Jack Marshall's history being exposed.  Now he trusts the defense counsel's assistant?  Just because he wants a sexual encounter? Really?  Didn't he consider that she might want to find out what he knows about the case?  And, judging from Abby telling Sharon she's got something juicy, her rifling through the paperwork on the kitchen counter was clearly not in vain.  The BBC America preview pretty much tells us what she found, too.

 

Claire: The more I think about this, the more I wonder if Claire's the killer.  We now know that she stole the pendant and she was giving Cate death glares.  I wonder if she decided to hurt Cate for flirting with Lee?  Or did she find out that they were having an affair?  She has said over and over that Lee's like drugs to her.  I wonder if she is psychotic enough to be deadly possessive of him?  She's clearly ok with sleeping with other men, but would she react badly if she learned he'd been with someone else?  Would she have killed Pippa to get even with Cate?  Lee's clearly into some kinky things, but I don't know that he's really the killer.  Could he suspect that Claire's the killer and has been trying to protect them both?

 

Did Claire send the bluebells to herself or did someone else (like Ricky Gillespie) do it?  

 

Mark & Beth: As unlikable as they are, they are victims here, too.  Their behavior the last few episodes fits people who have little experience with the legal system.  An example is Mark having to be reminded by Jocelyn that stupid stuff he thinks has nothing to do with the trail really can be an issue. I'm sure he began meeting with Tom long before Joe decided to plead not guilty and the trial started, so he didn't realize that contact with the defendant's son would be construed as dicey. Of course, I would have hoped by now that he would understand that any of his movements the night of Danny's death is relevant.   

 

Their marriage clearly had rocky parts to it before Danny's death.  If Mark had been contemplating ending it, he obviously decided against it after his son died.  I'd expected his testimony to include how bad he felt knowing his son was being murdered less than 100 feet away that night, but it didn't and it gave Sharon an opening to twist that fact into a plausible motive.

 

Sharon & Jocelyn:  I think that Sharon resents Jocelyn for not representing her son.  Maybe she felt that her son had a better chance of getting off if Jocelyn took the case.  She may have grudgingly accepted that her mentor had retired, but to find out that she came out of retirement for this case and not her son's grates her.

 

She's a disagreeable person but she's doing her job as defense counsel.  If she's going to defend Joe, part of the job is to make the jury see that there could be other people with motives to kill Danny.  If Joe is not the only possible killer presented, the jury may decide for him.  The collateral damage is that it casts suspicion on Mark.  

 

Paul:  And I think that's why Paul has finally dropped Joe.  He wanted to guide Joe through accepting and repenting of his actions.  Joe decided to risk a trial if it meant he wouldn't have to spend years in prison as a child murderer.  Not only is Joe will to throw his wife and his friend under the bus to get out of it, but this denial of responsibility now has caused his son to be corrupted.  

 

The member earlier in the thread that mentioned how Broadchurch really is about the town and about the secrets people keep was right.  In and of themselves, most secrets probably wouldn't mean anything to anyone else, but, in the context of a murder trial, they can destroy lives.

 

 

 

[attica]

Okay, so procedural question: Why did the barristers not wear wigs while Tom was in the box? Is it a let's-not-scare-the-kiddies thing?

 

Wasn't Claire wearing pants in the Crumbly Stone Hut Of Sex? And in the time it took her to loosen Lee's belt, her legs are magically bare! I've heard tell of men who could make your pants fly off with one smooch, but I never thought I'd meet one!

 

If I were Ellie, I'd get the secret pacemaker programming code for Alec's device, and hack into his heartbeat whenever he pissed me off. Which would probably be often.

[gibasi]

 

Ellie really blew it with the necklace. Considering what she does for a living, she should have more of a poker face. I'm sure she realizes that Claire is going to destroy that picture.

More than having a poker face, I didn't understand why she did not confront Claire.  She is a police officer which Claire knows.  Claire knows that Ellie has been looking into the case with Alec so why didn't she just question Claire?  Or take the picture or something?

 

Tom's comeuppance was a long time coming I think!  So happy that Ellie finally read him the riot act.

[staveDarsky]

Re the wigs off: Yes. That's exactly it. When a juvenile is giving testimony, the judge can decide that wigs won't be worn so as not to intimidate the youngster.

 

Claire was wearing a long skirt before her 50 Shades of Grey scene with Lee. BTW, "pants" in England means undies/panties. Adds a new image to Claire wasn't wearing pants in the field.

 

The consensus seemed to be that Ellie didn't grab the photo right then because she didn't know how fast Claire could grab a pair of scissors and slice her neck.

[attica]

Thanks for that info, staveDarsky.

 

I found myself idly wondering why Alec's face/neck wasn't shaved for his pacemaker installation, and then it occurred to me that they probably only shave the chest for such a thing. And then I was disappointed, because: what a missed opportunity! (I am not a crackpot.)

 

I am determined to work "I will pay you money not to be such a knob!" into daily conversation.

[staveDarsky]

For you, attica!

https://www.stgeorges.nhs.uk/newsitem/broadchurch-at-st-georges/

So no shaving but lucky Felicity got to stick ECG dots to David Tennant's hairy chest! She did mention they ignored some of her advice in the name of creative license.

 

Frankly, I don't think hospitals shave to the extent they used to. Oh, and where she refers to filming in a hallway and also a waiting room -- those scenes ended up in the deleted scene section on the series 2 DVD.

Edited April 10, 2015 by staveDarsky

[beeble]

The NHS is pretty impressive: Hardy's heart surgery was lickity-split quick. And then they certainly sent him home right away. How can a person even have a conversation within 24 hours of that? I had sinus surgery and I was out for a week. But I'm a wimp, not a thick-skinned detective.

 

Who but a complete moron would have themselves photographed - for professional purposes no less - wearing jewelry known to be stolen evidence in a high-profile murder trial?

 

I can't believe the defense remotely thinks it has a chance with these unstable/unreliable witnesses it is putting on the stand. Oh, and now possible stolen evidence? Great idea. 

[editorgrrl]

The NHS is pretty impressive: Hardy's heart surgery was lickity-split quick. And then they certainly sent him home right away. How can a person even have a conversation within 24 hours of that? I had sinus surgery and I was out for a week. But I'm a wimp, not a thick-skinned detective.

 

Who but a complete moron would have themselves photographed - for professional purposes no less - wearing jewelry known to be stolen evidence in a high-profile murder trial?

 

This is TV, so I won't be surprised if Hardy is hillwalking next episode.

 

Claire took the necklace as a trophy, and she gets a thrill every time she wears it. Wearing it in a photo was probably a rush akin to having sex in a public place.

[Wordsworth]

Yup, Claire doesn't seem to be the most stable person anyway.  I can see her not giving it a second thought until Ellie saw the photo and Claire realizes, "Oh, yeah, she's a cop working on the case!".

 

 

[secnarf]

I'm putting this in spoiler tags because some people might feel it's too much information given that I've seen the end of the series (and I can't recall when exactly this comes up again), but it pertains to Claire being photographed wearing the necklace:

Nobody ever said that the photo was taken after the necklace was stolen. For more information on the necklace, see Claire's e-book.

Edited April 10, 2015 by secnarf

[Kathira]

 

The NHS is pretty impressive: Hardy's heart surgery was lickity-split quick. And then they certainly sent him home right away. How can a person even have a conversation within 24 hours of that? I had sinus surgery and I was out for a week. But I'm a wimp, not a thick-skinned detective.

A guy I know had a defibrillator implanted in his chest (which I assume is similar to pacemaker surgery) and yes, he was out and about within 24 hours. They did have him stay overnight, but the doctors wanted Hardy to do that, too. He left because, as Ellie says, he's a knob. He took it easy for a couple of days, but within a week, my friend was back working out with our running/walking group. He walks rather than runs, but he was walking easily 3 miles a day. His only complaint has been that the defibrillator makes it uncomfortable to sleep on his left side. He says it's the size of a cigarette pack and he can feel it inside him when he lies on that side. So, yes, I expect that Hardy will be back up doing his usual tromping around the fields and cliffs of Broadchurch very soon.

[staveDarsky]

My cousin had a pacemaker put in about 16 months ago and he had a lot of complications. So it can go both ways.

 

FYI. In one of the pre-surgery scenes that got deleted, Hardy was told that he'd be able to go back to work in 3 to 7 days; he'd not be allowed to lift heavy things or do strenuous activities for 6 weeks and he'd have to avoid using his cel phone on his left side. He also asked specifically to be put under, though it sounds like they wanted him to be awake. I was awake for a procedure where a very very long needle was inserted into my chest and it was unnerving, so I understand his wanting to be put under!

[pasdetrois]

 

How can a person even have a conversation within 24 hours of that?

My family member had cardiac quadruple bypass surgery and the hospital sent him home on the 3rd day after surgery. He was walking the hospital corridors the day after the surgery.

[MadeleineElster]

I think the most interesting part of this season has been the obvious (and fun) parallels to the Alfred Hitchcock classic, "Vertigo." At first it was just the music that sounded oddly similar, but

in this episode we had two distinct "Vertigo" parallels: the scene in the tower (I kept waiting for Claire to get tossed out) and the necklace on Claire's photo.  "You should never keep souvenirs from a murder" said Jimmy Stewart after seeing Kim Novak wearing one of Madeleine/Carlotta's necklaces.  Neither should have Claire apparently.

[Texasmom1970]

Olivia Colman really knocked it out of the park tonight. She needs to start making room for some additional awards because she's seriously amazing.

Yes, she and Hardy are the reason I am glued to this show. Even though it was a small, comedic role Olivia Coleman was great in "Hot Fuzz." Absolutely adore her!

[staveDarsky]

Even though it was a small, comedic role Olivia Coleman was great in "Hot Fuzz." Absolutely adore her!

I'm currently binge-watching Twenty-Twelve in which Olivia played Hugh Bonneville's personal assistant, Sally, who had a mad crush on him. I can see the shy side of Ellie in the that character.  Heart-breaking and funny. And the bonus? David Tennant was the narrator of the series.

 

Hugh and David (still the narrator) have gone on to a follow-up show, W1A, about the BBC. Olivia's appeared in one cameo so far. The 2nd series of that starts on the 23rd.

[lucindabelle]

Bypass surgery is common enough ut anybsurge ray is risky. Glad hardy made it out ok.

Was that a flashback at the end?

[staveDarsky]

Yes. Claire had a flashback memory to the night she stole the pendant from Hardy's ex-wife's car while Tess was shagging her lover.

[staveDarsky]

BTW, the reaction to Ellie dressing down Tom when this episode debuted in the UK is still on Twitter.

 

Click this #goEllie and then scroll down to February 9th to see it.

 

And for more comedy - the reaction to "I'll give you more money to be less of a knob":
Again, scroll down to Feb. 9.

Edited April 13, 2015 by staveDarsky

[chitowngirl]

I am bummed. I missed watching this last Wednesday and when I went to watch it On Demand, the only have episodes 3 and 4 up.

[Black Knight]

Mark really is the worst. Why would he not tell Beth before he went on the stand about what he was up to for that hour? Surely he knew at that point that he was going to have to account for it. If he weren't so dumb, I would think he was actually intentionally sabotaging his marriage by having Beth find out in the worst and most humiliating way possible.

 

I wonder exactly how long it will take before Nigel, the dude Mark says he would trust with his life, tries to make a move on Beth. I was shocked it didn't happen this episode, honestly. But see, Beth, there's one of the many positives about divorcing Mark - you can finally lock Nigel out of your house.

 

Ellie laying down the law with her son was so awesome. And I second the praise for the kid playing him, he did a very nice, subtle job of showing that Tom was actually relieved to have Ellie exerting parental authority.

 

I've gotten pretty interested in the other mystery. Unlike with Danny, where I knew very early on that Joe was the killer, because of meta/thematic reasons, I have no idea who did this one. It's wide open. One of the things I really like is that possibilities that have occurred to savvy viewers quickly have also occurred to the detectives quickly. Ellie raised the possibility of the missing girl being alive, and of her being the killer. She also twigged to Claire's shadiness quickly, and we found out that Hardy had started considering Claire a suspect at some point before this season started.

[staveDarsky]

Mark really is the worst. Why would he not tell Beth before he went on the stand about what he was up to for that hour? Surely he knew at that point that he was going to have to account for it. If he weren't so dumb, I would think he was actually intentionally sabotaging his marriage by having Beth find out in the worst and most humiliating way possible.

Well, he's not the only one who's chosen to withhold information only to have it come back and bite him/her in the behind. In fact, it's already happened to him when he ended up sitting in jail for a few hours in series 1.

[Catherinewriter]

Chitown girl, word. I'm so sick of "on demand" not being "on demand" at all, except when someone at the channels wants to put stuff up. I'm just seeing Episode 6 now (april 18) even though 7 and 8 are up. And forget the lie about putting episodes up the day after their air - just doesn't happen.

 

I absolutely adore Olivia Colman. Must go see what else she's done.

Edited April 18, 2015 by Catherinewriter

[Ceindreadh]

Chitown girl, word. I'm so sick of "on demand" not being "on demand" at all, except when someone at the channels wants to put stuff up. I'm just seeing Episode 6 now (april 18) even though 7 and 8 are up. And forget the lie about putting episodes up the day after their air - just doesn't happen.

 

I absolutely adore Olivia Colman. Must go see what else she's done.

 

Clear a large space in your schedule...she's been a very busy lady!

[LeGrandElephant]

Late watching this. I keep thinking, if Joe is so scared of jail, why did he confess? I didn't get the impression that they would have caught him in Season 1 without his confession. Even if Hardy suspected him it's unclear they would have been able to prove it. 

 

When Mark confronted Joe at the jail at the end of last season, didn't Joe say something about leaving Danny on the beach, thus admitting he did it? Why didn't that come up in court? Maybe not allowed because it's hearsay, but I would have thought Mark would have at least tried to tell everyone that Joe admitted it to him. 

I know in the US lawyers prep their witnesses and tell them what they can and can't mention, but if they aren't allowed to do such prep in the UK, they must get witnesses blurting out things like hearsay all the time. Why wouldn't Mark announce that Joe admitted leaving the body on the beach?

[staveDarsky]

On 2016-05-24 at 9:49 PM, LeGrandElephant said:

Late watching this. I keep thinking, if Joe is so scared of jail, why did he confess? I didn't get the impression that they would have caught him in Season 1 without his confession. Even if Hardy suspected him it's unclear they would have been able to prove it. 

 

When Mark confronted Joe at the jail at the end of last season, didn't Joe say something about leaving Danny on the beach, thus admitting he did it? Why didn't that come up in court? Maybe not allowed because it's hearsay, but I would have thought Mark would have at least tried to tell everyone that Joe admitted it to him. 

I know in the US lawyers prep their witnesses and tell them what they can and can't mention, but if they aren't allowed to do such prep in the UK, they must get witnesses blurting out things like hearsay all the time. Why wouldn't Mark announce that Joe admitted leaving the body on the beach?

I am holding out hope that somewhere in series/season 3, we'll find out what delusion Joe was under that he could confess and then later rescind and plead not guilty.

I would have loved it if, once Mark's visit to Joe in jail was made public, then the content of their conversation would have been entered into court, because, yes, Joe did tell Mark he left the body on the beach so the Latimers would get a definitive answer to Danny's disappearance. Obviously Sharon Bishop would not have pursued the content of the conversation unless it helped Joe, but why Joceline didn't follow up is a head-scratcher.

[Milburn Stone]

On February 12, 2015 at 10:09 AM, solotrek said:

Yup, I thought it was pretty congenial. Though I will say that there's something off about the way the actress is playing her, I haven't figured out if that's just the actress I'm having issues with or if there's something to the character.

Maybe there is something off about the actress. Because if Tess was supposed to be congenial in that hospital scene, why did it sound like "Hands off, sister, he's mine"?

[staveDarsky]

On 2016-08-01 at 0:43 AM, Milburn Stone said:

Maybe there is something off about the actress. Because if Tess was supposed to be congenial in that hospital scene, why did it sound like "Hands off, sister, he's mine"?

I've seen Lucy Cohu in a few other things -- two with David Tennant, coincidentally.
One (The Minor Character) where she played a drunk, slutty dinner group member who Tennant's character described with a lot of scathing disdain. 
A few years before that, she was in a TV movie with David and also Andy Serkis, though I don't remember her too well.
The third thing was Ripper Street. She did have a bit of Tess' stand offishness in that, but she was playing a Jewish orphanage matron so her character wasn't very respected in 1880s London.
Anyway, she gives me a Gillian Anderson vibe. 

[theatremouse]

On 6/5/2016 at 0:31 PM, staveDarsky said:

I am holding out hope that somewhere in series/season 3, we'll find out what delusion Joe was under that he could confess and then later rescind and plead not guilty.

I think Joe confessed for the reasons he stated prior to confessing: he was sick of hiding (and also seemed sort of swallowed by guilt). But then he plead not guilty because it finally caught up to him that child-killers and pedophiles in jail often get the shit beaten out of them on the regular , and if he plead guilty (or were convicted) the other inmates would view him as both. So he decided he'd try his luck to get out of it. But dude is definitely super delusional for many reasons.

I'm finding it hard to watch the courtroom scenes because it's so infuriating. I know all the defense really has to do is cast doubt, but their reasoning for all the doubt they're presenting seems to be call witness, directly accuse them of plausible alternate sequence of events, witness denies it under oath, defense says "yeah but hey jury consider that theory anyway". If they thought they could actually catch and prove the person committing perjury in the moment, as the prosecution did with Tom, ok fine, but him admitting to lying didn't help the defense. If the defense really thinks everyone they call is lying, what's the point? I mean really how likely is it that every witness is guilty of perjury. All their doubt is dependent on practically everyone lying.

[Roseanna]

On ‎10‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 0:12 PM, ElectricBoogaloo said:

ITA - I don't care about either lawyer's families. I'm still annoyed that Sharon blames all of this on Jocelyn. It's not Jocelyn's fault that Sharon's son killed someone and it's not Jocelyn's fault that he was sent to prison for it. There are thousands of other lawyers in the UK so I'm sure that there must be at least a handful of criminal defense lawyers who could have successfully defended him. It's not Jocelyn's responsibility to fix whatever happened. Unless Jocelyn bribed a judge to convict Sharon's son, then Jocelyn is totally off the hook as far as I'm concerned.

I don't know whether Sharon's son is guilty or not, whether he was treated fairly or not by the court. But the scene in prison where he said that she had promised that she will always fix whatever he did shows that she had raised him in the wrong way; because his mom is a lawyer, he wouldn't to need to face the consequences of his actions. In that way, he reminds Jim.

On ‎10‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 1:37 PM, Llywela said:

Everyone seems to hate Mark. I just can't, no matter what, but that may be because I'm a big fan of Andrew Buchan and have been following his career for years, so I'm just really enjoying watching him in this role.

Broadchurch isn't about goodies versus baddies. It's about people, flawed human beings, about the baggage they carry around with them and the way it impacts on every choice they may, the ripple effects of those choices spreading out in unpredictable directions. Which is why the private lives of the barristers is important; it plays into that central theme. They can't just be barristers pleading a case, because they are also flawed human beings with baggage, and that baggage has an impact on their professional lives, which has an impact on everyone else connected with the case.

 

On ‎10‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 3:28 PM, Llywela said:

Yes, it has to end somewhere - it ends with the two barristers, which is why we aren't seeing such minutiae of detail for anyone else. The two barristers are major players in this story, which is revealing very clearly that taking a case to court is not straightforward. All kinds of distractions and prejudices come into play, not just among those intimately involved with the case and investigation, but also among those at the forefront of the trial. The two barristers are key figures, too important to merely be cardboard cutouts presenting evidence, because their hang-ups and personal dynamic and mistakes will have as big an influence on the outcome of the case as any witness. That's why we are being shown what's going on in their personal lives, so that we can clearly see the impact that baggage is having on the case. It's what Broadchurch has been about from the start. It was never a murder mystery. It was the story of the impact a murder had on a community, and how the baggage of everyone involved, from the murdered boy's family to the investigating officers, influenced the outcome of the investigation. It figures that the same theme would carry forward into the trial.

Splendid!

On ‎10‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 5:05 PM, solotrek said:

I enjoyed the scene where Paul basically told Joe off. Joe's motivations are confusing. He obviously doesn't want to spend any more time in jail, but does he honestly think he'll get any semblance of life back? That'd he'd be welcome back to Broadchurch by the people and into his home by Ellie? The way he kept asking Paul if he'd be let off was sociopathic.

That Joe is capable to betray himself was shown already in his confession: he said he "loved" Danny but it wasn't that kind of love that wants the best for the loved one which wouldn't have secret meetings but the good realationship between Danny and his father. It was obsession, just like the "love" Claire loves her husband and he her.   

On ‎24‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 3:33 AM, briochetwist said:

I know!  She is the one who effed up, on both a personal and professional level, he gallantly (stupidly?) takes the blame, and she treats him in a totally condescending manner.  Drives me crazy.

I also think that Hardy was stupid to take blame for himself. Not only because his wife cheated on him, but primarily because she forgot her duty as police for a fling. She should have been fired.

But that is a part of the general themes of Broadchurch: Hardy is flawed and obsessed. His habit to suspect anybody was made extreme by his wife's betrayal, 

On ‎9‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 8:54 PM, seamusk said:

Now for my unpopular opinion. I like Beth. She's a great character. She doesn't have our birds eye view so it's completely rationale for her to question what Ellie might have known, and even more realistic under the circumstances to lash out at someone close to her as a point of blame. She's been slow to come around but you see her coming to her senses more and more, though obviously slowly. Honestly, it's amazing she isn't more of a wreck right now. And in this episode I thought it was great that she stood up to Mark. I think the show did a masterful job in showing how two big revelations about Mark sort of woke her up in a sense. I think that's very real and it's that sense of writing that gives the characters in this show depth, even when they don't have it at first.

I've also liked Mark this year. I don't think he is a good husband, always keeping stuff from Beth, but he is showing real depth and you can sort of get why he'd be a bit too hopeful about a new baby and doing weird things to help cope with losing his son. But I did see him genuinely trying to get better. He has a long ways to go but right now he's mainly paying the price for his earlier mistakes, where I think he has improved. He may have a ways to go yet to be a real good husband, but I can't knock a guy for trying. He did sort of wake up when the baby came it seems, but possibly too late.

I don't hate either Beth nor Mark. They are good protagonists with flaws who must face a greater tragedy than most people. One can't demand that they would behave rationally. 

On ‎25‎.‎5‎.‎2016 at 4:49 AM, LeGrandElephant said:

Late watching this. I keep thinking, if Joe is so scared of jail, why did he confess? I didn't get the impression that they would have caught him in Season 1 without his confession. Even if Hardy suspected him it's unclear they would have been able to prove it. 

When Mark confronted Joe at the jail at the end of last season, didn't Joe say something about leaving Danny on the beach, thus admitting he did it? Why didn't that come up in court? Maybe not allowed because it's hearsay, but I would have thought Mark would have at least tried to tell everyone that Joe admitted it to him. 

Yes, Joe confessed voluntarily because "he couldn't stand it any more". Although, unlike Hardy earlier said about the murderers, he had managed to behave quite normally, unlike other suspcets who all behaved in a sinister way at least in some aspects. 

The confession Joe did in the police station should have examined in detail in the court: did it include any details that only the killer could know? did it match with evidence and wittnesses's stories?  

On ‎6‎.‎7‎.‎2017 at 3:27 AM, theatremouse said:

I'm finding it hard to watch the courtroom scenes because it's so infuriating. I know all the defense really has to do is cast doubt, but their reasoning for all the doubt they're presenting seems to be call witness, directly accuse them of plausible alternate sequence of events, witness denies it under oath, defense says "yeah but hey jury consider that theory anyway". If they thought they could actually catch and prove the person committing perjury in the moment, as the prosecution did with Tom, ok fine, but him admitting to lying didn't help the defense. If the defense really thinks everyone they call is lying, what's the point? I mean really how likely is it that every witness is guilty of perjury. All their doubt is dependent on practically everyone lying.

That. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎10‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 10:00 AM, rozen said:

Screw Mark  and his endless whining when all the stupid shit he's done (as recently as a few days ago) gets thrown in his face. A new baby is not a restart button, you did not reincarnate into Mark  2.0, capable of having healthy human relationships. Who has sex with someone once and then thinks they are going to run away together? He is truly simple.

I think that the writer's idea isn't believable. Less so that Mark would have wanted to divorce Beth for Becca after having once sex with her but more so that he would have talked a to Beth both divorce before he had even asked Becca if she was interested in the permanent relationship with him. Many men would have lived even in not so good marriage until they had made sure of the new relationship and I believe Mark is one of them.

On ‎11‎.‎2‎.‎2015 at 1:59 AM, Eri said:

The Latimers' marriage was over from Season 1. They've been hiding things from each other episode after episode, even when it compromises the case. Is pride really that more important than seeing justice for your son? 

I don't think that Latimers' marriage was necessarily over in S1. Some couples manage to rebuild their marriage after much bigger problems. The problem wasn't the problems but that Latimers' didn't tried to solve them. However, in a way it was understandable: all Mark and Beth's resources were needed to survive Danny's tragedy and the new baby also demanded them.

I am not sure if it's wise to make a big desicions in that kind of situation. Especially as Beth had known no other life since her childhood: they had been together since she was 15 and Mark 17.  In S1 Beth said to Becca that she didn't give her to take 15 years of her life.