S02.E07: Episode 7

[jeansheridan]

I think Joe's defence has created enough doubt about his guilt. From an outside perspective it police investigation looks very sketchy. Ellie's two big mistakes are massive. The bribery and beating would make me wonder if this woman was credible. And the jury doesn't know Joe confessed. And Mark is sketchy. <br /><br />I love Ellie but I also love that she has made major mistakes without being evil or self serving. Well the bribe was self serving but she had a habit of paying her sister. So it probably didn't feel like a bribe to Ellie. Had she paid Nigel or Susan that would have been more obvious to her.<br /><br />

[pasdetrois]

"Pippa's pendant" in a Scots accent - love hearing it.

 

Claire's character, and the actress playing her, normally annoy me, but this week I was laughing. There's just something so loony and stupid about her that I can't take her seriously. The big googley eyes, open mouth, messy bun and staggering in the surf - hilarious.

 

Maybe Jocelyn finally felt free to declare her love because her mother had died.

 

It's odd to me that Beth is always in such casual clothing, even in court. I keep expecting the bereaved mother to show some dignity and gravitas to the jury by putting on a pant suit or a dress. She's usually slumped in a light cotton T and jeans.

Edited April 17, 2015 by pasdetrois

[Llywela]

It's odd to me that Beth is always in such casual clothing, even in court. I keep expecting the bereaved mother to show some dignity and gravitas to the jury by putting on a pant suit or a dress. She's usually slumped in a light cotton T and jeans.

Beth was heavily pregnant at the start of the trial and now has just given birth and not lost the weight yet - she's wearing what fits, I'd imagine.

[LisaM]

I loved it when Jocelyn's second chair called Abby out for being such a horrible person.

 

If the show is really about showing the people of Broadchurch and how the small town reacts to a murder, it would probably be the most interesting for Joe to get off and to see how the town reacts to him being back among them. We already know how the town reacted to Ellie when he was accused. I can easily picture the turmoil of "a non-convicted sex offender living among us" not to mention the impact on Tom, Fred, and particularly Ellie.

 

One question: when did Beth and Ellie repair their relationship such that Beth was unburdening herself  to Ellie regarding her marriage? I thought that Beth still blamed Ellie for everything?

[Wordsworth]

I think that Beth was able to bond a bit with Ellie last week when Ellie came to her after Mark's courtroom revelation that he'd planned to end their marriage.

 

* Abby: Clear conflict of interest in her bedding Ollie just to get some dirt.  She certainly found it, but why there were bank statements on the counter of Lucy's place that showed Ellie had written her a check is beyond me.  Lucy's smart enough to know where the defense probably got that information.  Maybe she's not smart enough to realize the impropriety of what Abby did to Ollie.

 

Ellie could have talked all she wanted on the stand about how the pattern of her life is to put off Lucy until she's tired of being nagged, but that doesn't change the fact that she paid Lucy specifically that time in order to get the information Lucy said she had.  It turns out all Lucy had was that she saw a guy dumping clothes in the dumpster.

 

Now as to the idea that Jocelyn could probably point out that Ellie's loan really wasn't a bribe because Lucy's police statement wasn't all that helpful to the investigation, there's a serious problem with her doing that:  it feeds right into the defense's theory of a set-up.

 

Lucy was put on the stand because the prosecution lost the confession argument and needed as much evidence as it could to prove that Joe is the killer.  Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have risked someone with her history.  She didn't do a great job as a witness anyway. Sharon pointed out the inconsistency between her original vague police statement and her testimony that she specifically saw Joe dumping the clothes.  If Jocelyn goes back to that statement and says, "See?  The information she gave DS Miller was minimal, hardly worthy being taken down as a statement, much less being paid for."  just to prove Ellie didn't bribe her, it will remind the jury that Lucy probably perjured herself on the stand.  And that will like cause them to take more seriously Sharon's theory that Ellie was trying to set her husband up.  

 

There's really nothing Ellie could have said to cause that problem with the check to go away.   

 

Sharon:  Until we know more about Jonah's arrest and conviction, it's hard to be sympathetic about her son's plight.  If she doesn't believe in the justice system, she needs to find another line of work.  She comes off exactly as Joceyln decribed her:  angry, bitter and constantly playing the Single Mother Card.

 

Lee & Claire:  Clearly, Lee saw something in the incinerator, but what?  Claire was pregnant, but was it Lee's baby?  Who's protecting who here?  

 

I was really disappointed we didn't get a verdict here.  Maybe Joe will just experience a crisis of conscience, confess and we can move on to sort out all of the Sandbrook issues.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[lucindabelle]

 

One question: when did Beth and Ellie repair their relationship such that Beth was unburdening herself  to Ellie regarding her marriage? I thought that Beth still blamed Ellie for everything?

 without words, when Ellie ran out to comfort the keening Beth, and Beth allowed herself to be held.

[Constantinople]

And the jury doesn't know Joe confessed.

As I recall, Hardy was on the stand testifying when the attorneys argued about whether Joe's confession was admissible, and the judge made her idiotic ruling. The jury was never ushered out of the room.

Also, in this episode, when Ellie was recalled to the stand, she testified that Joe confessed. Interestingly enough, the defense attorney did not object.

[jeansheridan]

"As I recall, Hardy was on the stand testifying when the attorneys argued about whether Joe's confession was admissible, and the judge made her idiotic ruling. The jury was never ushered out of the room."

I didn't realize that. And it would be hard for me as a juror to ignore that, although he was beaten. In the US it's not like people haven't been beaten for confessions.

I just appreciate that this season has built on events from last season. Emotionally it was satisfying to see Ellie kick the crap out of Joe, but obviously is was a very bad idea. And I like that the show took this really soapy idea (a cop's husband is the murderer) and grounded it in some reality and gave it consequences for Ellie beyond just the horror of being married to a guy who killed your friend's kid.

I've liked this second season a lot more than the first. More Hardy and Miller and less Beth grieving. I don't dislike Beth, but the show hasn't given her much to do other than grieve or be self righteous (although her "attack" on Becca's bar was awesome).

[fauntleroy]

Lots of helpful clarification above, thanks to all.

 

Even with the lousy job the defense did, it seems to me there is doubt aplenty. In the jury I was on, the defendent was more obviously guilty than Tom, but our verdict was not guilty, because of the difference between 'well yea obviously he's the guy', and the prosecution meeting its obligation of proof.

Edited April 18, 2015 by fauntleroy

[Eozostrodon]

Re Joe not taking the stand, I listened to the Serial podcast and one of the jurors was interviewed and said they found Adnan not taking the stand suspicious and that it played a part in their judgement. Juries will inevitably consider things even if the judge has told them not to, I think; it's human nature.

[DeeJayKay]

Obviously Joe did not testify because (levity, snark warning) the glass in the dock was all that was protecting him from the angry laser eyebeams of Ellie, Hardy, Beth and everyone else in town.  If he got on the stand, he'd be toast.

[dbklmt]

Re Joe not taking the stand, I listened to the Serial podcast and one of the jurors was interviewed and said they found Adnan not taking the stand suspicious and that it played a part in their judgement. Juries will inevitably consider things even if the judge has told them not to, I think; it's human nature.

Who is Adnan?

[editorgrrl]

Who is Adnan?

Serial is a podcast about Adnan Syed, who was convicted for the 1999 murder of high-school senior Hae Min Lee in Baltimore, Maryland. http://forums.previously.tv/topic/18112-serial/?p=1018036

[Bebecat]

I think it is ridiculous that Becca be blamed in any way for the thing with Mark...much less called a "tart" or whatever. He is the married one, not her. Women need to get over blaming the other women and put it where it belongs...even if it means they have to make a tough choice. Yes, it sucks when anyone has sex with a married person...but the vows are on the other person.

This town is full of some horrible people. Too bad Danny had to be the murder victim.

[Christina]

I think it is ridiculous that Becca be blamed in any way for the thing with Mark...much less called a "tart" or whatever. He is the married one, not her. Women need to get over blaming the other women and put it where it belongs...even if it means they have to make a tough choice. Yes, it sucks when anyone has sex with a married person...but the vows are on the other person.

This town is full of some horrible people. Too bad Danny had to be the murder victim.

 

I don't agree when the woman takes all the blame and the husband is forgiven in a "men will be men" way. But, in this case, blame belongs on both of them.  She knew he was married. We try to live in a civilized society where there are bounds you don't cross. If he was unhappy and had left Beth, I wouldn't see much blame on Becca. But, she knew they were together, and she gets to deal with the consequences of behaving in a way society has deemed unacceptable.

 

Edited to add that I rarely hear of men who are cheating with a married woman being blamed, while the woman takes all the disdain. I do see the double standard, I just don't see the other man/woman as blameless.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Christina

[Bebecat]

I did say it sucks for anyone to have sex with someone they know is married...but also that they did not vow to be faithful to anyone. I do agree that Becca should have avoided Mark/married men, especially in a small town. I do wonder, though, if not for Danny's death, if Beth would have dumped him. He may have gotten "off the hook" in a way, because of the tragedy factor. I know I would have dumped him quick enough. As it stands, it is just one of many things that suck about Mark, while Becca is now the town's scarlet woman, practically.

[Eri]

I think the general consensus is that Mark sucks on many levels and Beth should have left him when she found out about the affair. He doesn't get a pass for his wretched behaviour any more than Becca does. The fact that he didn't have the heart to tell Beth about the letter he was going to write her and then confessing it in court shows the extent of his character. He's a guilt-ridden man who, I think, blames himself for Danny's death but that doesn't mean he's still a likeable person, because he isn't.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Eri

[MaryPatShelby]

I think someone mentioned this before, but I have to ask:  Do they not have cross-examination in England?  I do not understand how the defense can put Ellie on the stand (as a hostile witness), and then yell fabricated things at her - "You wanted to continue your affair with DI Hardy!" "You paid your sister to say she saw Joe!" - and the prosecutor just sits there looking concerned, with no apparent legal standing to cross-examine or re-direct or whatever her questioning would be called if this were taking place in the US.  There has got to be a way, during the trial and before closing arguments, that both lawyers question those on the stand....doesn't there?

[Mackey]

I need to be reminded about why Tom (last season) said that Danny was not his best friend-in fact he hated him. What did he know or not know about his dad and Danny.? What did we viewers think was on his computer last season? Was that spelled out for us? Is it so unlikely that Tom killed Danny and Joe covered for him? I'm not sure that anything we've seen is inconsistent with that.

[Wordsworth]

IIRC, there was a fight between Tom & Danny via email in which Danny told Tom that he found someone better and that Tom was just a kid interested in stupid things.  It sounds like Danny's meetings with Joe were having an impact on the way he saw other kids his age and, specifically, his friendship with Tom.

 

So Tom was angry at Danny for dumping their friendship.  But there's really nothing in series 1 to indicate that Tom knew the better friend Danny found was his father.

 

 

[alias1]

IIRC, there was a fight between Tom & Danny via email in which Danny told Tom that he found someone better and that Tom was just a kid interested in stupid things.  It sounds like Danny's meetings with Joe were having an impact on the way he saw other kids his age and, specifically, his friendship with Tom.

 

So Tom was angry at Danny for dumping their friendship.  But there's really nothing in series 1 to indicate that Tom knew the better friend Danny found was his father.

That's how I remember it, too. And it came to nothing really.  It was supposed to make Tom look suspicious throughout the first season and was just a red herring, as so many things were in the first season.  But that seems to be where Chris Chibnall got the idea for Gracepoint

 

It amazes me that so many people still think that what we saw in season one is not necessarily what happened.  I've said it before and I'll say it again.  If Chibnall changes what actually happened in season one, I am done with this show. 

Edited April 21, 2015 by SierraMist

[Wordsworth]

I will be very disappointed myself.  The whole theme of "Broadchurch" series 1 was how Ellie thought she knew the people being investigated.   Throughout the investigation, she found things out about Mark, Jack Marshall, Nigel, Paul and others.  To go home at night to her husband and children, where people were exactly who they were supposed to be, was probably a relief.  The ultimate betrayal of that belief was finding out she didn't know Joe at all, either.

 

Which is why Joe must be the killer.  Changing it to Tom is unnecessary.

[staveDarsky]

Script from series 1, episode 8 just after Ellie has told Tom about Joe's arrest.

Ellie: Tom, I have to ask you. Why did you send those threatening emails to Danny?

Tom: He said he didn't want to be my friend any more. Said he found a new friend. I was angry. It was Dad, wasn't it?

------------------------------

 

By the way, if we're going to lambaste Mark for going after Becca, then shouldn't we also go after Hardy for propositioning her to "relax" with him? He was the senior officer on the murder investigation that she was an alibi witness in? 

[whirlingdervish]

Yeah, count me in with those who are frustrated at the lack of objections, etc., that we're used to in the US.  I can't believe that barristers are allowed to get away with that kind of badgering and grandstanding without getting called on it. Is that really how it is in UK courtrooms? Because Sharon would have had to withdraw half of that nonsense on this side of the pond, or at least gotten some judicial raised eyebrows/understated eyerolls at some of her histrionics. 

[Llywela]

Yeah, count me in with those who are frustrated at the lack of objections, etc., that we're used to in the US.  I can't believe that barristers are allowed to get away with that kind of badgering and grandstanding without getting called on it. Is that really how it is in UK courtrooms? Because Sharon would have had to withdraw half of that nonsense on this side of the pond, or at least gotten some judicial raised eyebrows/understated eyerolls at some of her histrionics. 

No. The courtroom scenes in this show do not represent actual UK courtroom procedures. Season two came in for a hell of a lot of criticism in the press over here about that.

[Wordsworth]

On the other hand, the Law & Order shows and other programs with lawyers in them here in the U.S. aren't really that much more accurate.  Police and lawyers in those shows are shown doing things they cannot do at all legally.  So I don't really expect "Broadchurch" to accurately reflect the UK system either.

 

 

[whirlingdervish]

No. The courtroom scenes in this show do not represent actual UK courtroom procedures. Season two came in for a hell of a lot of criticism in the press over here about that.

 

Man, I'm so relieved to hear that. It was driving me bugnuts. Thanks! 

[Mackey]

Thanks for responding about the first season and Tom. Basically, we were to assume that Tom started his coverup because he thought it made him look guilty not because he was guilty, it appears.

[Llywela]

On the other hand, the Law & Order shows and other programs with lawyers in them here in the U.S. aren't really that much more accurate.  Police and lawyers in those shows are shown doing things they cannot do at all legally.  So I don't really expect "Broadchurch" to accurately reflect the UK system either.

To be honest, I think it would be a mistake to expect any tellevisual drama to be an accurate reflection of courtroom, police, medical procedures, etc, even those that strive to be as accurate as possible, still less those for which such procedure is merely a narrative framing for a story whose dramatic focus is elsewhere.

[Last Time Lord]

On 4/21/2015 at 6:36 PM, whirlingdervish said:

 

Man, I'm so relieved to hear that. It was driving me bugnuts. Thanks! 

I'm with you on that. Nearly everything Sharon said during the trial had me like, "Whoa! Can she really act like this?"

Oh, hi. Just discovered this show on Netflix. It may have something to do with Jodie's Doctor Who casting, but I'm glad I did. 

[Roseanna]

On ‎17‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 5:59 PM, Wordsworth said:

* Abby: Clear conflict of interest in her bedding Ollie just to get some dirt.  She certainly found it, but why there were bank statements on the counter of Lucy's place that showed Ellie had written her a check is beyond me.  Lucy's smart enough to know where the defense probably got that information.  Maybe she's not smart enough to realize the impropriety of what Abby did to Ollie.

Ellie could have talked all she wanted on the stand about how the pattern of her life is to put off Lucy until she's tired of being nagged, but that doesn't change the fact that she paid Lucy specifically that time in order to get the information Lucy said she had.  It turns out all Lucy had was that she saw a guy dumping clothes in the dumpster.

Now as to the idea that Jocelyn could probably point out that Ellie's loan really wasn't a bribe because Lucy's police statement wasn't all that helpful to the investigation, there's a serious problem with her doing that:  it feeds right into the defense's theory of a set-up.

Lucy was put on the stand because the prosecution lost the confession argument and needed as much evidence as it could to prove that Joe is the killer.  Otherwise, they probably wouldn't have risked someone with her history.  She didn't do a great job as a witness anyway. Sharon pointed out the inconsistency between her original vague police statement and her testimony that she specifically saw Joe dumping the clothes.  If Jocelyn goes back to that statement and says, "See?  The information she gave DS Miller was minimal, hardly worthy being taken down as a statement, much less being paid for."  just to prove Ellie didn't bribe her, it will remind the jury that Lucy probably perjured herself on the stand.  And that will like cause them to take more seriously Sharon's theory that Ellie was trying to set her husband up.  

There's really nothing Ellie could have said to cause that problem with the check to go away.   

I agree after rewatching S1. The defence was quite right By drawing the conclusion that Ellie's check and Lucy's testimony were no coincidence: Lucy told Ellie that she could tell something that would help her in the murder case, but she wouldn't tell it unless Ellie would help her financial troubles with a scheck, Which she finally did, instead of telling straightaway to Hardy.

However, I don't think that it was a good idea from the writer's part how Abby found the evidence the defence needed. It was too much a happy coincidence, unlike Ellie with Claire.        

On ‎17‎.‎4‎.‎2015 at 8:09 AM, jeansheridan said:

I think Joe's defence has created enough doubt about his guilt. From an outside perspective it police investigation looks very sketchy. Ellie's two big mistakes are massive. The bribery and beating would make me wonder if this woman was credible. And the jury doesn't know Joe confessed. And Mark is sketchy. <br /><br />I love Ellie but I also love that she has made major mistakes without being evil or self serving. Well the bribe was self serving but she had a habit of paying her sister. So it probably didn't feel like a bribe to Ellie. Had she paid Nigel or Susan that would have been more obvious to her.<br /><br />

I agree that there is a doubt from the jury's POV, although it was also strenghtened by Jocelyn's poor performance. She made several errors of judgment by choosing wittnesses and couldn't disprove even the defence's wildest claims.      

After rewatching S1 noticed how lightly Hardy dismissed Susan and Lucy's evidence: after Joe's confession Hardy said to Ellie that they had thought that they have seen Nigel but they had actually seen Joe, Actually, only Susan had said that she saw Nigel whereas Lucy had said to Ellie that she had seeen "a man".