MNPD assemble! It's Broadchurch time

[EauRouge]

Notebooks at the ready We should have enough information at the end of the first episode to start cooking up some slightly implausible theories.

To a certain extent though the rampage round to the Millers' house was prompted by Nigel - who has form for being the 'drive 'em out with pitchforks' type, first to the newsagent whose name I forget (who was in Dinosaurs on a spaceship, another Chibnall DW episode) second to his own mother (Pauline Quirke, unusual in this cast for having zero previous DW/Torchwood connections). Maybe Beth wouldn't have done that if not goaded on. But it will come back to bite her because, again, she's doing the 'how could you not have known' thing while not being aware of a new plank in her own eye (and you'd think after the last plank she'd be more alert this time. But no).

GentlyBenevolent, the CPS would never have opted for a retired QC. They have approved lists of counsel and would simply have gone for someone off that list. The likelihood is that they would have appointed a QC from the outset, not gambled on the Joe pleading guilty.

Re the timing of the court discussion about the admissibility of the statement, in reality this would have taken, I guess, at least 20 minutes with legal authorities being cited etc - and, to be fair, would kill the programme stone dead. But it really wouldn't have hurt them to show this being dealt with before the trial and without the jury being present in order to inject at least some semblance of accuracy.

Is Alec supposed to be paying for Claire's hideout and all her bills, shopping etc? That must be pretty damn expensive on a police officer's salary.

As a contrast I have been watching Smiley's People (1982) on BBC4. No histrionics, no rushing around screaming; just a well-written script, a complex story and superb acting.

It looks like half a million pounds worth of Dorset cottage at least. I wonder what the rent would be?

I watched that recently eddie. The Alec Guiness Tinker, Tailor too.

The quality is almost shocking. Or rather, it is shocking, as a viewer, not to be patronised or spoonfed; To have to sit up and pay attention.

Lovely

I'm not in law but have a barrister friend, and I'm pretty sure he's said that none of the interesting stuff ie requests to dismiss confessions, or the judge ruling it struck from the record, is ever done in open court. All of that stuff is done in private by the counsels and the judge. I have to admit that when I was a juror we spent a lot of time being shuffled off to the waiting room area, and when we came back in lots of stuff seemed to have already been decided.

Rather sad about it, but I think I'm done with Broadchurch this season. If I wanted to watch badly plotted, ludicrous storylines with shaky grasp of police procedure and dubious acting Charlotte Rampling I'd be watching CSI. Even Rev. Rory and the exceedingly slim possibility of seeing him nekkid can't keep me watching.

Where does Beth think her H keeps disappearing off to? I think in her position, with his recent previous for an affair, I would be jumping to that conclusion again, yet she doesn't accuse him of that. I wonder why?

Joining in a bit late!

I think Beth's husband is acting beyond weird hanging out with Tom. What's he thinking?!?

I'm not sure I'm really following the Claire/Sandbrook thing. Did she see something she shouldn't have? Or did she kill the girls, as suggested upthread?

I like the idea that the defence lawyer might be holding the disallowed confession in reserve as her trump card for a retrial.

Is it just me or is Rory from Dr Who looking HAWT?

I think Claire was supposed to lie & be Lee's alibi for the time of the murder/disappearance in Sandbrook.

Also I completely agree about Rev Rory.

So what was the Sandbrook case again?

To girls (cousins?) disappeared, youngest found dead, other, who was babysitting, never found.

Lee & Claire lived next door.

So who sent Claire the bluebells & why?

Someone letting her know that they knew what she had done?

The girl who is still missing?

Susan from the first series, what was her story?

A daughter who was abused/killed by Susan's husband?

Ah, I see.

Sorry, that was to Angel.

I find it difficult to believe that Lee's alibi-given by his wife-was watertight!?

i can't help wondering who is alibiing whom!

Ha even The Guardian is talking about the legal inaccuracies now...

www.theguardian.com/media/mediamonkeyblog/2015/jan/14/broadchurch-disaster-lawyers-itv

I'm confused now-if Claire wasn't with Lee & was with a friend does that mean her friend backed up her alibi or because that put doubt on Lee's whereabouts they never asked her friend if she was with her. (Iyswim)

^
Reading that back not sure if I'm explaining myself properly (or talking sense)

Claire initially lied and said that Lee was with her that night, therefore giving him an alibi. Then she came to clean to DT and admitted that she wasn't with him and was "with friends". Hardy persuaded her to change her statement so she went against her husband and did so.

Ellie has asked DT a few times what makes him so sure that he was the murderer and he has never really given an explanation. The first time she asked was in the first episode and it immediately cut to the scene with Claire and Lee sat in their back garden hearing the parents the other side of the fence.

The thing with the piece of evidence (the pendant) going missing on the Sandbrook case. Wasn't it stolen from DT's wife's car? Just musing, I wonder if the pendant was Claire's and she stole it from DT's wife car and then once she was safe in the knowledge that there was no incriminating evidence against her she changed her story for the night of the murder, pointing the finger at her husband instead?

Angelto I know what you mean. I don't really know how far the Sandbrook case went. They say that it collapsed. So it may be that they didn't go so far as to check her alibi, although you'd think if DT went to the bother of keeping her hidden for 7 months afterwards that he would have done since then...

But then as others have said, perhaps DT is suspicious/knows she is the murderer and is keeping her close hoping she'll slip up rather than to protect her from Lee.

I think its diluting the series by having two concurrent mysteries. The Old ones still seems to have loose ends and the i can't focus on the new sandbrook case as its featured in drips.

I agree, clean. The only thing I can think of is that perhaps they'll intersect in a way that will bring loose ends together?

Is Alec supposed to be paying for Claire's hideout and all her bills, shopping etc? That must be pretty damn expensive on a police officer's salary.

I've been wondering that. So many gaping plot holes.

As for Beth's pregnancy, that was revealed very early on, wasn't it? And it was made pretty clear that she conceived BEFORE Danny's death? She blamed it on "bloody Ouzo night" and said it was the first time they'd had sex in months. So if this trial is indeed supposed to be in May, she's having a very long pregnancy.

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps they'll intersect in a way that will bring loose ends together?

It would be nice to think so. I'm not hopeful

As clean says -very diluted and scrappy.

yy re Rev Rory - great hair