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.

I don't think it was him and I watched the first series. Where else can it go? Why have them do the trial? Unless it's just to involve the good actors from last series and not have a completely new story/actors.

Is the "point" just to have every one's secrets come out?
Or maybe that the Sandbrook thing gets solved?
Or that it's going to go all Gracepoint on us??

When Lee opens Claire's blouse - could he be checking that she is wearing the pendant that DT's wife lost - the evidence one?

But why show the reconstruction at the end of series one if he didn't do it? Surely they couldn't ask viewers to invest in eight hours of a show, deliver the much anticipated conclusion only to do series 2 and effectively say "only joking! it was someone else really!"

Why would Claire be wearing a piece of evidence though? I'm pretty sure the undoing of the blouse was supposed to intimidate her and turn her on at the same time.

And I agree with MissBattleaxe completely. If they retract that reconstruction, the show will lose every scrap of credibility. "And it was all a dream..."

battle axe, yes I watched series 1. And I'm still none-the-wiser.

I can't decide what it's trying to be this time round.

Perhaps Joe changed his plea because he didn't want to go to prison and it has nothing to do with his guilt or innocence. I guess exploring the emotional impact of a trial is the natural progression from series 1 which explored the emotional impact of a murder. Although it still doesn't explain why they have promoted the Sandbrook subplot to a major strand this time around.

He didn't change his plea to manslaughter though, or would that come later - seeing as his barrister didn't know about his last-minute change?

Thinking perhaps that as he didn't mean to kill Danny he wasn't guilty of murder.

I re-watched s1 last week and it was interesting to watch his behaviour knowing he was guilty. I'd forgotten about the pathologist saying Danny was strangled and seemed sure that was the cause of death. In the hut what made Joe go for him was D saying "I know you want to do things to me, why don't you do them to Tom?"

Another really yuck moment was when he was at the skating park where Tom was on his skateboard and Ellie comes over. He was saying how she could interrogate him any time in the bedroom and mentioned her using handcuffs.

The flashback left no room for anyone else being involved unless Danny was still alive in the car while Joe was cleaning the hut and someone came along. Can't see it being a Gracepoint though.

I think the intrigue is going to be that he did it but doesn't want to go to prison because...well it's not nice and he'd be a child sex offender/murderer. He therefore tries to get off and voila- there are enough loopholes in the arrest and the case to make it feasible. I guess that's the suspense bit.

In the meantime, DT, who is starting to look like a crap cop, is looking worse and worse in the Danny Latimer trial so tries even harder to vindicate himself in the Sandbrook case so he can say "Surprise! I'm not really crap!"

Meanwhile, ITV are rubbing their hands in glee and saying "who cares? at least we've got the viewing figures and the ad revenue"

Oh. Well, I don't think he did do it.

Do we know for a FACT that he did?

And why DOES the vicar keep visiting him?

Could it be that joe did do it, but he wants to 'expose' others for something and knows that this will happen through a trial, whereas if he just pleads guilty everything will stay a secret? Perhaps there is a paedophile ring or similar and he wants to 'bring down' others with him?

Chaiselounger- well there was a reconstruction of it happening and Joe murdering Danny at the end of series one. If they now change that to not be true the show will lose credibility a la Dallas and the shower scene.

I like what WillFerrell said^^ already we have seen that others with secrets are being exposed in court because of Joe's plea.

*Do we know for a FACT that he did?

YES!

Didn't you watch series one?

I think the intrigue is going to be that he did it but doesn't want to go to prison because...well it's not nice and he'd be a child sex offender/murderer. He therefore tries to get off and voila- there are enough loopholes in the arrest and the case to make it feasible. I guess that's the suspense bit.

This.

The first series left no room for doubt. And I've just read the book (and the two short stories which were written to supplement series 2) and again, there is no room for doubt.

In the book, it is presented as first person, not as Joe recounting what happened to Hardy.

It would incredibly facile if they try to change it now.

There are still loads of loopholes from series one, some of which will not be resolved (eg the psychic - how did he know what he knew? And the postman - what was he arguing with Danny about?) and obviously the vicar is being made to look dodgy again, as he was in series one.

Claire can't have been wearing the pendant - surely Hardy would have noticed that, as it was the thing which ended his career, and marriage?!

Joe has to have done it, agree with Battleaxe

Hope we get some decent clues in tomorrow's episiode.

joe hasn't actually said 'I didn't do it' though has he? He has just said 'I can't go to jail for Danny's murder'.

Perhaps if there was a lot of other stuff going on, then he feels that he isn't solely culpable? Maybe someone else was involved, it was a premeditated thing for some reason (Danny had found sometjing out?) and he was the one who had to 'do the deed?' It did look like a 'crime of passion' in the flashback, but he may have been put up to it?

Or maybe it was as it seemed, but again in the context, Joe, for whatever reason, doesn't feel culpable and having had a lot of time to reflect since bein charged has decided to get revenge/expose others?

Sea of love. Oh excuse me. SORRY. For finding it all confusing.
And yes, I did watch series 1. Didn't you read my previous post where I said I had.

I rhought lee ripped claires blouse open to see if she was wearing a wire?

Well no. Clearly I didn't, or I wouldn't have asked.

Thought he said 'first I have to check'

I think they're focussing on the tension in the community and the potential for disaster should Joe get off. I don't think it's meant to be a whodunnit, more a procedural court drama.

Saaaaaaadly, it appears to be a bit of a crap one

I agree Katese11. I think this is about the impact on the community and the relationships involved, and I think more secrets will be unravelled, but I don't think for a moment that they are looking for a different murderer.

I also think Sandbrook will kind of be solved alongside it.

I thought he was checking her very impressive bosom to see if she was wearing "the" pendant.

Beth's baby was definately meant to have been conceived before Danny died

Something that never got discussed very much was the revelation by Danny's sisters boyf that Danny used to go up to his farm at night catching "animals" (poaching?) with Joe and Tom. Got to be more to that. Ditto row with postman.

Foxy, I agree. Lots of things in the first series that, by the end of it, looked like red herrings but I'm wondering now if they might be significant.

Also the red diesel that was found on him (? was it? Can't remember – but anyway there was some connection with Danny and/or the hut and stolen diesel, which didn't go anywhere.

Had forgotten about the postman but he did act shifty when questioned, didn't he?

Nige is well dodgy too and has the world's worst poker face.

Now that Beth's husband is hanging out with Ellie's son, I'm wondering whether he's involved in something unsavoury.

Postie denied all knowledge and only witness was the newsagent. Was it Nige nicking the diesel?