Broadchurch thread 2- the one where everyone in MNPD requests a transfer to the traffic division

[EauRouge]

Thread number one.

So are we all still watching, despite the mumbling, bad writing and inaccuracies?

I'm not sure what ClaireGwen is up to, but they've written her to like kinky sex which in telly land means she's a bad un.

Last night's highlight for me was DH's genuine confusion over whether subtitles were for the hearing impaired or vision impaired (he may have had a couple of beers). Also sweaty Lee hammering in fence posts.

Has that junior solicitor fella been in something on CBBC?

When does The Missing season 2 start?

Oooh yes it was a bit more like the 'old' Broadchurch last night (I think it might have been PQ!)

When the two defence lawyers were standing in the cliff and discussing who an 'alternative murderer' could be, one of them said 'I think that's pretty obvious'.....who was she talking about?

WTF about the 'paedophile support charity' idea put forward by the vicar and co? How is that a good idea for Danny's legacy? I still think the vicar is involved in something dodgy.

I think it would be the dad, Will

I am actually enjoying the whole series, despite the glaring inaccuracies and the fact it has become so far removed from the first series.

The thing that stood out for me last night as surely not being true to life, was that by taking the girl's body out of the water, was DT not tampering massively with any forensic evidence??

Also, maybe by asking him to tie her up, Claire is going to try and claim that Lee raped her? For what purpose, I haven't worked out yet, probably the same reason she is trying to implicate him in the Sandbrook murders.

Finally, where is that reporter woman who came up from London to cover the story in series one? I can't remember what happened to her.

The Nigel thing - I'm thinking his involvement implies that more people in Broadchurch were involved, so Joe could have done the strangling but what else was going on that night - and did it involve Rory?

Yes, I think this is bigger than just Danny and Joe.

Also what is Ellie's sister playing at? Does she know something? There was a moment really fleeting between her and Ollie when she was in the dock which made me think is she protecting Ollie or something, but I don't think there is anything in that really.

The thing that stood out for me last night as surely not being true to life, was that by taking the girl's body out of the water, was DT not tampering massively with any forensic evidence??

Oh yeah, I hadn't even thought of that. He does appear to be turning out to be the world's worst detective doesn't he, but I'm sure he will come good in the end! Unless........he was the killer at both Sandbrook and Broadchurch and is just sabotaging the cases on purpose!

I'd wondered whether DT was somehow involved but I hope not. It would be too contrived and utterly against the character we have seen develop thus far.

I think I will watch s1 ep8 again - in the reconstruction scenes did we actually see Joe carrying Danny's body onto the beach or was it just a tall figure in a woolly hat?

Seaoflove, I can't remember the actual last episode where OC's husband was revealed as murderer too clearly but do remember it being a bit of a shock! I wondered if he was trying to protect his son but then realised what an awful time he'd have in prison and changed his mind. I'm now very confused as to what Nigel has to do with it all, although I think he's a red herring. Sorry if I repeated what has been said 15,000 times !

Well as there isn't really a suggestion that Danny's death had a sexual motive I think Rory has let slip something by suggesting that charity to his mother. Otherwise why say? And who else was there when he suggested it?

The newspaper editor was there and someone else...Ollie?

And Rory said 'you're different, you're brave' to the mum. And I just don't see why a sex offenders charity would be suggested to her if her child wasn't killed by a sex offender.

Hmmmm, yes good point Nerf. It hasn't explicitly been made clear that it was a sexual thing. I remember at the end of the last series OC said to DT 'is Joe a paedophile then?' and he said something along the lines of he didn't know.

But im not sure if the viewers are now just supposed to be assuming that he is a peadophile and it was sexually motivated and so the charity thing isn't significant in that way? I still think its an odd thing for the vicar to suggest.

I don't think Rev Rory is a paedophile, but if there is one in the village then they could have confided in him. He'll be trying to help them but also protecting their secret which is going to make him look dodgy.

There was something else going on the night of Danny's murder - the illegal poaching (if that's what it was) which meant Nige stole the red diesel, and was why he had the crossbow in s1 etc.

The phone OC stole/looked through was Claire's, when they were out on the pull. It had 2 numbers only in it - Lee's, and then the one she rang, which then cut to the scene with the Sandbtook dad and his phone ringing. And he hd a picture of bluebells on the wall behind him, so presumably Claire was having an affair with him (Ricky?) and they shagged in the woods, hence her having the dried
Bluebell sent to her (and why she might have an active PO Box in Southampton / as way of contact - as DT seemed to accept that she had one a bit too easily imo)

OC's sister is just trying to do something right/ good for OC for once, I think, but has obviously cocked it up. She's trying to make up for blackmailing OC in s1 and getting money inreturn for giving her statement.

It's starting to look as though Tom is more involved, or is supposed to look that way, but I will be mightily pissed off if they go in that direction. As already said, a big deal was made of the 'big hands' by forensics.

I wonder if the weird 'friends' relationship between Joe and Danny, and all the hugging, was meant to represent the classic view of how paedophilia works –that a 'friendship' is struck up and the adult gains the child's trust and affection before moving on to sexualising it.

I don't know, though, whether they meant to say that given time it WOULD have turned sexual, or whether they're saying that Joe genuinely just wanted hugs etc from Danny and it's our assumptions and prejudices that make us believe all such relationships are dodgy.

Maybe the latter, seeing as they had that storyline in Series 1 about the newsagent being a suspect and being hounded to his death over it?

I'm not sure the Rev is a paedophile, but he has a 'stake' in something dodgy and possibly along those lines, I'm sure. I also still think he's Beth's baby's father.

And is Beth's husband being set up as dodgy? What has he been doing spending all that time alone with Tom?

I wonder if the weird 'friends' relationship between Joe and Danny, and all the hugging, was meant to represent the classic view of how paedophilia works –that a 'friendship' is struck up and the adult gains the child's trust and affection before moving on to sexualising it.

I think Danny did know it was dodgy - didnt he say 'I know you want to do things with me, why don't you do them with Tom' which is what made Joe go for him?

Yes, maybe the vicar knows there is a paedophile in the village and is protecting them. Maybe that what this charity thing is about, to get Beth to understand that 'paedophiles aren't bad people, they just need help' (in which case maybe the Latimer Dad is involved in something?). So that when a big paedo ring is revealed, people 'understand' why?

There seems to be a lot of loose ends that still have to be tied up given we are halfway through? Things that seemed to be red herrings from the first series but now seem not to be (eg. Nige, the crossbow, the drugs etc)

As for Sandbrook - i have lost track of who was shagging who!

So Claire and the dad Ricky were having a thing and are still in contact? So it was probably him who she slapped and said 'what have you done' in the flashback? Maybe she then tried to protect Ricky by implicating Lee as the murderer, making out that he is evil and dangerous, when actually he is quite harmless, really loves her and is just pissed off with being accused of murder? Does he know exactly what she has told the police? Maybe he knows she is involved somehow but not exactly how, and wants to protect her?

Don't get the whole Claire and DT doing it though, where does that come in?!

Ok I'll admit it, Broadchurch got good again!

Maybe Ricky killed the daughter because she found out about him and Claire and he was worried it would come out, but it will have been really ironic and uneccessary because the mum knew all along? What. Did the mum say about them being at a wedding and him having sex with a bridesmaid the night of the murder?

Not sure where the cousin comes in? The were lookin at lee out the window weren't they, and then the mum reared up behind them with an enormous cats bum mouth didnt she?

Im tempted to wager that whilst Ollie wasn't the murderer, he knew where the body was and brought it to the bottom of the cliff to make it newsworthy - and give him his moment to shine.

Will, I don't remember Danny saying that but I'll take your word for it!

I wonder if Latimer dad is the village paedophile and the vicar has his own shady past too? He looks guilty as sin all the time. If he turns out to be squeaky-clean I'll be positively disappointed!

Hacked, yes, good point. Ollie is definitely dodgy but I'm not sure in what way. I like this theory though.

I think Mark is the person the prosecution pegged as the "obvious choice" - because he hit Danny etc...and also cause he was in the next shot after they said that.

It's freaky to see Mark smile. I don't think he did that the whole of series one!

I don't actually remember it either only but I think someone else said it on this series thread and it vaguely rang a bell so I went with it

Yeah I'll be disappointed if the vicar isn't dodgy too!

You were SO convincing, Will!

RE it being Joe shown as a fact. Does the poster who said this at the end of the last thread mean because it was shown in film in the last series it must be true?

Surely that could have been a film interpretation of what Joe was confessing but actually it WAS his son, who murdered the boy?

I think he was murdered elsewhere and Joe had to get the other baldy bloke to help him (or maybe the son did) to try to cover it up. perhaps Joe knew other baldy bloke's father was a paedophile and threatened him with exposure if he didn't help.

I also think Claire is being set up now as an 'adventurous' sexual person who possibly was having threesomes with her bloke and the bloke next door. or maybe they were ALL at it with each other?

What short story?! I was mostly joking about Alec, they wouldn't do that would they.......?