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?

"The back stories of the two barristers are boring - nobody really cares. Am I the only one who found the fond smiles over the manky hairbrush a bit unlikely!"

I did exactly the same over my mother's. That was a Mason Pearson too. Gave me quite a turn, that did.

I couldn't figure out what the manky hairbrush was. I was expecting another wig to come out of the box.

I don't think it was manky was it?

Annie, maybe, but I personally think the vicar's haunted look is because he himself is a Bad Lot with a Dark Secret yet to be revealed. he's obviously an ex-paedophile

I think it's either Tom or the Vicar. I think that Joe will be found guilty and Tom will jump off the cliff leaving a confession. I think the Vicar knows.

How many times have I tried to tell people Joe did it? Joe did it. Joe is the killer. The point of this series is not to question who did it (BECAUSE WE KNOW WHO DID IT) but whether Joe will go down for it!

Maybe the vicar will come up trumps and reveal that joe confessed to him. He does seem to "know".

Joe confessed to the police!!!1!

I think I'm going to have to leave this thread, it's not good for my 27-weeks-pregnant blood pressure

Agreed, seaofLove.

sea i've said the same, and keep getting tense when anyone says otherwise. We know he did it, we saw he did it - it wasnt a memory or something that could be twisted - it was an explanation of what happened. i.e. that Joe killed him. Full stop.

They dismissed the confession as evidence didn't they?

yes, and I think that was all the evidence they had!

... So... If vicar comes forward and reveals that joe has confessed to him then that would be new evidence innit?

I thought there was some sort of DNA at the scene- bloody fingerprints maybe? Or I might be getting it confused with umpteen other murder mysteries.

They dismissed the confession for dramatic legally dubious reasons. Doesn't mean that we, the audience, were supposed to dismiss it too.

EauRouge - the prosecution referred to the forensic evidence in the summing up, but just I think that it placed Joe at the crime scene, nothing more. But still pretty compelling, I'd have thought.

for seaoflove

Bloody brilliant Veronica, I'm starving. Must be all the barely-suppressed rage.

Whatever happened to Paul the Vicar being called as a character witness for Joe? Did I miss that? He was all screwed up about having to do it when he told Becca Fisher.

Annie, yes I wondered that. It seems to have been quietly dropped.

I also don't think anyone's answered the question about could the jury REALLY ask for new evidence, in the scene where they asked for a photo of the view from the hut to the car park.

Just caught up with this weeks episode .

Would two barristers REALLY stand outside 'avin a faaaag' and one snarl at the other about 'your stupid legal system' (or words to that effect)???

Very pleased Junior bloke told Junior woman she was a horrible person.
Not very believable though.

WHAT did fence post bloke say to Claire at the end? Just before he said: 'just joking' and she said: 'good thing you didn't become a father'

???

Bloody predictable way to end this episode....

DEFO agree with arealPipperoo though:

Next week will start with Tess bursting in, just as the verdict is about to be given, shouting "Stop the trial! I've got further evidence!"
I'm pretty sure that couldn't happen in RL but the B2 justice system will allow it I'm sure.
Then the episode will finish without a verdict on Joe, and no answer re Sandbrook, paving the way for B3. Which none of us will be watching, not least because all the actors will have jumped ship.

I reckon the massive cliffhanger will be a mistrial or retrial type decision at the end. Maybe because some of the dodgy stuff comes out like the barrister shagging the relative

I also don't think anyone's answered the question about could the jury REALLY ask for new evidence, in the scene where they asked for a photo of the view from the hut to the car park.

The jury haven't asked for new evidence though, just clarification of a piece of evidence already presented to them. That would be a pretty commonplace request AFAIK.

fence post bloke

Nerf: "I reckon the massive cliffhanger will be a mistrial or retrial type decision at the end."

That crossed my mind. Given that the whole conduct of the trial has been utterly dodgy from start to finish, there should be lots of scope for appeal! Plus it's a 10-2 majority verdict, which always suggests some doubt amongst the jurors.

The vicar didn't agree to be a character witness for Joe. The defence tried to pressure him into doing it but he said he didn't want to. It was left open with the implication being they had pressured him enough that he would change his mind and agree to do it but obviously not.

Then he told Becca he'd been visiting Joe because he wanted to unburden himself but she was only worried about how it would reflect on her. yeah because everyone finding out that she shagged Mark in a car park reflected so well on her