....CHANNEL 4........NATIONAL TREASURE.......TUESDAY......9pm.........

[RTKangaMummy]

I think this series will be very emotional and thought provoking with a deffo brill cast.

So I think it will deffo be worth watching

http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2016-09-20/meet-the-cast-of-national-treasure

.

Agreed.

I was so torn as to whether to vote for JW or RC, but went for JW in the end.

Really enjoyed this series, agreed that there are a lot of unanswered questions.

Loved the metaphorical ending that RC had lost JW - physically, emotionally, in every way.

The last episode served to demonstrate how having a bloody good legal team can get you off, even in the most serious of crimes. They were brutal. And corrupt. But sadly just doing their job.

Acting absolutely exceptional.

Slightly off topic but DH's beady eye noticed that one of the victims (Rebecca) was played by the same actress who played Reggie's wife in The Krays. Such a distinguished look about her! She's clearly suited to the dark parts.

I want a S2!

Dozy she was also in one of the old Cracker series as a killer- I remember her as I think part of a couple who murdered. But that's where my memory fades as I can't remember much else!

Yes, the actress is Kate Hardie. She's Bill Oddie's daughter.

Kate Hardie was amazing.

I thought it interesting that two actors known for comedy were cast in the lead roles.

The actress from Cracker was Susan Lynch (playing victim Christina, rather than Rebecca).

She was also fabulous in Happy Valley earlier this year.

IMDB link

Kate Hardie was also in another harrowing drama called Safe.

I thought the partner said nothign to protect the wife and her daughter. He was guilty for the rape of that poor girl but the baby sitter, i wasnt convinced, but then again, he took advantage of her young impressionable age.

The babysitter was 15 at the time. Under the age of consent. Statutory rape

I thought the whole thing was brilliant and the acting was exceptional. The courtroom scenes were so uncomfortable and I found myself mouthing "no" when he was found not guilty; it was so absorbing. I really want to see more RC in good British drama.

I've just watched the whole lot on demand over that last 2 days.

Sadly played out exactly like real cases. I think there are very very few false rape accusations so even when they get found not guilty (and not mentioning any RL names here), I tend to think it's lack of evidence and reasonable double the rather than they didn't actually do it.

I want to know what the daughter was trying to say in the bedroom. They often didn't let her speak/didn't listen to her. The counting thing was never explained. The relationship between her and her mother was very odd. Possibly she was abused and thinks her mother didn't protect her. Fou d it very odd when JW told her she shouldn't have come home.

I'm not sure about the babysitter. Obviously she was under the age of consent and that was hard viewing as it's very close to home for me, but the car she claims these things happened in wasn't even there so struggle to believe her. Obviously the other one was telling the truth. Think it's awful the partner lied to protect JW and the daughter at the expense of justice for Rebecca. I think JW believed her when she spoke to her in the toilet.

'They often didn't let her speak/didn't listen to her'

Exactly. She was expected to be quiet, not come home, keep her mouth shut and not cause trouble. She wasn't allowed to have any feelings or opinions of her own apparently. My parents were similar with me - no sexual abuse, but plenty of emotional abuse. I was treated like an extension of them, rather than a separate person in my own right. I found it fairly upsetting but brilliantly done.

Poor finish. Lots of unanswered questions.

Statutory rape

No it wasn't. There is no such crime in the UK. In this case, since the victim was over 13 and apparently consented, the offence would have been sexual activity with a child.

I tend to think it's lack of evidence and reasonable double the rather than they didn't actually do it

There is a third possibility which is that the jury concluded that the victim did not consent but the accused reasonably believed that she did. I would also add that in a significant number of cases the judge directs the jury to acquit on the basis that the evidence is too weak for a conviction. The evidence has to be VERY weak for that to happen.

but the car she claims these things happened in wasn't even there so struggle to believe her

I took that as meaning she had misremembered. This can happen with historic cases of sex abuse. In this case she appeared to vividly recall details that could not have been true, thereby undermining her evidence. She also had to admit she would be paid a large sum of money if RC was convicted, undermining her evidence even further.

Poor finish. Lots of unanswered questions.

Disagree. Yes there were lots of unanswered questions. My view is that it would have been a much weaker drama if it had attempted to answer all of them.

'She also had to admit she would be paid a large sum of money if RC was convicted, undermining her evidence even further.'

Given the fall out from the Ched Evans case, that's somewhat ironic I think.