Apple Tree Yard starts on Sunday! [MNHQ message: No spoilers please, including what happens in the book!]

[Destinysdaughter]

I really enjoyed the book so looking forward to this. It's in 4 parts with Emily Watson playing the main character and Ben Chaplin as her lover. BBC1 9pm

Good article about it here.

www.theguardian.com/film/2017/jan/14/emily-watson-apple-tree-yard-middle-aged-women-infidelity-sexuality#comments

In the book (I've just started reading it) Yvonne says that she was recently hit on by a boy half her age, and promises to tell us more later. Could the 'boy' be the student at the conference who we see in the TV series, motivated by hurt pride to come forward and report the comment?

One thing I'm left puzzling over is the jury's verdict on Mark. I'm really surprised they bought the personality disorder theory, given that the prosecution did a pretty good job of discrediting the young psychologist's PHD.

Who says they bought the personality disorder? He got 10 years, reduced to 5 ( for good behaviour?), so 10 years for manslaughter is par for the course.

I think too many people are reading too much into it all, based on the TV series. At face value, he wasn't as clever as he thought he was.
The CCTV may or may not have been connected; obviously he said it wasn't at the time to placate her, regardless of what he really thought or knew- but the evidence of their shag came from somewhere.

I don't think she played him. I think she simply said what she was thinking at the time re. killing George, but didn't for a minute think he would act on it. If she really thought he was MI5 it may have been said as a 'joke' and she didn't think he'd do it.

thanks for enlightening us Polly, we would never have guessed that street signs on the telly arent all real places
How insightful you are!

Polly, I assumed the jury had bought that theory because that was the basis for accepting the manslaughter plea, wasn't it?

ie. He pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility (for which the 'evidence' was that he had a personality disorder).

If the jury didn't think he had a personality disorder, I don't see how they could have viewed the killing as anything less than murder.

Isn't the difference between murder and manslsughter intent?
So if he intended to scare him off then was overcome with rage because of his relationship with Yvonne, he could get away with murder.
Which would explain why he had the barrister being out the sexual relationship. He knew the mental disorder defence wasn't working. As someone said earlier

Wading, I agree. I'm puzzled about the manslaughter/personaliyt disorder thing too.

But his lawyer did look despairing after the Crown demolished that young psychologist. And I thought it was then that he banged on the glass to talk to her – presumably to say 'That didn't work so I'll tell you about my and Yvonne's relationship instead.'

personality

Yes there was clear, premeditated intent to kill. The injuries were pretty horrific. I don't really understand how he only got 5 years fro manslaughter.

Having an affair doesn't make any difference really, it just made him more likely to be guilty as he had a motive...

Having an affair doesn't make any difference really, it just made him more likely to be guilty as he had a motive...

Well, you could probably argue diminished responsibility, which I think is also a reason for a murder charge to be reduced to manslaughter - that he was so upset and angry by the vicious attack the woman he loved had suffered that he wasn't thinking clearly, wasn't in full control of his actions etc. But I agree that that change of defence strategy wasn't really portrayed clearly.

Formerpigwrestler9

Maybe RTFT?
I am replying to some posters who said that ATY would be inundated with people using it as Valentines Day venue.

There is no need to be sarcy as I'm only saying it does exist but the location on TV was not ATY.

No need for sarcasm.

Carrie agreed, the book did a much better job of explaining the change in his defence and that being the reason for the affair being revealed. I think the programme probably glossed over a lot of things that were in the book and brought meaning to the story.

Re the "I'm easy" comments - I think they had interviewed Sandra (?) the other colleague involved in the examination work (I think this was reflected in the book, not certain?) and probably did lots of tenacious questioning in order to get the "evidence" of promiscuity or flirting that they wanted.

In the book, Gary certainly does not leave her, he's portrayed as trying to help her back to normalcy, along with her son, they are both looking after her while she recovers from her time in prison.

With murder you have to prove there was intent to carry out the act before the act. He didn't go in there with the intention of killing George but got carried away, hence it was manslaughter regardless of the diminished responsibility.

I really enjoyed it. I'm not analysing it too much although I've RTFT and enjoy reading other people's analysis.

I got the impression that she knew what she was saying when she said she wanted him dead.

If he wasn't being vindictive by telling his lawyer because he saw Yvonne and her husband making supportive/loving looks at eachother, why did he tell her about the not wearing knickers thing? That info was superfluous.

I think he just wanted everyone to know at that point. His pride had been hurt, he kind of explained the same at the end.

'Really easy' comment is just ott.
No-one would remember it, the police wouldn't take it seriously and the barrister wouldn't either

Yeah that was stupid.

How were they sure he didn't intend to kill him though? He took a change of clothes? He very calmly walked up and knocked on the door. There is no proof to show he just intended to scare him and then got carried away as nobody else was there.

No need for sarcasm.

So why the sarcastic "they can make fake street signs you know"?

Haven't read thread but I gather from the last scene she set up Ben Chaplin to kill the rapist because he was so loyal and thick?
She knew she would smash his face in, even though she said it in jest in bed?
Did I get that right?

No,imo it was presented as him taking something she said literally.

It'll be interesting to see if the book is the same.

He wasn't loyal and thick at any point imo

To me having her say that she wanted him dead/to have his face smashed in really jarred with how her character had been portrayed. I hadn't got a single hint of her having that kind of violence in her, even in jest.

I agree soup

To me having her say that she wanted him dead/to have his face smashed in really jarred with how her character had been portrayed. I hadn't got a single hint of her having that kind of violence in her, even in jest.

I think it's credible that being viciously raped could bring about that change in a person, though. Not that I believe she meant Costley to take her seriously. But expressing a wish for violent revenge is pretty believable, I think.

I think it's credible that being viciously raped could bring about that change in a person, though.

But it didn't. There was never even any anger really was there? I mean, yes, obviously it could bring about that change and there is nothing to say that it didn't but it wasn't shown in anyway. The final bit was out of the blue and made it seem jarring to me.

thought it pretty unfair that the dd knew about her mothers affair but not her fathers. It makes you think about the whole family and what Yvonne struggled with while having a career and children compared to her husband.

All of the dynamics between her and Gary and their children were fascinating. He seemed to have such an easy relationship with them.