*rollonthesummer* 's Broadchurch Series 3 thread, PART 2

[ThaliaLuxurySpa]

(Hope ok with you, rollon, to continue thread on your behalf?).

part 1 Broadchurch series 3 here

Let's go onwards with our intriguing or madcap theories, people...

Oh god cmon no, it can't be Mark.

If it is I'll be really annoyed about this.

There would be a horrible symmetry if Mark did it;
The DH of policewoman investigating murder is the murderer.
The DH of rape counsellor supporting the victim is the rapist..

There is no actual DNA of the rape is there?

I feel sorry for Tom. He has lost his Dad in traumatic circumstances, went through the trauma of his former best friend murdered.

I'm really hoping for a satisfying ending.

More candlelit /phonelit processions will really ruin it for me.

WHoever it is I really hope the producers haven't got Trish being "less of a victim" - in that she's covering something up or part of some scheme that her as a rape victim loses sympathy. I think the show has done a cracking good job of dis-spelling rape myths and showing there is no one way a victim's looks or behaves. In fact I think having a non-beautiful (sorry Julie H) and quite unlikeable rape victim has been the right thing to do and I hope thy don't destroy Trish as a character

Oh and I'm wondering is it's Clive's stepson?

I really, really don't think it's Mark. I think it would cheapen the whole trilogy.

I don't think think it's Mark either, I think the producers felt that after the trial was over in series 2 they had to do something with the Latimers. It would be weird if they weren't in it at all

WHoever it is I really hope the producers haven't got Trish being "less of a victim" - in that she's covering something up or part of some scheme that her as a rape victim loses sympathy. I think the show has done a cracking good job of dis-spelling rape myths and showing there is no one way a victim's looks or behaves. In fact I think having a non-beautiful (sorry Julie H) and quite unlikeable rape victim has been the right thing to do and I hope thy don't destroy Trish as a character

Yes, this. I think her portrayal as someone a) not virginal b) not conventionally young and attractive and c) not actually that likeable has been fantastic. I will be really disappointed if it turns out the rape isn't what it seems or the big time lapse is something really significant.

It won't be mark. It would be too ridiculous and yes, would cheapen it all.

I am gutted i can't actually watch this tomorrow night i have to wait until Tuesday! I would have loved to go and watch it at the cinema, is anyone here doing that?

I don't think it can be Mark. It wouldn't be in keeping with his character - from a dramatic point of view the clues are there, we just don't know they're clues to the crime rather than the general person yet. That's how it was in S1 too. Clues, red herrings etc. Some of them were about the crime, some about the inner person.

It won't be RoryVicar because he isn't a main character in this series.

It isn't Clive's son, he's too young for him to have done it before - and I think it will be the same person always.

Math is framing her husband up to a point he doesn't have an alibi, but she's overegged it by showing that he was away. As a breakdown truck he could be on call any time. She doesn't need to have shown herself to have been away, she could just have been asleep while he was on a call. And that would surely be a regular enough occurrence for it to be normal to not be able to provide an alibi or a non-alibi for every single call out.

Clive is too obvious. Think about the subtlety of the writing - it's SO signposted it can't be him! He's creepy, he somehow has trophies but it's not him.

It's Leo or Ian or both.

IMHO!

Kath obvs. And alibi that she was away.

The trailer is no use! I was trying to figure out who hardy could be saying the 'legal/moral duty' thing to, and realised it could be anyone actually - Ian, Katie, Trish, ed....Hang on, maybe ed saw something? He had fallen in the woods, maybe he saw and was.pissed off at Trish for rejecting him all the time so didn't tell the police? Or maybe the rapist has dirt on ed so he couldn't tell? Or it's something to do with the bag? Maybe ed saw the farm shop bag at the time of the rape so it was him that removed it in that first episode and planted it back at his so that he could 'find' it when the time was right and the rapist could be found without ed actually grassing him up? But then why would the rapist leave the bag there in the first place actually?

Oh i dont know, gaaaaah!

I reckon hardy is saying it to ed, i think ed knows who did it - there you go!

I think it's Paul the vicar or he knows who has done it

The vicar is called Rory isn't he?

Ignore me

Perhaps Trish was unconscious (rohypnol?) for longer than she thought and was filmed with all sorts being done to her over that time?

But look at what Ed did to Jim! How could he have restrained himself from really going for a rapist!

Odd stuff:
Why did Jim threaten Clive? (I can't remember if we knew this?), why all that weird stuff when Clive had to go out because the breakdown truck was bust? And the very deliberate photo?

It's not Mark.

I don't find Trish not-likeable. I think she is fallible rather than unlikeable - like a normal person. She slept with Jim - bad move - but she must have already known that he was a serial philanderer. No excuse though.

In the flashback of the party, she wasn't actually shown talking to anyone, or dancing or having a good time - she was shown moving through a room of people who were in groups talking to others, she was shown taking a tray of used plates into the kitchen and getting snapped at by caterer-guy, and she was shown being greeted by Cath in a loud, party sort of way. And rowing with Ian. And yest she said she was 'so happy'.

How did she get back home anyway? It's obv quite a way out of town as there has been much discussion of taxis etc.

Maybe ed didn't realise it was a rape (or trish) at the time. Or maybe he just saw something which is key, but couldn't say anything because he didn't want to get himself in trouble if the person in question has dirt on him, which is why he couldn't go and beat up the rapist. I feel like Katie might become important again. Mind you i don't know if Ed could have any dirt lef the police uncovered his thousands of photos of Trish!

Maybe he thought he was going to try and be able to 'help' Katie solve the case by 'finding' some key evidence or something and get her some rookie kudos, to make up for being a shit dad? Maybe that's why he didn't tell the police what he knew? He knew she was on the case didn't he, but told her it wouldn't matter. The farm shop bag being found at his last week seemed very odd.

Totally over invested in Ed Burnett knowing who it was now! 😂

The vicar is called Rory isn't he?

We all call him that because, ya know, Dr Who.

Like a PP, i was also struck by Trish's feet being as gnarly and dirty as all that. In addition to the time lag aforementioned.

And like a PP, yes, the music matters, but I'm also struck by the camera lingering for any length of time in things. Hmmm.

Not sure if anyone has said this before but could Trish have been attacked on the way home like the other two women? Perhaps she decided to try and walk home and the same thing happened as to the other rape victims? The running water could be a red herring. Might explain the gnarly, dirty feet as I'm sure many of us have been known to take our shoes off on a drunken walk home.

Thank you to every contributor:

I, for one, have enjoyed following everyone's ingenious and occasionally bloody bonkers theories on here every bit as much as the show itself

Creative lot you are...and I'll miss our Broadchurch Monday post-match analysis (strongly suspect tomorrow's finale will take us into a 3rd thread...).

If Chris Chibnall neglects to tap some outstanding MN ideas for future dramatic plot devices, well then he's missed an amazing free resource.

Keep the predictions coming...there's yet more gold to be mined

In the flashback of the party, she wasn't actually shown talking to anyone, or dancing or having a good time...

I disagree. It was a shortish flashback, we did see her smiling, greeting people warmly, baseline happy. We didn't specifically see her dance, but she did mention she did, and her ex sure as feck mentioned her "cavorting" (i have to assume that included dancing).

She wore makeup and was dressed nicely for the occasion; not like a puritan, but not with a hemline that her age couldn't handle.

None of the exhuberance of youth, and I'm sure a fevkuva dent was put into her mirth by seeing Ian and his GF (whom i believe was OW). But she didn't seem to be unhappy. Just, like, not what Daily Mail readers assume is the only believable rape victim.

If Chris Chibnall neglects to tap some outstanding MN ideas for future dramatic plot devices, well then he's missed an amazing free resource.

Meh, he's missed his chance. We're all working for MI5 now, haven't you heard?