Thanks mary, I think I get it. I was trying to understand the relevance of the inhaler to the detective which motivated him to remove it in the first place. But as you say, it's presence simply weakened the suggestion of rape.
That's how the defence made it look but don't you think the detective really did just remove it to be kind? If he'd removed it to make rape seem more likely surely he wouldn't have returned it to Ben??
I wonder if anyone else noticed the charges read out to Ben at the beginning of the court case? It was murder of Melanie on Sunday 25th November 2007 (a real day) and the manslaughter of Melanie on Monday 23rd November 2007. Oops!
I also noted two occasions when they showed the prison main hall at "Wakey, wakey, rise and shine time" and the clock displayed 3 o'clock both times.
Having said that and having read other comments on here which are critical of some aspects of reality, I am loving this series.
Excellent again - best drama on TV this year I think.
The barrister was a hoot.
On continuity, the prison officer doing his "wakey,wakey, rise and shine" routine with the clock in the jail clearly showing 3.00 shouldn't have been too hard to spot. The warder's shadow from the sun also looked a bit short for early morning.
if the defence find another suspect but by that time Ben has been found guilty, then what happens?
I would imagine Ben could appeal if new evidence came to light. But perhaps some of the posters here with legal knowledge could answer that more definitely?
I'm really enjoying this series. Actually, perhaps "enjoying" is the wrong word, as it's quite depressing. But I think Ben Whishaw is excellent in the role, and with an outstanding supporting cast, it's a very compelling drama.
It reminds me somewhat of "Five Days" last year, which I thought was excellent too. They've had the good sense to schedule it over five consecutive nights this time.
I agree i stumbled across this show out trying to hide from big brother and am glad, am so happy its all done within a week each episode leaves question if it was weekly i would be thinking about it far too much! And Ben Whinshaw is really playing the part well, his performance is so believable
Everyone seems to have noticed the clock being at 3 oclock and the lawyer wearing a blue then a white shirt, but apart from that this is so good. I can't wait to find out what really happened.
That guy said he will Kill Ben if he doesn't get his phone back though
I was hoping Freddie might help him but now he is trying to get him addicted to drugs
Am feeling even less sympathetic to Ben, he is annoying the hell out of me. He shouts that no one will listen to him but he never tells them anything. All he has ever talked about is what happened after they had sex. For heavens sake he is accused of rape. He has told noone of how she got in the cab, the way she behaved, the drugs, the weird way she was with the knife. Unless he is thick why would he behave like this. In prison he is all macho and yet doesn`t seem to understand that he has to help his defence.
I couldn`t careless whether he is found guilty or not.
When he made the first call to his mother he just dialled the number, surely he would have to use a phone card. All the build up to what would happen about the mobile phone going missing then nothing happens.
I think that his cell mate knew he took the phone and that he took it back and gave it to the other cell mate when he moved out.
I'm really enjoying this series. Actually, perhaps "enjoying" is the wrong word, as it's quite depressing. But I think Ben Whishaw is excellent in the role, and with an outstanding supporting cast, it's a very compelling drama.
It reminds me somewhat of "Five Days" last year, which I thought was excellent too. They've had the good sense to schedule it over five consecutive nights this time.
It reminds you of Five Days becuase it was done by the same director, Otto Bathurst.
Am feeling even less sympathetic to Ben, he is annoying the hell out of me. He shouts that no one will listen to him but he never tells them anything. All he has ever talked about is what happened after they had sex. For heavens sake he is accused of rape. He has told noone of how she got in the cab, the way she behaved, the drugs, the weird way she was with the knife. Unless he is thick why would he behave like this. In prison he is all macho and yet doesn`t seem to understand that he has to help his defence.
I couldn`t careless whether he is found guilty or not.
Maybe that's the way the series works. We don't know anything about him, whether he's really a nice guy or not, and we've only been shown his version of what happened on the night.
What we are shown constantly is that he has no control over what's going on. His lawyers make decisions based on their knowledge of the system, not the facts, which they don't want to hear. His time in prison is controlled by others, even taking heroin isn't his decision.
Meanwhile the victim's family are only shown as passive, allowing the police to control the way their daughter's death is investigated and prosecuted. They have no control over what happens either.
The system is what matters in this story, not the individual. We have yet to find out whether Ben can beat the system and get justice on his own terms. Whether he's guilty, and whether the girl's family can get justice, also remains to be seen.
Excellent episode. Getting very intriguing now
I think in the episode on Tuesday Freedie said he knew Ben's mum :eek: How does he know her?
It was interesting when Ben told the nice defence lawyer (the Indian girl) "his side", all we heard was he wasnt in the bedroom, so he went downstairs after they had sex, and woke up in the kitchen? Why would he do that, and wouldnt he "remember" what happens in between?
Although WE, the audience, didnt see Ben wake up in the kitchen. We only have "his" word for it.
Been loving this drama best thing i've watched this year on tv. I can't get enough of it. Hopfully it comes out on dvd. I look forward to watchin tonights
Imogen, as far as I can remember Ben has been told by everyone he meets not to say anything - I don't think it's his choice or him being thick. I don't think he knows what to do or how to do it. This could be part of the message of this programme, in that anyone who experiences the criminal justice system for the first time wont have a clue what's going on or how to behave.
Totally missed all the continuity glitches - I think I was too wrapped up in the dread of what might happen next.:D Loved all the court scenes and twisting and turning of all the characters and how they reacted to one another. Loved the sense of small victory we were given in the courtroom only to be followed by seeing Ben get a needle forced into his arm.
As for the point about how the Law is presented here. Well, this is a drama and things have to heightened and bent into a shape that will keep the audience hooked and guessing. There might be a handful of people in the legal system who might not act as they are meant all of the time. I think it's fair to show the moral greyness that must exist in that profession, I'd guess that you get the job done, within the not so perfect system provided, the best you can - simple as. Also, I think that out of the four legal beagles we've seen so far two have been more hard-nosed and business like and two appear to have more sympathy with their client - that's pretty fair, no?
That's how the defence made it look but don't you think the detective really did just remove it to be kind? If he'd removed it to make rape seem more likely surely he wouldn't have returned it to Ben??
Regardless of his motives, the fact is that a senior police officer removed a piece of evidence from a crime scene, evidence that was recorded in the constable's notebook.
As the sharp junior barrister has noted, this does now start to introduce an element of doubt about the strength of the prosecution case, and the job of the prosecution is to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas the defence doesn't have to prove anything, all they have to do is cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution version of events.
I thought it was interesting that one of the barristers accused the officer of regarding laws such as PACE, CJA etc., as an inconvenience, and a hindrance to doing his job. Unfortunately many of our finest guardians of the law do take that view, and we saw an example of that when the Inspector and Constable compared notes outside the court inbetween giving evidence - if any of the court officials or defence team had spotted them, the case could have been over there and then.
I think thats a fair point. Remember the seedy lawyer told him not to tell what really happened/what he remembered and just say "no comment" to everything. He also said "the truth can go to hell", it makes me wonder how much trust we can place in the system as the barrister was just concerned with winning rather than knowing the facts.
But even in Ben's version of events, there are massive gaps. Didnt he have any idea what was going on upstairs while he was downstairs? He said he didnt remember, but you'd think even if he was pissed he'd remember that wouldnt he?
I think Ben may have mental health problems of some kind - I dont think he uses drugs - not always anyway, he said he didnt want to take heroin but was forced into it, and initially said he didnt want the drug the girl took either.
Interesting flashback with the ice cream van though, maybe thats his memory coming back?
Hopefully being the operative word! I've been involved in several medicolegal cases (for both the CPS and the defence) and I'm surprised he hasn't had a psychiatric assessment and the issue about the possible effects of drugs and alcohol on his mental state hasn't been considered as a defence. It's also a bit late for the defence to gather information about the deceased from friends/relatives - surely all this stuff should be in the bundle already?
I should add that alcohol consumption is very rarely a successful defence for murder. Even if you can prove that you were blind drunk and unaware of what you were doing, you have to prove that your intoxication was involuntary. In this case, Ben seemed happy to pour shot after shot down his throat.
You are right that all this should be done before the trial. There's normally a fair bit of time, although not always enough to get these reports and yes a psychiatric or psychological report should have been done on the client.
I suppose one thing to note is that he changed solicitors to a private and clearly expensive firm (given the offices they occupy). This happens in a lot of the soaps/dramas. There is some idea that paying privately means you get a better defence! Not only would that family not have been able to afford the private fees of the solicitor (and the barrister) they certainly wouldn't have been able to afford the fees of the expert reports. I get particularly annoyed at the suggestion that the best advice in criminal cases will come by paying privately rather than Legal Aid. Most of criminal cases are funded by Legal Aid and it is always available for very serious matters at the Crown Court such as murder. This means that Legal Aid Lawyers may be more capable of defending the case because they do it all the time and have more experience. And the client's don't have to pay for the reports.
Involuntary intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent such as murder (hard to prove as you say) but it would only reduce it to manslaughter (which the client wouldn't plead to) but which nevertheless could be available to the jury if they thought that he did kill her but didn't mean to due to him not being able to form the appropriate intention. The crime of murder is one of specific intent and not basic intent.
I don't really have a problem with the defence spotting the missing inhaler during the trial. It made for good drama and was the first time I actually woke up and enjoyed the programme properly even though that probably would or should have been spotted earlier (though not always).
I do have a problem with the apparent lack of activity in preparing the defence generally. There was no need to pluck a defence out of nowhere three minutes before the trial and then bullying the client into using it. The fact that he changed his defence during the trial will lead the jury to think he's a desparate liar. They will not blame the barristers and solicitors unless they are told that they put him up to it. Even if he says in his defence later in the trial that he said what his barrister/solicitor told him to say that might not be believed if the jury have already formed the view that he could be a liar.
Did the trial start again? I couldn't work that out.
Gosh I'm sorry to be boring on about this programme. I just feel so strongly that if it's written by someone with legal training they could at least make it a bit more accurate. Just a few minutes shaved off the endless bits in prison suggesting that his legal team are actually doing some work on his behalf would be good.
Anyway I'm hooked now in spite of myself and need to see how it pans out!
Excellent series despite a few mistakes ie shirts, clock.
To the Op asking where they have seen Con O'Neill before, I am sure that years ago I saw him playing a baddie in an IRA drama but can't remember the name.
The mobile phone being found up the guys @rse, so it would be assault to remove it? So we are led to believe that nothings done about it no searches of cells etc?
Thanks to the legal eagle ops I've really enjoyed reading your posts and the one from the guy? with prison experience. Thanks goodness the Op who was obsessed by nudity seems to have disappeared.
Finally to the Op who gave us the spoiler I was already on to that. (want to do a smiley wink here but don't know how to activitate smilies)
Although WE, the audience, didnt see Ben wake up in the kitchen. We only have "his" word for it..........Interesting flashback with the ice cream van though, maybe thats his memory coming back?
I am confused. I thought that he only couldn't remember what happened after he had sex with Melanie? In episode 1, we did see him go downstairs, down at least another shot, then later, he wakes up in the kitchen.
How did Ben go from having Con O'Neill as his lawyer, to having the Asian lawyer and Alison Slaughter representing him in court as well? Is Con O'Neill the equivalent of an American public defendant? I am not used to seeing three different lawyers who don't seem like they are even from the same law firm, representing the same client in court. And great catch by the Asian lawyer regarding the missing inhaler. Nice to see Box go from smug to squirming.
Did they just completely drop the missing cell phone plot? I assume it was the cellmate who was not Pete P who took it. The prisoner with the cell phone may come across as scarier compared to Freddy, but I think Freddy is the eviler of the two. At least with the cell phone guy, you know what he is. Freddy tries to make you think he's your friend, but his intentions are much more nefarious.
How do we know he stayed in the kitchen all the time?
You're right I think Freddie is definitely a very bad guy as he makes Ben think he is his friend.
I do have a problem with the apparent lack of activity in preparing the defence generally. There was no need to pluck a defence out of nowhere three minutes before the trial and then bullying the client into using it. The fact that he changed his defence during the trial will lead the jury to think he's a desparate liar.
But aren't we supposed to share Ben's feeling of powerlessness over what's happening to him? On the one hand, he's being forced to smuggle heroin into prison and then take it against his will, and on the other hand he's being pressured into making statements in court that are either beyond his recollection or simply untrue. Since the only people who can help him are either criminals or the family and friends of the woman he's accused of murdering, his fate is completely out of his control.
Am feeling even less sympathetic to Ben, he is annoying the hell out of me. He shouts that no one will listen to him but he never tells them anything. .................... All the build up to what would happen about the mobile phone going missing then nothing happens.
I think that his cell mate knew he took the phone and that he took it back and gave it to the other cell mate when he moved out.
he's annoying the hell out of me too. Almost every single action or decision he makes is utter senseless stupidity.
I want to slap him :mad:
Comments
That's how the defence made it look but don't you think the detective really did just remove it to be kind? If he'd removed it to make rape seem more likely surely he wouldn't have returned it to Ben??
I missed the two white shirts!
I wonder if anyone else noticed the charges read out to Ben at the beginning of the court case? It was murder of Melanie on Sunday 25th November 2007 (a real day) and the manslaughter of Melanie on Monday 23rd November 2007. Oops!
I also noted two occasions when they showed the prison main hall at "Wakey, wakey, rise and shine time" and the clock displayed 3 o'clock both times.
Having said that and having read other comments on here which are critical of some aspects of reality, I am loving this series.
On Tuesday's episode, he persuaded Ben to re-employ him.
The barrister was a hoot.
On continuity, the prison officer doing his "wakey,wakey, rise and shine" routine with the clock in the jail clearly showing 3.00 shouldn't have been too hard to spot. The warder's shadow from the sun also looked a bit short for early morning.
I would imagine Ben could appeal if new evidence came to light. But perhaps some of the posters here with legal knowledge could answer that more definitely?
I agree i stumbled across this show out trying to hide from big brother and am glad, am so happy its all done within a week each episode leaves question if it was weekly i would be thinking about it far too much! And Ben Whinshaw is really playing the part well, his performance is so believable
That guy said he will Kill Ben if he doesn't get his phone back though
I was hoping Freddie might help him but now he is trying to get him addicted to drugs
I couldn`t careless whether he is found guilty or not.
When he made the first call to his mother he just dialled the number, surely he would have to use a phone card. All the build up to what would happen about the mobile phone going missing then nothing happens.
I think that his cell mate knew he took the phone and that he took it back and gave it to the other cell mate when he moved out.
It reminds you of Five Days becuase it was done by the same director, Otto Bathurst.
Maybe that's the way the series works. We don't know anything about him, whether he's really a nice guy or not, and we've only been shown his version of what happened on the night.
What we are shown constantly is that he has no control over what's going on. His lawyers make decisions based on their knowledge of the system, not the facts, which they don't want to hear. His time in prison is controlled by others, even taking heroin isn't his decision.
Meanwhile the victim's family are only shown as passive, allowing the police to control the way their daughter's death is investigated and prosecuted. They have no control over what happens either.
The system is what matters in this story, not the individual. We have yet to find out whether Ben can beat the system and get justice on his own terms. Whether he's guilty, and whether the girl's family can get justice, also remains to be seen.
I think in the episode on Tuesday Freedie said he knew Ben's mum :eek: How does he know her?
It was interesting when Ben told the nice defence lawyer (the Indian girl) "his side", all we heard was he wasnt in the bedroom, so he went downstairs after they had sex, and woke up in the kitchen? Why would he do that, and wouldnt he "remember" what happens in between?
Although WE, the audience, didnt see Ben wake up in the kitchen. We only have "his" word for it.
Totally missed all the continuity glitches - I think I was too wrapped up in the dread of what might happen next.:D Loved all the court scenes and twisting and turning of all the characters and how they reacted to one another. Loved the sense of small victory we were given in the courtroom only to be followed by seeing Ben get a needle forced into his arm.
As for the point about how the Law is presented here. Well, this is a drama and things have to heightened and bent into a shape that will keep the audience hooked and guessing. There might be a handful of people in the legal system who might not act as they are meant all of the time.
As the sharp junior barrister has noted, this does now start to introduce an element of doubt about the strength of the prosecution case, and the job of the prosecution is to prove the case "beyond reasonable doubt", whereas the defence doesn't have to prove anything, all they have to do is cast sufficient doubt on the prosecution version of events.
I thought it was interesting that one of the barristers accused the officer of regarding laws such as PACE, CJA etc., as an inconvenience, and a hindrance to doing his job. Unfortunately many of our finest guardians of the law do take that view, and we saw an example of that when the Inspector and Constable compared notes outside the court inbetween giving evidence - if any of the court officials or defence team had spotted them, the case could have been over there and then.
But even in Ben's version of events, there are massive gaps. Didnt he have any idea what was going on upstairs while he was downstairs? He said he didnt remember, but you'd think even if he was pissed he'd remember that wouldnt he?
Interesting flashback with the ice cream van though, maybe thats his memory coming back?
You are right that all this should be done before the trial. There's normally a fair bit of time, although not always enough to get these reports and yes a psychiatric or psychological report should have been done on the client.
I suppose one thing to note is that he changed solicitors to a private and clearly expensive firm (given the offices they occupy). This happens in a lot of the soaps/dramas. There is some idea that paying privately means you get a better defence! Not only would that family not have been able to afford the private fees of the solicitor (and the barrister) they certainly wouldn't have been able to afford the fees of the expert reports. I get particularly annoyed at the suggestion that the best advice in criminal cases will come by paying privately rather than Legal Aid. Most of criminal cases are funded by Legal Aid and it is always available for very serious matters at the Crown Court such as murder. This means that Legal Aid Lawyers may be more capable of defending the case because they do it all the time and have more experience. And the client's don't have to pay for the reports.
Involuntary intoxication is a defence to crimes of specific intent such as murder (hard to prove as you say) but it would only reduce it to manslaughter (which the client wouldn't plead to) but which nevertheless could be available to the jury if they thought that he did kill her but didn't mean to due to him not being able to form the appropriate intention. The crime of murder is one of specific intent and not basic intent.
I don't really have a problem with the defence spotting the missing inhaler during the trial. It made for good drama and was the first time I actually woke up and enjoyed the programme properly even though that probably would or should have been spotted earlier (though not always).
I do have a problem with the apparent lack of activity in preparing the defence generally. There was no need to pluck a defence out of nowhere three minutes before the trial and then bullying the client into using it. The fact that he changed his defence during the trial will lead the jury to think he's a desparate liar. They will not blame the barristers and solicitors unless they are told that they put him up to it. Even if he says in his defence later in the trial that he said what his barrister/solicitor told him to say that might not be believed if the jury have already formed the view that he could be a liar.
Did the trial start again? I couldn't work that out.
Gosh I'm sorry to be boring on about this programme. I just feel so strongly that if it's written by someone with legal training they could at least make it a bit more accurate. Just a few minutes shaved off the endless bits in prison suggesting that his legal team are actually doing some work on his behalf would be good.
Anyway I'm hooked now in spite of myself and need to see how it pans out!
Mary
To the Op asking where they have seen Con O'Neill before, I am sure that years ago I saw him playing a baddie in an IRA drama but can't remember the name.
The mobile phone being found up the guys @rse, so it would be assault to remove it? So we are led to believe that nothings done about it no searches of cells etc?
Thanks to the legal eagle ops I've really enjoyed reading your posts and the one from the guy? with prison experience. Thanks goodness the Op who was obsessed by nudity seems to have disappeared.
Finally to the Op who gave us the spoiler I was already on to that. (want to do a smiley wink here but don't know how to activitate smilies)
I am confused. I thought that he only couldn't remember what happened after he had sex with Melanie? In episode 1, we did see him go downstairs, down at least another shot, then later, he wakes up in the kitchen.
How did Ben go from having Con O'Neill as his lawyer, to having the Asian lawyer and Alison Slaughter representing him in court as well? Is Con O'Neill the equivalent of an American public defendant? I am not used to seeing three different lawyers who don't seem like they are even from the same law firm, representing the same client in court. And great catch by the Asian lawyer regarding the missing inhaler. Nice to see Box go from smug to squirming.
Did they just completely drop the missing cell phone plot? I assume it was the cellmate who was not Pete P who took it. The prisoner with the cell phone may come across as scarier compared to Freddy, but I think Freddy is the eviler of the two. At least with the cell phone guy, you know what he is. Freddy tries to make you think he's your friend, but his intentions are much more nefarious.
You're right I think Freddie is definitely a very bad guy as he makes Ben think he is his friend.
he's annoying the hell out of me too. Almost every single action or decision he makes is utter senseless stupidity.
I want to slap him :mad:
yeah, though Otto Bathurst didn't direct all of the episodes...it was split between two directors.
though there is a good continuity between the episodes so it's really hardly noticable.