Rarely have I ever seen a drama that has left such a marked effect on me, it's just so compelling and harrowing. It's fantastic, and I cannot wait for the result.
I also thought she may have killed herself. There doesn't seem any reason as to why he would have killed her, unless he has a mental illness or something similar (if this was the case though, wouldn't he have shown some signs of an illness/disorder by now?). As others have said, I'm starting to feel the plot hasn't really developed all that much since the first episode and considering it finishes tomorrow, it's going to be interesting (hopefully) to see how it all ties up in the end.
My Mum thinks there's something we don't know about him yet. She thinks his mother's reaction has been a bit strange, as if she thinks for some reason he is capable of it.
Agree with you chiaroscuro - it does seem very harsh to immediately put Ben in prison while he's awaiting trial - a tactic to make us feel sorry for him? I don't know, (but I do feel sorry for him ) - I would of thought he would be arrested, put on trial and THEN, on the basis of the trial, sent to prison IF he is guilty Or is that too simplistic?
I've heard before about people having their sentence reduced once they've been convicted because they've spent, say, a year in prison already so I guess it must happen.
I am suddenly feeling very ignorant about the penal system, though.
I am really enjoying this so far but I hope they haven't spoilt it by having a romance between Ben and his barrister. A look passed between them at the meeting in prison and alarm bells rang.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Her reaction has been a bit odd, but who knows how you'd react if your son had been arrested for murder, you know?
Absolutely.
I hope it doesn't turn out to be someone we haven't seen much, or haven't seen at all yet... I think that would be almost an anti-climax.
What my brother once called 'an Agatha bloody Christie' ending. (A bit unfair actually as the murderer is usually in the story all along in Agatha Christie's stories, as far as I know.)
I have wondered if it could turn out to be her Dad.
Well the rookie barrister is perhaps the only (certainly one of them) person who's been kind to him, and she's quite attractive
A romance would be very cheesy though - DON'T!
I noticed Ben said "I don't FEEL Like a murderer", maybe he DID at one point so its a split personality thing? :eek:
One of the best things the BBC has done since, well - the brilliant Life on Mars and Ashes To Ashes
BTW, the DVD of Criminal Justice is released on 6 October 2008, according to Play.com.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Her reaction has been a bit odd, but who knows how you'd react if your son had been arrested for murder, you know?
I think for the show to reveal a sudden darker side of Ben that makes him capable of murder would really be straining credulity for me. The only way it would work is if the drugs or drug and drink combination caused some kind of psychotic episode that made him kill her.
I disliked the mum for her reaction. No matter what, he is her son, and she should have been in court, everyday, showing her support. I don't get why she would turn against him when she heard the self-defense strategy in court. Surely, the parents should realise that the lawyers would be doing what they need to, to free their son. I find it strange that they seem completely out of the loop with regards to the legal strategy of the defense. You'd think Ben's lawyers would tell them to be in court, all the time, no matter what, because it would help Ben. It doesn't look good to a jury if it looks like even his mum thinks he might be guilty!
I saw the look between Ben and his barrister too, and I really hope they do NOT go there! Especially since Ben is so scrawny that he often looks about 12 to me.
Its been funny reading all the legal OPs here wailing how hard done they are portrayed in this CJ,lol
I understand that a lot of the police investigation work has been left out too ..
But the facts are the same , If you are an innocent person charged with a serious crime ,the legal an penal system is heavily flawed in the UK .
The case wouldnt be seen by the crown court within a year or longer,
his legal team would be a lot bigger an better on a juicy *expensive* Murder case ,an whatever anyone says here they want to *WIN* the case wether you are guilty as hell , means nothing to them ...
The legal system in this country may be flawed but that's the point of having a defence team to make sure that where you have rights they are supported and hopefully protected. I do not consider myself part of the legal system. I consider myself as someone who defends people caught up within that system and tries to explain the system to people and help them understand what might happen to them. This series portrays the lawyers as not doing that and that's just not right.
Also cases of murder do get to the Crown Court very quickly and the trials now do take place frequently within a year. If there are any delays it is often because the prosecution keep coming up with more evidence which requires more work by the defence.
I don't understand why you say that the Defence want to WIN regardless. If a defendant tells his lawyer he hasn't done the crime then he has a trial. The opinion of the lawyer as to his or her guilt or innocence is irrelevant although the lawyer must point out weaknesses in the defence case and strengths of the prosecution evidence.
I still get paid for my work whether I win or lose a case. Winning a case means the client will be pleased with me which is nice but for me and most of my colleagues in the trade it's about doing their best for their clients. It's actually our guiding principle. It is not my job to judge my clients. That's the juries job.
Agree with you chiaroscuro - it does seem very harsh to immediately put Ben in prison while he's awaiting trial - a tactic to make us feel sorry for him? I don't know, (but I do feel sorry for him ) - I would of thought he would be arrested, put on trial and THEN, on the basis of the trial, sent to prison IF he is guilty Or is that too simplistic?
Most people are remanded in prison whilst awaiting trial for murder, there are very few people who will get bail for that offence. The grounds are that most courts think that if someone is facing life or a very long prison sentence then they might be tempted not to turn up for their trial or interfere with witnesses.
One of the best things the BBC has done since, well - the brilliant Life on Mars and Ashes To Ashes
BTW, the DVD of Criminal Justice is released on 6 October 2008, according to Play.com.
Thank you I was just wondering if it was going to be out on DVD
My mum reckons the mother has something to do with it....not sure how though
I can't see how either, but what if she knows that there's something wrong with her son. What if she suspects that he could have done it although doesn't want to believe it.
I can't see how either, but what if she knows that there's something wrong with her son. What if she suspects that he could have done it although doesn't want to believe it.
It comes back to the twitch I think.
Mary
Yeh maybe...tonight's ep looks really good though. I'm interested in why he
I guess the twitching in the first episode could possibly indicate Ben does have some sort of psychiatric problem which may have made him kill Melanie, especially when combined with drugs which could have been mixed with all sorts of substances? His mum's reaction and doubt in Ben's innocence does point to some sort of past history?
With regards to the blood at the crime scene, will the defence highlight how a lot of it came from the game with the knife on the downstairs table - surely the wound on Melanie's hand and the marks on the table would back up this version of events?
There aren't really any other viable suspects as yet - the ice cream man would be a little ludicrous - is he really going to follow and kill someone just for nice paying for an ice cream? The other suspect I guess would be Melanie's father - who so far we have been given no information about.
I guess the twitching in the first episode could possibly indicate Ben does have some sort of psychiatric problem which may have made him kill Melanie, especially when combined with drugs which could have been mixed with all sorts of substances? His mum's reaction and doubt in Ben's innocence does point to some sort of past history?
With regards to the blood at the crime scene, will the defence highlight how a lot of it came from the game with the knife on the downstairs table - surely the wound on Melanie's hand and the marks on the table would back up this version of events?
There aren't really any other viable suspects as yet - the ice cream man would be a little ludicrous - is he really going to follow and kill someone just for nice paying for an ice cream? The other suspect I guess would be Melanie's father - who so far we have been given no information about.
The blood from the game wouldn't be consistent with the fatal stabbing but it would be consistent with the idea of torture. It wouldn't necessarily suggest a game (why would it as it's a weird game to play). The blood spatter would only suggest that there might have been a vicious attack although I stand to be corrected on that.
The Dad is the obvious other suspect. Too obvious?
What do we know about the ex boyfriend? We have been told next to nothing about him as yet - if we hear about him a bit more tonight, perhaps it will be indicating he is the killer.
... I consider myself as someone who defends people caught up within that system and tries to explain the system to people and help them understand what might happen to them. This series portrays the lawyers as not doing that and that's just not right ...
Good, I'll PM you if I ever get accused of a serious crime!;)
But here's a question: Doesn't CJA2003 Part 5 now make it mandatory for the defence in such cases to submit a CPIA-compliant defence statement?:
It also amends the defence disclosure requirements, requiring the accused to provide a more detailed defence statement than currently required. The main changes are that the defence will be required to set out the nature of his defence including any particular defences on which he intends to rely and indicate any points of law he wishes to take, including any points as to the admissibility of evidence or abuse of process.
If they had done this, it would remove the need for the completely ridiculous self-defence strategy cooked up 5 minutes before the trial. And before I get accused of nit-picking (again) and told it's not "real", yes I know, but it is intended by the writer to be a realistic portrayal, continuity errors notwithstanding.
Good, I'll PM you if I ever get accused of a serious crime!;)
But here's a question: Doesn't CJA2003 Part 5 now make it mandatory for the defence in such cases to submit a CPIA-compliant defence statement?:
It also amends the defence disclosure requirements, requiring the accused to provide a more detailed defence statement than currently required. The main changes are that the defence will be required to set out the nature of his defence including any particular defences on which he intends to rely and indicate any points of law he wishes to take, including any points as to the admissibility of evidence or abuse of process.
If they had done this, it would remove the need for the completely ridiculous self-defence strategy cooked up 5 minutes before the trial. And before I get accused of nit-picking (again) and told it's not "real", yes I know, but it is intended by the writer to be a realistic portrayal, continuity errors notwithstanding.
You are right. Think about it how would the jury react being told that he's only just decided to give his version of events when he could have told it at the police station.
Now it seems that his counsel think that he is going to prove he's innocent because he "Looks like a nice lad". Ha!
Comments
I really hope he didn't kill her.
My Mum thinks there's something we don't know about him yet. She thinks his mother's reaction has been a bit strange, as if she thinks for some reason he is capable of it.
I've heard before about people having their sentence reduced once they've been convicted because they've spent, say, a year in prison already so I guess it must happen.
I am suddenly feeling very ignorant about the penal system, though.
Yeah, I know what you mean. Her reaction has been a bit odd, but who knows how you'd react if your son had been arrested for murder, you know?
I hope it doesn't turn out to be someone we haven't seen much, or haven't seen at all yet... I think that would be almost an anti-climax.
I have wondered if it could turn out to be her Dad.
A romance would be very cheesy though - DON'T!
I noticed Ben said "I don't FEEL Like a murderer", maybe he DID at one point so its a split personality thing?
BTW, the DVD of Criminal Justice is released on 6 October 2008, according to Play.com.
I think for the show to reveal a sudden darker side of Ben that makes him capable of murder would really be straining credulity for me. The only way it would work is if the drugs or drug and drink combination caused some kind of psychotic episode that made him kill her.
I disliked the mum for her reaction. No matter what, he is her son, and she should have been in court, everyday, showing her support. I don't get why she would turn against him when she heard the self-defense strategy in court. Surely, the parents should realise that the lawyers would be doing what they need to, to free their son. I find it strange that they seem completely out of the loop with regards to the legal strategy of the defense. You'd think Ben's lawyers would tell them to be in court, all the time, no matter what, because it would help Ben. It doesn't look good to a jury if it looks like even his mum thinks he might be guilty!
I saw the look between Ben and his barrister too, and I really hope they do NOT go there! Especially since Ben is so scrawny that he often looks about 12 to me.
Yes, he was one of two brothers under suspicion in a murder
The legal system in this country may be flawed but that's the point of having a defence team to make sure that where you have rights they are supported and hopefully protected. I do not consider myself part of the legal system. I consider myself as someone who defends people caught up within that system and tries to explain the system to people and help them understand what might happen to them. This series portrays the lawyers as not doing that and that's just not right.
Also cases of murder do get to the Crown Court very quickly and the trials now do take place frequently within a year. If there are any delays it is often because the prosecution keep coming up with more evidence which requires more work by the defence.
I don't understand why you say that the Defence want to WIN regardless. If a defendant tells his lawyer he hasn't done the crime then he has a trial. The opinion of the lawyer as to his or her guilt or innocence is irrelevant although the lawyer must point out weaknesses in the defence case and strengths of the prosecution evidence.
I still get paid for my work whether I win or lose a case. Winning a case means the client will be pleased with me which is nice but for me and most of my colleagues in the trade it's about doing their best for their clients. It's actually our guiding principle. It is not my job to judge my clients. That's the juries job.
Most people are remanded in prison whilst awaiting trial for murder, there are very few people who will get bail for that offence. The grounds are that most courts think that if someone is facing life or a very long prison sentence then they might be tempted not to turn up for their trial or interfere with witnesses.
Mary
He was in an episode of Inspector Morse too. The one where they ended up in Australia, I think.
Thank you
I can't see how either, but what if she knows that there's something wrong with her son. What if she suspects that he could have done it although doesn't want to believe it.
It comes back to the twitch I think.
Mary
Yeh maybe...tonight's ep looks really good though. I'm interested in why he
With regards to the blood at the crime scene, will the defence highlight how a lot of it came from the game with the knife on the downstairs table - surely the wound on Melanie's hand and the marks on the table would back up this version of events?
There aren't really any other viable suspects as yet - the ice cream man would be a little ludicrous - is he really going to follow and kill someone just for nice paying for an ice cream? The other suspect I guess would be Melanie's father - who so far we have been given no information about.
The blood from the game wouldn't be consistent with the fatal stabbing but it would be consistent with the idea of torture. It wouldn't necessarily suggest a game (why would it as it's a weird game to play). The blood spatter would only suggest that there might have been a vicious attack although I stand to be corrected on that.
The Dad is the obvious other suspect. Too obvious?
The ex boyfriend?
Mary
What do we know about the ex boyfriend? We have been told next to nothing about him as yet - if we hear about him a bit more tonight, perhaps it will be indicating he is the killer.
But here's a question: Doesn't CJA2003 Part 5 now make it mandatory for the defence in such cases to submit a CPIA-compliant defence statement?:
It also amends the defence disclosure requirements, requiring the accused to provide a more detailed defence statement than currently required. The main changes are that the defence will be required to set out the nature of his defence including any particular defences on which he intends to rely and indicate any points of law he wishes to take, including any points as to the admissibility of evidence or abuse of process.
If they had done this, it would remove the need for the completely ridiculous self-defence strategy cooked up 5 minutes before the trial. And before I get accused of nit-picking (again) and told it's not "real", yes I know, but it is intended by the writer to be a realistic portrayal, continuity errors notwithstanding.
You are right. Think about it how would the jury react being told that he's only just decided to give his version of events when he could have told it at the police station.
Now it seems that his counsel think that he is going to prove he's innocent because he "Looks like a nice lad". Ha!
Mary
sadly however they are far too common practise in prisons today. This is all very true to life.