The plot creaks in places, but the intellectual premise is disturbing, which makes it worth watching for me. I also think the pairing of DT with Ashley Jensen and both doing their real Scottish accents was inspired - you could believe that this was a couple that went back a long way and were truly close. These two should be together again!
David Tennant is so utterly watchable in everything he does (DO I want to see him as Richard II!!)
Would that be enough basis to call a mistrial and release the defendant? Surely he had other evidence against him that built a solid case?
It was not the evidence it was the reporting in the press and social media. He said that would limit his clients opportunity to have a fair trial. The Judge admitted that he had made an error by not allowing an adjournment and dismissed the jury
I liked it. I could, like others, in the thread pick huge plot holes in it..
Like..How was a mistrial called for such a spurious reason? Was the computer stuff the only evidence against him then ? Nothing else, no forensics, no witnesses, nada? Those spectacular teeth alone would have left quite a distinct mark. If it was all about his online activities, how did he get to be arrested in the first place then?
I didn't care for the wife.. something too good about her somehow, which marked her out for victimhood early on. I was still surprised when she copped in the first episode though Quite brave writing- I thought.
Chambers looks like barn conversion.
Where was the house in the country? The obligatory isolated one with no neighbours which the daft woman felt compelled to go to along with only her child barely a week after she'd encountered a a very scary prowler there? I'm confused because their other place was in London and I thought that Burtons dinner engagement was in Edinburgh. He got there pretty quick wherever it was.
The set pieces with the two protagonists were very cleverly done though and I am intrigued enough to see how it all pans out.
I have often wondered how defence lawyers justify defending the indefensible to themselves. For instance the vile Mark Bridger.
How do they sleep at night - particularly if they get someone off when they suspect they were actually guilty.
I know it seems weird to us, but it is just their job. In any case its pretty unlike what we see on TV and what we may imagine it to be. It's all points of law, and logic. And speaking to a friend who used to practice criminal: They know whose done it, they don't need to be told. They are pretty detached from it though.
What's the betting he will get it on with the gorgeous Sophie in the not too distant future?
They don't seem to like eachother... at all. Well he seemed indifferent (before she agreed to defend his wife killer) and she seemed green with envy over his career.
so does he get off each week? also how can Sophie Okonedo defend the man if she knows the victim, should you not have some one impartial? Last question was the only evidence his porn site on his creditcard bill? no dna or people who saw him at the time?
Will try to get a law degree before next week.
Because she is career mad. She doesn't actually care. Vile woman.
And all because Will didn't shake Foyle's hand. It's the litlle things that matter in the end.
Foyle may well be a murderer (allegedly) but good manners are obviously very important to him and he was clearly disappointed ;). After all that was why he liked Will in the first place, (the milk in the tea scene).
Foyle may well be a murderer (allegedly) but good manners are obviously very important to him and he was clearly disappointed ;). After all that was why he liked Will in the first place, (the milk in the tea scene).
Well looks like he goes after Sophie's character and she shakes his hand.
Well looks like he goes after Sophie's character and she shakes his hand.
I don't think it's just the fact Will didn't shake his hand that bothers Foyle. As Pretzel said, Foyle has a thing for manners and it would upset him. But I think it's more of what Will was saying to him when he didn't shake his hand that set him off. In effect and in a roundabout way, Will was telling Foyle that he thought he (Foyle) was guilt of killing the girl. Long before the trial, he'd already made a show of wondering whether Will thought he was guilty or not when they were in the interview room.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why Foyle goes after the character Sophie plays. She looked like she was already giving off that "you're guilty" vibe and Foyle could smell it. She's not good at hiding her inner thoughts, unfortunately.
See.... this is where these type of shows lose me !!! First of all, the bejesus is scared out of her by a man as she lies naked in a bath, a man her husband has just defended and whose name and face must have been all over the papers. Why did she not recognise him there and then !!!!
Secondly, regardless of who it was... why would she barely a week later, decide to drive back to the same house IN THE DARK with her son and NO HUSBAND !!!!
Thirdly.... why would her husband let her !!!
He then clearly lets himself be seen in the window for a second time and is duly arrested, so HOWWWWWWW does a now confirmed dangerous multiple murderer GET BAIL next week !!!
Frankly anyone else he decides to fillet along the way almost deserves it at this stage !! How annoying.
All of the above plus WHY, the first time when he scares her in the bath, does she not call the POLICE, but instead calls her husband who is god knows how many miles away? :rolleyes:
I'm not even going near the mistrial nonsense.
Toby Kebbell is very good though. I may watch the rest of it because of him.
All of the above plus WHY, the first time when he scares her in the bath, does she not call the POLICE, but instead calls her husband who is god knows how many miles away? :rolleyes:
I'm not even going near the mistrial nonsense.
Toby Kebbell is very good though. I may watch the rest of it because of him.
She also said she had been calling him for AGES. God knows how long that prayer went on for before he realised he'd left his mobile in the toilets.
It's one of those dramas you have to suspend disbelief from a very great height!
I don't think it's just the fact Will didn't shake his hand that bothers Foyle. As Pretzel said, Foyle has a thing for manners and it would upset him. But I think it's more of what Will was saying to him when he didn't shake his hand that set him off. In effect and in a roundabout way, Will was telling Foyle that he thought he (Foyle) was guilt of killing the girl. Long before the trial, he'd already made a show of wondering whether Will thought he was guilty or not when they were in the interview room.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why Foyle goes after the character Sophie plays. She looked like she was already giving off that "you're guilty" vibe and Foyle could smell it. She's not good at hiding her inner thoughts, unfortunately.
When you are in fact guilty why would it come as a surprise to you that your legal team think you are guilty
I was throwing up some just as unlikely scenarios!
Given what we've already seen.
I've visions of some of the cast reading their scripts and thinking; "You've got to be kidding!"
You're probably right, but the plotting has already irritated me, so I won't be bothering with it.
Yes, I don't mind suspending belief and putting rationality on hold, but they took this to an entirely different level.
As others have said, it was lazy writing. It could have been more subtle, and at least reasonably believable, but they went for cheap and absurd thrills. I'm out.
See.... this is where these type of shows lose me !!! First of all, the bejesus is scared out of her by a man as she lies naked in a bath, a man her husband has just defended and whose name and face must have been all over the papers. Why did she not recognise him there and then !!!!
Secondly, regardless of who it was... why would she barely a week later, decide to drive back to the same house IN THE DARK with her son and NO HUSBAND !!!!
Thirdly.... why would her husband let her !!!
He then clearly lets himself be seen in the window for a second time and is duly arrested, so HOWWWWWWW does a now confirmed dangerous multiple murderer GET BAIL next week !!!
Frankly anyone else he decides to fillet along the way almost deserves it at this stage !! How annoying.
I was going to post my opinion this morning, but found Conchie's post first. I used to be in an investigative job, and unfortunately cannot now switch that bit of my brain off, even when watching a TV drama.
I thought exactly the same as Conchie. Whilst the drama is excellently written and acted, these glaring improbabilities take the edge off it for me.
You hate watching David Tennant, so why did you watch it then!
I think he said he liked the look of the plot despite DT?
So have we got close to explaining why there was no retrial? or have we given up on that?
Re other evidence, I'm assuming there was lots, which is why DT's character had to go down the fair trial, computer evidence route as all the other other evidence was pretty damning.
Enjoyed it overall, despite some big plot holes. Didn't expect Mrs to be killed off so soon.
really hope DT and sophie don't have a romance, would be nice the fact that she's a woman and he's a man to be irrelevant
I don't think it's just the fact Will didn't shake his hand that bothers Foyle. As Pretzel said, Foyle has a thing for manners and it would upset him. But I think it's more of what Will was saying to him when he didn't shake his hand that set him off. In effect and in a roundabout way, Will was telling Foyle that he thought he (Foyle) was guilt of killing the girl. Long before the trial, he'd already made a show of wondering whether Will thought he was guilty or not when they were in the interview room.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why Foyle goes after the character Sophie plays. She looked like she was already giving off that "you're guilty" vibe and Foyle could smell it. She's not good at hiding her inner thoughts, unfortunately.
But if he is guilty, why should it annoy him so much that they know? They're still defending him, after all.
I guess we know what happens to him as they've practically shown what happens in the trailer for next weeks show. :rolleyes: Why can't they show trailers at the end of the credits in case viewers don't want to see spoilers.
Comments
David Tennant is so utterly watchable in everything he does (DO I want to see him as Richard II!!)
Only started to get into it in the last 15 mins.
It was not the evidence it was the reporting in the press and social media. He said that would limit his clients opportunity to have a fair trial. The Judge admitted that he had made an error by not allowing an adjournment and dismissed the jury
Like..How was a mistrial called for such a spurious reason? Was the computer stuff the only evidence against him then ? Nothing else, no forensics, no witnesses, nada? Those spectacular teeth alone would have left quite a distinct mark. If it was all about his online activities, how did he get to be arrested in the first place then?
I didn't care for the wife.. something too good about her somehow, which marked her out for victimhood early on. I was still surprised when she copped in the first episode though Quite brave writing- I thought.
Chambers looks like barn conversion.
Where was the house in the country? The obligatory isolated one with no neighbours which the daft woman felt compelled to go to along with only her child barely a week after she'd encountered a a very scary prowler there? I'm confused because their other place was in London and I thought that Burtons dinner engagement was in Edinburgh. He got there pretty quick wherever it was.
The set pieces with the two protagonists were very cleverly done though and I am intrigued enough to see how it all pans out.
I know it seems weird to us, but it is just their job. In any case its pretty unlike what we see on TV and what we may imagine it to be. It's all points of law, and logic. And speaking to a friend who used to practice criminal: They know whose done it, they don't need to be told. They are pretty detached from it though.
They don't seem to like eachother... at all. Well he seemed indifferent (before she agreed to defend his wife killer) and she seemed green with envy over his career.
Because she is career mad. She doesn't actually care. Vile woman.
Foyle may well be a murderer (allegedly) but good manners are obviously very important to him and he was clearly disappointed
Well looks like he goes after Sophie's character and she shakes his hand.
I'll catch up with it on Iplayer if it's worth it.
Is it worth a look?
I don't think it's just the fact Will didn't shake his hand that bothers Foyle. As Pretzel said, Foyle has a thing for manners and it would upset him. But I think it's more of what Will was saying to him when he didn't shake his hand that set him off. In effect and in a roundabout way, Will was telling Foyle that he thought he (Foyle) was guilt of killing the girl. Long before the trial, he'd already made a show of wondering whether Will thought he was guilty or not when they were in the interview room.
I wouldn't be surprised if that's why Foyle goes after the character Sophie plays. She looked like she was already giving off that "you're guilty" vibe and Foyle could smell it. She's not good at hiding her inner thoughts, unfortunately.
All of the above plus WHY, the first time when he scares her in the bath, does she not call the POLICE, but instead calls her husband who is god knows how many miles away? :rolleyes:
I'm not even going near the mistrial nonsense.
Toby Kebbell is very good though. I may watch the rest of it because of him.
next target will be sophie - will watch in the absence of anything else being on
She also said she had been calling him for AGES. God knows how long that prayer went on for before he realised he'd left his mobile in the toilets.
It's one of those dramas you have to suspend disbelief from a very great height!
Mail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2479213/The-Escape-Artist-David-Tennant-triumphs-says-Christopher-Stevens.html
Scotsman http://www.scotsman.com/what-s-on/tv-radio/tv-review-the-escape-artist-ripper-street-1-3158253
He merely asked for a new jury. I could not understand was the defendant was suddenly released
When you are in fact guilty why would it come as a surprise to you that your legal team think you are guilty
Yes, I don't mind suspending belief and putting rationality on hold, but they took this to an entirely different level.
As others have said, it was lazy writing. It could have been more subtle, and at least reasonably believable, but they went for cheap and absurd thrills. I'm out.
The plot about going to the cottage was inexcusable I'm afraid, it would've been creepier if he'd got into their flat.
I knew as soon as DT didn't shake his hand what was going to happen.
I hope next week's plot isn't so hole-ridden. I love Sophie Okonedo so hoping she gets more to do.
Can somebody answer me this please: who made the complaint about David Tennant's character and why - I got distracted at that point.
Yes but don't expect it to be as good as the hype suggested.
I was going to post my opinion this morning, but found Conchie's post first. I used to be in an investigative job, and unfortunately cannot now switch that bit of my brain off, even when watching a TV drama.
I thought exactly the same as Conchie. Whilst the drama is excellently written and acted, these glaring improbabilities take the edge off it for me.
You hate watching David Tennant, so why did you watch it then!
I think he said he liked the look of the plot despite DT?
So have we got close to explaining why there was no retrial? or have we given up on that?
Re other evidence, I'm assuming there was lots, which is why DT's character had to go down the fair trial, computer evidence route as all the other other evidence was pretty damning.
Enjoyed it overall, despite some big plot holes. Didn't expect Mrs to be killed off so soon.
really hope DT and sophie don't have a romance, would be nice the fact that she's a woman and he's a man to be irrelevant
But if he is guilty, why should it annoy him so much that they know? They're still defending him, after all.