I don't understand why Alec has been protecting Clare all these months from her husband - probable murderer - if at the first opportunity she flings herself into his arms. Does anyone else get this, what have I missed?????
He didn't do it and she knows he didn't do it. They seem to have some sort of prior-agreed strategy - was alluded to in the bed scene. Hardy might be being played.
Well, I must admit that completely passed me by. What was said? I only got the bit where she asked him to tie her up this time.
I think he asked her if she had told (the police) anything about what they'd done, and she said no, and he said "you'd better not be lying" or something like that.
I can believe that one baldy guy is mistaken for looking like another baldy guy in poor light.
hahahahaha
Off topic but when my son got married there were at least 6 baldies all in grey suits including my son and you could hardly tell who was who from the back. So much so that his little girl, who was about 3 at the time came up to one of the other guys and put her hand in his, thinking it was her dad - till he looked down
I enjoyed it much better this week. I'm thinking that may just be because I've got over the shock and disbelief that they went down the route of Joe now saying he's not gulity. It just seemed so unlikely as it was all sewn up at the end of the first series.
I could give Oliver a smack! >:(
Why is it whenever police or anyone involved in looking for evidence at crime scenes there's only ever one hair, one hair!!!! grrrr drives me mad!
I thought the episode was ok and I was pleased to see Pauline Quirk back, but it still feels like it's a shadow of the former series. Those first couple of scenes with her reminded me of everything I liked about the first series . . . and then there's the court bit at the end which just feels like a rehash of the first series' plot points yet again.
I have the same feeling whenever the barrister is feeling a bit peaky . . . it just feels like Hardy all over again.
So Susan Wright is saying that her son is the bloke she saw, just as she did in the first series.
What I was a bit puzzled by was their conversation (Nigel's and Susan's) when they met at the beach. It seemed like he was accusing her of just suddenly leaving - 'You just left!' (or whatever it was he said) but didn't he threaten her with killing the dog if she didn't go?
Can someone remind me what happened between Pauline Quirke and the bald guy in the first series please?
He's her son who was taken from her after she was implicated in her husband's abuse and murder of her daughter. She found him there and after the murder and thinking she saw him dump the body, she assumed he was like his father and kept saying they were linked by it now. He didn't want anything to do with her, so threatened her and kidnapped her dog, which the police found when they came to arrest him.
As a poster above mentioned, she finally said she'd go away and never come back if he wanted and so she did. Only now he's like 'you just left'. So . . . yea.
The Pauline Quirk character is a defence witness so they are not going to ask her questions that might damage her credibility. The prosecution have not had their turn to question her yet. They would be the ones to bring up her past, assuming they know it.
It isn't just you, I also find her immensely annoying in this and some other show where she played a nurse.
It's her face for me, all big and bovine, if she stuck to chewing cud she'd be fine.
I find the actress really annoying too. I loved Torchwood but was so peeved everyone died but not her. There is something about her I find really irritating.
When ever I see Claire with the husband, I just think Fred and Rose West or Brady and Hindley! It's just a feeling I get when I see them!!! Not sure if meant to have that vibe though.
Can someone help me out here because I'm sure Ellie's sister didn't definitely identity the person she saw filling the dustbin in Series One. What's she up to?
I guess she was maybe trying to help Ellie. She seemed very proud of what she done and wanted praise from Ellie.
So Susan Wright is saying that her son is the bloke she saw, just as she did in the first series.
What I was a bit puzzled by was their conversation (Nigel's and Susan's) when they met at the beach. It seemed like he was accusing her of just suddenly leaving - 'You just left!' (or whatever it was he said) but didn't he threaten her with killing the dog if she didn't go?
I really dislike the v tall defence solicitor.
Yeah I thought he told her to go too. Maybe he's just playing stroppy teenager role, even though he's well past his teens!
I actually enjoyed tonights eppy more than last week, I think because the court case didn't seem such a farce. I don't mind all the bits and bobs all over the place, because it was a bit like that in season one and in the end we found out what most of them were about.
The actor who plays Gillespie is it? (the young murdered girl's dad) always plays nutters, psychos or killers in things I've watched with him in, so had to stop myself immediately thinking it was him due to that He plays unhinged well.
So according to his wife, he had an affair with Claire. Hardy apparently slept with Claire. Claire has kinky ways re tying up. She also went on the pull for bonks with Ellie. She obviously likes her sex! So are we meant to be wondering if the gilrs found out about her and the dad so Claire killed them? I still can't stop thinking of her and her hubby as creepy sex offenders/murderers though!
Also wondering if Tom in the end is the one who seals Joe's fate as the murderer. Wasn't he aware of Joe and Dannys 'friendship'? He obviously wants a father figure in his life and I guess that maybe him and Ellie will have a showdown and it may all come out? Him maybe not realising how much he's implicating his dad.
Anyway, tonights show did enough to keep me watching and got me more interested. I never expected it to have the ker-pow effect of the first series, so my expectations were not really high to be honest. Last weeks eppy (well the court stuff) was a bit pants but I didn't think that with last nights eppy. So yeah, I'm keeping-a-watching!
^Same.
Was it as good as any of the Series 1 instalments? No... But I'm hoping this episode - the half-way point of the series - signals a turning point.
If the last 4 episodes can keep it up, we'll literally have a half-way decent series. ;-)
Still a few things that weren't clear to me:
1) When the defence lawyers were discussing alternative killers, who was she referring to when she said "I'd have thought that was pretty obvious."
2) Why do the Sandbrook parents blame Hardy for letting their daughter's killer escape? I know he was leading the investigation but what specific thing did he do wrong to make them so hostile?
3) When Ellie's sister asked if she'd slept with Hardy, Ellie replied "Have you seen him?" I thought David Tennant is meant to be handsome.?
4) Why did Claire say to Lee, "Can you tie me up this time?" Has it got something to do with taking drugs?
5) Isn't Pauline Quirk blaming her son a rehash of series 1? And why didn't Nige scream out "Liar!" Or protest?
I find the actress really annoying too. I loved Torchwood but was so peeved everyone died but not her. There is something about her I find really irritating.
When ever I see Claire with the husband, I just think Fred and Rose West or Brady and Hindley! It's just a feeling I get when I see them!!! Not sure if meant to have that vibe though.
I guess she was maybe trying to help Ellie. She seemed very proud of what she done and wanted praise from Ellie.
Yeah I thought he told her to go too. Maybe he's just playing stroppy teenager role, even though he's well past his teens!
I actually enjoyed tonights eppy more than last week, I think because the court case didn't seem such a farce. I don't mind all the bits and bobs all over the place, because it was a bit like that in season one and in the end we found out what most of them were about.
The actor who plays Gillespie is it? (the young murdered girl's dad) always plays nutters, psychos or killers in things I've watched with him in, so had to stop myself immediately thinking it was him due to that He plays unhinged well.
So according to his wife, he had an affair with Claire. Hardy apparently slept with Claire. Claire has kinky ways re tying up. She also went on the pull for bonks with Ellie. She obviously likes her sex! So are we meant to be wondering if the gilrs found out about her and the dad so Claire killed them? I still can't stop thinking of her and her hubby as creepy sex offenders/murderers though!
Also wondering if Tom in the end is the one who seals Joe's fate as the murderer. Wasn't he aware of Joe and Dannys 'friendship'? He obviously wants a father figure in his life and I guess that maybe him and Ellie will have a showdown and it may all come out? Him maybe not realising how much he's implicating his dad.
Anyway, tonights show did enough to keep me watching and got me more interested. I never expected it to have the ker-pow effect of the first series, so my expectations were not really high to be honest. Last weeks eppy (well the court stuff) was a bit pants but I didn't think that with last nights eppy. So yeah, I'm keeping-a-watching!
Re the part in bold: I 100% think it is some kind of sex thing. She is totally playing Hardy.
^Same.
Was it as good as any of the Series 1 instalments? No... But I'm hoping this episode - the half-way point of the series - signals a turning point.
If the last 4 episodes can keep it up, we'll literally have a half-way decent series. ;-)
Still a few things that weren't clear to me:
1) When the defence lawyers were discussing alternative killers, who was she referring to when she said "I'd have thought that was pretty obvious."
2) Why do the Sandbrook parents blame Hardy for letting their daughter's killer escape? I know he was leading the investigation but what specific thing did he do wrong to make them so hostile?
3) When Ellie's sister asked if she'd slept with Hardy, Ellie replied "Have you seen him?" I thought David Tennant is meant to be handsome.?
4) Why did Claire say to Lee, "Can you tie me up this time?" Has it got something to do with taking drugs?
5) Isn't Pauline Quirk blaming her son a rehash of series 1? And why didn't Nige scream out "Liar!" Or protest?
1) I thought they meant Mark, as the next scene we saw Mark walking with the baby, I assume the whole belief that family members are the likeliest killers was on her mind, plus he hit Danny
2) I don't think we know that yet. Wasn't there something in series one about evidence being stolen from his car, or something like that? Maybe they blame him for being too careless with evidence and thus they think this reason the killer was released and blame Hardy.
3) I guess in Ellie world, he ain't much cop!!! If you think how Joes looked, bald, relatively fit no facial hair, he's the opposite of DT. Plus DT is meant to be poorly and has that slightly bedraggled feel about him. Still be DT for me, but there's no accounting for taste!!!:D
4) Just think it was meant to show she has a 'dark; sexual side. Plus she was meant to be so scared of him, yet she happily asks him to tie her up = Claire's been lying and is dodgy!
5) well she was giving evidence so unless she changed it, it would be a rehash. I guess he didn't want to be dramatic!
^Same.
Was it as good as any of the Series 1 instalments? No... But I'm hoping this episode - the half-way point of the series - signals a turning point.
If the last 4 episodes can keep it up, we'll literally have a half-way decent series. ;-)
Still a few things that weren't clear to me:
1) When the defence lawyers were discussing alternative killers, who was she referring to when she said "I'd have thought that was pretty obvious."
2) Why do the Sandbrook parents blame Hardy for letting their daughter's killer escape? I know he was leading the investigation but what specific thing did he do wrong to make them so hostile?
3) When Ellie's sister asked if she'd slept with Hardy, Ellie replied "Have you seen him?" I thought David Tennant is meant to be handsome.?
4) Why did Claire say to Lee, "Can you tie me up this time?" Has it got something to do with taking drugs?
5) Isn't Pauline Quirk blaming her son a rehash of series 1? And why didn't Nige scream out "Liar!" Or protest?
3. He is so unattractive it's weird how many people fawn over him. I understand about different people being attracted to different types but I cannot in the world see what is attractive about him. Features all out of proportion and a mouth that never seems to close even when he's not talking. Very weird. Maybe it's the parts he plays but even then he just looks like a scrawny rat. As I say when people say they find someone attractive I can usually appreciate why even if I don't agree. In his case I'm just baffled.
^Same.
Was it as good as any of the Series 1 instalments? No... But I'm hoping this episode - the half-way point of the series - signals a turning point.
If the last 4 episodes can keep it up, we'll literally have a half-way decent series. ;-)
Still a few things that weren't clear to me:
1) When the defence lawyers were discussing alternative killers, who was she referring to when she said "I'd have thought that was pretty obvious."
2) Why do the Sandbrook parents blame Hardy for letting their daughter's killer escape? I know he was leading the investigation but what specific thing did he do wrong to make them so hostile?
3) When Ellie's sister asked if she'd slept with Hardy, Ellie replied "Have you seen him?" I thought David Tennant is meant to be handsome.?
4) Why did Claire say to Lee, "Can you tie me up this time?" Has it got something to do with taking drugs?
5) Isn't Pauline Quirk blaming her son a rehash of series 1? And why didn't Nige scream out "Liar!" Or protest?
(2) Wasn't it mentioned last series that evidence went missing from Hardy's wife car ( I think) and hardy covered for her and took the blame?
(2) Wasn't it mentioned last series that evidence went missing from Hardy's wife car ( I think) and hardy covered for her and took the blame?
Yes - it was a necklace that was mentioned in the last episode too. It was found in Lees car and he said it was because he gave the girls lifts to school, but apparently one of the girls was wearing it on the night they disappeared.
I think its going to become a more prominent factor of the case.
Comments
He didn't do it and she knows he didn't do it. They seem to have some sort of prior-agreed strategy - was alluded to in the bed scene. Hardy might be being played.
Ooooh a great ending!!
I think he asked her if she had told (the police) anything about what they'd done, and she said no, and he said "you'd better not be lying" or something like that.
hahahahaha
Off topic but when my son got married there were at least 6 baldies all in grey suits including my son and you could hardly tell who was who from the back. So much so that his little girl, who was about 3 at the time came up to one of the other guys and put her hand in his, thinking it was her dad - till he looked down
I could give Oliver a smack! >:(
Why is it whenever police or anyone involved in looking for evidence at crime scenes there's only ever one hair, one hair!!!! grrrr drives me mad!
I have the same feeling whenever the barrister is feeling a bit peaky . . . it just feels like Hardy all over again.
What I was a bit puzzled by was their conversation (Nigel's and Susan's) when they met at the beach. It seemed like he was accusing her of just suddenly leaving - 'You just left!' (or whatever it was he said) but didn't he threaten her with killing the dog if she didn't go?
I really dislike the v tall defence solicitor.
He's her son who was taken from her after she was implicated in her husband's abuse and murder of her daughter. She found him there and after the murder and thinking she saw him dump the body, she assumed he was like his father and kept saying they were linked by it now. He didn't want anything to do with her, so threatened her and kidnapped her dog, which the police found when they came to arrest him.
As a poster above mentioned, she finally said she'd go away and never come back if he wanted and so she did. Only now he's like 'you just left'. So . . . yea.
I enjoyed that episode, things are looking up.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvKWTCxCIAAhgkH.png
Anyway I think the young newspaper journalist Olly Stevens did it.
When ever I see Claire with the husband, I just think Fred and Rose West or Brady and Hindley! It's just a feeling I get when I see them!!! Not sure if meant to have that vibe though.
I guess she was maybe trying to help Ellie. She seemed very proud of what she done and wanted praise from Ellie.
Yeah I thought he told her to go too. Maybe he's just playing stroppy teenager role, even though he's well past his teens!
I actually enjoyed tonights eppy more than last week, I think because the court case didn't seem such a farce. I don't mind all the bits and bobs all over the place, because it was a bit like that in season one and in the end we found out what most of them were about.
The actor who plays Gillespie is it? (the young murdered girl's dad) always plays nutters, psychos or killers in things I've watched with him in, so had to stop myself immediately thinking it was him due to that
So according to his wife, he had an affair with Claire. Hardy apparently slept with Claire. Claire has kinky ways re tying up. She also went on the pull for bonks with Ellie. She obviously likes her sex! So are we meant to be wondering if the gilrs found out about her and the dad so Claire killed them? I still can't stop thinking of her and her hubby as creepy sex offenders/murderers though!
Also wondering if Tom in the end is the one who seals Joe's fate as the murderer. Wasn't he aware of Joe and Dannys 'friendship'? He obviously wants a father figure in his life and I guess that maybe him and Ellie will have a showdown and it may all come out? Him maybe not realising how much he's implicating his dad.
Anyway, tonights show did enough to keep me watching and got me more interested. I never expected it to have the ker-pow effect of the first series, so my expectations were not really high to be honest. Last weeks eppy (well the court stuff) was a bit pants but I didn't think that with last nights eppy. So yeah, I'm keeping-a-watching!
^Same.
Was it as good as any of the Series 1 instalments? No... But I'm hoping this episode - the half-way point of the series - signals a turning point.
If the last 4 episodes can keep it up, we'll literally have a half-way decent series. ;-)
Still a few things that weren't clear to me:
1) When the defence lawyers were discussing alternative killers, who was she referring to when she said "I'd have thought that was pretty obvious."
2) Why do the Sandbrook parents blame Hardy for letting their daughter's killer escape? I know he was leading the investigation but what specific thing did he do wrong to make them so hostile?
3) When Ellie's sister asked if she'd slept with Hardy, Ellie replied "Have you seen him?" I thought David Tennant is meant to be handsome.?
4) Why did Claire say to Lee, "Can you tie me up this time?" Has it got something to do with taking drugs?
5) Isn't Pauline Quirk blaming her son a rehash of series 1? And why didn't Nige scream out "Liar!" Or protest?
Re the part in bold: I 100% think it is some kind of sex thing. She is totally playing Hardy.
1) I thought they meant Mark, as the next scene we saw Mark walking with the baby, I assume the whole belief that family members are the likeliest killers was on her mind, plus he hit Danny
2) I don't think we know that yet. Wasn't there something in series one about evidence being stolen from his car, or something like that? Maybe they blame him for being too careless with evidence and thus they think this reason the killer was released and blame Hardy.
3) I guess in Ellie world, he ain't much cop!!! If you think how Joes looked, bald, relatively fit no facial hair, he's the opposite of DT. Plus DT is meant to be poorly and has that slightly bedraggled feel about him. Still be DT for me, but there's no accounting for taste!!!:D
4) Just think it was meant to show she has a 'dark; sexual side. Plus she was meant to be so scared of him, yet she happily asks him to tie her up = Claire's been lying and is dodgy!
5) well she was giving evidence so unless she changed it, it would be a rehash. I guess he didn't want to be dramatic!
3. He is so unattractive it's weird how many people fawn over him. I understand about different people being attracted to different types but I cannot in the world see what is attractive about him. Features all out of proportion and a mouth that never seems to close even when he's not talking. Very weird. Maybe it's the parts he plays but even then he just looks like a scrawny rat. As I say when people say they find someone attractive I can usually appreciate why even if I don't agree. In his case I'm just baffled.
(2) Wasn't it mentioned last series that evidence went missing from Hardy's wife car ( I think) and hardy covered for her and took the blame?
but it's a cue to wheel out Pauline Quirke so she can accuse Nige of doing it.
Gosh! I wish I could write TV drama as good as this.
Yes - it was a necklace that was mentioned in the last episode too. It was found in Lees car and he said it was because he gave the girls lifts to school, but apparently one of the girls was wearing it on the night they disappeared.
I think its going to become a more prominent factor of the case.