The more I think about the original Sandbrook investigation, the less sense I can make out of it! Presumably for the first 3 days, everyone would have thought that Lisa and Pippa had run away, wouldn't they? And when Lisa's phone was active in Portsmouth, there would have been a big search there? Then when Pippa's body was found, wouldn't Lisa be the prime suspect in her death? With even more activity following up the Portsmouth phone lead? I can't quite see how they figured out that Lisa was dead, or how Lee became the prime suspect? Do the e-books explain any of this, anyone know?
And I would have thought that Ricky would have wanted Pippa buried in the grave instead of dumped in the pond / lake, but they dumped her body where it would be found and hid Lisa's where it wouldn't be found - wasn't that to make it look as though Lisa was the killer and had run away? Lee and Claire were made to seem clever and scheming, and talked about how they had had a plan, but what exactly was the plan? I would have thought they would have planted some clues to put the blame on Lisa.
I should probably stop mulling this over now as it is pointless!
You are 100% correct. Lisa would have been the suspect and without any DNA evidence or allegations I see no reason why Lee and Claire would become suspects let alone Lee charged. Just because Lisa was related to Pippa, that would not stop the finger being pointed in her direction especially due to her disappearance. That is a BIG flaw in the storyline and a good reason for Lee to not be found guilty at the trial; to be honest I doubt he would have been be prosecuted!
Regarding which body to bury and which to "float". That's easy; I am sure Ricky would have wanted a proper funeral for his daughter and save his wife years of uncertainty. The added benefit should have been that Lisa would have been placed in the frame (saving their necks)........but as we all know for some reason that didn't work and the focus fell on Lee.
I could probably watch another story involving Hardy and Miller, but I really hope we have seen the last of the two counsel - I thought both of them were pretty hopeless.
There were some very good lines and amusing moments - some intentional, some not. The best for me was when Ellie and Beth were magically transported out of the cabin down the cliff top path ahead of Joe. A massive failure in continuity or editing.
I hadn't realised before what a dreadful place Sheffield must be - people used to be sent to Australia!
I think Ellie and Beth walked down the path whilst Joe was talking to the vicar.
The more I think about the original Sandbrook investigation, the less sense I can make out of it! Presumably for the first 3 days, everyone would have thought that Lisa and Pippa had run away, wouldn't they? And when Lisa's phone was active in Portsmouth, there would have been a big search there? Then when Pippa's body was found, wouldn't Lisa be the prime suspect in her death? With even more activity following up the Portsmouth phone lead? I can't quite see how they figured out that Lisa was dead, or how Lee became the prime suspect? Do the e-books explain any of this, anyone know?
And I would have thought that Ricky would have wanted Pippa buried in the grave instead of dumped in the pond / lake, but they dumped her body where it would be found and hid Lisa's where it wouldn't be found - wasn't that to make it look as though Lisa was the killer and had run away? Lee and Claire were made to seem clever and scheming, and talked about how they had had a plan, but what exactly was the plan? I would have thought they would have planted some clues to put the blame on Lisa.
I should probably stop mulling this over now as it is pointless!
Lee was suspected because of the pendant found in his car. Pippa was said to have been wearing it the day her parents left to go to the wedding...so it was fairly damning evidence.
I guess that because Lisa was missing , they had to presume that she might be dead, because of her total lack of contact with anyone.
The fourth ebook is about Tess and about how Pippa was found in the Sandbrook River but it doesnt tell anything more, other than what we saw in the series.
If there were to be a new Sandbrook trial, it would soon be closed down due to Hardy's physical closeness to Claire.
Did that nasty vicar say Joe was getting the taxi to Bournemouth station? Why not to Bridport station?
And, apart from what we know, Joe had been found not guilty by a jury, so he had rights ie half his house, access to his sons etc etc.
Perhaps Bournemouth had a more direct service to Sheffield ? and they thought this was safer, rather than have him disappear en route....
I think Joe was so shell shocked, first at being found not guilty and then at being forcibly taken to the hut , so I guess he was not thinking straight re his house, children etc...
Perhaps if he is part of Series Three, then he will have had time to adjust to his freedom and at that point, he will think about making a claim on the house and applying for access to his sons.
Lee was suspected because of the pendant found in his car. Pippa was said to have been wearing it the day her parents left to go to the wedding...so it was fairly damning evidence.
I guess that because Lisa was missing , they had to presume that she might be dead, because of her total lack of contact with anyone.
The fourth ebook is about Tess and about how Pippa was found in the Sandbrook River but it doesnt tell anything more, other than what we saw in the series.
Didn't the pendant belong to Claire, I assumed it was lent to Pippa or had it been given to her. Also regardless, couldn't Lee have suggested he took the two girls for a ride in his car to the shops etc. they were neighbours.
Didn't the pendant belong to Claire, I assumed it was lent to Pippa or had it been given to her. Also regardless, couldn't Lee have suggested he took the two girls for a ride in his car to the shops etc. they were neighbours.
The pendant belonged to Claire's Nan.... she gave it to Claire.....and later, Claire gave it to Pippa as a present.
In the series, it was made out to be damning evidence, but you are right..... there was no reason why Lee could not have just said he took the girls for a drive that day - after all, he knew neither of them were alive to contradict him.
I would watch a Hardy and Miller offshoot. He is all emotion and has an ability to read people really well. She is all evidence and fact - great combo.
Hardy didn't actually provide that much reliable evidence for Broadchurch 1. Though I guess when you have a confession you don't go too far down the evidence route. Miller completely missed the fact that she was living with the murderer - low EQ.
Perhaps Bournemouth had a more direct service to Sheffield ? and they thought this was safer, rather than have him disappear en route....
I think Joe was so shell shocked, first at being found not guilty and then at being forcibly taken to the hut , so I guess he was not thinking straight re his house, children etc...
Perhaps if he is part of Series Three, then he will have had time to adjust to his freedom and at that point, he will think about making a claim on the house and applying for access to his sons.
Yet quite an expensive taxi ride from West Bay to Bournemouth;-)
I am sure you are right about Joe, he kept saying he had been found innocent with a bemused look on his face.
I'm of the mind that child murderers should be executed.
In truth Joe, like many a pedophile and murderer, now has a chance to move to a new county, start life anew with a new family, and diddle the kids from other families. Pedophiles and murderers don't give a toss for those 'values' you listed.
Yup, hanging is too good for him.
SO happy I know the ending, saves me from enduring all those painful episodes.
It's a possibility.
Possibilities are quiet little things, which live gently nuanced lives - far removed from the bombastic drama of CERTAINTIES.
Sometimes it transpires that CERTAINTIES are actually just opinions wearing a bold smiley face. Not that they'll ever see that.
How many episodes is The Tunnel? Is it a grower or an instant hook?
Off topic - but the Tunnel hooked me instantly. and I watched all the way through and ABSOLUTELY HATED the end of it. I man REALLY REALLY hated it, shouting at the TV and stomping around the room type of hate.
Yet quite an expensive taxi ride from West Bay to Bournemouth;-)
I am sure you are right about Joe, he kept saying he had been found innocent with a bemused look on his face.
He said it twice didn't he? It seemed an odd thing to say, wouldn't you say I've been found Not Guilty? Or I'm Not Guilty? He's not really had much to say through two series though has he? A very enigmatic murderer, sorry 'found innocent' murderer.
If there were to be a new Sandbrook trial, it would soon be closed down due to Hardy's physical closeness to Claire.
Did that nasty vicar say Joe was getting the taxi to Bournemouth station? Why not to Bridport station?
And, apart from what we know, Joe had been found not guilty by a jury, so he had rights ie half his house, access to his sons etc etc.
The whole second series was totally unbelievable fantasy with the viewer expected to suspend any norms of reality and you bring up 'Joe's rights' - unbelievable.
This is eight hours of my life I can never get back. >:(
If yes. Then why didn't the viewers get this information, as we didn't even know she was killed. I know the drug didnt kill her. But by finding rohypnol in her body, it would seem more plausible she was killed.
If yes. Then why didn't the viewers get this information, as we didn't even know she was killed. I know the drug didnt kill her. But by finding rohypnol in her body, it would seem more plausible she was killed.
If no. Why didn't the pathologist spot the drug?
Hardy explained that the drug goes out of the system and thus not finding the body for days and in water meant no drug found.
Sorry, I cant promise that. Series three may be as good as series one, so I will give it a chance.
I will never understand why some people on a discussion board wont have a discussion.
Fair comment in your first paragraph.
A discussion is fine, but some posters have put comments like "pile of sh*te" or similar without offering any explanation. Others have stated that they hope there isn't a third series, when they could simply not watch and let the rest of us enjoy it. Some people just like to moan for the sake of moaning. I don't want negative comments on boards like this to threaten a future series. Thankfully, there's been enough positive feedback to secure one.
Not read the comments here but I felt the finale was rushed and not vaguely surprising. The front page keeps harping on about the shocks/surprises but I don't remember one.
A discussion is fine, but some posters have put comments like "pile of sh*te" or similar without offering any explanation. Others have stated that they hope there isn't a third series, when they could simply not watch and let the rest of us enjoy it. Some people just like to moan for the sake of moaning. I don't want negative comments on boards like this to threaten a future series. Thankfully, there's been enough positive feedback to secure one.
Renewal is not dependent on the fickle anonymous vagaries of internet sites. its dependent on investors, sponsors, shareholders and whether they are prepared to put the money up, and whether those involved want to do another series.Ratings are an indication of consumer interest, but even a show like Vicious,that lost half its viewers, got a second series.Anything gets a second series these days if the money is available.
I found it hard to believe that Lee would have killed Pippa in the way he did. Lee and Claire covered up a murder they didn't commit because they thought that Ricky would win in court. It was a bit flimsy.
I think we have only Claire's description of how Pippa was killed. The flashback was in Claire's interview and Claire is not always truthful. ;-) And anyway, Claire is implicated as she made Pippa drink knowing it contained Rohypnol - and Lee had told her not to give it to Pippa. The whole plot was flimsy - not least the likelihood of Hardy and Miller being in charge of questioning the Sandbrook gang. Totally absurd but amongst so much absurdity, no point in caring.
You are 100% correct. Lisa would have been the suspect and without any DNA evidence or allegations I see no reason why Lee and Claire would become suspects let alone Lee charged.
Yes, but... there wouldn't have been a series if they'd taken that route. And loathe as I am to defend BC, unless you're used to thinking through the best way to hide an accidental murder, you'll be panicking, your mind will not be working logically.
The whole second series was totally unbelievable fantasy with the viewer expected to suspend any norms of reality and you bring up 'Joe's rights' - unbelievable. (
Hardy explained that the drug goes out of the system and thus not finding the body for days and in water meant no drug found.
Does a body need to be alive in order to process Rohypnol? It is probably processed by a (live!) liver. She drank it immediately before death. I'm sure someone can tell us but I hesitate before Googling does a dead body process rohypnol efficiently?
I don't want negative comments on boards like this to threaten a future series.
Giggling again here. How often do you see headlines like: NO Series 3 of Broadchurch... some posters on Digital Spy didn't like it much. Ratings are what matters, not opinions here.
Anyway, I for one am looking forward to Broadchurch 3 when Joscelyne and... Sharon?... jointly take on the defence of Claire, Lee and Ricky and all three get off (in the legal sense); then Joscelyne and Sharon get off (in the not so legal sense) and Hardy and Miller really do have an affair. Vince the dog will solve the case.
If yes. Then why didn't the viewers get this information, as we didn't even know she was killed. I know the drug didnt kill her. But by finding rohypnol in her body, it would seem more plausible she was killed.
If no. Why didn't the pathologist spot the drug?
Apparently, I have been told, traces of rohypnol disappear from the system very quickly, there can be no trace very quickly.
So although there are many things to pick up on, why did Lee, knowing he killed Pippa and knowing how Lisa was killed, would decide to go and harass the copper who still believes he is guilty. Then produce his own dossier, hand it to hardy which encourages him to investigate it again, surely knowing that it could come back on him. Similar for claire as well, get away from hardy asap.
Comments
Yes..Lee said Ricky used it on nights out to clubs
Did that nasty vicar say Joe was getting the taxi to Bournemouth station? Why not to Bridport station?
And, apart from what we know, Joe had been found not guilty by a jury, so he had rights ie half his house, access to his sons etc etc.
You are 100% correct. Lisa would have been the suspect and without any DNA evidence or allegations I see no reason why Lee and Claire would become suspects let alone Lee charged. Just because Lisa was related to Pippa, that would not stop the finger being pointed in her direction especially due to her disappearance. That is a BIG flaw in the storyline and a good reason for Lee to not be found guilty at the trial; to be honest I doubt he would have been be prosecuted!
Regarding which body to bury and which to "float". That's easy; I am sure Ricky would have wanted a proper funeral for his daughter and save his wife years of uncertainty. The added benefit should have been that Lisa would have been placed in the frame (saving their necks)........but as we all know for some reason that didn't work and the focus fell on Lee.
I think Ellie and Beth walked down the path whilst Joe was talking to the vicar.
Lee was suspected because of the pendant found in his car. Pippa was said to have been wearing it the day her parents left to go to the wedding...so it was fairly damning evidence.
I guess that because Lisa was missing , they had to presume that she might be dead, because of her total lack of contact with anyone.
The fourth ebook is about Tess and about how Pippa was found in the Sandbrook River but it doesnt tell anything more, other than what we saw in the series.
Perhaps Bournemouth had a more direct service to Sheffield ? and they thought this was safer, rather than have him disappear en route....
I think Joe was so shell shocked, first at being found not guilty and then at being forcibly taken to the hut , so I guess he was not thinking straight re his house, children etc...
Perhaps if he is part of Series Three, then he will have had time to adjust to his freedom and at that point, he will think about making a claim on the house and applying for access to his sons.
Didn't the pendant belong to Claire, I assumed it was lent to Pippa or had it been given to her. Also regardless, couldn't Lee have suggested he took the two girls for a ride in his car to the shops etc. they were neighbours.
The pendant belonged to Claire's Nan.... she gave it to Claire.....and later, Claire gave it to Pippa as a present.
In the series, it was made out to be damning evidence, but you are right..... there was no reason why Lee could not have just said he took the girls for a drive that day - after all, he knew neither of them were alive to contradict him.
Hardy didn't actually provide that much reliable evidence for Broadchurch 1. Though I guess when you have a confession you don't go too far down the evidence route. Miller completely missed the fact that she was living with the murderer - low EQ.
Hardy and Miller - yin yang cops.
Yet quite an expensive taxi ride from West Bay to Bournemouth;-)
I am sure you are right about Joe, he kept saying he had been found innocent with a bemused look on his face.
It's a possibility.
Possibilities are quiet little things, which live gently nuanced lives - far removed from the bombastic drama of CERTAINTIES
Sometimes it transpires that CERTAINTIES are actually just opinions wearing a bold smiley face. Not that they'll ever see that.
Off topic - but the Tunnel hooked me instantly. and I watched all the way through and ABSOLUTELY HATED the end of it. I man REALLY REALLY hated it, shouting at the TV and stomping around the room type of hate.
He said it twice didn't he? It seemed an odd thing to say, wouldn't you say I've been found Not Guilty? Or I'm Not Guilty? He's not really had much to say through two series though has he? A very enigmatic murderer, sorry 'found innocent' murderer.
The whole second series was totally unbelievable fantasy with the viewer expected to suspend any norms of reality and you bring up 'Joe's rights' - unbelievable.
This is eight hours of my life I can never get back. >:(
If yes. Then why didn't the viewers get this information, as we didn't even know she was killed. I know the drug didnt kill her. But by finding rohypnol in her body, it would seem more plausible she was killed.
If no. Why didn't the pathologist spot the drug?
Because it closed in May 1975?
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/b/bridport/
Fair comment in your first paragraph.
A discussion is fine, but some posters have put comments like "pile of sh*te" or similar without offering any explanation. Others have stated that they hope there isn't a third series, when they could simply not watch and let the rest of us enjoy it. Some people just like to moan for the sake of moaning. I don't want negative comments on boards like this to threaten a future series. Thankfully, there's been enough positive feedback to secure one.
haha...reason enough I suppose.
Renewal is not dependent on the fickle anonymous vagaries of internet sites. its dependent on investors, sponsors, shareholders and whether they are prepared to put the money up, and whether those involved want to do another series.Ratings are an indication of consumer interest, but even a show like Vicious,that lost half its viewers, got a second series.Anything gets a second series these days if the money is available.
As he knows he killed Danny - however he dresses it up - I don't think child access etc will have been in the forefront of his mind.
Yes, but... there wouldn't have been a series if they'd taken that route. And loathe as I am to defend BC, unless you're used to thinking through the best way to hide an accidental murder, you'll be panicking, your mind will not be working logically.
I giggled too.
Does a body need to be alive in order to process Rohypnol? It is probably processed by a (live!) liver. She drank it immediately before death. I'm sure someone can tell us but I hesitate before Googling does a dead body process rohypnol efficiently?
Giggling again here. How often do you see headlines like: NO Series 3 of Broadchurch... some posters on Digital Spy didn't like it much. Ratings are what matters, not opinions here.
Anyway, I for one am looking forward to Broadchurch 3 when Joscelyne and... Sharon?... jointly take on the defence of Claire, Lee and Ricky and all three get off (in the legal sense); then Joscelyne and Sharon get off (in the not so legal sense) and Hardy and Miller really do have an affair. Vince the dog will solve the case.
Apparently, I have been told, traces of rohypnol disappear from the system very quickly, there can be no trace very quickly.