I thought this week was a much better . I think that although this series is not as good as the first it is still a half decent drama , the problem is everyone had such high expectations after the first series.
I still think Joe did it , and that Claire is a manipulative liar .
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.
I hate Claire - what a vile character. What is she living on? How is she paying the rent for that nice seaside home? Unless he's a secret millionaire, Hardy can't be funding her hideout. The whole plot with her and her ghastly partner has put me right off this show.
As for Hardy and his wife working together on the case, surely this would never be allowed to happen. It's getting more and more farcical every week.
The only good part this week was the return of Susan.
Yes, Susan and the dog were the highlight of last night's episode lol
It's spread itself so thinly that no amount of dramatic landscapes, tortured faces and music that builds up a sense of tension can rescue.
4 more episodes to go. A good denouement and all will be forgiven. More of the same will just confirm that ITV struggles to grow and improve a good drama,
^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, because as another poster has already said the next scene was Mark pushing the baby in her buggy, but then we saw the defence lawyers calling Susan Wright later, and her stating that she'd seen Nigel with the body that night (and the defence lawyers would presumably know her testimony), so then I'm supposing that the defence lawyers meant that they were proposing Nige as the alternative killer.
2) Hardy didn't do anything wrong in the Sandbrook case - his ex-wife took the evidence of the pendant (that was supposedly going to prove Lee Ashworth's guilt) but parked up at a motel to bonk her fancy man. Meanwhile the car was broken into and stuff was stolen ... including this pendant. Bang went their case against him.
3) I don't think DT is attractive, but regardless (horses for courses and all that) he's not being judged by Miller as 'ex-Dr Who David Tennant' but grumpy and rude barsteward Alec Hardy. They clashed from the get-go and she just didn't like him, so it's very unlikely she'd fancy him (though I accept there's often that 'Ooh, I hate you but I fancy you!' vibe).
They are just dragging it out imo. Watched the final episode of series 1 last night and it didnt seem right for joe to just admit it all of a sudden with absolutely no hint in the series that he did it. His wife would surely have noticed some different behavior. Joe was behaving normally throughout. It seem like the writers had put all the characters in a hat and pulled out Joe. Okay..he did it !
(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, the police had found Pippa's pendant and were due to have it tested for forensics - hopefully to show that Lee had handled it.
It was Tess ( Alec's ex wife ) who was taking the pendant to forensics. On the way she stopped off at a pub for a drink with her boyfriend and her car was broken into and the pendant stolen.
Alec didnt want Daisy ( his daughter ) to know that her mother was having an affair, so he took the blame for the loss of the evidence - and without this piece of evidence the case against Lee fell apart and he was acquitted.
So Kate and Ricky Gillespie blame Alec for the failure of the case.
Yes, Susan and the dog were the highlight of last night's episode lol
It's spread itself so thinly that no amount of dramatic landscapes, tortured faces and music that builds up a sense of tension can rescue.
4 more episodes to go. A good denouement and all will be forgiven. More of the same will just confirm that ITV struggles to grow and improve a good drama,
I agree, when I saw Vince come through the door, followed by Susan, I thought things will get better now .........she is so good in the role....
Can someone remind me please, in the last episode of Series 1 when we saw that Joe killed Danny, was this an actual flashback or did we just watch a description of what happened from what Joe had told the police?
I'm debating if Joe really did it now, but my problem lies with the fact we all saw him do it.. although if what we saw was just a description of what he said happened, and he is/was covering for someone then this could be a game changer.
yes, the police had found Pippa's pendant and were due to have it tested for forensics - hopefully to show that Lee had handled it.
It was Tess ( Alec's ex wife ) who was taking the pendant to forensics. On the way she stopped off at a pub for a drink with her boyfriend and her car was broken into and the pendant stolen.
Alec didnt want Daisy ( his daughter ) to know that her mother was having an affair, so he took the blame for the loss of the evidence - and without this piece of evidence the case against Lee fell apart and he was acquitted.
So Kate and Ricky Gillespie blame Alec for the failure of the case.
I agree, when I saw Vince come through the door, followed by Susan, I thought things will get better now .........she is so good in the role....
I'm glad we didn't know Pauline Quirke is in this series, I like the element of surprise, it so rarely happens in shows now- glad to see her back, it will shake things up
Can someone remind me please, in the last episode of Series 1 when we saw that Joe killed Danny, was this an actual flashback or did we just watch a description of what happened from what Joe had told the police?
I'm debating if Joe really did it now, but my problem lies with the fact we all saw him do it.. although if what we saw was just a description of what he said happened, and he is/was covering for someone then this could be a game changer.
Far as I remember, we saw Joe giving his statement in the police station, and * his statement* was shown as a flashback to the actual night.
So I took it to be an actual account of what happened.
What surprised me last night was that Joe is claiming complete innocence and no connection whatsoever to the murder.
I actually thought, when he made his Not Guilty plea in Epi One, that he meant he had not intended to kill Danny and it was an accident.
I didnt realise, until last night, that he meant it was nothing at all to do with him.
Suddenly we find out that Joe has an aggressive streak - Even Ellie didn't know.
Yes thats what i thought, i mean Joe wasnt a suspect at all, he wasn't behaving strangely, which he would surely if he had murdered someone. Murdering someone because of hugs seems silly really
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.
There was a fairly prominent necklace on display (amidst other things) when Lee was checking Claire for 'wires' in... episode 2, was it? Which doesn't necessarily mean anything... but whatever the situation with pendants is or is not, I think Claire is going to prove that poor Hardy's trust has been seriously misplaced. Not least because it seems she can be bought by a bag of chips... really? Really?
I didn't see last night's episode (well, only about 10 minutes) but if Vince is back, I'm there next week. He's a character I can believe in and care about. ;-)
I'm glad we didn't know Pauline Quirke is in this series, I like the element of surprise, it so rarely happens in shows now- glad to see her back, it will shake things up
It's notable that she wasn't in the cast list in Radio Times. That would have been a big spoiler.
As for Tom - can someone explain things to me? What is he doing in that mobile home on his own? If it belongs to the Pauline Quirke character, how did he get in and obviously make himself at home?
As for Tom - can someone explain things to me? What is he doing in that mobile home on his own? If it belongs to the Pauline Quirke character, how did he get in and obviously make himself at home?
She gave him a key.
I wonder whether Vicky McClure's character will return too, now that Ollie has posted info online about Lee turning up in Broadchurch. Her original interest was in the Sandbrook case if I remember correctly.
I wonder whether Vicky McClure's character will return too, now that Ollie has posted info online about Lee turning up in Broadchurch. Her original interest was in the Sandbrook case if I remember correctly.
Thanks for confirming that.
I thought I had heard Tom telling Danny that * the lady * who lived here gave me a key but then when Susan turned up last night, she said to Tom, what are you doing here ? so thought I must have been mistaken....
Agree re Karen - I hope she comes back into the series, really liked her ...
They are just dragging it out imo. Watched the final episode of series 1 last night and it didnt seem right for joe to just admit it all of a sudden with absolutely no hint in the series that he did it. His wife would surely have noticed some different behavior. Joe was behaving normally throughout. It seem like the writers had put all the characters in a hat and pulled out Joe. Okay..he did it !
If people commit such a crime it isn't unusual for them to continue as if nothing has happened.
Living in Gloucestershire the Fred and Rose West case was a big deal. My dad was a plumber before he retired and knew Fred as an acquaintence through working together on different building sites. He would tell you, as would other friends of mine who knew him, that Fred was a great bloke to work with and was always ready to help out if he could. Not one of them would say they ever thought him capable of doing what he did as he always seemed the same every time they met and worked with him.
So for me it is perfectly feasible for Joe to continue as normal, assuming he did in fact commit the crime in the first place....
I am only watching out of curiosity now, sky+ Silent Witness to enjoy 2 hours worth on a sat night.
Read somewhere ages ago that Pauline was in this series, good to see her charachter back.
I wonder whether Vicky McClure's character will return too, now that Ollie has posted info online about Lee turning up in Broadchurch. Her original interest was in the Sandbrook case if I remember correctly.
Yes good call. She was all over Sandbrook and seemed to have it in for Hardy for no apparent reason didn't she? If she was coming back, they have kept it well hidden, which would suggest she may know something important.
Can someone remind me please, in the last episode of Series 1 when we saw that Joe killed Danny, was this an actual flashback or did we just watch a description of what happened from what Joe had told the police?
I'm debating if Joe really did it now, but my problem lies with the fact we all saw him do it.. although if what we saw was just a description of what he said happened, and he is/was covering for someone then this could be a game changer.
I watched series one quite recently and it was definitely a flashback, it even had "X Days Earlier" come up on the screen. So we were meant to be left in no doubt that Joe killed Danny.
Comments
I still think Joe did it , and that Claire is a manipulative liar .
I did notice that he was referred to several times as Fred - had the writers read comments here about his name?;-)
So did I.
It is Rory (Dr Who).
As for Hardy and his wife working together on the case, surely this would never be allowed to happen. It's getting more and more farcical every week.
The only good part this week was the return of Susan.
It's spread itself so thinly that no amount of dramatic landscapes, tortured faces and music that builds up a sense of tension can rescue.
4 more episodes to go. A good denouement and all will be forgiven. More of the same will just confirm that ITV struggles to grow and improve a good drama,
1) I thought they meant Mark, because as another poster has already said the next scene was Mark pushing the baby in her buggy, but then we saw the defence lawyers calling Susan Wright later, and her stating that she'd seen Nigel with the body that night (and the defence lawyers would presumably know her testimony), so then I'm supposing that the defence lawyers meant that they were proposing Nige as the alternative killer.
2) Hardy didn't do anything wrong in the Sandbrook case - his ex-wife took the evidence of the pendant (that was supposedly going to prove Lee Ashworth's guilt) but parked up at a motel to bonk her fancy man. Meanwhile the car was broken into and stuff was stolen ... including this pendant. Bang went their case against him.
3) I don't think DT is attractive, but regardless (horses for courses and all that) he's not being judged by Miller as 'ex-Dr Who David Tennant' but grumpy and rude barsteward Alec Hardy. They clashed from the get-go and she just didn't like him, so it's very unlikely she'd fancy him (though I accept there's often that 'Ooh, I hate you but I fancy you!' vibe).
yes, the police had found Pippa's pendant and were due to have it tested for forensics - hopefully to show that Lee had handled it.
It was Tess ( Alec's ex wife ) who was taking the pendant to forensics. On the way she stopped off at a pub for a drink with her boyfriend and her car was broken into and the pendant stolen.
Alec didnt want Daisy ( his daughter ) to know that her mother was having an affair, so he took the blame for the loss of the evidence - and without this piece of evidence the case against Lee fell apart and he was acquitted.
So Kate and Ricky Gillespie blame Alec for the failure of the case.
I agree, when I saw Vince come through the door, followed by Susan, I thought things will get better now .........she is so good in the role....
I'm debating if Joe really did it now, but my problem lies with the fact we all saw him do it.. although if what we saw was just a description of what he said happened, and he is/was covering for someone then this could be a game changer.
Thanks for that , it's coming back to me now !
I'm glad we didn't know Pauline Quirke is in this series, I like the element of surprise, it so rarely happens in shows now- glad to see her back, it will shake things up
Far as I remember, we saw Joe giving his statement in the police station, and * his statement* was shown as a flashback to the actual night.
So I took it to be an actual account of what happened.
What surprised me last night was that Joe is claiming complete innocence and no connection whatsoever to the murder.
I actually thought, when he made his Not Guilty plea in Epi One, that he meant he had not intended to kill Danny and it was an accident.
I didnt realise, until last night, that he meant it was nothing at all to do with him.
Suddenly we find out that Joe has an aggressive streak - Even Ellie didn't know.
Yes thats what i thought, i mean Joe wasnt a suspect at all, he wasn't behaving strangely, which he would surely if he had murdered someone. Murdering someone because of hugs seems silly really
I didn't see last night's episode (well, only about 10 minutes) but if Vince is back, I'm there next week. He's a character I can believe in and care about. ;-)
It's notable that she wasn't in the cast list in Radio Times. That would have been a big spoiler.
As for Tom - can someone explain things to me? What is he doing in that mobile home on his own? If it belongs to the Pauline Quirke character, how did he get in and obviously make himself at home?
She gave him a key.
I wonder whether Vicky McClure's character will return too, now that Ollie has posted info online about Lee turning up in Broadchurch. Her original interest was in the Sandbrook case if I remember correctly.
Thanks for confirming that.
I thought I had heard Tom telling Danny that * the lady * who lived here gave me a key but then when Susan turned up last night, she said to Tom, what are you doing here ? so thought I must have been mistaken....
Agree re Karen - I hope she comes back into the series, really liked her ...
If people commit such a crime it isn't unusual for them to continue as if nothing has happened.
Living in Gloucestershire the Fred and Rose West case was a big deal. My dad was a plumber before he retired and knew Fred as an acquaintence through working together on different building sites. He would tell you, as would other friends of mine who knew him, that Fred was a great bloke to work with and was always ready to help out if he could. Not one of them would say they ever thought him capable of doing what he did as he always seemed the same every time they met and worked with him.
So for me it is perfectly feasible for Joe to continue as normal, assuming he did in fact commit the crime in the first place....
Read somewhere ages ago that Pauline was in this series, good to see her charachter back.
Yes good call. She was all over Sandbrook and seemed to have it in for Hardy for no apparent reason didn't she? If she was coming back, they have kept it well hidden, which would suggest she may know something important.
I'm so glad I didn't hear she was coming back! It was a massive OMG moment!
I watched series one quite recently and it was definitely a flashback, it even had "X Days Earlier" come up on the screen. So we were meant to be left in no doubt that Joe killed Danny.