Death in Paradise - Series 2

1515254565782

Comments

  • spectraspectra Posts: 2,747
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Good episode, but the solution was pretty obvious, though I thought the motive was to swap the painting for a fake.

    They were relying far too much on the phone call giving the time of death.

    And why would someone draw attention to a book by removing it, leaving volumes 1 and 3 behind?

    Incidentally, if Lauren left what looked like a sundress behind, how did she get home?

    Think it was a used as a nightshirt/dress, as it was under the pillow.
    Have you lived with many women cos t-shirt under her pillow is quite common in my experience
  • kampffenhoffkampffenhoff Posts: 1,556
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ed Sizzers wrote: »
    You've got all of his old BT ads on VHS haven't you. :D


    Nope, I was just imitating your post, that is, assuming what I think is a fact, when it's just an opinion. I hated those BT ads and I hate the new ones too.

    Anyhow, seriously, I didn't guess who did it and I didn't recognize Sharon Small either. Obviously in the ten years since I joined Mensa, my brain has suffered some kind of cataclysmic melt down or maybe having 2 daughters has ruined it. I am however, very good at remembering old phone numbers no longer in use and old car numbers and, in fact, anything else totally useless which means I am very good at quiz shows. Nothing else, however

    Anyway, at one point I thought it might have been the husband. I enjoyed it though and KM seems to be settling into the role. I enjoyed the commissioner having a fit about the judge.
  • nic6nic6 Posts: 745
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    988414 wrote: »
    Evening. Does anyone know when tonights episode is repeated on tv as opposed to being available on iplayer please?

    I forgot to record it!

    They will probably repeat a few episodes of this series in the late Spring/Summer as fillers but not the whole series.

    Best to record them in HD whilst you can, the BBC DVD releases are awful quality compared with the HD broadcasts.

    I noticed that series 2 shot in HD all fitted onto a single 25GB bluray perfectly. :)
  • jsmith99jsmith99 Posts: 20,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    spectra wrote: »
    Think it was a used as a nightshirt/dress, as it was under the pillow.
    Have you lived with many women cos t-shirt under her pillow is quite common in my experience

    Only ones I was married to, and I think the key words there are "lived with". Alas, I've no experience of women visiting for a spot of extra-nuptials. Going by the size of his client list, would he really allow someone to keep a nightie under a pillow?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another enjoyable episode, although it followed a similar formula to the previous one, with the culprit not being included in their initial list of suspects. I guessed who it was very early.

    Just a couple of issues:
    1. Would the culprit really have been able to do a good enough impression of the victim's voice to fool Fidel (his close friend) on the phone?
    2. Was the lighthouse even proof of fakery? It could just have been artistic licence – even a piece of symbolism.
  • Mood IndigoMood Indigo Posts: 4,084
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I thought so too.
    There were a few words when it slipped a bit, but after all, it was just a "one off" part for her.
    It was certainly far better than Martin Shaw's which was all over the place in episodes of "George Gently."

    I thought her accent was quite good too.
    Martin Shaw's accent in George Gently is a little odd. He supposed to be a 50 something cockney in the 1960s, so the accent is going to be different to a middle aged cockney living now, but even making allowances for that, it just doesn't sound right. Lee Ingleby who is from Burnley, by contrast does a great Geordie accent.
    Another enjoyable episode, although it followed a similar formula to the previous one, with the culprit not being included in their initial list of suspects. I guessed who it was very early.

    Just a couple of issues:
    1. Would the culprit really have been able to do a good enough impression of the victim's voice to fool Fidel (his close friend) on the phone?
    2. Was the lighthouse even proof of fakery? It could just have been artistic licence – even a piece of symbolism.

    I really enjoyed this episode, I feel the series is settling into a nice groove now.

    The killer didn't phone Fidel directly, just the police. Humphrey made a point of the fact that the victim didn't call his friend Fidel.

    As the lighthouse wasn't planned/ built until 2 years after the artist's death, it would have been incredibly coincidental that the artist just happened to think about putting a lighthouse in the painting, reflected in a glass in the exact position that a future lighthouse would be built. It would be bond to raise a suspicion once pointed out.

    I have to say that I don't miss Richard at all. I'm in the minority of people in that I wasn't that fond of the character anyway. It used to feel that he did all the solving with the rest of them just bit players looking on. Now it feels more like a team effort, and the other characters are coming to the fore more.
  • spectraspectra Posts: 2,747
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    jsmith99 wrote: »
    Only ones I was married to, and I think the key words there are "lived with". Alas, I've no experience of women visiting for a spot of extra-nuptials. Going by the size of his client list, would he really allow someone to keep a nightie under a pillow?

    I don't think he "entertained at his place". He had all of his reference books there with the highlighted bits and everything. I think he let his clients book the accomodation.
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,507
    Forum Member
    1. Would the culprit really have been able to do a good enough impression of the victim's voice to fool Fidel (his close friend) on the phone?
    Over a poor mobile connection re-routed through the police station mini-exchange? Easily, I would say. Anyway I thought the other guy took the call?
  • kampffenhoffkampffenhoff Posts: 1,556
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gomezz wrote: »
    Over a poor mobile connection re-routed through the police station mini-exchange? Easily, I would say. Anyway I thought the other guy took the call?

    Fidel didn't take the call. They made a point of saying more than once that he didn't phone his friend Fidel.
  • petelypetely Posts: 2,994
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    1. Would the culprit really have been able to do a good enough impression of the victim's voice to fool Fidel (his close friend) on the phone?

    The killer didn't know that Fidel and gigolo-guy were friends, so the question wouldn't arise.
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,507
    Forum Member
    I think it is more that Fidel would have listened to a recording of the phone call fairly early on in the investigation and would have spotted the discrepancy if the sound quality was good enough.
  • Agent KrycekAgent Krycek Posts: 39,269
    Forum Member
    gomezz wrote: »
    I think it is more that Fidel would have listened to a recording of the phone call fairly early on in the investigation and would have spotted the discrepancy if the sound quality was good enough.

    But it wasn't a clear recording, we heard it, also it was just a couple of lines, by the time Fidel heard the brief message he'd have 'known' it was the victim, and there was no real reason to question it.

    Pretty obvious killer last night (both me and Mr AK called it - we're planning on buying Miss Marple hats next and investigating local crime next :D ) but enjoyed it all the same.

    Rather than Humphrey and Camille hooking up, it wouldn't shock me if it was Camille's mum he hooked up with
  • Paul_DNAPPaul_DNAP Posts: 25,801
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Another enjoyable episode, although it followed a similar formula to the previous one, with the culprit not being included in their initial list of suspects. I guessed who it was very early.

    Just a couple of issues:
    1. Would the culprit really have been able to do a good enough impression of the victim's voice to fool Fidel (his close friend) on the phone?
    2. Was the lighthouse even proof of fakery? It could just have been artistic licence – even a piece of symbolism.

    It's a plot device used a lot in Columbo - the detective describes what appears to be a detailed picture of the crime and then the murderer basically confesses; whereas all he's got is heresay and circumstantial evidence which they could have argued against ina trial had they not crumbled under the tinyest of pressures.
  • RFSRFS Posts: 7,627
    Forum Member
    But it wasn't a clear recording, we heard it, also it was just a couple of lines, by the time Fidel heard the brief message he'd have 'known' it was the victim, and there was no real reason to question it.

    Pretty obvious killer last night (both me and Mr AK called it - we're planning on buying Miss Marple hats next and investigating local crime next :D ) but enjoyed it all the same.

    Rather than Humphrey and Camille hooking up, it wouldn't shock me if it was Camille's mum he hooked up with

    Wow now I am intrigued to watch this back... what did I miss!:D
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,507
    Forum Member
    But it wasn't a clear recording, we heard it
    Which is what I suggested in the first place. Possibly, an unclear recording of someone's voice may still be identifiable to someone who knows them well? Though in this case it was two years or so (?) since Fidel last spoke with him.
  • Agent KrycekAgent Krycek Posts: 39,269
    Forum Member
    RFS wrote: »
    Wow now I am intrigued to watch this back... what did I miss!:D

    Oh nothing, just a feeling I have for some reason, but in honesty my 'feelings' normally amount to squat so I wouldn't get too excited :blush:
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    gomezz wrote: »
    Which is what I suggested in the first place. Possibly, an unclear recording of someone's voice may still be identifiable to someone who knows them well? Though in this case it was two years or so (?) since Fidel last spoke with him.

    I'm willing to accept that the poor quality of the phone line was enough for Fidel not to realise it wasn't his friend's voice.

    However, I still don't think the presence of the lighthouse in the painting proved it was a fake. Nor did I understand why the killer took the book – shouldn't he have put it back on the shelf? Maybe he just panicked.
  • gomezzgomezz Posts: 44,507
    Forum Member
    Having the presence of mind and courage to wait an hour before calling suggest he was not panicking. Not knowing where the book lived on the shelves is a possibility.
  • AngiBearAngiBear Posts: 2,894
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I'm willing to accept that the poor quality of the phone line was enough for Fidel not to realise it wasn't his friend's voice.

    However, I still don't think the presence of the lighthouse in the painting proved it was a fake. Nor did I understand why the killer took the book – shouldn't he have put it back on the shelf? Maybe he just panicked.

    Did they not say that the lighthouse was not built until 2 years ago after the artist died, meaning it wasn't there when it was claimed the artist painted it?
  • SallysallySallysally Posts: 5,070
    Forum Member
    Surely the deciding factor was not the painting but the book and the phone being found in the gallery owner's possession?
    He would not have had them if he had not been implicated in the killing - particularly the phone.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 2,115
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AngiBear wrote: »
    Did they not say that the lighthouse was not built until 2 years ago after the artist died, meaning it wasn't there when it was claimed the artist painted it?

    It could have been artistic licence or even symbolism (a perpetual light to indicate the artist’s undying love for the lady?).
  • Doghouse RileyDoghouse Riley Posts: 32,491
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It could have been artistic licence or even symbolism (a perpetual light to indicate the artist’s undying love for the lady?).

    It was in the guide book, as well as all the pointless information of the relative size of the island to that of several others to add a bit of confusion. The building of the lighthouse and when, had to be mentioned as a sort of Hitchcock, "McGuffins" to make the plot work.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Sharon Small did it.

    Biggest guest star / actor .

    if true ..programme is a waste of space appart from scenery.

    Not this time! :D
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,306
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    And loved this series just as much, great cast change.
  • Eater SundaeEater Sundae Posts: 10,000
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    This enjoyable bit of hokum was a bit; "Detection for beginners."

    The clues we there at the start.

    We were given a close-ups of areas in the painting including the lighthouse though slightly obscured by a bottle, so that must have been important. Anyway the painting itself was so naff, "it had to be a forgery."
    Of all the things to mention from the guidebook, "a lighthouse is being built" again had to be significant.
    The Commissioner wanted the judge arrested, so you knew straight away it couldn't have been her.
    Sharon Small was too obvious, as was the husband.
    It had to be "someone not under close suspicion"
    and also who would might lose most from the fact that the painting was a forgery.

    I like the fact that the police in the Caribbean don't need the "Forensick" people to take over their job and do the investigating, as seems so necessary in programmes like "Silent Witness."

    Also, they gave the dates for both the painting and the book, so it was obvious that the book in some way proved that the painting was not real. Therefore it must be the man running the gallery/sale. Also, the timing of the killing and the phone call saying it was a woman were clearly red herrings, mainly by the way they kept reminding us of the small window for the killing.

    I think they could be less obvious with the red herring clues. Still a good watch, though.

    And I think the lizard must have a stunt double. He jumped onto Kris on the hammock last week, and this week he nearly got crushed when Kris jumped on the bed. Kris is so clumsy that I can't see the lizard lasting to the end of the series. Unless there is an endless supply of replacements in the local pet shop.
Sign In or Register to comment.