Season 2 was stupid with that verdict (spoilers) - Broadchurch (2013) Discussion

[–] Semi_Sweet 9 years ago

All the defence has to do is convince the jury that there is even the slightest possibility that it could be somebody else. Without DNA or witnesses this is always the case. The fact that he had the phone is the clincher but it's still possible a cop planted that evidence. Incredibly frustrating as we know he did it, but it's not an absurd outcome.

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

There wasn't any possibility that it could be anyone else. There wasn't any DNA or Witnesses with Scott Peterson but he's on death row.

The fact is, if you're going to let the guy go you have to make it believable. The one witness that pointed to someone else was the woman from the trailer who said she saw her son. She was a horrible and unbelievable witness and even the defense team said she was horrible. Without her, there's no evidence pointing to nobody else and she was a terrible witness.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] Semi_Sweet 9 years ago

Mark Latimer was seen on video tape 50 yards from the murder scene within 10-15 minutes of the crime happening, and then went missing for an extra hour. That is a pretty good case that it could be him, even if it wasn't.

People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two...

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

Again, that doesn't matter because the only way this could be true if Mark had Nige carry the dead body to the beach for some unknown reason. There's no evidence this occured and the defense witness to corroborate this evidence was an utter disaster on the witness stand.

You would have to show that Mark killed his son, then for some unknown reason called Nige to carry his sons dead body to the beach. There's zero evidence to support this and the key witness fell apart on the stand.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] Semi_Sweet 9 years ago

You're so pressed. It doesn't matter what's plausible to you, plenty of people get put away wrongly and consistently. Based on ridiculous testimony. Go look at the Adnan Syed vs. Maryland case. He got convicted on basically one persons claims. There was no DNA, no footage, NOTHING to suggest he was the killer other than the victim was his ex girlfriend. It happens all the time. Jury's are stupid both ways.

People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two...

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

Jurors are stupid sometimes but Writers don't have to be especially when there's no plausible way that you can think Mark killed his son. If the writers would have made the Mother's testimony stronger then it would be plausible.

Nobody has went to jail on something so implausable. Mark was never seen with the dead body. Nige was and there's no evidence that it was Nige. Even if you make the HUGE leap, you would have to show a link between Mark and Nige that night and there has to be a plausible reason as to why he would call Nige to dump the body on the beach for everyone to find.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] Semi_Sweet 9 years ago

How can you prove it was Joe though? There was nothing to prove he was the one that did it other than he had the phone and a confession that could have been forced because of his beating.

Mark admitted to hitting his son, he was seen near the crime scene on tape 50 yards away within the hour that it happened and nobody can account for his whereabouts for an hour that night. Look we all know Joe did it, we saw it, the jury don't have that benefit though, and it's plausible that Joe didn't do it based solely on the trial and the facts.

People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two...

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

Did you even watch the show?

Of course you can prove it was Joe. There's no other reasonable or plausable explanation.

First Mark hit his son, it doesn't mean he murdered his son.

Secondly, Mark was never seen with the body.

So in order for it to be Mark, you would have to show that he called Nige and that the eyewitness who said she saw Nige has to be credible not a total liar who the defense was even ashamed of.

You have NO EVIDENCE that Mark killed his son without evidence that for some unknown reason he called Nige and Nige then took his dead son and laid him on the beach.

Do you know what the word evidence means?

In fact, it was so sloppy, the Jury knew about the confession and then told to disregard it. Something like that is usually argued by lawyers not in front of the Jury.

There's no way Joe wouldn't be convicted.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] Semi_Sweet 9 years ago

Secondly, Mark was never seen with the body.

Neither was Joe.

Clearly I did watch the show, don't be so condescending. Your opinion isn't the be all and end all. You can have yours, but don't try and put it over as fact when there is clear indication that you're in the minority based on the collective opinions on this board. Based solely on the trial, it is plausible that he may not have done it. It's that simple. No DNA or witnesses = No dice.

People say I'm the life of the party
Because I tell a joke or two...

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

First off, you watch too much CSI and you're not in the real world. There was no DNA or Witnesses in the Scott Peterson case and he's on Death Row, so that's just utter nonsense.

Secondle, Mark was never seen with the body THEREFORE the defense has to establish that Mark called Nige for some reason then he carried his body to the beach. Again, you can't just make up these things out of whole cloth.

The witness that said she saw Nige had zero credibility and the defense was shocked at how bad she was. On top of that, there wasn't anything that pointed to Mark calling Nige to move a dead body.

Lastly, there was also the confession which the Jury heard about. It makes no sense to argue these things in front of a jury. You also had the cellphone and the text messages. There was a reason Joe was on trial and not Mark and that's because of the evidence. There wasn't ANY EVIDENCE that points to Mark as the killer because you have to establish some phone calls between Mark and Nige the night of the murder.

HOW DID MARK CONTACT NIGE? SMOKE SIGNALS??

This was one of the DUMBEST VERDICTS on TV.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] MarblesLove 9 years ago

While the other person does make a very good point about how there are many real life cases where people have been convicted on as little evidence as the case on Broadchurch had I think you make a good point as well. It would have been so easy for Joselyn to prove that Mark never made any kind of contact with Nige that night, therefore whoever Susan saw on the beach either really was Nige meaning he was actually the one to kill Danny, with or without being urged or helped my Mark or she saw Joe placing Danny on the beach after killing him, which we know to be what actually happened. So logically, with the cellphone and text message evidence and the eye witness who saw a bald man place Danny's body on the beach, why not have the verdit be guilty?

Once upon a time there was a magical place where it never rained. The end.

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

Good points!

That's the whole point. There wasn't any evidence that Mark called Nige for some unknown reason and then had Nige place his body on the beach for everyone to find. This was an obviously guilty verdict.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] jono2316 9 years ago

I have no idea why you're so worked up about this, but you keep saying that the defense would have to show how Mark called Nige which is bizarre. As I'm sure you know, and as was stated specifically in the show, the defense doesn't have to show or prove anything, they simply have to create a reasonable doubt. It's not their job to prove anything they say, it's the prosecution's job to prove for certain that Joe did it. They weren't able to do that. Of course we as TV viewers know he did it but as juror hearing everything for the first time, its certainly a possibility, however remote, that Mark COULD have killed his son, being so close to the murder scene and having part of his night unaccounted for.

Bow to your king, BOW ya sh*ts!

reply

[–] crazygreen1126 8 years ago

The defense wouldn't have to show evidence other than a made up story, but certainly Jocelyn should've easily been able to kill the defenses story of Mark killing Danny & calling Nige to help get rid of the body. They could've provided proof that they had no contact that night with cell phone records.

"What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?"

reply

[–] DendelionBlu 9 years ago

Why do you get so worked up about a TV show?

It's a TV show

It's not real life. No boy was murdered

The point that you seem very agitated and it's baffling to me how a piece of entertainment can have such an effect on you

There are plenty of unjust sentencings in the real world

If you're so passed for justice - which is a good thing - go do something about them

Don't rant on an Internet board

reply

[–] nakazul 9 years ago

I loved season one ... but season 2 is only annoying. All i can think of is that the writing crashed this series. And i must say, if i had knowledge how horrible bad season 2 would be, i would have stoped watching this series at season one and cheerish the memory of a high quality tv show.

reply

[–] burtonh 9 years ago

I agree in part. Season 1 was much better than season 2.

Watch Underground Urban Movies for FREE!
http://flossyflix.com/

reply

[–] arjuna75 9 years ago

This might be a little silly point to quible over, but how does anyone know that the killer was bald? We know he was... but if you watch season 1, the man Susan saw was wearing a wooly the whole time? He never takes it off from the moment the body is taken to the boat to out of it? So, when it comes to even mistakenly identifying her son, there's no bald head ever seen.

reply

[–] rlsmcrain 9 years ago

I agree! Although I didn't think it was horrible, I think watching Season 2 somewhat ruined my awe of Season 1. I thought Season 1 was just about perfect. Season 2 went off the tracks somewhat.

reply

[–] gf1701 9 years ago

I totally agree, except that it wasn't the verdict (which I came here to find out) that killed it. I thought season 1 was great. I stopped watching after episode 2 of the second season. It seemed like the writers got lazy and resorted to idiot plot lines, assuming that after their great work in the first season, their audience would now buy anything they sold them. This often happens after a show's initial season, but we can still hope for two or three strong seasons before that happens. In this case, we didn't get it.

reply

[–] Mandy999 9 years ago

The defense was extremely weak and that made the verdict unbelievable.

It seemed quite reasonable to me. Don't forget, the jury didn't see the series like we did. Taken in isolation, the Defense introduced a pretty good reasonable doubt. I remember watching her summation and thinking, "They're going to buy this. It's going to be 'not guilty.'"

reply

[–] ioan77 9 years ago

You are confusing characters. Jocelyn was the plaintiff, not defense. But yes, I found it odd to watch Bishop throw out wild speculations rather than prove Joe's innocence. Apparently they can do that in the UK.

reply

[–] rlsmcrain 9 years ago

She (Bishop, the defense attorney)didn't have to prove Joe's innocence. The prosecuting attorney was responsible for proving his guilt.

reply

[–] rlsmcrain 9 years ago

What I thought was absurd was that the defense lawyer claimed that Mark killed Danny because he didn't want Beth to know he was having an affair whereas Mark had already testified that he was writing Beth a letter telling her that he was having an affair. So why would he kill his son?

reply

[–] loislane703 9 years ago

So why would he kill his son?

She presented an alternate scenario whereby Danny witnessed (from the cottage) his father in the car with the other woman. And Mark then saw that he saw when Danny ran out from the cottage, and killed him to keep him from telling Beth about his affair.

What she did was place Mark close to his son's last known location (and the murder scene) -known fact and held up Joe's alibi that he was home all night with his wife Ellie (who also testified the same based on her presumption that he was) and therefore, no where near the crime scene - which could not be proven otherwise. It reinforced Joe's "not guilty" plea.

reply

[–] briggerz 8 years ago

What she did was place Mark close to his son's last known location (and the murder scene) -known fact and held up Joe's alibi that he was home all night with his wife Ellie

But if Joe was at home with his wife then Danny wouldnt have been at the cottage in the first place as he was only there to meet Joe. ;)

reply

[–] jalola298 8 years ago

What she did was ...
... held up Joe's alibi that he was home all night with his wife Ellie (who also testified the same based on her presumption that he was) and therefore, no where near the crime scene - which could not be proven otherwise.

Putting a hole in the prosecution's case is not proving the opposite to be true.
What Bishop did was prove Ellie couldn't vouch either way for Joe's whereabouts because she'd taken a sleeping pill. That's not proving Joe's alibi but showing that the prosecution couldn't prove Joe was away from the house.

In a similar way, Joe was found "not guilty" because there was no third choice but that doesn't mean he was innocent. In fact, what happened was the case against Joe was "not proven" -- which is a verdict juries in Scotland can choose as an alternative to "guilty" or "not guilty".

reply

[–] loislane703 8 years ago

Putting a hole in the prosecution's case is not proving the opposite to be true.

No, but it helped make the case for Joe's defense by possibly incriminating the "real" killer who in his lawyers eyes was Mark, seeing as he was near the crime scene around the time of his son's death. They were just providing a possible motive to a known fact (Mark's whereabouts).

What Bishop did was prove Ellie couldn't vouch either way for Joe's whereabouts because she'd taken a sleeping pill.

Sorry, I can't remember all the details now but why would Bishop defending Joe prove that Ellie couldn't vouch for Joe because that would incriminate her client, wouldn't it? Hmm...the details all are a bit foggy now for me, Jalola.

Yes, Bishop did hold tight what the prosecution couldn't prove regarding Joe's whereabouts that night. What was known however, was Mark's whereabouts that night, which was near the crime scene, which was the point I thought was coming across clearly on the screen (and the subject of my post).

In a similar way, Joe was found "not guilty" because there was no third choice but that doesn't mean he was innocent.

No it does mean he's innocent, of course. But since the prosecution failed to make a case and the defense made theirs by pointing out all the facts that made the case, he wasn't found guilty of the murder.

In fact, what happened was the case against Joe was "not proven" --

Yes, exactly.

reply

[–] StoneFacedTickler 9 years ago

After a brilliant season 1, season 2 was just plain underwhelming and mediocre.

Before man was, war waited for him. The ultimate trade awaiting its ultimate practitioner.

reply

[–] Rizarion 8 years ago

Just finished watching and I have to agree with this. The crackpot theories the defense was throwing out were laughable. So Mark kills his son to cover up his affair, and the detectives cover it up and frame Joe because of their 'affair'...lol. Granted we know what happened, but you don't have to be a genius to understand the defensive was grasping at straws.

And the judge throwing out the confession...wtf. They've got video and audio of not just Joe, but every suspect in the case. Just one look at those tapes nixes the idea that they framed Joe, or that he was under any kind of duress when he confessed, and that his injuries occurred after his confession. It's ridiculous to think that a judge would throw out a crucial part of the case based on pure speculation when there's actual evidence to the contrary.

reply

[–] burtonh 8 years ago

Very good points. It was just dumb!

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]