Guilty or Not Guilty? Based just on season 2

I think just based on series 2. I would find him not guilty.

Guilty. He confessed and after watching it again I don't think he was coerced at all. We, the viewers, knew he had confessed because the first episodes dealt with it and the reason it was excluded. Since confession got thrown out the jury never heard it. Even if one of the jurors knew about it from media reports they would have been prohibited from bringing it up in deliberations.

I would have liked to know what the vote tally was for guilty/not guilty since it wasn't unanimous.

I feel that a big reason why the Sandbrook case was revisited at the same time the trial was going on was to illustrate how easily an outsider just learning the details now could be confused over what to conclude and over who might be guilty.

The two cases could have been told one after the other but it was important that as Hardy and Ellie were accused of having an affair we were wondering if Hardy and Claire had had one because he was acting suspicious over it and we'd just seen Ellie give in to a one-night-stand. Similarly, when Mark Latimer was being accused of murdering Danny, we were questioning whether Lee Ashworth might be innocent. And in the end, Pippa's dad WAS responsible for one of the girls' deaths. So it was possible Mark could have killed Danny.

So yes, based on series 2 alone, someone who'd never seen series 1 could conclude that Joe Miller was not guilty.

As a viewer, I would say guilty. But as a juror, I would have ruled not guilty. The confession was thrown out of court, the case was shaky, and there was reasonable doubt.

We all need mirrors to remind ourselves of who we are. - Memento

I said just before he was given Not Guilty, that he would get that. Because based solely on the court case, there was enough doubt to not be able to convict him. The phone being in his possession is the most damning piece of evidence, but it's not enough to say he was there that night in particular at that moment.


It's still a great night! Still a great night.

It is difficult to determine guilt based upon the very small selection of the trial shown in the episodes. Presumably the jury saw a lot more stuff. From what we saw I thought that the prosecution failed badly in "building the wall of evidence". Hardy, especially was not on the stand nearly long enough. For example, the prosecution should have had him go over all of the other potential defendants and why they were not considered to be the murderer. That would have gone greatly towards undermining the attempts by the defense to bring in the possibility of other murderers. The forensic evidence was also much stronger than that we saw displayed. For example, the marks on the victim's neck matched Joe's hands; the only forensic evidence in the hut was that of Joe, the victim, and Susan; the timeline for any other murderer did not fit anyone other than Joe; and the frequent mention of his confession by witnesses despite the ruling that the confession itself was not in evidence. Prosecution should also have brought in the other officers who were in the examining room at the time Ellie beat up on Joe, both of whom could have testified that Hardy immediately tried to pull Ellie off and also that this took place after Joe had confessed. Lastly the train of events leading up to his arrest was not adequately presented.
One unusual thing is that in an American court, the prosecutor is not permitted to try to infer guilt because the defendant does not testify on his own behalf.

Beefeater Joe

That is officially "not-proven" than what makes him "not guilty".

I was wondering if Joe was killed then it is the drama for the 3rd season