MovieChat Forums > Broadchurch (2013) Discussion > Some things I don't understand

Some things I don't understand

posted 9 years ago by MirinF
13 replies | jump to latest

In general, I found the second season more solid, exiting and better written than the first one. But there are a few things, that I just don't understand.

First of all, the point defence was based on. That Mark killed Danny, because otherwise he may have told Beth about Mark and Becca. But at that point, Mark was going to leave Beth anyway. There was no reason for him to kill Danny for seeing him with another woman. How come the jury didn't see that? How come Jocelyn didn't question that theory?

And the other thing, that bothers me, is the Sandbrook case. Why exactly did Ricky kill Lisa? Was he a violent and possessive man in general? The way he hit her, it sure wasn't first time in his life. If yes, how come nobody ever mentioned that to police at the time they were investigating the murder? And why on Earth kill Pippa? Why didn't they just call the police? Those seemed totally pointless murders. Or were they all insane or something? But then again, how didn't the police notice that?

[–] echodev 9 years ago

1. The fact that Danny could have seen Mark makes it possible for Mark to have panicked and killed Danny.

2. Not everyone knows about abuse that happens in home, it wouldn´t be that easy to prove Ricky killed Lisa, especially when Pippa says she heard Lee and Lisa together. This is also why Lee killed Pippa, she heard that Lee and Lisa were having sex together and Ricky saying Lee had killed Lisa. Lee was scared Pippa and Ricky could get him convicted for Lisa´s murder.

[–] MirinF 9 years ago

1. What's there to panick, if he was going to leave Beth anyway and was writing her the good-bye letter at the very same moment?

2. If a man is that violent, he must be violent outside home too. His reactions to things, the way he talks and thinks of things. You can't hide your personality. And why would Lee have killed Lisa? What would have been the motive? And it seemed that killing Pippa was Claire's idea, not Lee's. She was the one who drugged her and told that to Lee. That all seemed so out of blue reaction. From all of them. There were no reason for any of those things to happen.

[–] echodev 9 years ago

1. Him writing the good-bye letter would not proof anything in court. It could be written after he murdered Dan.

2. If a man is violent doesn't mean he will be violent outside home. Lee's motive could be Lee was caught trying to rape Lisa. And yes it was Claire's idea to kill Pippa because Pippa heard Lee and Lisa having sex, she was the last one hearing anything from Lisa, she was a threat to Lee.

[–] Eowyn8 9 years ago

I call BS on point 2. People can be extremely different outside the home. I remember at my father's funeral while talking about my father the priest said my father had been a saint. My sisters and I looked at each other in horror, to the point where the priest noticed and stopped taking that particular tack. You have no idea how different someone can be in private. The public persona is sometimes a show and a complete manipulation.

[–] gregstar 9 years ago

1. It was only because Mark said he was writing Beth a letter telling her he was leaving her that we "know" this. And this was his explanation for what he was doing between the time he left Becca and the time he got home. That is, his explanation of why he couldn't have been the one to kill Danny is the same as the explanation of why he wouldn't want to, but he is the only source of that.

2. "You can't hide your personality." But remember Joe's ex-partner testifying about how he suddenly went on a rampage against a guy who stole his parking spot when there had never been any sign of a violent tendency before that. This could parallel with Ricky becoming violent that one night when no one had seen that side of him before.

As to what would have been Lee's motive for killing Lisa: motive wouldn't have mattered much with Pippa testifying that she heard Lee kill Lisa.

[–] filmfancy 9 years ago

Or were they all insane or something?

I would say Lee and Claire were sociopaths. They killed an innocent child on the possible chance she might get them into trouble.

What I don't get is why Claire changed her story in court about being at home with Lee when the girls disappeared. They were supposed to be covering for each other. And why go through the whole charade of being afraid of Lee and going into hiding? Why would Lee want to even see her again after she betrayed him in court?

Was their plan to confuse Hardy and the police all along or did Claire really want Lee to get convicted? It was a very confusing storyline.

And all the pieces matter (The Wire)

[–] jalola298 9 years ago

To my mind, Claire was being purposely contradictory in her stories. It became more apparent every time she changed details. The reason? To raise reasonable doubt about what happened in Sandbrook -- just as Sharon Bishop was doing with the Broadchurch case.

By raising several scenarios for the events of that night, Hardy ended up lost in the details and couldn't see the bits of proof that were there. I'm sure Claire hoped to string Hardy along for as long as she could and then slip through the holes left by the confusing stories and lack of evidence.

It took Ellie, who was not emotionally invested in the case, to see the discrepancy in the flooring and then pick up on Ricky leaving an evidence trail with the taxis he took. Claire couldn't confuse and fool Ellie the way she had Hardy. Once Ellie started to unravel the case, Hardy evicted Claire, she had nowhere to run and so she turned in the pendant and implicated Lee.

I think the confusion for us the audience was done by the writer on purpose. If we the audience couldn't figure out which version of Claire's stories was the truth, then how were the Broadchurch jury supposed to pick out the truth in the theories Sharon Bishop was raising about Danny's murder.

[–] jalola298 9 years ago

I'm not exactly sure how British law cases work, but Jocelyn's job was to put together the evidence in a case to get Joe convicted. As defense, Bishop was throwing all kinds of wild theories out there to cast doubt on the case Jocelyn was building. I'm not sure Jocelyn was allowed to then go and disprove all of Sharon's theories.

If she was allowed to debunk Sharon's points, then revealing Hardy's heart ailment would have silenced the idea that Hardy beat up Joe when they were alone to force Joe to confess. That omission was a real head-scratcher, and since Hardy had been put on medical leave from active duty, it was on record -- at least at the police department --- that Hardy was too sick to have overpowered and beaten Joe. Yet, nothing was said and the confession was allowed to be thrown out.*

Unfortunately, all Sharon had to do was throw doubt on enough of the case details to make the Jury question Joe's guilt. Hence their decision.

* I know it was Ellie who beat up Joe, but remember Sharon raised the idea that Ellie did it to cover up an earlier beating Hardy gave Joe to coerce the confession.

[–] ruby95764 9 years ago

* I know it was Ellie who beat up Joe, but remember Sharon raised the idea that Ellie did it to cover up an earlier beating Hardy gave Joe to coerce the confession.

Did they have video of Joe being beat up by Ellie? I always wondered why the prosecution didn't point out that Joe was visually unhurt before Ellie came in and couldn't have been beat up by Hardy.

[–] MarblesLove 9 years ago

There's literally so much I hate about the court scenes in season 2. I feel like so much of what the defense says could have been disproved so easily and Joselyn just didn't even try to disprove it. Not only that but so much of it seems like stuff that would have or at least should have gotten an objection.

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

[–] StakkaDakka 9 years ago

Agreed, scenes where the defense lawyer was blatantly yelling her fictionalised version of the truth over the top of the witness' testimony, actually accusing a witness who is not on trial, is called badgering, irrelevant, speculation etc and simply would not fly in reality

[–] jalola298 9 years ago

I said the same thing while the show was being broadcast. But they seemed to ignore that. He was already in the jail jumpsuit when Ellie attacked him, which meant he changed clothes -- likely in front of another officer who'd be able to testify, not only to the lack of bruising but also to whether he changed clothes in obvious pain. Because even if the bruising hadn't yet appeared, he would have been wincing and groaning.

But if they never revealed Hardy's heart condition, then they also missed this.

[–] arjuna75 9 years ago

And, they say he has broken ribs ... she (on tape) never kicked him on the front ... at least what we got to see (I know ribs are on the back too ... I've been lucky enough to have had broken a few; but, if I recall correctly, the bruises are on the front, yes? So ... yeah, don't get me wrong, really enjoyed the show. Both seasons. But a lot in season 2 leaves you with a big 'huh????'. And I'll still watch season 3 although I wonder what on earth the plot will be?