Broadchurch 10/04/2017

I literally haven’t blogged in four months and I wasn’t planning to anytime soon until someone sought me out on Twitter to ask my theory on the third series of Broadchurch. Interestingly, I’d toyed with the idea of blogging about this series but got tied up with a combination of work, relationships and general laziness so it didn’t happen.

However, next week is the final episode of Broadchurch and I remember writing about the final episode of the first series in a blog about something totally unrelated, so I thought it would be a nice way to tie up the final episode of the final series. Plus I finally treated myself to a new computer – hurrah! – so I don’t have to sit in bed with my dodgy laptop burning into my thigh as I type. I am sat in what I like to call my little office, which actually comprises of the second and slightly smaller living room in my mum’s house where I sit when I work from home.

But it’s an actual proper desktop computer which I have really grown to love. Accessing Facebook from an actual computer for the first time in about four years was a bit of a trip down memory lane but having a proper sit down computer has prompted me to write so much. Also, yesterday was my 27^th birthday (ugh) and my new age resolution is to keep writing.

So – no time like the present.

It’s quite sad really that we won’t see any more of Broadchurch. Having been an avid viewer since the first episode, I’ve grown to love the softly spoken broad accents of the local folk and I’m particularly besotted with the relationship between detectives Ellie Miller and Alec Hardy, played by Olivia Colman and David Tenant respectively.

For anyone who hasn’t watched the previous few episodes or even the previous series, this blog probably won’t a) make any sense to you and b) may ruin it for you, as you really should find the time to sit down and watch all three series.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I only have time for British TV dramas. Honestly, I’ve tried to sit and watch American serial dramas or thrillers but I can’t ever get to grips with the plots, which normally feel very far-fetched and sometimes difficult to comprehend with their love of Americanising everything. Even the characters are difficult to warm to.

I say all of this and for anyone reading this who actually knows me well, they’ll be sat there thinking hang on a minute, aren’t you the girl who can quote her way through the entire ten series of Friends? Well, yes, you’d be right. I am that girl. But that is literally the only American series I can stomach and part of me suspects it’s become more of a comfort blanket than anything else. Falling asleep? Stick Friends on. Hungover? Stick Friends on? Full of a cold? Boyfriend’s dumped you? Nothing else on TV? You know what to do.

So, I have a lot of time for Broadchurch but that doesn’t mean I worship at the writer’s feet. I was enormously appreciative of the first series; however, I guessed who the murderer of little Danny Latimer was halfway through the series. I won’t put it down to lazy writing. I like to put it down to me putting my detective hat on. It was a comment made between Detective Miller and the rather shifty local oddball, Susan Wright, portrayed by Pauline Quirk. Having discovered that Susan’s husband had been abusing her daughter, Miller dismissed Susan’s innocence by saying “it was going on in your house and you really didn’t know?”

Immediately, I turned to my mum and said “It was Miller’s husband”. “No, Emily,” she scoffed. “He isn’t one of the suspects. We’ve barely seen anything of him.” “Exactly,” I insisted. “It was him.”

And I was confident of it. So confident in fact that I placed a bet on it – and I won £24. Last of the big spenders.

From a writer’s perspective, it’s tiny little details like that which are placed in on purpose. Like tiny little seeds being planted, so that when the big finale is upon us and the culprit is revealed, we all sit there and go “Oh yes, it makes perfect sense”.

With that in mind, I’ll turn to series three. (You’ll notice here that I missed out series two. I’ll be honest: it disappointed me. I felt the storyline surrounding Hardy and the child murder case was interesting and the series overall was great, but not truly as captivating as its predecessor. And don’t get me started on Joe Miller’s not guilty plea. This made me roll my eyes for weeks. Months even. As lazy as writing can possibly be.)

Okay, time for a quick summary. Trish Winterman, a local woman, who has recently separated from her husband who she has one teenage daughter with, was raped in the grounds of a large manor house called Axehampton. This was during Cath’s (Trish’s best mate) 50^th birthday party. The rapist had used a condom so there were no traces of his DNA and he had gagged Trish and knocked her unconscious for the majority of the attack. Trish had no knowledge of her attacker and the rest of the party goers were seemingly unaware of any attack.

Trish didn’t report the attack for three days. I’ve read a few theories on this, mostly on Twitter, with some really sickening depraved views. Before we really knuckle down to it, I’ll just point out that the purpose of this blog is just to discuss my views and my theories on Broadchurch – not to discuss the ins and outs of real life rape cases. So, while I can appreciate some viewers have formulated their own theories as to why it took Trish three days to report the attack, I’m satisfied that the delay was simply down to a mixture of nerves, physical and mental instability and a whole host of other emotions that, thankfully, I cannot relate to.

Following the attack on Trish, we discover that two other women are victims of very similar sexual assaults. Neither woman reported the incidents to the police.

So far there appears to be a handful of “suspects”. I say this with air quotations as I don’t feel we can really call them that. Some of them are just men who happen to be in the right place at the wrong time. Some of them, however, are undeniably dodgy.

We have:

Ed Burnett – the local shop owner and Trish’s boss. Seemingly harmless initially, Ed appeared to be a gentle giant who genuinely cared for Trish’s wellbeing. This was quashed when we discovered that Ed has been stalking Trish for years, taking photographs of her without her knowledge or consent, and even sent her flowers the day after the news of Trish’s attack became known. He sent the flowers anonymously with a bit of a vague (yet creepy) message.

Ed was arrested later in the series for beating up Cath’s husband, Jim Atwood, when it became apparent that on the morning of Trish’s attack, she had slept with Jim. Ed’s house was searched by the police, who discovered the same type of blue rope in his coat pocket as the rope used to bind Trish’s hands together. There was also mud all over the outfit he wore to the party. There’s never been any solid evidence to confirm this but from a viewer’s point of view, I’d say Ed Burnett has learning difficulties or is perhaps on the autism spectrum.  Ed is also the father of Katie, one of the police officers on the case, who was later suspended from work due to not reporting this to her superiors. Katie told Hardy and Miller that her father was once violent towards her late mother. 

Ian Winterman – Trish’s ex-husband. Ian is now in a relationship with Sarah, who we learn has sent anonymous text messages through a website to Trish telling her to “shut up”. Sarah claims to have sent this prior to finding out about the attack, so if this is the case, what was she telling her to shut up about? We know Ian and Sarah argued at Cath’s birthday party. Ian said this was because Sarah doesn’t feel welcome around any of Trish’s friends.

We later learn that Ian has paid local youth, Leo Humphries, to install spyware on Trish’s laptop so he can view her without her knowledge through the webcam. Ian claims to have been so drunk that he can’t recall his whereabouts during the time of the attack.  

Jim Atwood – a mechanic. The husband of Cath Atwood and an unlikely middle aged lothario. Jim went missing around the time of the attack and told the police he was having sex with a waitress from his wife’s birthday party in the nearby woods. The waitress accepts that this happened but he didn’t climax because she thought he was getting too rough and she asked him to stop. We know Jim possesses the same brand of condoms that was used in the attack and that more than one of them was used. A receipt proves he bought them after sleeping with Trish on the morning of the party.

After some digging, Cath admits she was away on the nights that the other two rapes were carried out. Interestingly, Jim did some repair work on the car of one of the victims, who had only walked through a field (where she was subsequently attacked) because her car had broken down.

Clive Lucas – local taxi driver who has previously been accused of harassment by a female customer. Clive was hanging around Axehampton all night but did confess to transporting an unknown male from the party. He didn’t put this through his records officially and claimed not to recognise him or remember the area in which he dropped him off. 

Clive’s wife, a seemingly slow woman, has a child from a previous relationship: a teenage boy named Michael. She touched upon the child’s biological father briefly when being questioned by Miller and Hardy and implied she was young when she found out she was pregnant with him and Clive saved the day by marrying her and making an honest woman out of her. Forever indebted to Clive, his wife turns a blind eye to some of his crude and inexplicable behaviour, such as keeping graphic magazines in the house and even a drawer full of memorabilia – including Trish’s keys. Clive saw Jim Atwood having an “intense conversation” with Trish on the night of her attack.

Leo Humphries – a lad in his early 20s and a keen member of the local football team. He is apparently a technological guru who applied the spyware to Trish’s laptop for Ian. He claimed to have been with his girlfriend all night during the time of the attack, but his girlfriend was openly lying for him. We later discover that he dropped his girlfriend off at the party and picked her up but he claims he didn’t stay. A sock was found in the grounds of Axehampton which matches the same socks worn by all the football team. This sock was used to gag Trish but we don’t know who it belongs to.

Aaron Mayford – recently released from prison after serving a sentence for rape. Aaron has maintained his innocence and has been questioned on a whim because of the nature of the crime committed. Having behaved rather intimidatingly towards Katie when she was carrying out surveillance checks on him, we can ascertain that he’s a dodgy character but the series hasn’t focused too much on him. In fact, he hasn’t been in the last two episodes.

With all of this going on, it’s difficult to remember that the foundation of the Broadchurch series is the murder of Danny Latimer. His father, Mark, is not handling his grief well and attempted suicide – although was saved by a passer-by pulling him out of the water. I think it’s fair to assume that the “passer-by” was actually Joe Miller, the person who killed Danny, who Mark had travelled to Liverpool to confront. Perhaps in a way Joe felt by saving Mark, he was preventing further grief for the family. I don’t actually know whether it was Joe or not but I’ll say my writer’s instincts (and detective hat) tell me it was him.

On this topic, I'll point out that there have been rumours on Twitter that Joe Miller is innocent and covering for his son, Tom, who was the real murderer of Danny. I can see why people may think this - I for one didn't buy into the "he used to come round for hugs" story - but from a writer's perspective, I'd be really surprised if it turns out the whole of the first two series were based on bullshit. Possible though, of course. And as we've had confirmation that this is the final series of Broadchurch, it goes without saying that it'll go out with a bang.

Back to Trish: we have no real indication as to who the attacker was. Trish can barely recall what happened on the night in question but she does remember a light in the background. My gut instinct is this light was a flash from someone’s mobile phone, most likely filming the attack. I have a feeling the attack is being circulated around the younger generation – particularly Ellie’s son, Tom Miller, and Clive Lucas’s stepson, Michael, who have both been gawping at their phone screens and both been caught with porn.

Ellie was called into school to discuss the incident and she quickly jumped to Tom’s defence, assuming that the school believed Tom was headed the same way as his father. I’m hoping that her dismissiveness of the headteacher’s concerns doesn’t have a similar conclusion to her dismissiveness with Susan Wright in series one. If it turns out it was Tom Miller, I will not be a happy bunny. Equally, if it turns out to be Joe Miller – unknowingly back in the coastal town and preying on further vulnerable people – I will be unimpressed. Surely Chris Chibnall (the writer) wouldn’t be so lazy?

My instincts tell me the perpetrator is likely to be a candidate we’ve yet to consider. It would be a bold and possibly even stupid move for the attacker to be someone we haven’t met or heard of. In fact, it would be downright ridiculous and we wouldn’t be able to buy into it. But it could easily be someone we don’t suspect. In fact, I’m tempted to say it is someone we don’t suspect.

Right now, I’ll take a shot in the dark and say it could well be Arthur Tamworth, the owner of Axehampton. We’ve had very little contact with him, except for him to moan that the whole incident had forced him to close the manor for events due to bad publicity, and of course, for him to hand over the sock. You may wonder why the rapist would hand over an item used in the attack. Perhaps as a rouse to deter the police from himself? To steer them in the direction of the football team? There's something slightly suspect about Arthur's dog being the one to discover the sock. As a dog, he's unable to be questioned. Does this mean it was planted there by Arthur, attempting to frame someone?

I could be well and truly barking (ha) up the wrong tree here, but my instincts tell me we haven’t seen the last of Arthur and old Fido.

I’ve also heard some theories that the attacker was perhaps a female, who used an item which she covered with a condom. Entirely possible, I agree, but it would be very brave of ITV to portray this and I can’t honestly say I see it happening. Perhaps it's not completely crazy for a woman to be involved.

Was there more to Cath's apology? She asked Trish to forgive her. Does she know more than she's letting on? And is she trying to stitch up her husband by questioning the brand of condoms, looking through the calendars etc? It seems suspiciously convenient that she was away on both nights that the first two rapes occurred. The only "evidence" of her being away is something scribbled on old calendars. Who keeps old calendars knocking around for years? It's a little too convenient for me.

On a different note, the biological father of Michael Lucas – I think there’s more to this as well. Remember what I said earlier about the writers planting seeds? I think his conception was a seed being planted (no pun intended). I got the impression Clive’s wife had been raped and that Michael was a product of this rape. He appears to be mixed race. Could Ed Burnett possibly be involved at all? 

Or maybe Clive is the biological father of Michael - and Clive's wife, a simple person, has never reported the rape which led to her conceiving her child? Is it possible that Clive raped his wife, in a similar manner to which the other three rapes were carried out? Then married her in a heroic bid to save the day? We saw a locket in the drawer of creepy memorabilia. Was this Clive's wife locket that she was wearing the day she was raped? 

And let’s say that Michael Lucas was the product of rape: is he following in his father’s footsteps? Is he responsible for the attack? Or did he film it? We know he was somewhat involved in the distribution of naked pictures of Miller’s daughter. I’m not necessarily suggesting there’s anything untoward in his DNA, but it would go back to the seed planting between Ellie Miller and the headteacher when she rushed to defend her son who she insists isn’t a carbon copy of his father, a murderer. 

The penultimate episode of Broadchurch concluded with Hardy and Miller receiving the news that one of the men's DNA was found on the sock. In true "whodunit" style, I think there will be some confusion regarding the DNA. Let's not forget that Ian refused to give a DNA sample. Unless he backed down without our knowledge, it can't be him. Will it show traces of Clive Lucas's DNA, when in actual fact it's his stepson/potential biological son? Or has it quite literally been planted there by Arthur and his trusty canine companion?

Or, again, am I barking (terrible, I'm sorry) up the wrong tree?

Is it the same attacker who has raped all three women or is this the work of two or more men? It would be very lazy writing indeed for the attacker to be Aaron Mayford. Almost like a “once in prison, always in prison” kind of theory. Plus, let’s not forget he was in prison during the first two attacks.

There's always the possibility of the vicar. He's been in all three series, never really doing anything, not saying much. In fact, during tonight's episode, I turned to my murder mystery partner (mummy Chriscoli) and said "Isn't it lazy how they've had the vicar in this series? He's done nothing", as I thought he was being used purely as a link between the three series. Is it possible that the seemingly innocent vicar, privy to personal information most people aren't and a recovering alcoholic, is more involved than we might think?

I’d be really interested to know your theories or suspicions so please let me know. Additionally, if I’ve missed out any key pieces of information, get in touch so I can put it right.

As always, this blog was written purely for fun. I don’t work for ITV so the views are entirely my own so no negativity please. If anyone knows of anywhere I can place a bet on the ending of Broadchurch, please let me know. I've tweeted Skybet and was told that this year they aren't supporting this particular bet.