Broadchurch Season 2 – Questions and Theories

I’m sorry to those of you trolling Broadchurch Series 2, this post is speculating on the new series from a positive POV – no talk of unrealistic plot points or mumbling characters here.

Was Claire wearing the Sandbrook pendant?

We all know the really long pause the camera placed on Claire’s chest in episode 2. I don’t think this was (just) to please the male fans, I think they were showing us the pendant Claire was wearing. Before this shot Lee Ashworth said “I need to check”. We are led to assume he is checking for a wire, perhaps he was checking to see if Claire was still wearing the pendant. I think Claire tried to frame Lee for the murder to shift suspicion from herself.

Did Joe kill Danny?

It would be frustrating to find the killer was not the same character we were told it was in series 2. Considering the ending of American remake Gracepoint, which didn’t get picked up for a second series, could this be the real Broadchurch ending? I won’t spoil it for you here if you plan to watch it but I could believe this is where they are heading. But we already have the emails between Joe and Danny which prove they did have a close relationship either way.

What is Mark’s reason for hanging out with Tom?

I may be naive, but I never suspected any foul play when I saw these scenes air. Mark clearly doesn’t want to shout about this friendship with his son’s best friend as it has obvious comparisons to Joe and Danny, but I believe it is completely innocent. Mark feels guilty that he put off playing with Danny and now he wants that time back. He is replacing Danny with Tom, and Tom misses his father too. I don’t think Mark plans to kill Tom.

What is up with Danny’s argument with the hi-vis man?

We no longer have a witness to this argument following Jack’s suicide in series 1. But I still think this will come up this time. It probably wasn’t the postman but a delivery man. Perhaps he was meant to delivery a package to Danny on behalf of someone and they argued as it wasn’t delivered. Who could the package be for? Perhaps Nigel, at the end of Series 1 it was revealed that Danny also snuck out to meet Nigel and Dean to poach turkeys. Could there be more to their scheme?

Why didn’t Joe see Mark’s car earlier on the night he killed Danny?

The story goes that Mark parked up in the car park close by to the hut on top of the cliff where Joe killed Danny. Joe watches as Becca drops Mark back to his car and they drive off separately. If Joe was having secret meetings with Danny in that hut, wouldn’t he have looked out for any witnesses? Surely seeing the boy’s fathers car outside would’ve freaked him out. Something still doesn’t add up about the timeline here.

Where is missing Lisa?

The fact that the second Sandbrook ‘murder’ victim has not been found, 19 year old Lisa, pretty much means the character is still alive. She is hiding, the only reason I can imagine is because she killed Pippa. Or she was paid off by the killer. Or she was involved indirectly and feels guilty. I cannot imagine they will find her body now so she is likely to return at some point, but why would she turn up in Broadchurch? (since all the action takes place there). In series 1 it always seemed like the two victims at Sandbrook were both children, the revelation that one was a young adult instantly throws suspicion on her!

That is all I have for now, if anyone has any ideas please comment! Roll on episode three tomorrow 😀

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Broadchurch Season 2 – Questions and Theories

  1. lukehb says:

    Here’s my theory. I held it during Season 1, and I think season 2 keeps it alive.

    Alec Hardy is a serial killer… he just doesn’t know it. I think he has a split personality, and his serial killer personality creates cases which only his detective personality

    Here’s my thinking. I think Hardy killed Pippa in the Sandbrook case, in the hopes of committing the perfect crime, that only his other half can solve. He messed up in Sandbrook, failing to pin enough evidence on his chosen target, so he killed Danny Latimer and created a second crime that only he could solve to atone for failing in the first.

    Look at the amount of legitimate suspects there were in season one. Look at how many times the evidence appeared to be pointing one way, only for the trail to dry up and suddenly for new evidence to appear. He had complete control over all of the evidence, he could plant whatever he needed to point it in whichever direction he wanted.

    I think he wasn’t sure who to pin it on in the beginning, and so left enough evidence to point to multiple suspects, determined not to make the same mistake twice. If one suspect didn’t work out, he could always go back, pick up the loose threads, and tie it to another.

    I believe the apparent “psychic” in season one was just someone who he was leaking information to.

    Think about it…. You have two killers, both of whom targeted children, both of whom have a clear suspect, and both suspects maintain their innocence in spite of the apparent mountain of evidence against them. We have the same detective in both cases, though, geographically they are miles apart. The same detective builds these apparently unassailable walls of evidence, yet, in both cases, the defence seem to have no difficulty poking huge holes in them.

    Now, to be clear. I don’t think Hardy knows that he has a personality which is a killer (though I think the killer personality is aware of Hardy, and maybe even has some influence over him). I think a lot of the claims made by the defence in the Lattimer case are legitimate. How do we know that someone else didn’t plant the email evidence on the hard drive—Hardy certainly had access to the Miller’s household. How do we know that the phone wasn’t planted there, and just found by Joe Miller? Hardy could easily have had the phone all along, and just put it in the Millers garage. How do we know that Killer Hardy didn’t threaten Joe, and his family, if he didn’t confess? I think when we see things from Hardy’s perspective, we may be dealing with an unreliable narrator.

    What do we actually know about his illness for that matter? We assume it is related to his heart, but maybe his heart issues are just a side effect of the medication for his dissociative identity disorder.

    It’s my pet theory. It’s probably way off, but I think if they did go that way, it would certainly not leave too many major plot holes.

    • That really would explain how Hardy ended up on two very similar cases. Do we even know how Pippa died? Was she also strangled? But what about Lisa? Perhaps she walked on the act and he also had to hide her away?

      During the last episode I did wonder whether things would turn to show how it was Ellie all along and perhaps Joe is covering for her (apposed to many who think he is covering for Tom.)

      But going back to your theory, Hardy was only in the town for mere weeks, if not days, before Danny’s death. Surely that is as suspicious as some of the evidence held against other suspects?

      • lukehb says:

        That’s my thinking. The millers were on holiday, so were away at most a few weeks.

        When you control the evidence, and the investigation, its easy to ensure it doesn’t point at you.

        We don’t know for sure how, or even if, Pippa died. But I find it exceedingly convenient that the investigating officer was also the one who stumbled upon Lisa’s body, unless he knew where to look.

        I think (based on Ep5) that there is increasing evidence that Hardy’s illness is as much psychological as it is physical, so I’m inclined to think that there remains at least a little bit of evidence to support the idea.

        As for Ellie… Now wouldn’t that be a twist.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s