MovieChat Forums > Broadchurch (2013) Discussion > Confusion about boat S01 & S02 - SPOILER...

Confusion about boat S01 & S02 - SPOILERS

posted 8 years ago by gotxooma
3 replies | jump to latest

Just finished watching this. Loved S01. Not so much S02. Although, throughout both seasons, I kept wondering why neither the detectives, nor the lawyers from both sides questioned Joe why he would kill Danny in the cottage, take the body to the boat, take it out into the ocean, then bring it back on the beach and lay it down there. I know he mentions to Mark that he could've dumped the body in the ocean but did not because he wanted Mark to find his boy (Thereby asserting he is not that bad in a twisted way)

I know this is just a TV show, but writers could've built this way more convincingly.

- Joe is "aware" enough to go back to the cottage and clean it out "brutally" as one of the forensic guy mentions. He didn't think of his "exposure" while transferring the body to so many elements as mentioned above? (Yes, I am aware that in real life people may not think of everything especially if they're in a panic mode, but fiction sometimes has a higher responsibility towards believable.)

- As per Susan Wright's story, Joe (but she claims it was Nige), brought the body to the beach, dumped it (along with Danny's skateboard) and then took the boat out to the sea again.

- He could've dumped the phone into the sea. There was no logical reason for him to hang on to the phone.

- Then he must have, presumably, brought it - the boat - back to the shore to its original parking place.

- Joe (supposedly) then takes out the boat again to the middle of the sea and BURNS it.

I'm not questioning why he would do all these things. Easiest reasoning would be that Danny's death was accidental and he panicked and didn't cover all his bases.

What I am questioning is why nobody, absolutely nobody questioned why Joe (or the killer) would do all these things. Unless I missed a whole chunk of this element being addressed, I think the writers just got too complex and got sloppy. It would've been more easier for Joe (or the killer) to simply push the body from the cliff.

Any thoughts?

[–] TheMagicRainforest 8 years ago

The hut where Danny was murdered was on top of a hill with sloped sides not a cliff face. I assumed he moved the body by boat and not by car as it was less likely to attract attention. The body was moved to hamper the investigation. He could have carried the body to the top of the cliff by which it was found and then thrown it off to make it look like he fell but probably felt the risk of being seen was too great, the autopsy would probably have found the true cause of death anyway

[–] gotxooma 8 years ago

Thanks for the reply @TheMagicRainforest

I really liked the show and enjoyed it immensely. The observation was much more categorized as 'nitpicking' than anything else. But I do feel it could've been better thought out since the entire plot of the show circles around that major event.

Cheers,

[–] jalola298 8 years ago

There are lots of real-life cases where a body is moved from the scene of the crime. In this case, Joe wanted to cut the chances of the police finding evidence to tie him to the murder. If he left Danny's body at the cabin and Joe had accidentally failed to clean one of his finger prints from the place, then he'd have been linked to the murder quickly. Moving the body delayed that happening. Also, if someone else had visited the cabin before the police realized that's where Danny had been killed, the scene would have been contaminated -- once again cutting the chance they'd find evidence linking to Joe.

With respect to keeping the phone, often killers keep a memento of their victim, particularly when the murder was unplanned. By all accounts, he should have gotten rid of the phone, but he held on to it for his own reasons.

The boat was Joe's ex-brother-in-law's, later Ollie's. Burning it at the time of the murder would have brought the police to the shore faster. He took that particular boat because he knew where to find it --- something that further incriminated Joe. So he had to return it to its place. Again, he probably hoped Ollie would unwittingly use the boat soon after, contaminating any evidence Joe left behind. I guess he later got scared and decided to destroy any remaining evidence by burning the boat -- albeit in a riskier plan because Ellie wasn't using sleeping pills that night.

We don't know that Hardy didn't ask Joe the questions you wonder about. He probably did, but the whole interview was scrapped when Sharon Bishop got the arrest procedure thrown into question. From that point on, whatever Joe had said during his confession "didn't exist" in the court room.

Jocelyn would have only gotten the chance to ask if Joe had taken the stand. Bishop decided that Joe was too likely to blow his case if he took the stand.

And Bishop didn't want to ask him about any of that because that would mean she felt in her heart that he was guilty. She was doing everything she could to coach him not to reveal anything incriminating. That's why she wouldn't let him take the stand.

There are still some things worthy of head-scratching as to why they didn't get asked. But hey. No writer is perfect.