Broadchurch

It's so sad that It's come to this. The total breakdown of his marriage didn't help but not being able to change what happened to Danny or being able to do anything about Joe has probably pushed him as far as he can go. He knows he has a daughter but somewhere in his mind he's probably thinking she'll be better off without him, because he can't get past what's happened to Danny like Beth and his daughter have he's thinking that he's letting them down or dragging things up that they're trying to forget. He misses Danny and maybe wants to be with him. His grief is so all consuming that he can't see beyond it. It's so sad.

"MARK'S ALIVE?!" as Brian Blessed would say
"Murrrderrrerrrss!" Hardy went all Taggart there! Never known him so Scottish!
Ian gets creepier. The evidence is stacking up against Jim, which probably means it isn't him. But Clive! Dearie dearie me. It's all very vexing.

I thought Mark jumped off the cliff and was imagining the boat ride!

I have no idea whodunit but I have always hoped it was Twine Boy as he is such a smarmy git or the taxi driver. What is wrong with his wife? I cant work out if she is ill or just in her own world.

Yes, DT has raked up the Glaswegian in this series. I don't recall him laying it on so thick in previous series. But then his daughter wasn't being threatened then.

I'm disappointed in plot terms that Mark survived, and I do hope we're not heading for a reconciliation with Beth which would be too trite. That said, Andrew Buchan's acting is superb – that dead-behind-the-eyes look and the way he was slumped on the sofa, looking as if he didn't belong there, were heartbreaking. Beth is struggling to match her counselling training with the way she actually feels, with her unprofessional bullying of the rape victim last week and going through the motions with Mark this week while confessing to the vicar that she really wants to punch him in the face. I'm not sure what the message is here – that victims of emotional trauma should think twice before becoming counsellors? But in real life many counsellors do have that background and manage successfully. Whatever, they have conveyed the dilemma of one person struggling to cope and, on the surface, just about managing, while the other really can't, very well.

I also have no idea who the rapist is. I wonder if fewer, longer episodes might help – we saw nothing of Aaron this week, or Tom Miller, or the Axehampton owner, with other more likely suspects given very little screen time. We're being led to think it's Jim, just as last week the focus was on Ed, which makes me think it can't be. Ian? He lies very easily and has his chirpy 'I really miss you' act off to perfection. But would Trish not know if she'd been raped by her own husband? Perhaps not if she was very drunk, had been bashed on the head and was frightened for her life.

I'm leaning towards Lucas the taxi driver with his trophy drawer and hope his wife makes it out of the garage alive. I was impressed by Leo, blue twine boy, managing to look vulnerable after being such a creep up to this point. I wonder who his father is and if it matters to the story?

I hadn't realised that Katie was being drummed out of the police altogether, unless she just meant that she had been taken off this case. But either way, she really shouldn't have touched that bag without wearing gloves!

I've no idea either. Yes, the finger was very much on Jim this episode, then Lucas and his trophies at the end. Knowing how Broadchurch likes to spring surprises on us though, I still don't reckon it's any of the major suspects Jim/Ed/Ian/Lucas, and I'm pretty sure Aaron was a red herring (or should that be red mackerel?).

I'm still suspicious of the Axehampton House owner. He said the site by the waterfall, where Trish was raped, had been his special place as a boy where no-one could see him. Also the nearby house, where the light Trish saw may have come from - is it part of the estate? We never heard any more about that. Plus it's a bit odd that (so he said) his wife had gone round and collected a wheelbarrow full of things (minus one cricket bat) which the police had earlier failed to find, and convenient noticing his dog was carrying a sock around which he then reported. He doesn't have an alibi for the night in question, because he said his wife was out to dinner but he stayed home with the dogs. If he's not the perpetrator, he could be covering for someone else. Or, he could be nothing to do with it, and we may not see him again...

The DNA of one of their suspects has now been identified on the sock - if that's Leo's DNA, it could be just because he wore it playing football. I too wondered who Leo's father is and whether it's important.

Hardy said the DNA on the sock was a match for "one of our men". When Miller came across to see who it was on his computer screen, the look on both their faces was one of total shock....so, is it someone who hasn't been in the frame? The case against that scenario is that we then saw all of the suspects in turn befie the credits came on. My money's still on the vicar; that would explain the shock!

I did enjoy Hardy's rant at those boys...but I had to put the subtitles on for it! If he ranted at me like that and fixed me with one of those fierce glares I think I would want to shrivel up and die!