Perth

There is definitely something creepy about the new husband I don't think that my (slight) discomfort with the relationship between the mom and the dad has to do with the circumstances. Whereas I am completely drawn in by James Nesbitt, Frances O'Conner bothers me for some reason

BristolUK

I'm not so keen either. A tad opportunistic if you ask me, but I was thinking the French couple running the Eden.

Tony turns up, the wife is friendly and sympathetic, but the husband just shakes a hand, murmurs something and then slopes off to a back room, watching TV but still in shot, or lingers in a doorway.

Of course he might just be a bit embarrassed or awkward, not knowing what to say. But he might as well not have a part unless he's involved in some way. Or he could be a red herring.

Editha

I was disappointed by the last episode of Missing. It seemed like a filler to me after the second abduction turned out to be a red herring, had lots of clichéd lines and disrupted the dramatic momentum. I'm hoping the last episode doesn't turn out to be a disappointment too.

BristolUK

What's a whodunnit without a red herring or two?

Or helped explain the transition from a couple in love in 2006 and the aftermath to what they had become 8 years later, those being the only periods we'd seen until this episode.

There was also the explanation as to why the reporter has been so dogged and smug.

I supposed you could regard that as filler since it was filling in gaps. Filler to me is padding out something to fill time rather than explaining something that might otherwise have been a mystery to us or relied on our assumptions.

Lorac05

I can highly recommend the based on real life 2 part drama 'The Lost Honour of Christopher Jefferies' currently being shown on ITV - part 1 last night, part 2 tonight.

It covers the true story of a man who was incorrectly identified by the media as the murderer of a woman back at Christmas 2010, was arrested by the police under the flimsiest of reasons - held for over 2 days - and subjected to intense questioning on all aspects of his life, refused access back to his home after being bailed as it was being searched and even though the real offender was arrested in late January 2011 was not officially cleared by the police until March 2011.

He was a very eccentric looking as well as very pedantic in his actions, an old fashioned retired English teacher who was very well spoken and had a habit of correcting peoples grammar and spelling - including the police and press who hounded him. The tabloid press had him hung drawn and quartered mainly because of this - and based on absolutely no evidence that he was guilty. He took several papers to court for libel and won as well as receiving an apology from the police for their actions.

The drama shows how easily someone who did not fit the 'norm' had their life totally turned upside down when the press get going - and the police refuse to up hold the premise of 'innocent until guilty' that is suppose to be enshrined in our individual rights.

Tonight's 2nd part deals with how Christopher fought back - he was lucky to have friends who believed him and got him access to a good lawyer. Part one was excellent - hopefully part 2 is just as good.

Editha

On Missing:

I don't think they needed a whole episode to get that information over.


As for the marriage breakdown, I didn't think we needed an explanation; their marriage was shown as flakey from the start.

rebs

Let's hope that everyone reading this that wants to watch 'The Missing' is up to date with the episodes

There's a spoiler tag for a reason.....

Editha

You are right. I've amended my post.

BristolUK

Really?

They had been together for at least 5 years. We saw nothing of this time other than the day when their 5 year old was taken and they seemed happy enough until then.

Was there something I missed or are you concluding their marriage was already flaky in 2006 based on how they interacted with each other when devastated by that disappearance and then again 8 years later?

Editha

I don't think you have been paying attention.

We were told -- I think it was in ep 3 -- that Tony had previously beaten up a work colleague of Emily's, because he was jealous. He had paid compensation to the man to avoid prosecution, abetted by Emily's father. Emily had not been told about the incident. Tony's history of violence was passed on by the British police and resulted in him being investigated as a suspect by the French police. When Emily was told, she was furious.

That is not what I'd call a strong marriage.

Editha

I'd also add, that if Emily had been my client when I was a family lawyer, I would have given her very strong advice to leave Tony, because of his history of uncontrolled violence, which clearly puts her at risk.

BristolUK

Yes, I'd forgotten that.

Not sure one incident counts as a history but, yes, the wife just found out about that. Which means she was unaware of it so I don' think it's something that really says it was a flaky marriage for the previous 5 years or whatever.

Editha

Whatever!

I admit I have difficulty with Emily's character. If I'd discovered that my husband had beaten up my friend, who had then been paid off by my own father, and I hadn't been told, I would have been more than furious. I'd feel betrayed by my father, who should have told me, I would leave my husband then and there, and it would also make him a suspect for my missing son.

curleytops

I watched it on the player earlier today and agree, I think it was an excellent program. However, I'm not so sure I go along with airing it at this time and I feel the broadcaster was rather insensitive in doing so now. This time of year will be especially tough for Jo's family and to see this being aired so close to the anniversary date must be painful for them. Just my tuppence worth.

Lorac05

Apparently they were asked about this by the producers and they were amenable to the airing when it has due apparently to the fact that she is in it for only a small way and wasn't really her story.