Silent witness - new series
Discussion
What a load of old tosh!
Convienctly missing out bits of the deaths, I'm sure the fella who got killed with the belt was strangled, as in, we saw him die, yet, they've then showed her stabbing him.
Blood on the shirt was a big overlook.
And if you get hit by a train as they both did, you'd be a damn sight messier. The missus claimed it was slowing down, well done love!
Story was ok, but a pretty s
t ending. Why'd no one grab them when they heard the train coming. It was like the steamroller scene in Autin Powers. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ... OOOOOOOOOOOOO ... OOOOOOOOOOO
Convienctly missing out bits of the deaths, I'm sure the fella who got killed with the belt was strangled, as in, we saw him die, yet, they've then showed her stabbing him.
Blood on the shirt was a big overlook.
And if you get hit by a train as they both did, you'd be a damn sight messier. The missus claimed it was slowing down, well done love!
Story was ok, but a pretty s
t ending. Why'd no one grab them when they heard the train coming. It was like the steamroller scene in Autin Powers. NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ... OOOOOOOOOOOOO ... OOOOOOOOOOOHalmyre said:
It didn't kill him, IIRC the policeman said something like "if he doesn't die he can identify him/them"
I ran a parade with the victim/witness had been shot in the leg at close range, within 3m. The offender had a sawn-off shotgun with 'rabbit-shot'. The chap had been in a bad way and despite the charge, it was apparent that the offender meant to kill but had overcompensated for the kick. The victim had only a fleeting glance of the offender but said in his interview that he was certain he would recognise the person again. There was plenty of forensic evidence and I was a bit unhappy to drag in bloke in, on crutches and in pain.
He was brilliant, picking the bloke out from a difficult group. When he came up to me I asked him the normal questions and he gave the number. I asked him, as I always did, 'Are you certain that is the person who . . . '
He said: When you know someone is going to ill you, their face stays in your memory. I've dreamed of him every night since. It's him.
chris watton said:
My wife loves watching these - what I don't understand is, she is a pathologist, yet spends most of her time going out on jollies with the police and consoling/questioning victims/suspects!
Are they allowed to do that?
It's entertainment. You have to suspend belief. Are they allowed to do that?
They are generally good at what they do, and that's not police work of course.
silverthorn2151 said:
Did I snooze through the bit when they explained about the hair cuttings?
I don't remember hearing about how she got the hair clipping from the first guy, the one she pushed under the tube train at the start of the first episode. Presumably she cut it off him before pushing him.I also thought they'd have been a bit more mangled after jumping under the train. But we only saw their heads, of course.
It has gone very much away from just being pathologists, but it had started doing that some time ago. I actually hadn't realised that Jack is a forensic bloke and not a pathologist until it was mentioned in the last episode, but I have an idea it came up when they replaced Harry, to expand what services the lab could offer by not just having pathologists.
Watched these with my GF and they are alright, but as said above, feels like 3 hours and ive missed one. The bit that she mentioned last night made me rethink it and it just became a mess.
Why (if she was the nurderer) did she freak out and hide in the bathroom when the news showed the tramps face on the news, and he barraged into the bathroom through the door and tried to kill her, then himself.
I see no reason for that scene now we know she was the killer.
Anyone?
Why (if she was the nurderer) did she freak out and hide in the bathroom when the news showed the tramps face on the news, and he barraged into the bathroom through the door and tried to kill her, then himself.
I see no reason for that scene now we know she was the killer.
Anyone?
droopsnoot said:
silverthorn2151 said:
Did I snooze through the bit when they explained about the hair cuttings?
I don't remember hearing about how she got the hair clipping from the first guy, the one she pushed under the tube train at the start of the first episode. Presumably she cut it off him before pushing him.Rick_1138 said:
Watched these with my GF and they are alright, but as said above, feels like 3 hours and ive missed one. The bit that she mentioned last night made me rethink it and it just became a mess.
Why (if she was the nurderer) did she freak out and hide in the bathroom when the news showed the tramps face on the news, and he barraged into the bathroom through the door and tried to kill her, then himself.
I see no reason for that scene now we know she was the killer.
Anyone?
Because it fits with the plot twist? Why (if she was the nurderer) did she freak out and hide in the bathroom when the news showed the tramps face on the news, and he barraged into the bathroom through the door and tried to kill her, then himself.
I see no reason for that scene now we know she was the killer.
Anyone?
Even though she chose him, maybe she was still scared of what he'd do once he knew they were after him and not her (initially).
Halmyre said:
droopsnoot said:
silverthorn2151 said:
Did I snooze through the bit when they explained about the hair cuttings?
I don't remember hearing about how she got the hair clipping from the first guy, the one she pushed under the tube train at the start of the first episode. Presumably she cut it off him before pushing him.chris watton said:
My wife loves watching these - what I don't understand is, she is a pathologist, yet spends most of her time going out on jollies with the police and consoling/questioning victims/suspects!
Are they allowed to do that?
Yes they are because the show is based around pathologists. Every TV drama based around the emergency forces has, surprisingly, them as the lead when the inevitable major incident takes place.Are they allowed to do that?
If it's a police show then the police are directing the other emergency services who don't say anything but do exactly as they're told.
If it's a fire brigade show then the firemen are directing the other emergency services who don't say anything but do exactly as they're told.
If it's a medical show the paramedics/doctors are directing the other emergency services who don't say anything but do exactly as they're told.
I did think it was a bit daft of the announcer to start the programme by telling us that it contains scenes that some viewers might find disturbing. What, we're watching a programme about pathologists but weren't expecting anything disturbing? Granted the number of scenes of bodies actually being cut up is much lower than it was when Amanda Burton was running the shop, it's never going to be 'Death in Paradise'.
droopsnoot said:
I did think it was a bit daft of the announcer to start the programme by telling us that it contains scenes that some viewers might find disturbing. What, we're watching a programme about pathologists but weren't expecting anything disturbing? Granted the number of scenes of bodies actually being cut up is much lower than it was when Amanda Burton was running the shop, it's never going to be 'Death in Paradise'.
I think the disturbing scene was the description of the injuries to the dead man's genitals.Halmyre said:
I think the disturbing scene was the description of the injuries to the dead man's genitals.
Oh, maybe - I was thinking it was the general child-abuse subject. But I think back in the early days of Silent Witness there wouldn't have been a description of the injuries, there would have been a close-up.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff