As a Headscratchers subpage, all spoilers are unmarked as per policy. You Have Been Warned.
- Tom Miller tells Susan that his mum's a detective on the case, so she gets up and gives him Danny's skateboard. Why on Earth did she want to be arrested? If she wanted her son to be caught, then why not just go straight ahead and talk to the police?
- To hazard a guess, in her mind it was the difference between offering to help the police and having them ask for what she knew. Given her general level of misanthropy and her specific beef with the police it might have made a certain twisted sense. She wasn't about to go out of her way to help them out, but if the kid happens to keep the skateboard, and happens to tell his mum where he got it, and that leads to her being questioned - well, that's hardly her doing, is it?
- What happened with Kevin the postman, who was (maybe) seen arguing with Danny even though Kevin himself denies it?
- Well, nothing.
- It's implied that Danny had a bit of a hair-raised temper, getting into fights with his own best friend and his killer as well, and did something unknown to provoke his father into hitting him once, so it was probably just something involving his paper route and the postman getting heated at Danny for being difficult.
- The novelization confirms that Kevin was lying: he did have a row with Danny, as his car was broken into and he thought Danny was the likely suspect.
- How could Claire owning the pendant before the murders have implied her stealing it afterwards?
- I think it was more that she wanted Lee to owe her one since it was the crucial piece of evidence against him.
- I always assumed that she just wanted it back. In the flashbacks Lee seemed to be far more attached to the girls than Claire did, and in the scene where Pippa's seen wearing the necklace, Claire's facial expression seemed to indicate that she hadn't entirely wanted to give it to her in the first place. It may have meant enough to Claire to take it back, even if its evidentiary role meant she could never wear it again without being caught.
- Claire being the original owner of the pendant didn’t imply that she stole it back, it just gave the police more evidence of a connection with Pippa. There wasn’t really anything to imply that Claire stole the pendant from the car, the police believed it to be a random break-in. Basically it was Claire’s pendant to begin with, she gave it to Pippa, it fell off Pippa’s body into Lee’s car when he was transporting her body. The cops found it in Lee’s car which was damning evidence that he was involved in Pippa’s death. Claire then stole the pendant out of Tess’s car before it could be properly processed for forensic evidence (like Pippa’s DNA or fingerprints) which meant both that the police wouldn’t have their biggest piece of evidence tying Lee to Pippa’s death but also gave Claire leverage over Lee as she could hand the pendant back to the police whenever she wanted.
- Did the writers do any research into how criminal trials actually work in the UK before writing the trial scenes for series 2?
