Could this one tiny detail in Broadchurch reveal the identity of Trish’s attacker?

A throwaway line in episode six could reveal all...


Six episodes in to series three of Broadchurch and there’s a suspect in custody, but could Ed Burnett really be the man DI Hardy and DS Miller are looking for in connection with the attack on Trish Winterman?


Well, after a spot of episode sleuthing, isn’t convinced and can’t help but wonder (much like Beth Latimer) if another seemingly insignificant line of dialogue holds the key to cracking the case.

What happened to the breakdown truck that was supposed to pick up Nira?


Nira, the third woman who has yet to speak to the police, revealed that just before she was attacked she called a breakdown service.

“I was walking home, my car broke down. I had to call the breakdown services but they never came so I was walking and I went across this field…” she tells Beth and her supervisor Sahana.

But what happened to that breakdown truck? Wouldn’t the person driving it have been aware of Nira’s location? And could they be the one responsible for the attack?

Could the breakdown truck that never showed up have belonged to Jim Atwood?


Episode five saw Jim Atwood calling on Clive Lucas after his breakdown truck, well, broke down. Much was made of Clive’s amusement at the fact that the town’s own recovery service was out of action, leaving Jim in need of a taxi to get home.

Could it be a mere coincidence that Jim has a breakdown truck? Or could it be a hint that something connects him to the third attack? He does seem fairly keen to get out of town and start over with Cath, who has hinted that she knows things about her husband that would “set fire” to his life.

Beth tells Ellie about that truck, just in case it might be important, but the detective is a little preoccupied when she takes the call. Let’s hope she recalls that seemingly insignificant detail if it turns out to be crucial after all…

Could Ed Burnett really have attacked Trish?


Of course he could have, but did he? That is the question.

We know he’s obsessed with her (thanks in no small part to the 5,000+ photos on his mobile phone) and we know he sent her those mysterious flowers. We also know he had access to blue twine, and if we think back to the end of episode one, a mystery suspect in black gloves pulled a farm shop bag full of similar looking twine out of the undergrowth at Axehampton before the police could find it.

Add a grass-stained suit to that pile of evidence and Mr Burnett seems a likely suspect.


And yet, we’re not convinced he’s guilty because an obsession with one woman doesn’t equal motive to attack three. There’s nothing really connecting Ed to the attacks on Nira and Laura Benson at the moment – though of course, that isn’t to say further evidence isn’t sitting around waiting to be discovered…

Why are there mud and grass stains on Ed Burnett’s suit?

Ed has yet to answer Miller and Hardy’s question about the marks on the clothes he wore on the night of the party, and from the look on his face it’s clear that he’s not exactly thrilled at the idea of having to explain.

He’s not the only one who had mud and grass stains on their clothes, though, is he? Ian put his in for a timely wash all the way back in episode two. Could there be a connection? Or was Axehampton House just a bit muddy that night?

Did Ian really have to warn Ed Burnett to stay away from his wife?


“You know I had to have words with him about a year and a half ago? He was sexually harassing Trish”, the dodgy teacher tells Miller and Hardy.


So why don’t we believe him?