[kenberg]

I have been watching Gracepoint, a ten episode crime drama. Not great, but pretty good. A child has been murdered and the case is being vigorously investigated. The parents naturally wish to bury their son. Several times, including in the most recent episode, the seventh, the police explain that the burial cannot take place while the case is stilll open. I mention the seventh episode because, as you might expect, time has passed. I would think that, from everything that has happened, at least a week has passed since his death. At any rate, no time limit on this rule has been mentioned, The show is set in California. Is there such a rule there, or anywhere? Some murder cases go on for months or years, some never get solved. How long are they planning to keep this kid in an ice chest, or wherever he is?

As for the show itself, it's another of these shows featuring a lead investigator who simply lives his job, He is fighting his own personal demons, he has health issues, he is estranged from his seventeen year old daughter (she comes to the station to find him, mentions her first name at the desk, is asked, "Will he know who you are", she replies "I hope so, I'm his daughter"). He is rude, sarcastic, arrogant, you name it, but of course he is Dedicated. OK, but I get tired of the shtick. But I am still watching so all in all I give it a decent rating.


Anyway, I'm wondering about this non-burial rule. I had never heard of it before this show.

[dave251164]

For England and Wales I found this:

It is the role of the coroner to investigate unnatural or suspicious deaths and, following a homicide, the coroner takes control of the body, ordering a post-mortem to establish the cause of death.Because the body is evidence, a suspect can request their own post-mortem and where there is more than one suspect, each can seek an additional post-mortem. If granted, this means that the victim is subject to further examinations.

The Draft charter for the current coroner service (issued in May 2011)states:
“Where there is a criminal investigation into the death, the coroner’s office must release the body for funeral within 30 days of the death, but normally it will be much sooner than this.”

This timescale has been the subject of guidance for coroners and of a memorandum of good practice agreed between the Coroner's Society, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Law Society in 1999. One might expect this to have had an impact over 13 years. However, our survey shows that 79% of families waited longer than a month to bury their loved one. The memorandum of good practice also states that "where no-one is charged in connection with a death within a month, provision will be made for a second, independent post-mortem for use by a defendant in the future, if required."
However, delays experienced by families in our survey suggest that this is not happening. We heard that coroners remain reluctant to release the body out of concern for a future suspect’s right to a post-mortem.
[www.justice.gov.uk/consultations/cp52011.htm and Home Office Circular No.30/1999 post Mortem Examinations and the Early Release of Bodies]

[kenberg]

Thank you, very interesting. It seemed natural enough that someone charged with the murder would want to be able to get at relevant facts, and with this in mind the plan to have a second and independent post-mortem makes sense. I can see that there are reasons for not releasing the body, and I can especially see why a cremation would be undesirable from the legal standpoint, but at some point it seems the time has come.

From time to time in crime stories they dig up a body, The Third Man for example, but I had never given much thought to something like this thirty day rule. I just assumed that, lacking some very special reason particular to the case, there would be an autopsy and then the body would be released to the family.


Apparently the writers from Gracepoint were dealing realistically with how this couold go. Tough on the family, no doubt.
Thanks

[mikeh]

I am not going to address the OP question, for the simple reason that I don't know the answer. I only wanted to say two things.

One is that my wife and I looked forward to this show for reasons that will form part of the second 'thing'. However, we had watched, and immensely enjoyed, the original UK version. The main character is played by David Tennant in both, and at least initially watching him do an americanized version of his original character wasn't the least bit engaging. As for the rest of it, the plot was far too close to the original, and so we could pick out the characters and their likely roles and fates very early on, tho that isn't to say that the end result will be the same. It just didn't get our interest up.

The second thing was that the series was made in our home city, Victoria, altho the police station is actually out in Sidney, another but smaller town a few kilometres to the North. I know the owners of the building used:)

The beach where the body was found is along Dallas Road, and we walk our dogs along the cliff tops almost every day, including while filming was going on. We had to make a bit of a loop immediately above the location, since they had cameras mounted on the path, but we and others were permitted to stand near the edge some distance off and look down. The cliffs and beach aren't remotely like the way they appear on film. They aren't really 'cliffs'...they do drop off but with a lot of slumping, and vegetation almost all other, while in the show they appear vertical.

We and many others around here spent much of the show trying to identify locations. The house where the dead boy's family lived is a few houses down from the home of one of the partners in my law firm, for example. The central street, where various businesses operate is in Oak Bay, a small community that is nestled within the 'Victoria' area...we have really one sprawling region but 13 local governments...Oak Bay is one of the smaller with a population of about 10,000 (and a median age probably north of 60!).

[mikeh]

An interesting coincidence, given the OP question, is that another recent, and excellent, mini-series featuring David Tennant as the lead character is The Escape Artist....another UK production. I won't give out too many spoilers but at one point it becomes essential to the plot that a body, which was the body of a murder victim in a very well set up apparent non-murder, was cremated before a particular and unlikely to be routinely done test was conducted. So in that (fictional) case, preserving the body would have (probably) led to a conviction.

[kenberg]

Maybe, long ago, I bicycled past the murder spot. Maybe I am a suspect!.

There was a multi-week conference at the University of Washington one summer. I went out there well before the conference, bringing my bike bike with me. I took some ferries and did some island hopping in the sound. I really liked Orca so I stayed there a bit and then the ferry over to Vancouver Island, wherever it docks, and then biked down to Victoria. Then the Loveboat back to Seattle. It was a wonderful trip. Now that I am writing about it, it seems I remember a great deal about the islands and nothing about the mathematics. Hmmm. Orca was just this terrific place with art colonies spread around a nice descent down to the Bay (and ascent back up). No actual orcas in sight, wrong season I guess. Maybe Oak Bay could be where the ferry pulls in? I was once young, or so I recall.


Spoiler alert: This is for those who are watching.





Both Becky and I were skeptical of the suicide. He was being harrassed, and I don't want to make light of it, but it did not seem consistent for him. In the other direction I think they glossed over a distinction people make, and maybe the law makes. He explained that the woman, his future wife, was only a month or so shy of whatever the legal age for sexual consent is. I think they were saying seventeen. And he pointed out that this was the age that Mr. Solano (I forget his first name) was when he got hisnow wife pregnant. Fair enough, but the Solanos at that time were two teenagers, in the case at hand the guy was 40 or so. At least most people, supported by the law or not, make a distinction between what might happen between say an 18 year old and a 16 year old, as opposed to a 40 year old and a 16 year old. There was something in the paper recently about a woman who was being charged after having sex with a friend of her 14 year old son. The large age gap makes a difference, at least in my mind and I think in most minds. Still, it was ancient history and I think some open discussion would have cleared the air. But then I am at least optimistic and maybe naive about such things.

Anyway, in general, I regard it as well written and I enjoy the exploration of character.

[mike777]

Love David T.


watched the uk version but it stalled at the end.

I just gave up on the American version and the terrible accent David choose to use.

Don't think the escape artist has been shown in usa.

very mixed feelings about the latest season of dr who, there seemed a lack of chemistry for starters

[blackshoe]

Yes, the large age gap makes a difference. I don't really see any logic in it, but there it is.

[barmar]

mikeh, on 2014-November-18, 14:40, said:

IOne is that my wife and I looked forward to this show for reasons that will form part of the second 'thing'. However, we had watched, and immensely enjoyed, the original UK version. The main character is played by David Tennant in both, and at least initially watching him do an americanized version of his original character wasn't the least bit engaging. As for the rest of it, the plot was far too close to the original, and so we could pick out the characters and their likely roles and fates very early on, tho that isn't to say that the end result will be the same. It just didn't get our interest up.

The TV Guide reviewer said that it would be worth watching for people who didn't already watch Broadchurch, but those who did would find it disappointing. And even though the ending is supposed to be different, it would be redundant.

I didn't watch the original. I'm not crazy about Tennant's character, but I like most of the other performances.

[kenberg]

barmar, on 2014-November-19, 11:00, said:

The TV Guide reviewer said that it would be worth watching for people who didn't already watch Broadchurch, but those who did would find it disappointing. And even though the ending is supposed to be different, it would be redundant.

I didn't watch the original. I'm not crazy about Tennant's character, but I like most of the other performances.

I agree. I did not see the original and I am more than willing to judge it on its own anyway. David Tennant seems to be a fine actor, I can't say that I even noticed any accent let alone being annoyed by it. The developing respectful relationship between his character, Carver, and Miller, the detective who had every reason she would be in charge of this case, is done well. He is totally tactless but when he comments on how well she is doing under his guidance she replies with, some bite, that of course she simply had no clue at all on what to do until he arrived. And when a newspaper describes him as the worst cop in California he asks her thoughts and she says "well, maybe the top ten". She holds her own, and they have a working relationship. We have all known people that we don't all that much enjoy being around but we recognize that they are serious in their efforts.

As I said, I am getting a bit weary of the "devoted cop who cannot be bothered even with normal conversation, let alone tact" theme, but all in all I think it's worth my time to watch. So I do.

[PassedOut]

mikeh, on 2014-November-18, 14:40, said:

One is that my wife and I looked forward to this show for reasons that will form part of the second 'thing'. However, we had watched, and immensely enjoyed, the original UK version. The main character is played by David Tennant in both, and at least initially watching him do an americanized version of his original character wasn't the least bit engaging. As for the rest of it, the plot was far too close to the original, and so we could pick out the characters and their likely roles and fates very early on, tho that isn't to say that the end result will be the same. It just didn't get our interest up.

I had not heard of Gracepoint before this thread, but both Constance and I enjoyed Broadchurch. Guess we'll skip the remake.

[kenberg]

PassedOut, on 2014-November-19, 13:09, said:

I had not heard of Gracepoint before this thread, but both Constance and I enjoyed Broadchurch. Guess we'll skip the remake.

Just out of curiosity, are you looking forward to a second season?

As you might guess from the question, I am a little disappointed that Gracepoint is, I think, contemplating a second season. Some stories have a beginning, a developing middle story and then, we can hope, an end. Does anyone want to see Hamlet, season 2? OK, there is Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, but you get my drift.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-November-19, 14:02, said:

Just out of curiosity, are you looking forward to a second season?

As you might guess from the question, I am a little disappointed that Gracepoint is, I think, contemplating a second season. Some stories have a beginning, a developing middle story and then, we can hope, an end. Does anyone want to see Hamlet, season 2? OK, there is Henry IV, parts 1 and 2, but you get my drift.

We are planning to watch Broadchurch season 2 because the first season was so good. But if the quality drops off or it gets repetitive, I'll stop. Can't speak for Constance on that last -- she has more patience for that sort of thing than I.

[kenberg]

I have just watched the final episode of Gracepoint. I had planned to post here my frank opinion of this series but then I remembered that this is an international forum and the laws in some places discourage frank assessment. So I will just say that I am not a fan. I can't be sued for saying that, can I?

[mike777]

As I mention I gave up a bit ago.


fwiw Homeland and the last of series newsroom is pretty good.


--------



I enjoy lillyhammer on Netflix.....

[kenberg]

mike777, on 2014-December-12, 02:47, said:

As I mention I gave up a bit ago.


fwiw Homeland and the last of series newsroom is pretty good.


--------



I enjoy lillyhammer on Netflix.....

I have never seen Newsroom, but I think that Homeland is in a class by itself. My older daughter watches television only rarely, and in fact she has to be a season behind because she doesn't get the channel it is on, but she is also a big fan. Many "action thrillers" bore me silly but not this one.

Back when I first saw Claire Danes in My So-called Life I thought she was a very promising young actress. I also, at that time, formulated the Berg rule for predicting whether a show would be cancelled: Let me watch it. If I like it, it will be cancelled. (Homeland is an exception to this rule.)

Back to Gracepoint. By around Episode 6 or so I realized this show was not at a quality level I had hoped for but I decided to stick it out anyway. My current plan is to never again watch any show by the same writing team. Dumb doesn't begin to cover it.

[PassedOut]

kenberg, on 2014-December-12, 07:00, said:

Back when I first saw Claire Danes in My So-called Life I thought she was a very promising young actress. I also, at that time, formulated the Berg rule for predicting whether a show would be cancelled: Let me watch it. If I like it, it will be cancelled. (Homeland is an exception to this rule.)

Claire Danes was excellent in Temple Grandin too.

Like your rule about TV shows, Constance and I have found that once we start to buy any packaged grocery product, that product will soon disappear from the shelves...

[Thiros]

PassedOut, on 2014-December-12, 10:15, said:

Claire Danes was excellent in Temple Grandin too.

I watched that just last night. How funny.

Claire Danes was terrific, as was the whole story about how Temple Grandin found her niche and excelled in it.

[barmar]

kenberg, on 2014-December-12, 07:00, said:

Back when I first saw Claire Danes in My So-called Life I thought she was a very promising young actress. I also, at that time, formulated the Berg rule for predicting whether a show would be cancelled: Let me watch it. If I like it, it will be cancelled. (Homeland is an exception to this rule.)

The rule is pretty good for broadcast networks -- high quality shows always have trouble getting the mass viewership levels they demand. Not so much for cable TV, their requirements are lower. Homeland would never have succeeded on broadcast TV.

[Elianna]

kenberg, on 2014-December-12, 07:00, said:

Back when I first saw Claire Danes in My So-called Life I thought she was a very promising young actress. I also, at that time, formulated the Berg rule for predicting whether a show would be cancelled: Let me watch it. If I like it, it will be cancelled. (Homeland is an exception to this rule.)

One rule that works for me is if I appear in it, it will be cancelled quickly. I'm at 100% on this. (But it's not an iff.)