Apple Tree Yard

I'm still enjoying it, and finding it almost believable. I know what happens, too.

And I was wrong upthread-Yvonne DID know Mark's name because she called after him at the station.

I loved the bit where husband held the knife to that uppity lawyer's throat.

I think the camera in Apple Tree Yard WAS operational and that this will prove significant.

Can't wait for the final episode!

No, I can't wait either gettingonabit. I often start to watch a much- trailed new drama, only to find myself reaching for the iPad or the remote halfway through the first episode, but Appletree Ýard had me gripped.
FWIW ... I am usually unmoved by simulated rape scenes ( the Poldark glossy version for example) but I thought the AY scene, and the following scene in the taxi was incredibly powerful. It has been asked how Yvonne could have got into a taxi with her attacker and sat there speechless while he got out at his house and then continued to her house. It seemed unbelievable, but on reflection it was perhaps the way someone would react... i.e.... being in total shock. Unless one has been in that situation ( I haven't btw) one can't say how one would react. But it really made me take rape cases much more seriously. The ripped tights and the bruises on Yvonne's inner thighs gave me a shock. Sorry if it offended your Sunday evening veiwing Jane10 but fantasy land is a dangerous place in which to live.

I agree the rape scene and the aftermath were well done. The rape was portrayed quite graphically and hinted at some pretty grim violence. It's even more graphic in the book.

I wonder what the Jury will make of Yvonne's behaviour? Perhaps they'll conclude that she and George were having an affair, and that Mark killed him in revenge? Or that she encouraged him, gave out signals, and was complicit in the attack on her? How sympathetic will they be? Will they believe that Mark and Yvonne are just friends?

It's fascinating to watch the scales falling from Yvonne's eyes as she discovers that "her love" X was turned down by MI5 and is not a spook at all!

Sadly willsmadnan I have too much knowledge of the real thing gained from working with people in real life to watch simulations put on for viewers pleasure.

I feel like that as well Jane.

A bit disappointed by the ending.

I found the rape scene hard to watch and upsetting. Apart from I enjoyed the series. Is it true to the book? I'd be interested to know.

Didn't see that very last bit coming it almost felt as if it was an add on at the last minute
Much better with the subtitles on

I didn't see it as stimulation for viewers 'enjoyment' at all I think it had a valid point to make especially how courts twist things around, making people who have been raped reluctant to tell anyone or go to the authorities and how rape survivors cope and feel during and after the violation
Every heavy subject has value if it takes the subject out of 'hiding' and gives an insight
And yes I ve been there too so I m not seeing it through rose coloured glasses

Well I thought it was a good 6 parter and I enjoyed it.

I particularly liked Emily Watson's acting.

I have read the book, and thought it excellent. I also thought the tv series excellent. But why they didn't stick to the end in the book I don't know. In the book she is declared not guilty and released straight away which is correct, but just as you think that is it, and are allowed a brief moment of elation
she is re arrested immediately and charged with perjury.This adds a real sense of drama which was missing in the tv production.

Yes, it was just an aside at the end.

I didn't like the ending much. Is it true to the book? I can't remember her visiting Mark in jail. And I'm not sure what happened to the computer diary-did her husband find it?

As far as I remember, more was made of the son's mental illness in the book.

So, to sum up.....Mark gets manslaughter (on grounds of diminished responsibility), Yvonne gets off but gets six months for perjury, which is suspended. This enables her to visit Mark, and for the producer to invent the conversation which makes the conclusion slightly different to the book, but still ambiguous.

Personally, I don't think Yvonne meant for George to be killed. If she'd wanted some sort of revenge, she could've gone to the police, reported it, and that alone may have been enough to destroy his reputation.

I think Mark was using Yvonne's situation to build the fantasy about himself. He saw himself as some sort of conquering hero, with power to injure or kill. He didn't have the skills to carry his fantasy through effectively enough to ensure he wasn't caught.

I'm still not sure if, after all, Yvonne was using him vicariously to exact revenge on George. The attack was hardly well-planned or discreet, and Yvonne must have had some idea of the implications of both their actions. I think Mark was very lucky to get away with manslaughter.

I was sympathetic to Yvonne until she lied in court, and I don't really get why she felt she had to. The truth would've come out about the relationship anyway, so why perjure herself, and mislead her legal team?

I personally don't think Yvonne meant for him to kill George but perhaps through his mental 'wiring' he saw this as a direct command to 'save' Yvonne So its left hanging That the perpetrator becomes the victim

I don't think Yvonne meant for George to be killed either, but became carried away herself with the power she felt to had to "command" Mark to do things for her.

I don't think that Mark had any feelings for Yvonne either; he was basically just a deluded creep.

I loved the victim/perpetrator twist though. I suppose they were both victims and perpetrators really.

I'll miss this!

I read the book, but had forgotten the ending so it was quite good to relive the twist again. I thought it was a pretty true adaptation of a stand out crime novel. Emily Watson is an excellent actress and did justice to the role of Yvonne

But I distinctly heard Yvonne tell Mark 'I want you to kill him' when they were in bed together in one of the flashbacks. She sounded serious to me, and obviously to him as well!

She did, I think, ana but I guess the question is whether she meant it or not. Or maybe she just wanted to plant a little seed of thought....

I cannot remember how the book ended either and really enjoyed this series. gettingonabit, didn't she lie in court as she obviously didn't want the affair with Mark revealed? It wasn't the CCTV cameras that found them out it was Mark telling his barrister, as he admitted to her at the end. Then he tells her he did not tell anyone about her (joking?) about getting rid of George. Why did he do that, because he would be less incrinated by the former than by the latter? After seeing the cross-examination of the female police sergeant I think it would put many people off reporting any sexual offence to the police, and it wasn't even her. Poor woman. Did like Emily Watson in the role, don't think I have seen her before.

I have no idea what incrinated means. Meant incriminated.

Yes I think that what it showed in the end that Mark had trouble distinguishing between the different type of messages that humans give out to each other. We can all largely distinguish between what people really mean and conversely what they don't.
So he may have been on a spectrum, which operates at a high level but be unable to understand and unable to distinguish the truth behind the message. I'm not explaining it very well !!

I'm watching it again.

Yes, she lied in court about the affair, and perjured herself. Maybe Mark told his barrister about the affair; however this would not be evidence (I'm guessing here) as such as it could be his word against hers (?).

As I recall, there was a specific reference to Apple Tree Yard in the court case, even though they'd dallied in a variety of places. I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that there WAS evidence provided by the camera after all which incriminated them both. It makes more sense to me, that's all..

I was surprised that Mark got away with manslaughter given the fact that the evidence for personality disorder was rubbished by the barrister. (wasn't that Frances Tomelty, used to be married to Sting?)

I don't understand why the Police Officer revealed that Mark had tried it on with her. It couldn't be proven that this happened.

But hadn't they been seen together?

The lawyer seemed to know a lot of details - if the PO had denied everything on Oath it would have been the end of her career and a possible prison sentence if she'd been proved to be lying.

Mark. Told the barrister about his behaviour with the policewoman, in order to help build up a picture of character. I think it is to his credit that he tried to protect Yvonne. I think he understood about his tenuous grasp on what is real or not.

Mmm...maybe, but how would anyone have been able to prove it?

I get what you mean, but I thought the point of interviewing the PO was to verify certain aspects of Mark's character; I can't quite remember if she was for the prosecution or the defence!

I'm watching again and trying to fill in the gaps.