Gracepoint vs Broadchurch

A few days ago I finished watching Gracepoint. I was told that the ending had been changed, so I was exciting to see the differences. Warning: if you haven't already seen Broadchurch, DON'T read this post. MAJOR SPOILER ALERT. Now that you've been warned, let's dive in. Episode ten of Gracepoint confused me because it was leading up to exactly the same ending as Broadchurch-Ellie's husband killed Danny. The whole time, I wondered what the surprise was, then felt like that person lied to me because everything was exactly the same. The difference didn't come in until the VERY end! It was Tommy's fault because he followed his dad and was trying to protect Danny and he accidentally hit Danny in the head and killed him. That felt like such a cheat. I hated that ending because that meant Ellie was going to protect her son and keep the secret of who's really at fault and I have issues with people who escape the consequences if their actions. I've seen this same premise in several other mystery stories and I'm getting tired of it. It should be someone's fault so that someone can pay for the crime. 

Second of all, I hated that ending because it wasn't really anybody's fault that Danny died. It was a total accident. Why in the world did I spend 10 episodes  to discover a killer who was an accident? I liked that in Broadchurch, Joe physically strangled Danny. He was hugging him and then he strangled him in a fit of passion. It really was Joe's fault. He didn't mean for Danny to be killed, but it really happened and it was really his fault and he was fully responsible. He gets put in jail and he's properly punished for his actions. But in Gracepoint, they softened all of that. There wasn't a clear antagonist and they punished the wrong person. If I'm going to spend ten long episodes on a single mystery, then by george, I want to see a real murderer at the end, not people who accidentally got into trouble.