Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER

alynch

Member
  • Content Count

    459
  • Joined

Community Reputation

648 Excellent
  1. From what I've read, Ontkean passed on coming back. They recast Truman with Robert Forster. Since that list got a lot play today, might as well just paste the whole thing in here. it's a pretty loaded group Names with asterisks represent returning castmembers. Jay Aaseng Alon Aboutboul Jane Adams Joe Adler Kate Alden Stephanie Allynne Mädchen Amick* Eric Ray Anderson Finn Andrews Elizabeth Anwies Dana Ashbrook* Joe Auger Phoebe Augustine* Melissa Bailey Tammie Baird Matt Battaglia Chrysta Bell Monica Bellucci Jim Belushi Leslie Berger Richard Beymer* John Billingsley Michael Bisping Ro
  2. Lengthy interview with one of the jurors. Her most interesting assertion is that the two guilty votes made absolutely no attempt at arguing their point during deliberations.
  3. Agreed. It's not an admission that you committed a crime. It's a very strong implication (possibly accompanied by a suggestive wink) that you committed a crime.
  4. Two things: There appears to be some disagreement on whether Fuhrman truly had to take the fifth on all questions (see deerstalker's post further up the page). Come on. Every damn person in a courtroom is going to make the same assumption when someone pleads the fifth on a yes/no question. At a minimum, it's basically a giant neon sign saying "Don't a believe a damn word this guy says!"
  5. Sure, but I think having Fuhrman (essentially) say "Yes, I planted evidence" would override my inability to construct a plausible narrative. Because I don't think I would've bought the frame-up narrative at all prior to that moment. If I were 100% convinced that the idea of Fuhrman planting evidence was bullshit, only to then confronted with this, I'd probably end up questioning a whole lot of other assumptions that I'd made to that point ("What else might I be wrong about!?") and thus become much more susceptible to magical thinking. My imagination would start running wild.
  6. I'd completely agree with this, if not for Fuhrman's own testimony. Whenever I put myself on that jury, I struggle to see myself concluding anything other than "Fuhrman planted evidence" once he pleaded the fifth to that question. The matter would no longer even be open for debate. At that point, the question would become "Okay, he probably didn't plant everything, but how much of it could he have?" And then once I reach the upper limits of my imagination, I might start thinking, "Okay, that's all I can come up with, but I'm no genius. It's quite possible that a cop could think up some ways to
  7. Not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that you can selectively plead the fifth on any question you want. It's not an all or nothing deal. The idea of It being a right that you can only invoke pre-emptively just doesn't make any sense.
  8. I wouldn't go quite that far, but pleading the fifth in response to that question is certainly a pretty big YES, since that's the only answer that would be incriminating.
  9. Yep, that was pretty much the worst possible answer he could give, since it's so non-specific that it gives the jury free reign to question everything. It's impossible to contain a stinkbomb like that. He basically told the jury, "Yep, I planted some evidence in this case, but I won't tell you what. Use your imagination, though. The possibilities are endless!"
  10. That is hilarious. Someone should put together a list of all the various ways trial participants tried to cash in. Anyone remember that "Lie Detector" reality show that Marcia Clark hosted on Fox in the 90s? Think it only lasted a couple of weeks. I had to google it just now to make sure I didn't hallucinate it.
  11. Yeah, I was disappointed by that as well. Obviously they weren't going to dedicate a whole episode to the DNA questioning, but they should've at least given it about as much time as they gave the gloves last week. The impression we're meant to be left with in this episode is that Scheck destroyed Fung on cross-examination (hence Clark's subsequent breakdown in her office), but they didn't show us nearly enough to properly convey that. I think we only saw three brief exchanges between them.
  12. One other thought, are we supposed to think that Clark didn't hear Bailey's taunt to Darden? On one hand, Bailey wasn't whispering and Clark & Darden were right next to each other. On the other hand, Clark never reacted to any of it. She seemed oblivious to the exchange. I'm leaning towards her not hearing it, but that would make the scene rather poorly staged.
  13. So, keeping a giant box full of years-old credit card bills... is that something people used to do?
  14. I've never really liked the "reasonable doubt" standard. It's too vague. Different people have different definitions of reasonable. They'd be better off just putting a number on it, like civil cases do. Civil cases use a "more likely than not" burden of proof (i.e. vote guilty if you're more than 50% sure). Criminal cases would obviously have to use a much higher number than 50%. I'm guessing the reason they don't do that for criminal cases is because it would basically function as a tacit admission that a certain percentage of criminal convictions are of innocent people.
  15. I'm a bit less generous to him in my assessment (perhaps unfairly) and much more inclined to give most of the credit to Alexander & Karaszewski. This show is way more similar to their past work than it is to anything Murphy's ever done, after all. This also makes me very prepared for a drop in quality come season 2 since they will no longer be involved but Murphy will be.
×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size