alynch

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 Ronnie Gene Blevins Kelsey Bohlen Sean Bolger Rachael Bower Brent Briscoe Robert Broski Wes Brown Richard Bucher Page Burkum Scott Cameron Juan Carlos Cantu Gia Carides Vincent Castellanos Michael Cera Richard Chamberlain Bailey Chase Johnny Chavez Candy Clark Larry Clarke Scott Coffey* Frank Collison Lisa Coronado Catherine E. Coulson* Grace Victoria Cox Jonny Coyne James Croak Julee Cruise* Heather D'Angelo Jan D'Arcy* David Dastmalchian Jeremy Davies Owain Rhys Davies Ana de la Reguera Rebekah Del Rio Laura Dern Neil Dickson Hugh Dillon Cullen Douglas Edward "Ted" Dowlin Judith Drake David Duchovny* Christopher Durbin Francesca Eastwood Eric Edelstein John Ennis Josh Fadem Tikaeni Faircrest Eamon Farren Sherilyn Fenn* Jay R. Ferguson Sky Ferreira Miguel Ferrer* Rebecca Field Robin Finck Brian Finney Patrick Fischler Erika Forster Robert Forster Meg Foster Travis Frost Warren Frost* Pierce Gagnon Allen Galli Hailey Gates Brett Gelman Ivy George Balthazar Getty James Giordano Harry Goaz* Grant Goodeve George Griffith Tad Griffith James Grixoni Cornelia Guest Travis Hammer Hank Harris Annie Hart Andrea Hays* Stephen Heath Heath Hensley Gary Hershberger* Michael Horse* Ernie Hudson Jay Jee Jesse Johnson Caleb Landry Jones Ashley Judd Luke Judy Stephen Kearin David Patrick Kelly* Laura Kenny Dep Kirkland Robert Knepper David Koechner Virginia Kull Nicole LaLiberte Jay Larson Sheryl Lee* Jennifer Jason Leigh Jane Levy Matthew Lillard Jeremy Lindholm Peggy Lipton* Bellina Martin Logan* Sarah Jean Long David Lynch* Riley Lynch Shane Lynch Kyle MacLachlan* Mark Mahoney Karl Makinen Malone Xolo Maridueña Berenice Marlohe Rob Mars James Marshall* Elisabeth Maurus Josh McDermitt Everett McGill* Zoe McLane Derek Mears Clark Middleton Greg Mills James Morrison Christopher Murray Don Murray Joy Nash Priya Diane Niehaus Bill O'Dell Casey O'Neill Johnny Ochsner Walter Olkewicz* Charity Parenzini Elias Nelson Parenzini John Paulsen Sara Paxton Max Perlich Linas Phillips Tracy Phillips John Pirruccello Linda Porter Jelani Quinn Ruth Radelet Mary Reber Adele René Mariqueen Reznor Trent Reznor Carolyn P. Riggs Kimmy Robertson* Wendy Robie* Erik L. Rondell Marv Rosand* Ben Rosenfield Tim Roth Rod Rowland Carlton Lee Russell* Elena Satine John Savage Amanda Seyfried Amy Shiels Sawyer Shipman Tom Sizemore Sara Sohn Malachy Sreenan Harry Dean Stanton* J.R. Starr Bob Stephenson Charlotte Stewart* Emily Stofle Al Strobel* Carel Struycken* Ethan Suplee Sabrina S. Sutherland Jessica Szohr Russ Tamblyn* Bill Tangradi Cynthia Lauren Tewes Jodee Thelen Jack Torrey Sharon Van Etten Eddie Vedder Greg Vrotsos Jake Wardle Naomi Watts Nafessa Williams Ray Wise* Alicia Witt* Karolina Wydra Charlyne Yi Nae Yuuki Grace Zabriskie* Christophe Zajac-Denek Madeline Zima Blake Zingale

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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 frame someone that I haven't considered." And by the time I reach the end of my thought process Fuhrman would probably have morphed into Gary Oldman in The Professional.

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.

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.

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!"

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.

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.

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.

So, keeping a giant box full of years-old credit card bills... is that something people used to do?

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.

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.

Christ, did anyone involved in this case not end up writing a book?

Well, they've name-dropped Rodney King a bunch of times. I don't think they did much towards establishing that it occurred in Simi Valley. After all, that seems to be the reason they felt the need to have Cochran get explicit about it when questioning the cop. I'm well aware of the narrative contrivances that are required in condensing an over year-long story down to ten hours. You still have to construct it in a way that makes sense within that narrowed frame though. In that Bailey cross examination, he had a couple of lines that simply made no sense. For example, he made some crack about Clark having a bad memory. In the actual trial transcripts, this makes sense since he said that when he and Clark were disagreeing about something that was said earlier in the trial, but here the line just comes out of nowhere. It's a punchline with no set-up. He also has a line that goes something like "The prosecution opened this door" that is similarly out of nowhere. That scene played like it was initially a couple minutes longer but got cut down haphazardly.

Yeah, hate to be Monday Morning Showrunning, but they probably should've found a way of establishing the Simi Valley connection earlier in the episode prior to the cross examination because Cochran's comment strained credulity. Had they established it earlier, they could've just had Cochran saying "Simi Valley, huh?" followed by pointed glance to the jury. Also, a day later I'm still bothered by how sloppy of a job they did at condensing Bailey's cross of Fuhrman. He had a couple of lines, straight from the transcripts, that came off like total non-sequiturs due to their being no surrounding context.

Loved the thumbs up from Shapiro.

I was just trying to find a copy of American Tragedy last week due to the new series. DVDs are out of print and very expensive and it's too obscure to even merit an illegal DVD-rip. I was finally able to locate a copy at an online DVD rental chain yesterday. My memories of it are quite vague (it was not well received at the time), so I'm looking forward to give it another shot. I do remember finding it kind of odd to see Ron Silver in something that features someone else playing Alan Dershowitz.

Yeah, that seems a rather glaring contradiction, especially with all that talk in this episode about how they must avoid creating time travel paradoxes. The only way it makes sense is if the sword in this episode isn't "Past Excalibur" but rather a second, previously unused one of some sort.

One other thought, if I were playing I would've tried to exploit the write-in option by picking one-off L&O guest character Frank Pembleton, although I suspect it'd have been disallowed.

She was Terrence Howard's assistant on LOLA. Never a lead prosecutor.

I was expecting someone to pick the DA from the pilot episode (who only had one scene), since a zero like him still would've been better than anyone not named McCoy or Schiff. Also, I'm not clear on why Rubirosa was available as an EADA.

I recall this episode having a supremely dumb ending. I believe he escaped custody and then took off running into the woods. Then he turned a corner where there was some giant pond. Eliot & Olivia took a look at that pond and just decided that he must be dead and called it a day. I'm pretty sure they didn't even bother to throw in a splashing noise on the soundtrack.