clb1016

According to Vulture, there may be a second season: http://www.vulture.com/2016/07/hbo-night-of-might-get-a-season-two.html

Even if he did kill her, he wasn't what one would call a hardened criminal before going to Rikers and will certainly emerge a changed man. But I'm with you in wanting to see less of how cruel our criminal justice system is (which, unfortunately, is not news).

If all episodes were available, I would already have bingewatched this series in one sitting. Multiple times.

That might be the way Stone gets back into the case.

All good questions. And I'll bet the cops are looking into them, if only because the DA will want the information (e.g., was Andrea in the habit of bringing strange men home, or did Naz force himself into her apartment). And although a lot seems to have happend between Ep. 1 and Ep. 3, the amount of time passed is probably only a few days. The only point I was trying to make about charging Naz is that there would have been a tremendous outcry from the press and public if they hadn't charged Naz, given the seemingly overwhelming evidence against him and the (at this point) the absence of any other viable suspect. It would be one thing if the cops could say "well, we're looking at several persons of interest" but quite another to say "there's just no evidence right now that anyone else was involved."

As much as I'm loving this show, there are a number of things that bother me; Naz's parents' passivity is one of them. If your kid were arrested for murder and you were absolutely convinced he was innocent, wouldn't you be out breaking down doors to find the best lawyer you could? Mortgage your house? Sell everything you own? These two sit back waiting for lawyers to come to them. They seem entirely too willing to wait and see how the situation plays out.

The cops didn't have a choice but to arrest Naz. There's so much evidence against him (he himself said that he knows it looks like he did it) that the cops couldn't just cut him loose without another realistic possibility as a suspect; a cop's "gut" isn't enough.

I'm not a police tech, but in an example such as you cite, wouldn't the lab keep both samples being compared? If they only have the crime scene fiber, essentially they're saying "the 2 samples matched; take our word for it."

Stone has at least shown a personal interest in Naz, visiting him, bringing him clothing. Ms. Crowe hasn't even bothered to introduce herself to her client. I seem to be walking my own path here, but there were a number of little things I really liked in this episode. Off the top of my head and in no particular order: Det. Box explaining to the uniformed cops why their reports have to be redone in language that a jury would be able to relate to because Naz is a sympathetic defendant. Naz asking the guard the purpose of his new "gift" of shoes. The guard's answer: "traction." Stone looking in the shoestore window and realizing that it's not just his eczema keeping him from wearing the shoes of a big-time lawyer. Stone bringing coffee to the cops at the crime scene. I'll have to re-watch and I'm sure more will come to me but really this show lives more in the little moments rather than the big moments.

Your theater analogy is a good one and, in this series, there's an example in reverse. Bill Camp, who plays Det. Box, has been a mainstay of New York theater (both on and off Broadway) for years; he was nominated for a Tony this past season for his work in The Crucible. But more people will see him in this series than have ever seen him on stage. As a bonus, it probably pays better, too.

Great insight. It's no longer about the victim, really. It's about which side wins (note that that's the only thing the DA cares about--will it be a win for her). Again, I never saw the original and don't know what's coming. Ideally, Det. Box really wants justice for the victim, not just a conviction at any cost.

The arraignment judge was played by Ned Eisenberg, who appeared in about a gazillion episodes of Law & Order, usually as a defense attorney. I never saw the British original, but I don't think the point of this series is simply a whodunnit, especially with Richard Price as the writer. I think it's more of an exploration of the criminal justice system. The point was already made by Det. Box that they're all cogs in the same machine. Naz--whatever the verdict in court, or whether he's in fact innocent or guilty--will emerge from this experience a very changed man. His family will also emerge with a different view of the American justice system. Everyone else (police, attorneys for both sides, judges) will keep the wheels of the system turning.

If we can believe movies and TV, the forensics team checks sink and tub drains for blood residue. Box certainly noticed the extensive blood spatter; he also noticed that the victim still had all her jewelry. Whether that will have any bearing on the theory of the crime, I don't know. But I do like the fact that (at least so far) there's more showing than telling. The character doesn't say something out loud that's clearly only for the edification of the audience.

It was West 87th Street, which would be a very affluent neighborhood (as would East 87th off the Park). Murder in a wealthy neighborhood is always given more attention than murder in a poor/working class neighborhood, by both police (although they would probably deny it) and the press. And of course there are racial overtones to Det. Box asking the young Black man what he was doing on that street.

One thing I don't think anyone's mentioned yet is that the witness who saw Naz break into the brownstone when he went back for his keys said that he came running out a few seconds later. There's no way he could have committed that attack in just a few seconds.

I generally prefer the men's game to the women's game, although I'd like to think my hormones are not affecting my judgment. But if you missed the Cibulkova/Radwanska match over the weekend, you missed an amazing match. You don't have to be a feminist to appreciate the fight and determination they brought to the match. As tough as any men's match I've seen in quite a while.

Why doesn't ESPN just rename itself The Williams Sister Channel? When Serena's Centre Court match was suspended briefly for rain, ESPN switched to coverage of Venus' match on Court 1 even though it was already being shown on ESPN2. So Venus' match was being shown on both channels while there were other singles matches (men and women) going on on other courts. Of course, one could still watch the match(es) of one's choosing by watching the streaming feed on a mobile device. I know that ESPN will stick with a Serena match no matter how one-sided and boring it is, rather than show a more competitive match with anybody else. But don't they realize that at least some of their audience are actually tennis fans, not just Williams Sisters fans?

Give credit where it's due: Mrs. Parker was not played by Tracy Middleton, but by Rebecca Luker who, IRL, is married to Danny Burstein (who played Mr. Parker).

FYI, Krysta Rodriguez, who played the legitimate cancer victim, is a cancer survivor IRL. She is a triple-threat talent (actress, singer, dancer) who has appeared in a number of Broadway musicals and has shared the story of her breast cancer/mastectomy on social media.