Chicago Redshirt

My bad about not remembering that Nate had said anything about being fired. Seems he would have a good case for retaliatory discharge. Wonder if he knows a good lawyer. ;)

Rebecca could be telling the truth about Sam wanting to kill her. She referred to Sam as "Mr. Darcy" -- so Sam knows that Rebecca knows he had some sort of sex-times going on with Lila. Also, we saw Nate enlist Rebecca in his attempt to prove Sam killed Lila. We also found out that Nate is no longer working for Philly PD, I think for the first time. I know he had been suspended previously, but I don't think they had described him as former. And in fact, Bonnie got the complete confession by leveraging a threat to reveal that PPD was still investigating alternate suspects, which she knew because Nate was investigating. Which raises a whole bunch of questions, like shouldn't he be looking for gainful employment instead of trying to track down dirt on Sam? Where is he getting the money to have Frank under surveillance? What does his wife think about all this? What is his motivation in doing all this snooping? One theory is that he is literally trying to put Sam behind bars so he can be with Annalise free and clear. Re: the prenup, regardless of class, some people are going to see that as an insult. "We're preparing to spend the rest of our lives together in marital bliss...but in case this doesn't work out, here's my escape clause that I'm preparing." Add to that someone misled Michaela into thinking this was for a job interview (or Michaela wrongly jumped to that conclusion). She was sandbagged and embarrassed. And she told the rest of the Keating 5 she was getting an interview at this fancy-schmancy firm. When in reality fancy-schmancy firm was meeting with her and using its resources to get the best deal for its client, without giving her the benefit of knowing that she should have her own lawyer there to represent her interests. Also, you have to factor in that she only recently learned that her fiance had a fling with a man, and despite his insistence that he's straight very well might be gay. If I were in her place, I would definitely be insulted that with the issues he's bringing to the table and the secrecy and the underhandedness, he (or his parents) crafted a prenup. The contrasting of sex/death is an old trope. Didn't work here IMO. The violation of the gag order deal was pretty blatant. IRL an attorney couldn't get away with "Oh, I knew I was gagged but my client's just a innocent 21-year-old naif who didn't know better." Annalise is under a duty to explain the gag order to her client. The judge did say she would sanction Annalise, but Rebecca would be thrown into jail for contempt most likely.

Cooper got caught for his hacktivism and from what I gathered someone at the NSA thought that he was awesome and recruited him. To cover their tracks, they faked his death. But while he still all had his revolutionary hacktivist beliefs. If you're extreme enough to do the sorts of things that he was doing, I could see perceiving going corporate instead of changing the world as an extreme betrayal.

I'm assuming the 1st floor is where Annalise's law office is. However, Sam may have his own personal home office as a professor. And Annalise might for whatever reason want to keep a separate office for her work as a professor as well.

With regard to the Lazarus Pits, I fundamentally could more easily buy that Malcolm was d-e-a-d dead, that one/some of his still-loyal minions arranged for his body to be taken to a LP, where Malcolm was resurrected and massacred Ras' minions such that Ras has no idea who used the LP or that Malcolm was brought back to life than killer Oliver stabbed himself and Malcolm, but didn't actually kill Malcolm, and that Malcolm was able to do some ninja voodoo to make believe he was dead.

A little late to the party, but better late than never...I'll try to not spend too much time echoing the "Tell Quentin"/Oliver is uncharacteristically stupid/Whack Canary is whack sentiments others have much more eloquently expressed. A little disappointed by the "Malcolm faked his death" business. IIRC, Oliver plunged an arrow through him to kill Merlyn. Diggle saw this and was like, "Daaaaaaaamn!" How is it then possible that Malcolm's death was "faked?" Why aren't our heroes questioning about this more? I understand that they might not want to use the whole Lazarus Pit thing yet, but still... Yet another Thea kidnapping. It's about time that Team Arrow gets RFID tags for her, Laurel and everyone else. And it's high time Team Arrow brings her onboard. I loled when Nyssa knocked Roy out. I love me a good ass-kicking of Roy, and it has been way too long. I still don't get the reason why, with literally the world at her disposal, Waller would waste time and energy recruiting an unwilling Ollie. Quickly getting to the point of not caring. Although I do look forward to Katana showing up at some point in the present. I thought that Nyssa was ready to join Ollie on the sister-swapping train when she instructed Laurel as to punch from the hips "because that's where the power is." Yucko.

The news story suggested two spins Annalise could give: 1) QB is so enraged at learning that Lila was cheating on him he kills her 2) Sexter kills her for some reason, perhaps jealousy over QB. The second theory is worse than the first, because nothing is known about Sexter, including whether he had motive, means, opportunity. QB obviously had both means and opportunity -- the sext supplies a potential motive. Remember, the world at large does not know Sexter is Sam. So she could introduce information as Sexter and even introduce him as a suspect without outing him. In fact, it might be better if she does not make him concrete. Having him as a mystery man does more to introduce doubt than if it's specifically someone who might seem credible, might have an alibi, etc. Speaking of alibis I think the detective actually lied to Annalise and told her that Sam's alibi checked out when it obviously didn't. In terms of potentially representing Sam, it would be a pretty bad idea for Annalise to do that. Putting aside for the moment her objectivity would be shot in general representing her husband, she already represents Rebecca. It is a bad idea both from a practical standpoint to represent two defendants in the same case (because you have twice as much to focus on) but also from an ethical standpoint. In a case like (to take an example from pop culture) "My Cousin Vinny," where the defendants basically have the same defense (mistaken identity), it's OK and any potential conflicts can be waived. But in a case like this one, Sam and Rebecca have antagonistic defenses. That is, it is to Rebecca's benefit to introduce evidence suggesting Sam did it, and to Sam's benefit to suggest Rebecca did it. Even the state tried Rebecca and then Sam, there would still be the potential of the attorney compromising one or more of her duties to the previous or later client, and even the appearance of a potential conflict should be avoided. Of course, this is all spitballing since Sam, he dead.

The idea behind a telephonic warrant, as I understand it, is that there are circumstances where it would be awkward to go through the formality of having a written affidavit and meeting in person with a judge, where things may or may not rise all the way to exigent circumstances. Even in such a case, you are supposed to go over the case for probable cause with the judge and then s/he would sign off on a warrant. What was presented in the latest episode wasn't like that. Yes, a cop could hypothetically arrest people without a warrant. But an arrest warrant entitles the cop to go in a person's home or business to effect the arrest, as Gordon and Bullock did. Barbara has had at least two other scenes without Gordon but with Montoya: one was early on and a "Jim's not a good guy" discussion in Barbara's apartment, and the other was a "Jim's not a good guy and he's going down so you better get rid of him" on the steps of GCPD or the courthouse or whatever that's supposed to be. Not that that changes anything, because Barbara still doesn't have much of an existence beyond Gordon (and Montoya). Although it was inevitable that she would be damseled (and will be again in the future), this episode marked the first time she was explicitly in danger. (Penguin's visit had the implicit message that she was in danger). Also let's be clear about one thing: Gordon and Bullock did not stand a chance against Falcone and they knew it. They were dead men walking, and I think both explicitly said this. They just figured since they had nothing to lose, they might as well just see what happened if they tried to arrest the mayor and Falcone. Maybe Falcone's people would kill them and make martyrs of them, maybe the arrests would at least wake Gotham up. But there was no scenario where they lock up Falcone and the mayor up and walk away winners. There is a thin line between foolishness and bravery. I think with better writing/acting, Barbara's coming back would have seemed less foolish, more brave. If we had seen Barbara coming back or pleading with Falcone, or not even pleading but arguing/demanding. Coming face to face to Gotham's biggest crime boss is seen as a brave thing in Gordon and Bullock's case. Barbara did it without the benefit of a gun or a badge to offer any protection. We don't get enough of her thinking and reasoning for coming back. Just her not wanting to leave Jim. Which again comes back to the writing/acting. I love my wife, but if she told me "Get out of town, because that's the only way you can be safe and the only way I can do what I need to do" and there was an obvious and credible threat to her well-being and mine, I'd leave. It would be hard to not look back, but then again, I have the benefit of not being as naive as Barbara is.

I'm operating under the assumption that there are multiple bedrooms in the house, but most of them have been converted to office space and/or "sleep on the couch" may have been metaphorical.

Not to go too deep here for non-attorneys, but the idea behind warrants is that someone is going to stand up in front of a judge and swear to facts that amount to probable cause that a crime has been committed. We didn't see Gordon attempt to convince anyone that he had probable cause. Which is good, because he really doesn't. In this case, Gordon has nothing even close to those facts about Falcone or the mayor in connection with the Wayne murders, as far as I can remember. At best, he could make out a case against Fish, since she supplied the tip that Pepper was guilty and had a pearl necklace. (I can't remember if after the fact she told Gordon or the MCU folks in so many words that the pearl necklace found at the Pepper home wasn't really the Waynes). But there's nothing to tie Falcone to any conspiracy other than it's known that she works for Falcone, and I think Falcone may have said something along the lines of "people would get restless if the murder weren't solved." There's nothing conceivably tie Mayor Kind to the Wayne murders or a conspiracy to frame Pepper. Putting aside the fact that Falcone presumably has numerous judges in his pockets and high-priced attorneys on his payroll, even Lionel Hutz would be able to get him out of anything having to do with this. What's funny is that Gordon didn't try to take Falcone down for any of the things that he could prove (at least to the probable cause standard), such as having Zzaszz shooting up a precinct and killing a cop shortly after he announced to the room that he works for Falcone.

Few quick points to add: 1. Pre-signed warrants are a pretty scary and unconstitutional thing. I don't know if the show wants to think us that in what he thinks are his last moments he is willing to take a trip to the dark side, or if it is just supposed to be handwaved that GCPD literally has a stack of blank checks to arrest whoever they want as something that's necessary for plot purposes. Judge Bam-Bam probably should watch his back, because even temporarily inconveniencing the Mayor and Falcone can't be good for his health. 2. Barbara, now that you've gotten your first hostage situation out of the way, you'll find the rest is like riding a bike. I do hope that they bolster her up some more now that she has a first-hand view of what the stakes are. 3. I wish we got some more insight into how Penguin's appearance at the end of last episode played out. 4. Is it possible Zzasz killed the Waynes? I don't think I still have the pilot on my dvr.

Let's be real. The cops and other crooks are playing tic-tac-toe. Checkers is too complex for them. Cobblepot (presumably) wants to eventually take over from Falcone and the rest. He may see Gordon as a tool to help him do that. Or it may be,as he explained, if you know what someone loves, you can destroy them. So he doesn't see Gordon as a threat. Or it could be that Cobblepot is impressed that Gordon didn't give into the pressure and just kill him like 99.9 percent of GCPD probably would have in that spot. I saw Ossie sparing Gordon's life as returning the favor. The real question is why Falcone -- who clearly thought he and Bullock should die -- followed Ossie's advice and let them live. I definitely expect that Penguin will eventually shore up his only weakness by killing his mom by the end of the season. But then, I also expect Chekhov's chicken necks to be wrung as well.

I think we are supposed to believe that Middleton University Law School is in the class of Harvard, Yale etc. Back in the pilot someone (and it might have been Asher) was talking about how he interned for Chief Justice Roberts.

As to why Asher did not want to rat out his father there are a few possibilities IMO: people's relationships with their fathers are complicated and he probably did not want to cause his father any more pain. Second, it is clear that he idolizes his father and so he might be reluctant to tear that idol down. Third, there is his own self-interest. Asher will be far more successful as son of esteemed wrote-the-book-on-judicial-ethics Judge Millstone than he would as son of disgraced former Judge Millstone. As to double jeopardy, it attaches upon a judgment on the merits IIRC. So if the prosecution is the source of a mistrial it still can retry.

I thought that Bonnie might be using Asher as an alibi too. Of course Doucheface will be bragging to everyone that "Bosher" actually happened. He's Doucheface. Is this episode the first in which Annalise was expressly talking about race? Her getting mad about "that white whore" and her being upset about gentrification and black people came as a surprise.

I didn't know that, and I assume other people didn't know that. It's the sort of thing you might want to spoiler-tag.

Yes, the show sort of dissed Ronnie, but then it lifted up Nancy by saying she was the real power behind the throne and accomplished great things. As to the only prominent black man on Scandal being a hateful, manipulating sociopathic murderer, basically every non-David character on the show is at least two of those characteristics, if not all four.

This episode cemented for me the notion that the show would have been much better if the Keating 5 (had they been called that prior to this episode? The phrase was used to describe senators involved in a savings and loan scandal in the 80s) were just the Keating 3. You could really wrap Wes, Laurel and Michaela up into one character. It would also solve a lot of the show's problems if they gave up any pretense of these people being 1Ls and just made them 1st year associates. You could probably condense Frank and Bonnie too. The little nitpicks with the COW -- an appellate court isn't going to be hearing testimony from live witnesses. Nor is it going to be imposing crazy ass "You have a week or we're sending him to the gas chamber" deadlines. Nor is it going to hear appeals just because --- as far as we saw, Team Keating had no evidence at first that there was anything wrong with the trial. A prosecutor who suspects perjured testimony could simply investigate himself. There's no need to involve the judge except to implicate the judge and have Asher have daddy issues. Also technically it would be improper for the prosecutor to have a conversation with the judge about the case without the defense attorney present. The big (IMO) suspension of disbelief-destroying nitpick -- after Annalise hauls a state senator before the court, badgers him with no concrete evidence that he was involved in a conspiracy to murder 20 years ago, and gets shut down by the court, the court basically says, "Well, you acted inappropriately and have no evidence whatsoever that state senator was involved. BUT your complete lack of evidence is so compelling, we're recommending the state to investigate whether state senator was involved AND we've no choice but to acquit your client AND bar him from being retried." I mean come on! It would not have taken that much work to have one of the Keating 5 develop at least some concrete info showing means or opportunity or even develop motive more. Sure the do-gooder victim was behind an injunction, but murder seems like a pretty desperate way of getting it lifted. I'm torn about whether I should give the show kudos for attempting to address racial and class politics or be annoyed that it did it in the half-assed way it did.

With Montoya, I am not sure how much of it is the writing versus the acting versus our expectations as an audience. On paper, I think there is grounds for her to be extremely suspicious of Jim. Harvey and Jim are publicly saying that Mario Pepper killed the Waynes and they killed Pepper. They are (presumably) being lionized for closing the case so quickly. Only, Montoya and Allen get evidence that seems credible on its face that Fish planted the pearl necklace that is really the only evidence that Mario Pepper killed the Waynes, and that Gordon and Bullock knew about it. They may have knowledge of Harvey's relationship with Fish. Certainly within the first few episodes, Harvey made it seem like basically anybody needing a lead on a case would go to Fish for answers, and there was the implication he did it plenty of times. Shortly after they get evidence from Oswald about Fish planting evidence on Pepper, Oswald disappears. And Fish basically says Gordon did it. Now Montoya and Allen shouldn't necessarily take all this hook, line and sinker. But it seems enough to justify an investigation. And when that investigation turns up someone who says he saw Gordon shoot Penguin, it seems like it's good enough. The potential justification got unravelled somewhat by Montoya having had a yearlong relationship with Barbara and clearly wanting Barbara back. Plus, let's face it, the actress isn't the strongest. Maybe if her partner got more prominence it would seem like she was an envious woman trying to win her girl back.

To be fair to the show, we've also seen to a certain extent the city's government and its well-to-do, both in the context of Wayne Enterprises/Wellsyn and in their own element. The criminal element is of course interacting with both these, but that's Gotham.

Dr.Fate's abilities are vast and magical in nature, though. Whoever he is, Harrison's a master of science and is using science to see in the future. (Hence the Central City Citizen from the future on a machine." Not to mention that there's no incarnation of Dr. Fate who would stab a person in cold blood.

Point taken. I didn't see all of the most recent episode, and I forgot that Michaela had sex with her fiance. But that brings me to a related point. Connor's being depicted not only as frequently having sex but having earth-shaking sex, and basically being able to seduce pretty much any gay person (and potentially hetero people if he wanted). Michaela's scene with her fiance was so forgettable and humdrum. Afterwards, fiance wasn't "Wow it's so great to see you again." Or even "Man that was awesome!" But more like, "I want to be a house husband." Throughout that episode, there was the possibility that fiance was on the down low and just using Michaela to keep up images. The sort of sex they had did nothing to rule that possibility out, IMO. Even Annalise does not get to inspire the same level of desire that Connor does.

Double jeopardy means that you can't be prosecuted a second time for the same crime after being acquitted. DOW getting acquitted for killing daddy would not prevent him from being prosecuted for killing mommy. But the point otherwise stands.

I would say that while there's a lot of Shonda characters having sex, the sex in "Murder" is more explicit than what I remember of Grey's and Scandal and Private Practice, both hetero and gay. People have certainly caught people looking guilty in the on-call room, and what not, but I don't think there's been anything like the detective being in the middle of performing oral on Annalise. I don't think there's been anything as explicit in dialogue about sex as "He did this thing to my ass that made my eyes water." I would also say that Connor appears to be having sex more frequently than anyone else on "Murder," other than Annalise (and by extension her husband) as far as what we're shown. Annalise -- sex with Sam at least a couple times (once awkward "is he a murderer?" sex) and with cop once. Bonnie -- no sex scenes, no reference to her having sex. Hints that she's got the hots for Sam. Frank -- no sex scenes, dialogue that he bangs a lot of the interns, hints that he has the hots for Laurel and will bang her in the future. Wes -- no sex scenes, has interest in Rebecca. Laurel -- no sex scenes that I remember, dialogue that Khan is her boyfriend but AFAIK nothing to indicate that they've gone beyond kissing. Dialogue that Frank is interested in her. Michaela -- no sex scenes that I remember, engaged to someone who visited in an episode where they feuded about him not revealing that he'd experimented with Connor back in the day. Asher-- no sex scenes, nothing indicating he's got sexual interest in anyone or vice versa. Connor -- explicit sex with Oliver two or three times, with Pax once, and I think he may have used someone else for sex as well. Not a complaint. Just observations.

What I was saying was that when a gun is better versus a disintegrator bomb would depend on the objectives of the user, and gave some different generic reasons why one might consider a disintegrator bomb better. Not that all the reasons I stated (or others I didn't think of) would apply in every situation. In the specific context of the attack on the UN, presumably Hydra wanted to spread terror and make people scared of SHIELD. While using regular old guns might do that, I think the disintegrator bombs would be far better for that objective. They would definitely scare the crap out of the average person as to whether there are more of these, whether there are other methods of deploying them than having them come in contact with an individual and so forth. And it would reinforce the narrative of "SHIELD has been doing scary stuff behind our backs all this time so we should be scared of them" more than guns. In the specific context of the fight at the not-so-safehouse, the use might have been due to such factors as them just being what's at hand or because the Hydra guy wanted the SHIELD person to suffer more. (assuming for argument's sake that disintegration is more painful -- even if quicker -- than bleeding out.)