S01.E06: Chapter 6

[Door County Cherry]

Airs July 26, 2020

 

Quote

As Emily’s (Gayle Rankin) trial begins and a damning witness testimony takes center stage, Mason (Matthew Rhys) attempts to recover from a shaky start. Meanwhile, in their search for clues that might lead to an exoneration, Della (Juliet Rylance) and Strickland (Shea Whigham) investigate a potential connection between Detective Ennis (Andrew Howard) and Charlie’s kidnappers. Later, Mason considers betraying Drake’s (Chris Chalk) trust to give his client an edge in court, and Birdy (Lili Taylor) urges Sister Alice (Tatiana Maslany) to scrap her Easter Sunday plan before it’s too late.

Written by Kevin J. Hynes; directed by Deniz Gamze Ergüven.

 

[SeanC]

Not that this is remotely unusual for TV depictions of court, but virtually all of Perry's querying of witnesses should have been challenged for being leading questions.

[LoveLeigh]

This episode was the most difficult to follow so far. I think after about 3 more viewings, I will understand what's going on. 

[Brian Cronin]

It is rare to see a Matthew Rhys character explode like that and boy, did he do it well. 

Shea Whigham's physicality as an actor was amazing. He really just embodied the character of Pete in a way few actors could pull off. 

Eric Lange's Sergeant Holcombe was also amazing with his disappointment with Ennis, followed by the twist of, "Let me know who we need to kill to cover this up." WOW.

This is such an outstanding cast. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

Not that this is remotely unusual for TV depictions of court, but virtually all of Perry's querying of witnesses should have been challenged for being leading questions.

Perry was cross-examining the witnesses, and on cross-examination, leading questions are proper.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, Brian Cronin said:

It is rare to see a Matthew Rhys character explode like that and boy, did he do it well. 

Not to mention that imitation of EB. I really like having EB basically the dad to two very different siblings who find themselves behaving in pretty stereotypical son/daughter ways after his death.

Also loved seeing Paul show up at Perry's door, just getting to be the guy in one of those scenes. And all things Pete. Just realized that Pete "played" Perry in his conversation and then later Perry played EB.

[Annber03]

Man, do not piss off Perry Mason. He is so beyond done with everyone's crap. And rightly so. And as always, Della remains the steady, calm balance in those moments-one reason of many they work so well together. 

I also liked Della protecting Emily after that awful moment in the courtroom regarding her supposed 'confession". I really like this whole thing of women looking out for each other throughout this series. Poor Emily's life is just true hell on earth-that moment with Matthew going after her on the stand was pretty intense, too. 

Aw, Paul being so protective of Clara and their soon-to-be baby. I hope they all make it through this mess okay. 

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Not to mention that imitation of EB.

I loved that moment, too. 

[scrb]

1 hour ago, SeanC said:

Not that this is remotely unusual for TV depictions of court, but virtually all of Perry's querying of witnesses should have been challenged for being leading questions.

 

1 hour ago, Brian Cronin said:

It is rare to see a Matthew Rhys character explode like that and boy, did he do it well. 

He would say or ask questions which he knew would be stricken.

Then the blowups in the judges chambers.

Seem to be like a veteran lawyer pushing the boundaries in a calculated way, not a new lawyer trying his first case.

Judge gave him a long leash.

Not sure what evidence of church corruption has to do with the case unless Perry is able to show ties between the church elder, Ennis and some of the kidnappers.  Is that going to be it, because that would be a little too pat.

Church has plenty of money, Ennis and the other detectives are on the take, so money as motive for kidnapping gone wrong seems weak.

Rampant corruption in the LAPD, maybe he whole justice system, but that’s a lot to tackle in a first case.

But that’s better than Emily believing the baby will be resurrected and that she will be freed.

 

[dramachick]

"But it is something I can live with." – Paul Drake

Perry's moment of indecision after his last cross-x question to Paul Drake was excellent. I could see Paul steeling himself to be thrown under the bus, but Perry could not bring himself to betray Paul, even at the cost of losing the case.

Perry Mason's word is bond.

“One never knows how loyalty is born.” – Bert Cooper, Mad Men

[isalicat]

Oh that was excellent!

[thuganomics85]

Perry's first time in court as a lawyer was.... well, a bit bumpy to say the least, with the fumbling during the opening jury statement, getting overruled almost every other time (although, some of that might have been intentional on his part), and discovering that his client is still keeping secrets from him.  But he at least scored some points against Matthew and I do think we are already seeing that he is a natural at this in a lot of ways, so I'm curious to see how this all plays out.  I can't see them having him fail at his first case ever, but it's going to take a lot of work to turn this around.

Then again, he certainly has a great amount of support here.  Della is continuing to be her awesome self, and I like that Hazel/Della's girlfriend is also working with them.  Pete continues to show that he's actually pretty damn good at his job, despite his less than noble antics elsewhere.  And then there is Drake, who is starting to stand up for himself and the corruption he has to deal with in the force, and seems to be on his way to becoming a fantastic ally for Perry.  Chris Chalk was in extra fine form here.

Looks like Holcomb wasn't aware of a lot of Ennis' shady dealings, but seems prepared to escalate things to cover his ass.  Uh oh!

Virgil's reaction to the dentures was gold.  Jefferson Mays really can make the most of his screen time.

Barnes continues to be a dick, but also still be a master at having almost everyone eating out of the palm of his hand.

Sister Alice continues to full commit to the "resurrect Charlie" prediction, although Mother is already preparing to make a run for it, if/when the shit goes down!

Perry's confrontation with the judge and then meltdown in the car was some of Matthew Rhys best work here, and that's really saying something.

[LoveLeigh]

5 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Sister Alice continues to full commit to the "resurrect Charlie" prediction, although Mother is already preparing to make a run for it, if/when the shit goes down!

That has to have something to do with the main plot. I am starting to think maybe it was not even Charlie who was killed. Seriously. 

[Dminches]

9 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

This episode was the most difficult to follow so far. I think after about 3 more viewings, I will understand what's going on. 

Same here.  I am confused about the land ownership and deeds and why that is relevant to the case.  I also don't fully get why the church has anything to do with this unless they wanted the child murdered so he could be resurrected (which clearly isn't the case).

 

[Chicago Redshirt]

Some thoughts about the trial stuff, though again through a modern lens:

Barnes gave a two-hour opening statement, of which we mercifully only saw a few minutes. Holy cow, is that incredibly long! An opening is supposed to lay out the ecvidence the jury can expect to hear and an outline for the theory of the case, which Barnes did. But he also personally attacked Perry, which is a no-no. You can attack an opponent's positions but rarely should you show disrespect to the attorneys themselves. 

Perhaps that's why Perry had the yips in giving his opening statement. His opening should have been pretty simple: Emily is innocent. All the prosecution's evidence is innuendo and circumstance (as he told Lupe). All she is guilty of is an affair. George Gannon betrayed her. She had no way of knowing that her lover had plotted to kidnap her son behind her back. They have love letters from Emily to George, but they don't have  a single letter indicating that she knew about the kidnapping plot. They don't have testimony  from a single witness who could back their theory that Emily conspired with George. There's no evidence that she was in on this plot because she was not in on this plot. The prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing beyond a reasonable doubt here is that they have put a weak case against a grieving mother. Ladies and gentlemen, after all the evidence is in, I will ask you to return the proper verdict in this case, a verdict of not guilty. Thank you.

Perry hit on much of that, but with less of the punch that he -- or really any random person who's somewhat glib -- should have mustered.

In real-life lawyering, it would be rare for the prosecution or defense to bring a witness that the other side had not even heard of. There is a process of sharing information with the other side called discovery, and each side is supposed to be fair and share some level of information about what they areplanning to use.

Because of Hollywood, both sides withheld information from each other that in a real-life trial they should have shared. Barnes apparently withheld both the motel owner's testimony and the jail matron's testimony. Perry withheld the dentures from Gannon. The dentures are important because they show the theory of "Gannon committed suicide" to be false and the police work to be shoddy. If someone else killed Gannon who clearly was not Emily Dodson, and if the police didn't pick up on that, how can you trust them when they are trying to say it's Emily Dodson now? If the dentures fit, you must acquit, to turn a phrase.  

Credit to the prosecution: they did a smart job of picking their first and last witnesses. The prevailing theory is that juries will remember best the first and last witnesses in a case. Matthew Dodson as the grieving father was a natural choice for the first one. I sometimes wish a court show would go into the full testimony of a key witness like him, but realize that to do a fully representative version would probably take up much of an episode. Perry's cross of him was pretty good. It put in the jury's mind several things: Matthew is a liar (so he could be lying here on the stand). Matthew was suspected by the police (so he could have been an alternate suspect). Charges against Matthew were dropped (so it's entirely possible that the police continue to get it wrong). But he allowed it to end on a sour note where Matthew stated that he did not know if the child was his. I think that outburst may prove to be telling. Perhaps Charlie is not the biological child of Matthew and Emily.

The motel owner's testimony: I'd like to think that it probably should have been excluded. First, it should have been excluded because of the discovery violation. But second, the notion that someone did something bad in the past should not be used as evidence that they committed a crime. 

The ethical dilemma Perry faced over whether to betray Paul or betray Emily was interesting. The way that Paul and Perry attempted to get around it was a valiant attempt at having their cake and eating it too. In real life, that sort of gambit wouldn't have worked because pieces of physical evidence would never be turned over to the defense like that. The state would produce photos of the physical evidence and let the defense examine it, but they would never let it out of their custody.

Virgil getting saved by the bell! I'm assuming that the fact of the stitching being post-mortem will have some significance.

As to the jail matron, it was pretty sloppy for Perry to get caught flatfooted that she was going to testify that Emily "confessed." And sloppy for E.B. to not ensure that any discussions between Emily and Sister Alice were private so as to not destroy the privilege. I can't remember back to the episode where it happened if the matron was testifying truthfully (but with a lack of context that Emily's guilt was metaphorical) or if she was straight up perjuring herself. I think it was the former. It would have been interesting to see Perry attempt to come back by cross-examining the matron.

Barnes upping the charges from conspiracy to actual murder is a form of sandbagging that at least modern courts would never allow. 

One of the things the show hasn't discussed is whether Emily is going to have to testify in her own defense. I think that there'd be little choice in this case. She needs to take the stand and say that she made a terrible mistake of loving the wrong person but had nothing to do with the kidnapping.

6 hours ago, Annber03 said:

Aw, Paul being so protective of Clara and their soon-to-be baby. I hope they all make it through this mess okay. 

I am purely speculating, but I am super afraid that Clara will be fridged, and Peter's chances of surviving the season don't look particularly good either. I think that you don't put a pregnant woman in your drama, hint she is potentially in danger, and then have a happy ending for her. I think Pete needs to be gone by season's end to establish the classic Perry-Della-Paul trio.

6 hours ago, scrb said:

 

He would say or ask questions which he knew would be stricken.

Then the blowups in the judges chambers.

Seem to be like a veteran lawyer pushing the boundaries in a calculated way, not a new lawyer trying his first case.

Judge gave him a long leash.

Not sure what evidence of church corruption has to do with the case unless Perry is able to show ties between the church elder, Ennis and some of the kidnappers.  Is that going to be it, because that would be a little too pat.

Church has plenty of money, Ennis and the other detectives are on the take, so money as motive for kidnapping gone wrong seems weak.

Rampant corruption in the LAPD, maybe he whole justice system, but that’s a lot to tackle in a first case.

But that’s better than Emily believing the baby will be resurrected and that she will be freed.

 

I think you're giving Perry way too much credit. Merely cursing in front of a judge even in chambers, let alone cursing at him, let alone accusing him of being unfair, is a mistake that not even a rookie lawyer could be excused for making in the heat of passion. 

Gannon was apparently an accountant who was skimming from the church. As they alluded to in this episode, if Gannon was seeking the ransom money to help cover up the money he had been skimming, that pokes a hole in the prosecution's theory that Emily and George were working together to get the money so they could run away together. Depicting Gannon as the bad guy in and of itself might help put daylight between him and her. 

It may be pat, but there is apparently a connection between the church, Ennis and some of the kidnappers. This episode we found out that Elder Seidel was in Denver and a muckety-muck at a company that had employed at least one of the people involved in the plot. 

The thing about money is that people rarely say, "I'm good with just this amount of it, thanks." They generally want more. 

But also, it may be the motive isn't purely money, but covering up crimes that were committed to get money. We saw in this episode that Holcomb is apparently down with some murders in order to insulate him and Ennis from allegations of wrongdoing. (Although it very well could be a feint.)

[Chicago Redshirt]

34 minutes ago, Dminches said:

Same here.  I am confused about the land ownership and deeds and why that is relevant to the case.  I also don't fully get why the church has anything to do with this unless they wanted the child murdered so he could be resurrected (which clearly isn't the case).

 

Remember, the Radiant Assembly of God is not a monolith. The members have individual lives, individual access to the Church's money, prestige and power, and individual potential motives for setting up the kidnapping scheme. 

Sister Alice, her mother Birdy, Elder Seidel and others are not necessarily in alignment. Indeed, it sounds like there is a power struggle within the church.

I don't think we have yet enough information about the individual members to know what the full importance of the land ownership and deeds might be.

But it seems that the church (or certain members acting in their own interests but in the church's name) have bought huge tracts of land for pennies.  Keeping a dirty mlllion dollar (say) real estate deal quiet, or the corruption that was needed to make that deal quiet, is a possible motive. So is financing future dirty deals.

[Dminches]

Wouldn't it be obvious for Perry to question Sister Alice on the stand to refute the testimony that Emily confessed?

 

[paigow]

31 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Gannon was apparently an accountant who was skimming from the church. As they alluded to in this episode, if Gannon was seeking the ransom money to help cover up the money he had been skimming, that pokes a hole in the prosecution's theory that Emily and George were working together to get the money so they could run away together. Depicting Gannon as the bad guy in and of itself might help put daylight between him and her. 

It may be pat, but there is apparently a connection between the church, Ennis and some of the kidnappers. This episode we found out that Elder Seidel was in Denver and a muckety-muck at a company that had employed at least one of the people involved in the plot. 

Siedel was speculating on land values in Girard by stealing Radiant Assembly funds. J.H. was given a prime lot as payment.

Ennis says he was hired for the kidnapping, thereby proving the existence of a larger conspiracy and a new list of people that need killing.

[Chicago Redshirt]

30 minutes ago, Dminches said:

Wouldn't it be obvious for Perry to question Sister Alice on the stand to refute the testimony that Emily confessed?

 

Yes, presumably as part of the defense case, Perry is going to call Sister Alice to the stand. Also, because it would probably be a crime against screenwriting if Perry did not have a courtroom scene with Sister Alice.

It could cut in Emily's favor to have a glamorous, smart and charismatic woman explain that the matron was either lying or misinterpreting the testimony. But to paraphrase Perry, Sister Alice might think her presence helps but it might not.

Barnes's potential cross-examination of her should be brutal and diminish the effectiveness of what she says.

First, Sister Alice is obviously biased for Emily. She encouraged her church to put up the $25k bail money to get Emily free. Her church is paying Perry's  salary. Sister Alice has had Emily front and center at its services. And Sister Alice personally likes Emily. It will not be hard for Barnes to leave the jury with the impression that Sister Alice would lie or shade her testimony to favor Emily.

Second, Sister Alice gave that firebreathing sermon about how blessed be the prosecutor who would try the devil, blessed be the jury who would find the devil guilty, and what not. I wuld imagine that would get thrown back in Sister Alice's face. 

Third, Sister Alice has been going around saying that she is going to resurrect Charlie. A lot of jurors would write that off as anywhere between delusional and blasphemous. 

[TexasGal]

1 hour ago, Dminches said:

Same here.  I am confused about the land ownership and deeds and why that is relevant to the case.  I also don't fully get why the church has anything to do with this unless they wanted the child murdered so he could be resurrected (which clearly isn't the case).

 

I'm glad I'm not the only one.  And, who was the threatening man at the door when Perry got to the land Della found?  

[paigow]

1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one.  And, who was the threatening man at the door when Perry got to the land Della found?  

The mysterious J.H. - Co conspirator in a land speculation financed by funds stolen from the Radiant Assembly. He is no threat to Perry and seems ready to confess his sins.

Edited July 27, 2020 by paigow

[Chicago Redshirt]

26 minutes ago, TexasGal said:

I'm glad I'm not the only one.  And, who was the threatening man at the door when Perry got to the land Della found?  

That was the J.H. whose initials were in the ledger from the church and who Della linked to the land purchase.

[paigow]

Hazel wears gloves 24/7 because:

• Germaphobia
• Protect career as hand model
• Hide scars from previous jobs in bakery / chemical plant

Edited July 27, 2020 by paigow

[Nampara]

Episode 6 of Perry Mason proves the ironclad rule of neo-noir: It's always about real estate in the end. Especially in Los Angeles! Chinatown, The Two Jakes, L.A. Confidential, even Who Framed Roger Rabbit -- whether you're talking about water rights, development rights, or rights of way, at the bottom of the corruption is someone willing to do some killing to make a killing. (Nordic Noir has applied this principle with great glee, as seemingly every police department and/or mayoralty in Finland, Iceland, Sweden, etc., is populated by crooks in league with a sinister corporation trying to push through a new bridge, tunnel, port, casino, or complex of some kind.)

Mason will get to the bottom of whatever scam is being perpetrated here, of course. But there will be casualties along the way; let's hope more of them are bad guys rather than good guys.

Side comment: Emily should have informed Mason of her motel tryst, no doubt, but it makes him look awfully naive to be so thunderstruck about the revelation. Why does he think people have affairs? Just to exchange loopy love letters? Perhaps if he had interrogated her more aggressively about all her dealings with Gannon, he would have learned of this incident in advance.

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 minute ago, Nampara said:

Side comment: Emily should have informed Mason of her motel tryst, no doubt, but it makes him look awfully naive to be so thunderstruck about the revelation. Why does he think people have affairs? Just to exchange loopy love letters? Perhaps if he had interrogated her more aggressively about all her dealings with Gannon, he would have learned of this incident in advance.

Indeed, in previous episodes, there was no suggestion from Perry that the affair was confined to "stolen kisses." He more than once as I recall talked about her fucking George.

But privately thinking that they were doing it I suppose is different from knowing that at least one person could provide proof that they'd gone to a no-tell motel to bone and neglected innocent Charlie in the process. (Although that too may bring up a point -- why go to the no-tell motel when George has a home that they could have had their trysts in?)

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Some thoughts about the trial stuff, though again through a modern lens:

Barnes gave a two-hour opening statement, of which we mercifully only saw a few minutes. Holy cow, is that incredibly long! An opening is supposed to lay out the ecvidence the jury can expect to hear and an outline for the theory of the case, which Barnes did. But he also personally attacked Perry, which is a no-no. You can attack an opponent's positions but rarely should you show disrespect to the attorneys themselves. 

Perhaps that's why Perry had the yips in giving his opening statement. His opening should have been pretty simple: Emily is innocent. All the prosecution's evidence is innuendo and circumstance (as he told Lupe). All she is guilty of is an affair. George Gannon betrayed her. She had no way of knowing that her lover had plotted to kidnap her son behind her back. They have love letters from Emily to George, but they don't have  a single letter indicating that she knew about the kidnapping plot. They don't have testimony  from a single witness who could back their theory that Emily conspired with George. There's no evidence that she was in on this plot because she was not in on this plot. The prosecution has the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only thing beyond a reasonable doubt here is that they have put a weak case against a grieving mother. Ladies and gentlemen, after all the evidence is in, I will ask you to return the proper verdict in this case, a verdict of not guilty. Thank you.

Perry hit on much of that, but with less of the punch that he -- or really any random person who's somewhat glib -- should have mustered.

In real-life lawyering, it would be rare for the prosecution or defense to bring a witness that the other side had not even heard of. There is a process of sharing information with the other side called discovery, and each side is supposed to be fair and share some level of information about what they areplanning to use.

Because of Hollywood, both sides withheld information from each other that in a real-life trial they should have shared. Barnes apparently withheld both the motel owner's testimony and the jail matron's testimony. Perry withheld the dentures from Gannon. The dentures are important because they show the theory of "Gannon committed suicide" to be false and the police work to be shoddy. If someone else killed Gannon who clearly was not Emily Dodson, and if the police didn't pick up on that, how can you trust them when they are trying to say it's Emily Dodson now? If the dentures fit, you must acquit, to turn a phrase.  

Credit to the prosecution: they did a smart job of picking their first and last witnesses. The prevailing theory is that juries will remember best the first and last witnesses in a case. Matthew Dodson as the grieving father was a natural choice for the first one. I sometimes wish a court show would go into the full testimony of a key witness like him, but realize that to do a fully representative version would probably take up much of an episode. Perry's cross of him was pretty good. It put in the jury's mind several things: Matthew is a liar (so he could be lying here on the stand). Matthew was suspected by the police (so he could have been an alternate suspect). Charges against Matthew were dropped (so it's entirely possible that the police continue to get it wrong). But he allowed it to end on a sour note where Matthew stated that he did not know if the child was his. I think that outburst may prove to be telling. Perhaps Charlie is not the biological child of Matthew and Emily.

The motel owner's testimony: I'd like to think that it probably should have been excluded. First, it should have been excluded because of the discovery violation. But second, the notion that someone did something bad in the past should not be used as evidence that they committed a crime. 

The ethical dilemma Perry faced over whether to betray Paul or betray Emily was interesting. The way that Paul and Perry attempted to get around it was a valiant attempt at having their cake and eating it too. In real life, that sort of gambit wouldn't have worked because pieces of physical evidence would never be turned over to the defense like that. The state would produce photos of the physical evidence and let the defense examine it, but they would never let it out of their custody.

Virgil getting saved by the bell! I'm assuming that the fact of the stitching being post-mortem will have some significance.

As to the jail matron, it was pretty sloppy for Perry to get caught flatfooted that she was going to testify that Emily "confessed." And sloppy for E.B. to not ensure that any discussions between Emily and Sister Alice were private so as to not destroy the privilege. I can't remember back to the episode where it happened if the matron was testifying truthfully (but with a lack of context that Emily's guilt was metaphorical) or if she was straight up perjuring herself. I think it was the former. It would have been interesting to see Perry attempt to come back by cross-examining the matron.

Barnes upping the charges from conspiracy to actual murder is a form of sandbagging that at least modern courts would never allow. 

One of the things the show hasn't discussed is whether Emily is going to have to testify in her own defense. I think that there'd be little choice in this case. She needs to take the stand and say that she made a terrible mistake of loving the wrong person but had nothing to do with the kidnapping.

I am purely speculating, but I am super afraid that Clara will be fridged, and Peter's chances of surviving the season don't look particularly good either. I think that you don't put a pregnant woman in your drama, hint she is potentially in danger, and then have a happy ending for her. I think Pete needs to be gone by season's end to establish the classic Perry-Della-Paul trio.

I think you're giving Perry way too much credit. Merely cursing in front of a judge even in chambers, let alone cursing at him, let alone accusing him of being unfair, is a mistake that not even a rookie lawyer could be excused for making in the heat of passion. 

Gannon was apparently an accountant who was skimming from the church. As they alluded to in this episode, if Gannon was seeking the ransom money to help cover up the money he had been skimming, that pokes a hole in the prosecution's theory that Emily and George were working together to get the money so they could run away together. Depicting Gannon as the bad guy in and of itself might help put daylight between him and her. 

It may be pat, but there is apparently a connection between the church, Ennis and some of the kidnappers. This episode we found out that Elder Seidel was in Denver and a muckety-muck at a company that had employed at least one of the people involved in the plot. 

The thing about money is that people rarely say, "I'm good with just this amount of it, thanks." They generally want more. 

But also, it may be the motive isn't purely money, but covering up crimes that were committed to get money. We saw in this episode that Holcomb is apparently down with some murders in order to insulate him and Ennis from allegations of wrongdoing. (Although it very well could be a feint.)

Thank you, again, @Chicago Redshirt, for clarifying so much, both legal and other!
I'm guessing your familiarity with the legal process means you spend a little less mental bandwidth on that stuff and so are able to sort through the rest. Or you've got both legal knowledge and more mental bandwidth than the rest of us. 😉 

Especially helpful to me:

• "Gannon was apparently an accountant who was skimming from the church. As they alluded to in this episode, if Gannon was seeking the ransom money to help cover up the money he had been skimming, that pokes a hole in the prosecution's theory that Emily and George were working together to get the money so they could run away together. Depicting Gannon as the bad guy in and of itself might help put daylight between him and her." 

However, regarding:

• "Perry's cross of him [Matthew Dodson] was pretty good. ...But he allowed it to end on a sour note where Matthew stated that he did not know if the child was his. I think that outburst may prove to be telling. Perhaps Charlie is not the biological child of Matthew and Emily."

--I had a slightly different interpretation. I thought Perry deliberately ended the questioning when Matthew Dodson declared Charlie not his child, perhaps with ideas of how this could be used to leverage Emily's innocence. That is, if Matthew thinks Charlie isn't his, Matthew, who has gambling addiction and money problems, isn't going to want to support Charlie, whereas Charlie is Emily's child, and, at the time of Charlie's death, Emily was in love with Charlie's father, as evidenced by the love letters. 

 

[Jextella]

13 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

This episode was the most difficult to follow so far. I think after about 3 more viewings, I will understand what's going on. 

Glad I'm not alone.  It got convoluted fast. 

12 hours ago, Brian Cronin said:

This is such an outstanding cast. 

The cast and the periodic elements (set, costumes, culutural references) are really carrying this thing.  The writing is pretty shoddy in my non-professional opinion. 

11 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Not to mention that imitation of EB. I really like having EB basically the dad to two very different siblings who find themselves behaving in pretty stereotypical son/daughter ways after his death.

Also loved seeing Paul show up at Perry's door, just getting to be the guy in one of those scenes. And all things Pete. Just realized that Pete "played" Perry in his conversation and then later Perry played EB.

I love that Drake is African American and that they are referencing at least some of the challenges African Americans had (and continue to have).   

I would like for EB to have lived, but given that the show is about Perry, I suppose it was necessary that he had to go.  It seems he wasn't a good attorney and had he lived, he would have screwed Perry up more than anything.  Perry has to listen to his own instincts.

I really love the entire cast and would like very much for Perry's long-term team to consist of not only Della and Drake but also Pete Strickland.

I'm watching The Alienist on TNT and the showed two episodes per night the last two Sunday's.  I like to binge these kinds of shows - one episode a week isn't enough.  Two, however, seems to work for me.  it's enough of a motivation to carve out a few hours.  Otherwise, I skip and watch on demand or pass altogether and binge later.

I'd like to see Perry Mason come back but maybe in this vein - a limited series that comes back from with two hours per evening twice a year or something.

[tennisgurl]

Perry doing his EB impression was almost as good as Pete doing an impression of Perry. Also, you better get used to prosecuting from the defense table Perry, there is going to be a lot of that in your future. 

Perry might have struggled at first when he got to the courtroom, but he really does nail that "mad as hell and not gonna take it anymore" kind of speech. He is just so over getting the run around from everyone and this whole conspiracy and all of this bullshit, Matthew Rhys really nails the smoldering anger he feels over the injustice of it all, and then the massive explosions when he lets lose. 

I had no idea if he was going to throw Paul under the bus, but in retrospect I should have known he wouldn't. Even at his lowest, Perry was never the kind of guy who would break his word, especially when someone risked themselves to try and help. We already saw with Perry's war flashbacks that, to him, doing what is right sometimes means breaking rules and going against what the establishment says is right (mercy killing his fellow soldiers to spare them a long and painful death) so I think he can understand why Paul is doing what he is doing now. As the season goes on, we seem to be getting closer to the more traditional Perry Mason, albeit a darker version of it. Perry is a lawyer defending an innocent client, Della is getting stuff done, Paul is getting more and more disenchanted with the LAPD and closer to Perry and doing investigation with him, we already met Berger, Perry is starting to find his footing as a lawyer, etc. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, paigow said:

1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

And, who was the threatening man at the door when Perry got to the land Della found?  

The mysterious J.H. co conspirator in a land speculation financed by funds stolen from the Radiant Assembly. He is no threat to Perry and seems ready to confess his sins.

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

That was the J.H. whose initials were in the ledger from the church and who Della linked to the land purchase.

I must've missed these parts, and I don't have HBO access (DADT).  Hopefully the next episode will refresh our memories on this tidbit.

 

[Nampara]

18 minutes ago, Jextella said:

Glad I'm not alone.  It got convoluted fast. 

This is typically a trait of noir and neo-noir. When the film version of The Big Sleep was being produced, the filmmakers couldn't figure out whether a particular character had committed suicide or had been murdered. They asked Raymond Chandler, the author of the novel on which the movie was based, and even he didn't know!

[tennisgurl]

17 minutes ago, Nampara said:

This is typically a trait of noir and neo-noir. When the film version of The Big Sleep was being produced, the filmmakers couldn't figure out whether a particular character had committed suicide or had been murdered. They asked Raymond Chandler, the author of the novel on which the movie was based, and even he didn't know!

All you need to do is talk about real estate at some point, dont ask further questions about what exactly the evil plot is or who all was involved and to what extent and for what greater purpose. Forget it Jake, its noir. Really, its strange how much your typical noir story will often have in common with a Scooby Doo episode. A shocking number of mysteries end up being convoluted real estate schemes. 

[Roxie]

11 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Perry's confrontation with the judge and then meltdown in the car was some of Matthew Rhys best work here, and that's really saying something.

Yes, yes, yes!!! So good!

[scrb]

They should have had Drake explaining to his wife why he would cooperate with the defense, tell the truth about what he found.

Instead he shows up at Perry's house, says being bribed doesn't sit well with him.

Then you see him sending his pregnant wife away because he thinks she may be targeted.

Seems like he should have had the soul-searching discussion with the wife rather than someone he barely knows.

[shapeshifter]

3 minutes ago, scrb said:

They should have had Drake explaining to his wife why he would cooperate with the defense, tell the truth about what he found.

Instead he shows up at Perry's house, says being bribed doesn't sit well with him.

Then you see him sending his pregnant wife away because he thinks she may be targeted.

Seems like he should have had the soul-searching discussion with the wife rather than someone he barely knows.

I can imagine Drake had a conversation with his wife off-screen in preparation for her departure to a safe house of sorts. Based on the previous conversation between them, I would guess she preferred to know as little as possible, and Paul would probably be glad of that for her own protection.

[paigow]

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I can imagine Drake had a conversation with his wife off-screen in preparation for her departure to a safe house of sorts.

Paul: Honey, I got almost $300 for lying in court today, but you have to leave town because I am plotting against the guys that paid me

Carla: What???!!! You got $300?????

[sistermagpie]

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Because of Hollywood, both sides withheld information from each other that in a real-life trial they should have shared. Barnes apparently withheld both the motel owner's testimony and the jail matron's testimony. Perry withheld the dentures from Gannon. The dentures are important because they show the theory of "Gannon committed suicide" to be false and the police work to be shoddy. If someone else killed Gannon who clearly was not Emily Dodson, and if the police didn't pick up on that, how can you trust them when they are trying to say it's Emily Dodson now? If the dentures fit, you must acquit, to turn a phrase.  

Maybe I'm forgetting, but was he pretending that the dentures came from evidence everybody allegedly already had so he wasn't supposed to be hiding it from the other side?

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

As to the jail matron, it was pretty sloppy for Perry to get caught flatfooted that she was going to testify that Emily "confessed." And sloppy for E.B. to not ensure that any discussions between Emily and Sister Alice were private so as to not destroy the privilege. I can't remember back to the episode where it happened if the matron was testifying truthfully (but with a lack of context that Emily's guilt was metaphorical) or if she was straight up perjuring herself. I think it was the former. It would have been interesting to see Perry attempt to come back by cross-examining the matron.

IIRC, Emily never said she had done those things to Charlie, so that was just an outright lie.

8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I am purely speculating, but I am super afraid that Clara will be fridged, and Peter's chances of surviving the season don't look particularly good either. I think that you don't put a pregnant woman in your drama, hint she is potentially in danger, and then have a happy ending for her. I think Pete needs to be gone by season's end to establish the classic Perry-Della-Paul trio.

Really hope both of them live, but Clara seems like she has more of a chance.

 

5 hours ago, Nampara said:

Side comment: Emily should have informed Mason of her motel tryst, no doubt, but it makes him look awfully naive to be so thunderstruck about the revelation. Why does he think people have affairs? Just to exchange loopy love letters? Perhaps if he had interrogated her more aggressively about all her dealings with Gannon, he would have learned of this incident in advance.

Yeah, the only way I make it work is that he was furious--and rightfully so--that she didn't tell there was a witness to the fucking. So he let her get away with pretending she just kissed the guy no matter if they both knew better, but not telling him somebody walked in on them was ridiculous.

4 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

I had no idea if he was going to throw Paul under the bus, but in retrospect I should have known he wouldn't. Even at his lowest, Perry was never the kind of guy who would break his word, especially when someone risked themselves to try and help. We already saw with Perry's war flashbacks that, to him, doing what is right sometimes means breaking rules and going against what the establishment says is right (mercy killing his fellow soldiers to spare them a long and painful death) so I think he can understand why Paul is doing what he is doing now. As the season goes on, we seem to be getting closer to the more traditional Perry Mason, albeit a darker version of it. Perry is a lawyer defending an innocent client, Della is getting stuff done, Paul is getting more and more disenchanted with the LAPD and closer to Perry and doing investigation with him, we already met Berger, Perry is starting to find his footing as a lawyer, etc. 

I like how it doesn't seem to be so much about "my word" and "honor" (so traditionally he-man) as it is that he really has trouble hurting somebody when they're down. The closest he came was in yelling at Emily, but even that was really him yelling at her the way you would yell at a toddler that ran into the street. He's afraid for her and she just got herself in trouble.

In general, I like that even though Perry can be cranky and yell, this isn't one of those House situations where he gets to treat everyone like crap because he's the genius and they all have a soft spot for him anyway. They expect respect and get it, even if he sometimes gets mad.

3 hours ago, scrb said:

They should have had Drake explaining to his wife why he would cooperate with the defense, tell the truth about what he found.

Instead he shows up at Perry's house, says being bribed doesn't sit well with him.

Then you see him sending his pregnant wife away because he thinks she may be targeted.

Seems like he should have had the soul-searching discussion with the wife rather than someone he barely knows.

Presumably he did have that scene with his wife, but it was far more important for us to see the scene with Perry because that's the relationship that's being formed here. His decision isn't just about his own feelings--that's the main reason he's doing it, but Perry also kept his word on the stand and he did it because he recognizes that Drake and he are alike, so Drake needed to have a scene with Perry where they team up. We'd, imo, seen enough with his wife to know that he wouldn't just do this thing and then come home and bundle her up like a child. We really already had the scene last week when she told him she supported anything he might do.

[Nampara]

9 minutes ago, paigow said:

Carla: What???!!! You got $300?????

$300 (1932 USD) = $5.6k (2020 USD).

[scrb]

Drake said that he was only expected to police people of color, that he couldn't arrest white suspects, that he was lower than white suspects.

A few episodes ago, he said he could kill Mason because of the badge he had.

Contradiction.

[sistermagpie]

13 minutes ago, scrb said:

Drake said that he was only expected to police people of color, that he couldn't arrest white suspects, that he was lower than white suspects.

A few episodes ago, he said he could kill Mason because of the badge he had.

Contradiction.

He didn't have to tell Perry the absolute truth when trying to frighten him. He was bluffing and probably had no idea how exactly it would work out if he'd killed him--he had no intention of finding out. Emotionally it makes sense to be more honest now anyway, both with Perry and with himself. For a long time he's convinced himself his position is better than it is.

[shapeshifter]

59 minutes ago, scrb said:

Drake said that he was only expected to police people of color, that he couldn't arrest white suspects, that he was lower than white suspects.

A few episodes ago, he said he could kill Mason because of the badge he had.

Contradiction.

Out of context, the 2 pieces of dialogue certainly are contradictory. But Drake was pretty much given by those LAPD officers a blessing to arrange an extra-judicial killing of Mason if it somehow happened, so I interpreted Drake’s “because of the badge” to be a reference to TPTB in the Department represented by the badge. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by shapeshifter

[LoveLeigh]

By the way, when Perry Mason stood to make his opening statement and kept fumbling and coughing it looked to me like Matthew Rhys was trying to stifle his laughter and so did the spectators like Sister look like she was about to crack up laughing. I would love to know how many takes that took because they could not control the hysterical laughing. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by DakotaLavender

[Chicago Redshirt]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Thank you, again, @Chicago Redshirt, for clarifying so much, both legal and other!
I'm guessing your familiarity with the legal process means you spend a little less mental bandwidth on that stuff and so are able to sort through the rest. Or you've got both legal knowledge and more mental bandwidth than the rest of us. 😉 

Especially helpful to me:

• "Gannon was apparently an accountant who was skimming from the church. As they alluded to in this episode, if Gannon was seeking the ransom money to help cover up the money he had been skimming, that pokes a hole in the prosecution's theory that Emily and George were working together to get the money so they could run away together. Depicting Gannon as the bad guy in and of itself might help put daylight between him and her." 

However, regarding:

• "Perry's cross of him [Matthew Dodson] was pretty good. ...But he allowed it to end on a sour note where Matthew stated that he did not know if the child was his. I think that outburst may prove to be telling. Perhaps Charlie is not the biological child of Matthew and Emily."

--I had a slightly different interpretation. I thought Perry deliberately ended the questioning when Matthew Dodson declared Charlie not his child, perhaps with ideas of how this could be used to leverage Emily's innocence. That is, if Matthew thinks Charlie isn't his, Matthew, who has gambling addiction and money problems, isn't going to want to support Charlie, whereas Charlie is Emily's child, and, at the time of Charlie's death, Emily was in love with Charlie's father, as evidenced by the love letters. 

 

You're welcome!

It's possible that it was strategy on Perry's part. But to me, it shows a lack of control of the witness. A couple of old lawyer maxims: Never ask a question you don't already know the answer to, and never end an examination on an awkward note. By my thinking, Perry failed on both accounts.

I imagine that if we do get a closing argument from Perry, he might try to throw Matthew under the bus like you suggest. But I doubt that he meant to do that. 

4 hours ago, scrb said:

They should have had Drake explaining to his wife why he would cooperate with the defense, tell the truth about what he found.

Instead he shows up at Perry's house, says being bribed doesn't sit well with him.

Then you see him sending his pregnant wife away because he thinks she may be targeted.

Seems like he should have had the soul-searching discussion with the wife rather than someone he barely knows.

He could have had the soul-searching discussion off-screen with the wife.

Or it could be that he didn't have that discussion with the wife because of sexism, or because it's not something she herself would understand.

Or it could be that she did have a discussion that was shown previously where she told him to do what he thought was right and not just what made financial sense. So perhaps the writers felt it would be too redundant to have another one/it did not need to happen because she already gave him the green light to do what he wanted.

39 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Maybe I'm forgetting, but was he pretending that the dentures came from evidence everybody allegedly already had so he wasn't supposed to be hiding it from the other side?

IIRC, Emily never said she had done those things to Charlie, so that was just an outright lie.

 

With Paul's urging, Perry pretended the dentures were in the discovery materials that the prosecution turned over to him. So Perry was already supposed to have turned the dentures over and didn't, and then lied about the origins of the dentures in an attempt to get them into evidence.

Emily had an on-screen conversation with Sister Alice in Episode 3. That was the same episode where she seemingly pled "guilty" and was depressed as hell.

Looking at some of the recaps, it looks to me like the matron recalled accurately what the conversation was but was ignorant of the nuance behind it.

https://thespool.net/reviews/tv/2020/07/perry-mason-chapter-three-recap-go-ask-sister-alice/

Emily is in jail, where she’s visited by Sister Alice (Tatiana Maslany). Sister Alice assures Emily that she was misled by wicked men and that any woman could be there in her place, even Sister Alice herself. Emily waves this away but Alice is insistent that she knows about being lied to. Emily says that she killed her son, but when Sister Alice asks her directly if she murdered him, Emily admits that she did not but feels responsible. Sister Alice isn’t here for that, however, telling Emily that “bad men did that” and that Emily cannot and should not take on the sins of said men.

 

33 minutes ago, scrb said:

Drake said that he was only expected to police people of color, that he couldn't arrest white suspects, that he was lower than white suspects.

A few episodes ago, he said he could kill Mason because of the badge he had.

Contradiction.

Possible resolutions/explanations:

1. He was selling wolf tickets to Perry and/or speaking out of anger when he got the N-word thrown in his direction when he bragged that he could kill him because of the badge, knowing all along that he really could not, and finally came clean in the latter conversation with Perry about how limited his authority really was.

2. He honestly believed that he could get away with murdering Perry as a LAPD officer when he made the original statement, but his experiences between when he had that conversation and when he had the one in this episode (including getting kicked off the Santa Monica beach because of "overcrowding" and getting paid off for being a good boy) made him realize that the LAPD didn't have his back or only had it when he toed the line.

3. Although he was generally not supposed to do anything beyond policing other minorities, he still was right to believe that when it comes to something as serious as killing someone, even a white person, LAPD would have his back and the only color it would see is blue.

4. Although Drake generally was not able to police white people, Perry was so hated by LAPD (or at least, by some of the right people in the right places at LAPD) that Drake could get away with killing him specifically (but not white people in general).

5. Paul was right to think that he could kill Mason or any other white man as a LAPD officer and was wrong/exaggerating/overly sensitive when he said that he was considered lower than a white murderer.

I don't think we saw enough of Paul interacting with white people to tell what's what for sure. But IMO, the fact that the precinct commander tossed him a fat wad of cash suggests that as a "credit to his race"/precinct, he has gotten some level of acceptance. And there is at least one cop in Ennis who would be perfectly fine if Mason took a dirt nap, whether it was at the hands of Paul or someone else.

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Looking at some of the recaps, it looks to me like the matron recalled accurately what the conversation was but was ignorant of the nuance behind it.

But the part where she lied, I thought, was that she said when Sister Alice asked her if she put a pillow over his face etc. Emily said yes, I did when really she at least nodded that no, she didn't.

[scrb]

Drake's wife is the one who encouraged him not to make waves and risk losing his job.

So you'd think she'd be against him taking risks when they're about to have their first child.

[Starchild]

7 hours ago, Jextella said:

I would like for EB to have lived, but given that the show is about Perry, I suppose it was necessary that he had to go.  It seems he wasn't a good attorney

The sense that I got was that E.B. used to be a very good attorney, but had begun to falter in the last few years.

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

But the part where she lied, I thought, was that she said when Sister Alice asked her if she put a pillow over his face etc. Emily said yes, I did when really she at least nodded that no, she didn't.

I had started a rewatch of earlier episodes to see if I could pick up on anything that didn't seem significant on first glance, as well as general enjoyment.

I was about to rewatch Ch. 3, so I will try to pay particular attention to a) what was said between Sister Alice and Emily b) what (if anything) they show us of the matron's presence and c) whether it's possible/plausible the matron's testimony is true, perjury, a reasonable misunderstanding or what.

33 minutes ago, scrb said:

Drake's wife is the one who encouraged him not to make waves and risk losing his job.

So you'd think she'd be against him taking risks when they're about to have their first child.

There was also, though, a scene where Clara came back and endorsed the idea of him doing whatever he thought was right. Now she may not have fully understood that doing what he thought was right might have her, the baby, or Paul end up in the hospital or the morgue....but anyway she came around to the position that Paul is on, that sometimes there's more important things than financial security, even in the face of the Great Depression.

22 minutes ago, Starchild said:

The sense that I got was that E.B. used to be a very good attorney, but had begun to falter in the last few years.

The impression that I have is that E.B. was great at salesmanship but not particularly good at being an attorney.

1. He violated his clients' trust back in the day, committing just about the only unforgiveable sin for attorneys in stealing money from them.

2. His business isn't particularly successful, and as far as we know, never has been. Indeed, from No. 1, his failure as an attorney/businessperson put him in a position where he had to steal to stay afloat.

3. He doesn't seem to have the respect of successful lawyers like Barnes or the other one at the frou-frou club.

4. He is a solo shop with no other actual lawyers working under him. 

5. Della seems to be doing a whole chunk of his work for him, and we are told that his filing systems predating her were a mess.

6. His funeral was not that of someone considered well-respected in the legal community.

7. I don't remember any comments from any actual lawyers or scenes to suggest that he was actually a strong lawyer rather than a nice and charming one.

[Jextella]

On 7/27/2020 at 6:32 PM, Starchild said:

The sense that I got was that E.B. used to be a very good attorney, but had begun to falter in the last few years.

I may have glossed over it (I'll have to rewatch), but what led to EB's downfall? I know money was an issue, but why?  Did he gamble, spend excessively, etc.?  Anything else?  

Edited July 30, 2020 by Jextella

[LoveLeigh]

21 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

This episode was the most difficult to follow so far. I think after about 3 more viewings, I will understand what's going on. 

OK, I am still confused. Will somebody please explain to me why Holcomb turned on Ennis, how specifically George was stealing from the church, how Baggerly was involved, what the paper was that Stella wanted with Baggerly's name on it, and who was the guy at the end whose house Perry Mason drove to. This stuff about deeds and plots got me all confused and put my brain into a fog. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by DakotaLavender

[Chicago Redshirt]

47 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I may have glossed over it (I'll have to rewatch), but what led to EB's downfall? I know money was an issue, but whya?  Did he gamble, spend excessively, etc.?  Anything else?  

Barnes confronted him with a file that said that he had played fast and loose with client funds. He conceded that it was true but semi-justified it by saying everyone did it because times were tight.

Note to any aspiring lawyers or non-lawyers: "Everyone does it" is not going to work out very well for you as a defense in most cases. And in the case of lawyers screwing around with their clients' money, you literally would be more likely to get reinstated as a lawyer if you committed murder.

Betraying his clients' financial interests would have led to certain disbarrment and humiliation if it became public. So Barnes gave him the choice between that or pleading Emily out. Seeing no outs, E.B. committed suicide.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Chicago Redshirt

[Jextella]

3 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Barnes confronted him with a file that said that he had played fast and loose with client funds. He conceded that it was true but semi-justified it by saying everyone did it because times were tight.

Note to any aspiring lawyers or non-lawyers: "Everyone does it" is not going to work out very well for you as a defensein most cases. And in the case of lawyers screwing around with their clients' money, you literally would be more likely to get reinstated as a lawyer if you committed murder.

Betraying his clients' financial interests would have led to certain disbarrment and humiliation if it became public. So Barnes gave him the choice between that or pleading Emily out. Seeing no outs, E.B. committed suicide.

Thank you!  Did you get the impression that EB was a good lawyer?

[UnknownK]

30 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I may have glossed over it (I'll have to rewatch), but what led to EB's downfall? I know money was an issue, but whya?  Did he gamble, spend excessively, etc.?  Anything else?  

He took money from clients funds and then paid them back at a later date without their knowledge.