S01.E06: Chapter 6

[Chicago Redshirt]

6 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

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. 

All this is extrapolated from what we've seen. But I freely admit that I may have jumped to the wrong conclusions and/or might have gotten some of the underlying facts not quite right:

Holcomb and Ennis were partners in all sorts of standard LAPD corruption -- kickbacks from businesses, hookups at the brothel and the like. But Ennis was hired by whoever the mastermind(s) is/are behind the Charlie kidnapping, and did not tell Holcomb about it. Ennis was first detective on the scene at the Charlie kidnapping and the murder of the co-conspirators in the Charlie kidnapping because he was involved in both. Ennis also paid off the watch commander (in other words, one of his cop bosses) so that he and Holcomb could handle the Charlie kidnapping instead of the detectives who were scheduled to handle it. Ennis did all this because he wanted to control these crime scenes and cover up his involvement. Mason and co. know Ennis has done all this and find it fishy (as well they should). Barnes (the D.A.) somehow knows that Mason and co. know this and wanted to prepare Ennis to testify. Normally, the lead detectives behind a murder are going to testify every time. As we saw in this episode, Ennis was a combination of utterly unready to testify, unwilling to learn  and unconvincing. Holcomb is smart enough to know just how suspicious it is that someone just happened to be the first detective on scene at two different crime scenes and that Ennis bribed his way to handle the Charlie murder. So that's why he goes to Ennis's home and confronts him in the garage. Holcomb makes a distinction between the typical corruption that they are up to and murder. Ennis basically admits that he was hired to do the job of killing the conspirators in the Charlie kidnapping/murder, and points out that Holcomb is tied to his fortunes as the lead partner on the scenes. In other words, no one is going to believe Ennis is dirty but Holcomb is clean. So Holcomb asked Ennis to name who else knows about Ennis's involvement.  It's entirely possible that Holcomb has signed on to Ennis's corruption train or that Holcomb is going to have a heel-face turn. We'll see.

George was writing checks to himself under the guise of being a corporation. We know this because the corporation and his home were the exact same address and the checks were rubber-stamped with the signature of someone from the church. The discovery of that fraud led Perry and Della to want to look at the church's books for more evidence of irregularity. When they looked in addition to seeing GG (George Gannon) signing off on the phony corporation, they also saw initials for a "JH" that signed off on some expenditures, and they were told that the church has a whole bunch of corporations that it invests in. Della used that as a cue to go and see what else is going on with the church's finances. Della goes and asks for any of the corporations that are affiliated with the church and pores over those records. 

Her sleuthing comes up with documentation that there is a corporation that lists Baggerly as the chairman and a person with the initials "JH" as one of the officers. That corporation has been engaged in land purchases on the cheap. Perry goes to investigate and drives to JH's home. The person with the shotgun who recognizes Perry as Emily's lawyer is JH. 

[LoveLeigh]

7 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

All this is extrapolated from what we've seen. But I freely admit that I may have jumped to the wrong conclusions and/or might have gotten some of the underlying facts not quite right

Thank-you! Your summary really helped. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by DakotaLavender

[sistermagpie]

51 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?  

I thought from his behavior that while he may have borrowed and repaid clients funds in the past, which is stealing, he often lost money because he wanted to help his clients. Like he wanted to get money to pay Emily's bail. It just doesn't seem possible that he didn't at base have a loyalty to his clients given the team he's created. He also helped out Perry. So I think his real problem was that he was a bit of a soft touch in probably many ways. Perry and Della are cannier versions of him who are more street smart.

[LoveLeigh]

Is it possible Sister's mother is involved in any of this? 

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours 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.

OK, now having rewatched it, here's a summary of what happens. Emily says clearly that "I killed my baby." That starts an uproar where another woman in the cell says she knew Emily did it. Sister Alice tells her to shut up and that Emily is innocent. The original woman says she too is innocent. Sister Alice shushes her and then goes into the litany of things that she didn't really do (kidnap her baby, put a pillow over his face, stitch his eyes open for a bag of money) Emily does not speak but shakes her head no. Then Sister Alice starts to talk about how bad men did that and Emily no more killed her baby than Sister Alice did. Emily starts to shake her head yes. It is about then that the matron shows up and runs her baton across the bars and tells them to pipe down because they are exciting the populace.

So Emily never says verbally "yes." to those questions.

It could be that the matron is straight-up lying knowing that Emily never said yes out loud. It could be that the matron caught the head-shake yes and misinterpreted that as "Yes" to having killed her baby, especially when she "admitted" killing her baby earlier. It could be that the matron honestly believes there was a verbal "Yes" because her memory is fallible.

1 hour ago, Jextella said:

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

You're welcome! My impression was that EB wasn't particularly good but I'm open to evidence to the contrary.

51 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Thank-you! Your summary really helped. 

You're welcome!

51 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I thought from his behavior that while he may have borrowed and repaid clients funds in the past, which is stealing, he often lost money because he wanted to help his clients. Like he wanted to get money to pay Emily's bail. It just doesn't seem possible that he didn't at base have a loyalty to his clients given the team he's created. He also helped out Perry. So I think his real problem was that he was a bit of a soft touch in probably many ways. Perry and Della are cannier versions of him who are more street smart.

I don't think there is any may about it. He stole clients' funds and although he ultimately repaid those funds he doesn't deserve a lot of slack IMO.

I am probably being harsher than most might be on EB because he committed two things that I find hardest to forgive -- theft from a client and suicide.

Intellectually, I have to concede that it's possible to be a great lawyer and a poor businessman, and maybe that was EB's issue. Or maybe it's that he was playing Robin Hood and taking funds from rich clients to give to poor clients or what not. We haven't been shown or told, really.

But I also think it's possible to be loyal to some people while being disloyal to others. 

49 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

Is it possible Sister's mother is involved in any of this? 

The vibe that the show has given me, at least, is that Sister's mother, Birdy, does not believe in any of the religion aspect and is just using it as an efficient vehicle to part the gullible from their cash. What I took from the arrangements she has made is that she has stuffed many of those suitcases with cash so that come Easter Sunday, they won't have to face the music that Sister Alice obviously can't resurrect Charlie. It seems possible that she has any sort of involvement in the corruption with the church, with George Gannon, etc. My personal thought is a) she's almost too obviously a red herring to be considered a suspect in the murder and b) because of the time being the 1930s, there is a limited chance of her personally being involved in the shady land dealings since that's man's stuff. 

[sistermagpie]

6 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't think there is any may about it. He stole clients' funds and although he ultimately repaid those funds he doesn't deserve a lot of slack IMO.

Sorry, I didn't mean "he may have stolen..." to imply that there was any doubt. I was using may to say that despite doing that, he seemed presented as someone who was loyal to clients and not someone who was screwing them over. (As in saying, "You may be a great lawyer, but you're a bad dresser" or something like that.) The fact that he took funds from clients is a fact, and there's no way to make that not a serious crime. One that didn't seem like it was supposed to be an act of desperation on his part, even if he did it to help another client. I can't remember if they established that he did this more than once, but he seemed to say that "everybody did it" so it wasn't so bad rather than suggest he did it to save a life or something.

All of which, to me, adds up to the guy we've seen--he does seem to have his heart in the right place for his clients, but he's from a different time and sees the world from a place of privilege. He considered himself entitled to do stuff like this and that there was a gentleman's agreement to not make a fuss over it.

 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Sorry, I didn't mean "he may have stolen..." to imply that there was any doubt. I was using may to say that despite doing that, he seemed presented as someone who was loyal to clients and not someone who was screwing them over. (As in saying, "You may be a great lawyer, but you're a bad dresser" or something like that.) The fact that he took funds from clients is a fact, and there's no way to make that not a serious crime. One that didn't seem like it was supposed to be an act of desperation on his part, even if he did it to help another client. I can't remember if they established that he did this more than once, but he seemed to say that "everybody did it" so it wasn't so bad rather than suggest he did it to save a life or something.

All of which, to me, adds up to the guy we've seen--he does seem to have his heart in the right place for his clients, but he's from a different time and sees the world from a place of privilege. He considered himself entitled to do stuff like this and that there was a gentleman's agreement to not make a fuss over it.

 

Sorry for misunderstanding.

But going back to Ch. 4, it's clear that E.B. did not just have a one-time slip up.

He meets with his former partner. who gives him a head's up that the D.A. was asking about their old dealings and the partner talks about "escrow juggling." That (presumably) would be shifting funds from one client's account to another to make sure that they might pass muster if they are inspected or if money needs to be drawn from them. 

When E.B. talks to Barnes, he puts forth the notion of them working together to find the fourth conspirator in exchange for the D.A. dropping charges against Emily Dodson. He bluffs having proof of the fourth conspirator in his suitcase but that he won't reveal it because he has a duty to Emily Dodson.

The D.A. notices how smug E.B. is and then tears into him about the theft. Barnes asks E.B. about his duties to five specific former clients. The implication is, of course, that E.B. stole from each of them, at a minimum. Possibly others. E.B. at first denies it, then minimizes it as something everyone did during the War (so my bad, I think I misremembered this as being the Great Depression), and then gets angry and argues that Mason was correct that Barnes has no case, or otherwise Barnes wouldn't be squeezing him with this dirt. 

It's easy to sympathize (for most) with E.B., because he's charming and he's Perry and Della's mentor, and he's played by John Lithgow. But good people can make terrible mistakes, and terrible people can make a few good decisions. My thought as to where E.B. falls on the spectrum is not particularly charitable, but then I'm not sure if there's much he does that warrants charity. 

[kay1864]

 So George wasn’t behind the kidnapping? I thought he was getting the ransom money to cover his skimming  from the church. Not many people could know that Dodson had access to money.

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

 So George wasn’t behind the kidnapping? I thought he was getting the ransom money to cover his skimming  from the church. Not many people could know that Dodson had access to money.

George and two other men were all conspirators in the kidnapping. Ennis, one of the two detectives we've been seeing a lot of, killed the three of them at the behest of as-yet-unrevealed person or persons.

The notion that George was seeking the ransom money to cover his skimming was a theory that Perry threw out that may be true, may be false. The story seems to be leading us to believe that there is a link between the kidnapping and shady land deals that the church is involved in.

Presumably many of the named characters affiliated with the Radiant Assembly could have known that Dodson was a Baggerly and therefore had access to money. Baggerly, Matthew, Emily and George all knew. Any of those four could hypothetically have told any of the other church characters [Sister Alice; her mom, Birdy; Elder Brown and Elder Seidel]. 

 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

George was writing checks to himself under the guise of being a corporation. We know this because the corporation and his home were the exact same address and the checks were rubber-stamped with the signature of someone from the church. The discovery of that fraud led Perry and Della to want to look at the church's books for more evidence of irregularity. When they looked in addition to seeing GG (George Gannon) signing off on the phony corporation, they also saw initials for a "JH" that signed off on some expenditures, and they were told that the church has a whole bunch of corporations that it invests in. Della used that as a cue to go and see what else is going on with the church's finances. Della goes and asks for any of the corporations that are affiliated with the church and pores over those records. 

Her sleuthing comes up with documentation that there is a corporation that lists Baggerly as the chairman and a person with the initials "JH" as one of the officers. That corporation has been engaged in land purchases on the cheap. Perry goes to investigate and drives to JH's home. The person with the shotgun who recognizes Perry as Emily's lawyer is JH. 

Ah-ha! Thank you, @Chicago Redshirt. 
So. Speaking of land grabs “on the cheap,” is this Evil Corp. with ties to baby killing also linked to those who want to buy Perry’s family “farm”?

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

that was EB's issue. Or maybe it's that he was playing Robin Hood and taking funds from rich clients to give to poor clients or what not. We haven't been shown or told, really.

I thought rather than outright “stealing from the rich [clients] to give to the poor [clients]” that Robin Hood EB was *just* borrowing from his wealthier clients. Or was it EB’s intent to pay them back but he couldn’t? I’m pretty sure EB admitted something like that to whichever Evil Legal Dude (Barnes/Stephen Root?) was threatening EB with exposure of his improper financial finagling if EB didn’t throw Emily’s case —which precipitated EB’s suicide, right? Or did EB eventually go full-on Robin Hood? Maybe that’s why he stopped getting wealthy clients. But, if that was the case, wouldn’t Della know? And wouldn’t she put a stop to it?

If EB thought he could win Emily’s case and prove her innocence, EB would not have committed suicide, despite whatever health problems caused him to bleed in the earlier episode —at least not so long as he was needed. I’m guessing this will be mentioned again in the last 2 episodes, but maybe not. Regardless, EB’s suicide is comparable to Perry’s mercy killings on the battlefield. 

Edited July 28, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Nampara]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I thought rather than outright “stealing from the rich [clients] to give to the poor [clients]” that Robin Hood EB was *just* borrowing from his wealthier clients.

There's no such thing as borrowing from a client. First, taking out even an actual, documented personal loan from an individual client would be unethical. But the type of "borrowing" meant here is the practice of dipping into the client's funds that are managed by the lawyer (typically an escrow account), and then replacing those funds later to make the client whole. This too is flatly unethical, but it's also a crime. There's no form of embezzlement that is excused by the law merely because the theft is paid back soon afterward, although restitution may help mitigate the offense and reduce the criminal penalty. But that doesn't matter much for an attorney who faces disbarment.

Many solo practitioners or very small law firms have occasional cash flow problems, especially in tough times. These businesses are generally not heavily capitalized, so they depend on regular fee generation and collection to meet their operating expenses and to provide personal incomes for their owners, i.e., the firm's partners. E.B. was shown to enjoy both living and displaying a comfortable lifestyle, which he probably thought (a) he deserved and (b) was necessary to keep up the image of a successful attorney and generate new business. When he fell on temporary hard times, he clearly caved in to the financial pressures, some of which were self-imposed, and raided his clients' accounts.

[Chicago Redshirt]

7 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Ah-ha! Thank you, @Chicago Redshirt. 
So. Speaking of land grabs “on the cheap,” is this Evil Corp. with ties to baby killing also linked to those who want to buy Perry’s family “farm”?

YW! As far as I think we've seen, the only one who wants to buy Perry's farm is his friend-with-benefits, Lupe. And the only reason she wants to is to create a new runway for her next-door airport. I don't think anybody particularly would want to pick Mason's land up for any othe purpose. It's not very good in its current function as a dairy (but then, how can it be when the manager is spending all his time boozing and lawyering and private dicking?)

Evil Corp (and that reminds me that I need to go back and watch Mr. Robot one of these days, so thank you for that) seems to be intent on creating the Christian town of Girard that Baggerly referred to.

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I thought rather than outright “stealing from the rich [clients] to give to the poor [clients]” that Robin Hood EB was *just* borrowing from his wealthier clients. Or was it EB’s intent to pay them back but he couldn’t? I’m pretty sure EB admitted something like that to whichever Evil Legal Dude (Barnes/Stephen Root?) was threatening EB with exposure of his improper financial finagling if EB didn’t throw Emily’s case —which precipitated EB’s suicide, right? Or did EB eventually go full-on Robin Hood? Maybe that’s why he stopped getting wealthy clients. But, if that was the case, wouldn’t Della know? And wouldn’t she put a stop to it?

If EB thought he could win Emily’s case and prove her innocence, EB would not have committed suicide, despite whatever health problems caused him to bleed in the earlier episode —at least not so long as he was needed. I’m guessing this will be mentioned again in the last 2 episodes, but maybe not. Regardless, EB’s suicide is comparable to Perry’s mercy killings on the battlefield. 

I think it is pretty clear from what we were shown that E.B. robbed Peter to pay himself, then robbed Paul to pay back Peter, and maybe himself, etc. E.B. said that he paid them all back, and we have no reason not to take him at his word on that point. We don't really know if the clients he stole from were particularly wealthy or not. 

The basics of escrow: (and I'm not the sort of lawyer who has to deal with these issues, so this could be off) is that basically whenever someone takes on a paying client, they are supposed to set up an account separate from the firm's own money  to handle incoming and outgoing money on the client's behalf. Say E.B. represents someone in a simple slip=and-fall lawsuit and wins. The money from that victory should go into an escrow account and ultimately paid to the client. Say E.B. represents someone who is purchasing property. The money for the purchase might also be parked in an escrow account so that E.B. can get the purchase done. 

A lawyer owes a client an audit if the client wants one. But with enough clients and enough creative accounting, a lawyer could probably move funds from one account to their personal account without raising too many red flags.

It's possible that E.B. was also up to financial shennanigans for a more noble purpose than keeping his lights on. There's no particular reason IMO to think that he was but like sistermagpie said, he did seem to have a soft spot in some respects.

From what I'm gathering, all of E,B.'s shadiness happened before Della joined the firm. 

Suicide is a complicated topic. And one of the things I appreciated about this episode was Perry's outburst at where E.B.'s suicide left him. For my money, E.B. could have fought for Emily's innocence. He could have self-reported his actions to the Bar and thrown himself on their mercy. He could have called Barnes's bluff. He could have tried to weather the storm and either carry out her defense while the possible discipline/criminal charges were pending or advised another lawyer. Maybe without the specter of his suicide and with the power of his persuasion, Emily would have been able to find another attorney who would have worked as hard or better than E.B. and Perry. Of course, because it's Perry Mason and not Rando Other Attorney, we'll never know.

Edited July 28, 2020 by Chicago Redshirt

[paigow]

13 hours ago, DakotaLavender said:

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. 

Ennis betrayed the trust between partners by not asking Holcomb for permission to go beyond extortion. If they get caught, nobody would believe that Holcomb had no idea what his partner was doing.

George is not a lone wolf thief. He set up a fake agricultural equipment company that the church invested in. At minimum, Seidel, Baggerly and Jim Hicks [guy in house] are in on it.

Della has documents proving that Baggerly is Chairman of a struggling land development corporation set up by the church. Money would be funneled to the land company via agricultural company to disguise how badly it had failed.

Edited July 28, 2020 by paigow

[teddysmom]

I wonder if killing the baby was an accident, that they kidnapped him to get the money from Baggerly, and something happened? 

Why kill him, they had the money.  

I'm sad there are only 2 episodes left, but I figured after the way Chap 6 ended it was wrapping up. 

I don't want anything to happen to Pete.  I know Paul Drake ended up working for Perry, but I like Pete too.   

I just realized Juliet Ryland was on The Knick.  She is like Kim Wexler (Rhea Seahorn) on Better Call Saul, as far as just an amazing actress playing a character you would want to be friends with. 

[BradandJanet]

Emily's demeanor in the courtroom is bothering me. The attention is always on the defendant, and she at times looks smug or too casual, leaning on her elbow.  Maybe her belief that Charlie is going to reappear isn't helping, or maybe it's the actor's natural look. She's a female accused of a horrible crime in the 1930's, and she might do best by looking sad, pained, puzzled, and demure--all the expected stereotypes. I am curious how her outburst will play with the all-male jury. She showed anger but did get to deny the accusations. Even though a trial should be about the law, there's a lot of theater involved. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

1 minute ago, BradandJanet said:

Emily's demeanor in the courtroom is bothering me. The attention is always on the defendant, and she at times looks smug or too casual, leaning on her elbow.  Maybe her belief that Charlie is going to reappear isn't helping, or maybe it's the actor's natural look. She's a female accused of a horrible crime in the 1930's, and she might do best by looking sad, pained, puzzled, and demure--all the expected stereotypes. I am curious how her outburst will play with the all-male jury. She showed anger but did get to deny the accusations. Even though a trial should be about the law, there's a lot of theater involved. 

I might be wrong, but think there are one or two women on the jury. That struck me as potentially anachronistic, along with black audience members getting seats to the hottest ticket in town, but what do I know?

In Raymond Burr Perry Mason, the jury almost never came into play because Perry would force a confession out of the guilty party well before the prosecution had closed its case. 

[kay1864]

11 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

George and two other men were all conspirators in the kidnapping. Ennis, one of the two detectives we've been seeing a lot of, killed the three of them at the behest of as-yet-unrevealed person or persons.

 Until this episode, when Ennis revealed to his partner that there were TPTB, I thought he was just a crooked cop who wanted the ransom money for himself. Although how he found out about George & co. was unclear.

 The actor is playing Ennis so well that I really want to punch him out for being such a slimeball.

 Glad to discover that Perry actually owns and can use a razor! 😆

Edited July 28, 2020 by kay1864

[kay1864]

I wonder how George found out that Dodson was Baggerly’s son? Dodson didn’t tell Emily on the ride down, so she might not have known.  Didn’t she initially tell the detectives something like “we don’t have that kind of money“?

 I also wonder if George had feelings for Emily. Even if Charlie hadn’t died, it’s traumatic for a mother to endure a kidnapping.

 And who did the horrific eye-stitching?

[Chicago Redshirt]

2 hours ago, kay1864 said:

 Until this episode, when Ennis revealed to his partner that there were TPTB, I thought he was just a crooked cop who wanted the ransom money for himself. Although how he found out about George & co. was unclear.

Ennis is too much of a thug to have come up with the conspiracy on his own. 

Also, from the perspective of genre, they can't have the full reveal of who did the crime until towards the end.

2 hours ago, kay1864 said:

I wonder how George found out that Dodson was Baggerly’s son? Dodson didn’t tell Emily on the ride down, so she might not have known.  Didn’t she initially tell the detectives something like “we don’t have that kind of money“?

 I also wonder if George had feelings for Emily. Even if Charlie hadn’t died, it’s traumatic for a mother to endure a kidnapping.

 And who did the horrific eye-stitching?

My understanding from Barnes's press conference was that Emily wrote George about Matthew's connection to Baggerly in her love letters.

Presumably, Dodson told Emily once they were in L.A. about the connection.

The Dodsons don't have that kind of money. As far as we know, Baggerly has yet to just present them with a full supply of cash. He just bailed out Matthew for his gambling debts ($3k then, which is $50k in today's money) and paid the ransom. If I remember correctly, it was $100k, which would be more than $1.8 million in today's money.

[sistermagpie]

14 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

But going back to Ch. 4, it's clear that E.B. did not just have a one-time slip up.

Oh good--I didn't remember if it was clear, but that was my impression, that he was just doing it whenever he wanted to do it. He seemed to feel like it was unfair to even have it be brought up, as if he wasn't doing anything wrong.

12 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I thought rather than outright “stealing from the rich [clients] to give to the poor [clients]” that Robin Hood EB was *just* borrowing from his wealthier clients. Or was it EB’s intent to pay them back but he couldn’t? I’m pretty sure EB admitted something like that to whichever Evil Legal Dude (Barnes/Stephen Root?) was threatening EB with exposure of his improper financial finagling if EB didn’t throw Emily’s case —which precipitated EB’s suicide, right? Or did EB eventually go full-on Robin Hood? Maybe that’s why he stopped getting wealthy clients. But, if that was the case, wouldn’t Della know? And wouldn’t she put a stop to it?

I don't know the details as well as the poster above, but my impression is honestly that it wasn't the EB thought he was doing anything good by these shady dealings, but simply that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong because he was going to pay the clients back, it was a temporary setback etc. etc. (He basically seemed to be doing something similar to Lane Pryce on Mad Men, with similar reasons.)

But he's wrong. It caught up with him in a way that was really damaging to a vulnerable person he thinks is innocent. He couldn't be shady and then turn around and be righteous because he'd never made that demand on himself. Unlike Perry, for instance, who has more awareness of this sort of thing and is ready to take a few lumps for what he's done. Since the show is so focused on all these different kinds of cheating and corruption etc. it makes sense for EB to be part of that.

Another way that it reminds me of the Mad Men story--without getting into any specific spoilers as that show--is that in both cases embarrassment is a big motivation for the crime. EB probably wasn't desperate for money, but he didn't want anyone to know about his problems, so he tried to fix it in secret as if his money problems being exposed was worse than stealing the money since that crime would never be known, even to the client. Which would also connect to his suicide. He had no idea what would happen to Emily, reached his limit of disgust when he caught himself trying to convince her to plead guilty, so died rather than risk exposure. Della and Perry even instinctively thought that they should make it look like a natural death--something they needed to do for the insurance, but that wasn't the priority there either.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, teddysmom said:

I wonder if killing the baby was an accident, that they kidnapped him to get the money from Baggerly, and something happened? 

Why kill him, they had the money.

It is possible the baby died accidentally, maybe even by SIDS, which would be ironic, IMO. 
But since the baby was "illegitimately" conceived, and also therefore not a genetic descendant of Baggerly or Dodson, there are several "reasons" Baggerly or Dodson might wish the baby had never been born, and wish to snuff out its young life. 😞
But sewing the eyes open to fake that the baby was still alive seems to hint that the death was at least not part of the ransom plan.

 

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

That struck me as potentially anachronistic, along with black audience members

I was really startled and confused at the relatively large proportion of black people in the courtroom. It was too many to not be on purpose, but what does it signify? Like you(?), I did not think such integration would exist in the same geographic area where black people were run off of a beach and a black officer felt less than a white criminal.

[dramachick]

 

7 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I might be wrong, but think there are one or two women on the jury. That struck me as potentially anachronistic, along with black audience members getting seats to the hottest ticket in town, but what do I know?

Women were allowed to sit on juries at that time, although they were routinely excluded, as were black men. In this case, the women might be on the jury because it's a woman defendant.

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

I was really startled and confused at the relatively large proportion of black people in the courtroom. It was too many to not be on purpose, but what does it signify? Like you(?), I did not think such integration would exist in the same geographic area where black people were run off of a beach and a black officer felt less than a white criminal.

Black people have existed in public spaces during this time period and well before. It may look strange to some because historically, black people have been deliberately excluded from television and film canon. Example - Friends. It's only in very recent years that there have been routine depictions of black people living and working as part of society.

As to the number of black people shown, we've seen that the church has black members, who would logically want to watch the trial in addition to those in the general public. Black people were not barred from the courthouse. In fact, they were regulars there as members of their families and community were tried and convicted, often unjustly.

Being run off a beach (or neighborhood) for being black happens today.

Black police officers being treated worse than white criminals happens today.

 

Edited July 28, 2020 by dramachick

[LoveLeigh]

8 hours ago, BradandJanet said:

Emily's demeanor in the courtroom is bothering me. The attention is always on the defendant, and she at times looks smug or too casual, leaning on her elbow.  Maybe her belief that Charlie is going to reappear isn't helping, or maybe it's the actor's natural look. She's a female accused of a horrible crime in the 1930's, and she might do best by looking sad, pained, puzzled, and demure--all the expected stereotypes. I am curious how her outburst will play with the all-male jury. She showed anger but did get to deny the accusations. Even though a trial should be about the law, there's a lot of theater involved. 

Emily may be innocent but she is way f**cked up. Remember in jail when she screamed at her husband: "It wasn't like that." And then she gets caught in that motel with George.

I am not saying she was not entitled to have that affair and she loved George, but if she was going to scream at her husband, why make the yelling a denial? Why not just say: "At least he loved me." 

Edited July 28, 2020 by DakotaLavender
punctuation corrections

[Dminches]

23 hours 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.

That was before they got kicked off the beach.

 

[kay1864]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Ennis is too much of a thug to have come up with the conspiracy on his own. 

The Dodsons don't have that kind of money. 

 I don’t believe I said that Ennis did so—but rather that he somehow found out about it.

 Right—I had a memory of Emily being baffled as to why the kidnappers would ask them (of all people) for so much money.  I’d have to go back to see when Emily was shown to know about Baggerly.

Edited July 28, 2020 by kay1864

[Netfoot]

1 hour ago, dramachick said:

Being run off a beach (or neighborhood) for being black happens today.

Black police officers being treated worse than white criminals happens today.

Not in my country, it doesn't.

 

[shapeshifter]

17 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

Right—I had a memory of Emily being baffled as to why the kidnappers would ask them (of all people) for so much money

Yes. But now that you mention it, and now that we’ve seen Emily is a bit of a serial liar-by-omission, perhaps what she was really thinking when they were asked for such a large ransom was “Who knows we could raise that kind of money?!?“

22 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

I’d have to go back to see when Emily was shown to know about Baggerly.

Do let us know what you find!

[kay1864]

11 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

But now that you mention it, and now that we’ve seen Emily is a bit of a serial liar-by-omission

 She just has a very liberal interpretation of “stolen kisses“ 😆

[ruby24]

You know, I'm actually disappointed they made Della a lesbian in this, because since they never got to get together on the old show, I was hoping they might take the chance to do that in the new version (and Rhys and Rylance have good chemistry). Sigh.

[paigow]

20 minutes ago, ruby24 said:

You know, I'm actually disappointed they made Della a lesbian

Unencumbered by a complicated boss-subordinate "ship", Perry gets the period equivalent of a private corporate jet...now he can chase down evidence across the country...

Edited July 29, 2020 by paigow

[MrWhyt]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

But since the baby was "illegitimately" conceived, and also therefore not a genetic descendant of Baggerly or Dodson, there are several "reasons" Baggerly or Dodson might wish the baby had never been born, and wish to snuff out its young life. 

there is no evidence that proves that Charlie wasn't Dodson's son. 

[buckboard]

2 hours ago, ruby24 said:

You know, I'm actually disappointed they made Della a lesbian in this, because since they never got to get together on the old show, I was hoping they might take the chance to do that in the new version (and Rhys and Rylance have good chemistry). Sigh.

  There actually was a lot of fanfic about (Barbara Hale's) Della Street being a lesbian, based on nothing except wishful thinking.  

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, ruby24 said:

You know, I'm actually disappointed they made Della a lesbian in this, because since they never got to get together on the old show, I was hoping they might take the chance to do that in the new version (and Rhys and Rylance have good chemistry). Sigh.

Maybe, but I wish Perry had been characterized as a gay man as a nod to Burr and perhaps as an explanation for OG Perry Mason's apparent lack of attraction to women.

[cardigirl]

14 hours ago, ruby24 said:

You know, I'm actually disappointed they made Della a lesbian in this, because since they never got to get together on the old show, I was hoping they might take the chance to do that in the new version (and Rhys and Rylance have good chemistry). Sigh.

 

11 hours ago, buckboard said:

  There actually was a lot of fanfic about (Barbara Hale's) Della Street being a lesbian, based on nothing except wishful thinking.  

Don't Della and Perry actually get married in one of the books?  

I like the characters as they've been written in this interpretation. I've been enjoying watching them develop and the actors having a great time creating them. This show is so rich in acting.  I know that certain critics have been complaining that the plot (THE PLOT OF ALL THINGS) has been dragging, and that fans of the original Perry Mason show have been wondering when we would get back to that, but for me, all the embelleshments leading the viewer to that have been great.  I've been thoroughly entertained. 

As for E.B. being a good guy or not, I think he actually did try to be on the side of truth.  He took the case initially, though, because he was being bankrolled by millionaire Baggerly, to represent someone from the church, who,they found out later,was his illegitimate son. Curious that a millionaire would choose a fading lawyer, with few resources,to come to for this high profile case.  I think E.B. et al were set up from the beginning. 

At any rate, episode 4, for me, was one of the greatest episodes of watching someone realizing how little power they had left to wield, and how little they still mattered to the world. The writing was on the wall for E.B. and whether or not he felt like he was getting out of the way so others could do what he couldn't, or whether he took the coward's way out, it was beautifully portrayed by John Lithgow and I hope the performance gets recognized. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by cardigirl

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, cardigirl said:

Curious that a millionaire would choose a fading lawyer, with few resources,to come to for this high profile case.  I think E.B. et al were set up from the beginning. 

Likely Baggerly knew about EB's financial straights and hidden financial finaglings, so Baggerly knew he could manipulate EB and steer the trial in whatever direction Baggerly should choose --including railroading Emily, whether or not she was involved.

[J-Man]

On 7/28/2020 at 7:44 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

In Raymond Burr Perry Mason, the jury almost never came into play because Perry would force a confession out of the guilty party well before the prosecution had closed its case. 

In RBPM the majority of episodes never featured a jury at all because the producers didn't want to have to hire and pay extras to play them. All but a few of the episodes involved preliminary hearings, and not the actual trials themselves.

Edited July 29, 2020 by J-Man

[Blakeston]

It sounds very strange to hear an American character in the 1930s describe himself as Black. Didn't the term "Black" become popularized during the Civil Rights movement?

I understand that the preferred terms of that time period are no longer acceptable nowadays. But they also depicted Drake using the word "coloreds" in the same scene. And they depicted Perry dropping the n-bomb in a previous episode, so the writers clearly aren't trying very hard to avoid using racially charged terms.

Having a character from the '30s use the word "Black" feels like rewriting history to me.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

It sounds very strange to hear an American character in the 1930s describe himself as Black. Didn't the term "Black" become popularized during the Civil Rights movement?

I understand that the preferred terms of that time period are no longer acceptable nowadays. But they also depicted Drake using the word "coloreds" in the same scene. And they depicted Perry dropping the n-bomb in a previous episode, so the writers clearly aren't trying very hard to avoid using racially charged terms.

Having a character from the '30s use the word "Black" feels like rewriting history to me.

I agree that it sounds odd in this context, but perhaps they consulted The OED, which includes a similar usage by Zora Neale Hurston published in 1938:

Quote

3
a....
As the preferred designation esp. of North Americans of African origin, black gained acceptance in the late 1960s, rapidly replacing Negro (see note at Negro n. 1) and coloured (see note at coloured adj. 3b). Since then it has been used as a self-designation affirming a distinct ethnic and cultural identity. Terms such as African-American and Afro-Caribbean which gained popularity somewhat later are often considered more positive since they avoid reference to skin colour and any of the possible negative associations of black (see for instance the figurative uses at A. II.). However, though widely used, these have not yet displaced black. Cf. also person of colour at colour n.1 Phrases 11.The capitalized form can have connotations of either respect or disrespect depending on the context and writer, and for this reason is sometimes avoided....

...
1938   Z. N. Hurston Tell my Horse i. 18   When I used the word black I mean in the American sense where anyone who has any colored blood at all, no matter how white the appearance, speaks of himself as black.
...

 

[dramachick]

14 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I understand that the preferred terms of that time period are no longer acceptable nowadays. But they also depicted Drake using the word "coloreds" in the same scene. And they depicted Perry dropping the n-bomb in a previous episode, so the writers clearly aren't trying very hard to avoid using racially charged terms.

Having a character from the '30s use the word "Black" feels like rewriting history to me.

Paul Drake was code-switching, which is something Black people have always done.

The Souls of Black Folk:

“Herein lie buried many things which if read with patience may show the strange meaning of being black here at the dawning of the Twentieth Century. This meaning is not without interest to you, Gentle Reader; for the problem of the Twentieth Century is the problem of the color line.”

W.E.B. Du Bois, Atlanta, Ga., Feb. 1, 1903

The Souls of Black Folk is a seminal work of African American literature and sociology. It’s a collection of essays about the humanity of Black people, and was written in response to the racist sentiment at the time that Black people did not have souls and were, therefore, not truly human.

W.E.B. Du Bois was one of the founders of the NAACP in 1909.

[dramachick]

13 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

1938   Z. N. Hurston Tell my Horse i. 18   When I used the word black I mean in the American sense where anyone who has any colored blood at all, no matter how white the appearance, speaks of himself as black.

Zora Neale Hurston was a brilliant author and anthropologist. Her most popular novel, Their Eyes Were Watching God, was made into a TV movie that starred Halle Berry.

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 7/29/2020 at 12:40 PM, shapeshifter said:

Likely Baggerly knew about EB's financial straights and hidden financial finaglings, so Baggerly knew he could manipulate EB and steer the trial in whatever direction Baggerly should choose --including railroading Emily, whether or not she was involved.

You raise interesting points, which I don't have an answer to off the top of my head.

Baggerly could have literally hired any lawyer or PI he wanted. As a millionaire, he undoubtedly has a team of regular attorneys and PIs at his beck and call. He could have gotten a referral from one of them for someone if he wanted to outsource or get a specialist. Or he could have more quietly bankrolled an attorney by giving Matthew the money and kept his involvement quiet.

IIRC at the point Baggerly hired EB, there was not really a notion that Matthew had been involved in the kidnapping/murder. 

So why does Baggerly want to hire an attorney in the first place? Why choose E.B.? Why not fill him in from the jump street as to more of what's going on? (At least the piece that Matt's his bastard)?

[shapeshifter]

19 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

IIRC at the point Baggerly hired EB, there was not really a notion that Matthew had been involved in the kidnapping/murder. 

Baggerly might have at least assumed that Matthew would be a POI.

[cardigirl]

On 7/29/2020 at 1:40 PM, shapeshifter said:

Likely Baggerly knew about EB's financial straights and hidden financial finaglings, so Baggerly knew he could manipulate EB and steer the trial in whatever direction Baggerly should choose --including railroading Emily, whether or not she was involved.

 

14 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

You raise interesting points, which I don't have an answer to off the top of my head.

Baggerly could have literally hired any lawyer or PI he wanted. As a millionaire, he undoubtedly has a team of regular attorneys and PIs at his beck and call. He could have gotten a referral from one of them for someone if he wanted to outsource or get a specialist. Or he could have more quietly bankrolled an attorney by giving Matthew the money and kept his involvement quiet.

IIRC at the point Baggerly hired EB, there was not really a notion that Matthew had been involved in the kidnapping/murder. 

So why does Baggerly want to hire an attorney in the first place? Why choose E.B.? Why not fill him in from the jump street as to more of what's going on? (At least the piece that Matt's his bastard)?

Or, more likely, Baggerly decided to set up his bastard son and wife, so by hiring E.B. et al, he thought he was not providing them with the best defense, and therefore was protecting HIS OWN interests under the guise of protecting theirs.  

George (working with Baggerly) may have been in on the seduction of Emily, which was part of the plan to set the couple up as involved in an elaborate scheme to extort money from Baggerly. but that kidnapping plan hid the real motive. The real estate and the church all come into it somehow. So, George gets "close" to the wife by pretending to love her, as the marriage is not that strong between Matthew and Emily.  Matthew is busy off gambling.  

Wasn't Matthew told he was Baggerly's son, and then they moved to California?  Emily was unaware until after they got there?  I'm fuzzy on that timeline, and will have to rewatch this episode.  And then they start attending the Church, because of Baggerly I'm guessing, and Emily is in the choir where she meets George, who puts the moves on her.  All of which could have been orchestrated by Baggerly.

So Matthew only has Baggerly's word for it that he's his son.

Matthew thinks baby Charlie may NOT have been his son, but has no proof of that. 

Matthew did stand up for his mother, when Baggerly disrespected her, although he has not stood up for Emily.  Maybe he was truly hurt by her deception. 

That's all I've got so far, and I could be waaay off, but I think the millionaire is pulling strings on this one. 

[paigow]

53 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

So Matthew only has Baggerly's word for it that he's his son.

This should be taken as fact...Baggerly has no reason to falsely claim that Matthew is his son.

[cardigirl]

1 minute ago, paigow said:

This should be taken as fact...Baggerly has no reason to falsely claim that Matthew is his son.

Unless he wanted to lure him to California for some reason, but you're right.  Any poor couple would have done. 

[bosawks]

“Dog fuck, if I know”, I want this to be my ringtone.

I also want to buy Betty a drink.

 

Edited July 31, 2020 by bosawks

[bosawks]

I enjoyed:

”Catcha later gloves.”

”Tootaloo Petey.”

Way out of proportion.....

 

[Cardie]

I’ve only just now firmed up my speculation about what’s going on, so excuse me for jumping in late.

Baggerly, Hicks, Seidel, and Gannon have over many years bought up apparently worthless property in the town of Girard, laundering money through the church recently. When the Heavenly City or whatever gets the go-ahead, the land becomes valuable. Although I haven’t worked out all the details, I think the ransom is being laundered to be paid by Baggerly for the land, land he and his buddies already own through shell companies. The kidnapping wasn’t supposed to hurt anyone, just provide a pretext for the ransom to be gathered and disappeared. Baggerly involved himself in the Dotsons’ lives to set up the kidnapping of Charlie. 

But while they were holding Charlie, he was smothered, not part of the plan. I think Sister Alice is somehow responsible and her more bizarre pronouncements stem from guilt.