S01.E07: Chapter 7

[Door County Cherry]

Airs August 2, 2020

Quote

Hoping to expose the hidden link between the Radiant Assembly’s staggering debt and Charlie’s ransom, Mason (Matthew Rhys) puts Herman Baggerly (Robert Patrick) on the stand. Sister Alice (Tatiana Maslany) faces mounting pressure from the church elders about her promises for a “resurrection.” Strickland loses track of a key witness, while Drake’s (Chris Chalk) detective work opens a new avenue in the case.

Written by Howard Korder; directed by Tim Van Patten.

 

[Xantar]

Well that whole resurrection sideshow turned out to be a big waste of time. 

[LoveLeigh]

11 minutes ago, Xantar said:

Well that whole resurrection sideshow turned out to be a big waste of time. 

I thought this whole episode was a big waste of time. 

[edhopper]

14 minutes ago, Xantar said:

Well that whole resurrection sideshow turned out to be a big waste of time. 

Why, did you actually think it would happen. But what it showed was the lengths the Sister Alice's mother would go to to keep the Church going. Obvious she stole the baby's body and set up the fake miracle. And Alice knew it and couldn't accept it anymore.

 

Waste of time?  We now know the whole case behind the kidnapping and what went wrong.

Next week we do we get the classic Perry Mason witness confession? 😉

Edited August 3, 2020 by edhopper

[sistermagpie]

I had wondered when Burger showed up if the reason Della knew him was because he was also gay, but when it turned out he was one of the main RBPM characters I thought oh, maybe it's just because of that. So I'm glad they did bring the two things together, making it an outsider network thing.

Gloves sure liked her entrance into court!

Not sure where they're going with Sister, but I like the explanation of what happened to him and that again there was an outsiders network with the chambermaid talking to Drake. Poor girls at the whorehouse, though. I kept expecting for there to turn out to be a joke surprise when the girl Perry was speaking with spoke English.

Lupe is right, she did Perry a favor just grabbing the farm. It does at least make sense that his character has such an overdeveloped sense of sympathy he's even feeling like he's got to keep that farm for his father who does not actually care at all.

Still hope Pete doesn't die, but I like that he stood up for himself. Lupe too, not letting Perry paint her as the villain because he didn't pay his property taxes and she did what she always told him she wanted to do.

Hoping there will end up being an interesting conclusion between Perry and Sister Alice. I like her better when she's not on the pulpit.

[Broderbits]

3 minutes ago, DakotaLavender said:

I thought this whole episode was a big waste of time. 

The pace has quickened since Lithgow's character died, but I'm still not happy with the writing. Everything seems twice as convoluted as it needs to be but without any interesting twists, and I'm over Perry getting the crap beaten out of him every week.

[paigow]

Pete is lucky Drake cannot hear all his racist shit...Drake would rage kill his ass.

How much does a D.A. make???...eating caviar during a Depression

All these Sunday period shows are blurring together...fancy gay club without Patti Lupone

thought Della would get mad when Burger ordered for her...

Edited August 3, 2020 by paigow

[Cardie]

The apparent solution to the crime is underwhelming, I have to say. I hope there are some surprises next week.

Burger may have been happy to help Della out but is going to rue the day he helped Perry cheat his way through the bar exam  

 

[Broderbits]

11 minutes ago, paigow said:

All these Sunday period shows are blurring together.

City of Angels has better dancers!!

[paigow]

23 minutes ago, edhopper said:

Next week we do we get the classic Perry Mason witness confession? 😉

Hard to believe that Ennis would cave...but who else is left?? Baggerly has already testified and was not part of the kidnapping conspiracy. Holcomb is an accessory after the fact. Seidel is dead.

[Thalia]

13 minutes ago, paigow said:

How much does a D.A. make???...eating caviar during a Depression

I hadn't thought about that, but in his first episode Ham told Perry that he'd graduated from Yale Law.  Maybe we can intuit that he comes from Money.  

[paigow]

Just now, Thalia said:

Ham told Perry that he'd graduated from Yale Law.  Maybe we can intuit that he comes from Money.  

His real name is Hamilton Baggerly but he was disowned for being gay...just like Townsend from Penny Dreadful.....

[scrb]

Young Alice doesn’t look anything like Sister Alice.

Momma didn’t even have a moment of anguish before turning out her prepubescent daughter.  So either it wasn’t the first time or it was the plan when money ran out on the trek from Saskatoon to LA.

I guess it’s suppose to show she would do anything to keep up the grift, including that little show she set up at the cemetery.

OK, Sister Alice was a rock star in her time, drawing throngs into the church and many more over the radio.  Yet the church was broke because it took out impossible to pay loans?

Alice and momma seem to live well, with a chauffeur-driven Rolls at their disposal.  So why did Seidel have to concoct this kidnap plan?  And why was Ennis involved, he expected to get his taste of the ransom or did he just steal it all?

Perry fashioned a plausible narrative.  If he can induce just the slightest doubt in the jury that someone other than his client had the motive to conspire in this ransome scheme, it wold meet the standard today.

But what was the standard back then, much more higher than reasonable doubt?  Perry would have to lay out the whole conspiracy and get a dramatic confession or catch the perpetrator on the stand, even though he’s got no experience trapping or “breaking” perpetrators?

Or is this mainly a TV trope, that a defense lawyer only gets an acquittal by proving in dramatic terms  who the real villain is, in effect also performing the roles of the prosecutor and the detective?

[LoveLeigh]

34 minutes ago, edhopper said:

Waste of time?  We now know the whole case behind the kidnapping and what went wrong.

 

I suppose what I meant was that the case's solution for me is boring. It is always debt or money or greed behind kidnappings and I was thinking it could have been something more interesting in the plot. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by DakotaLavender

[DoctorAtomic]

7 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

City of Angels has better dancers!!

Oh don't get me started on all the dancing on that show. 

I guess Santa Muerte didn't make it to the cemetery. 

This episode was worth it just for Drake's reaction to - like a math professor? 

[sistermagpie]

4 minutes ago, scrb said:

OK, Sister Alice was a rock star in her time, drawing throngs into the church and many more over the radio.  Yet the church was broke because it took out impossible to pay loans?

Isn't that often the way things work? if they hadn't made that much money to start with they wouldn't have had so much to gamble with. Lots of movie stars turn out to be broke or in debt even though they looked like they were rich.

4 minutes ago, scrb said:

Perry fashioned a plausible narrative.  If he can induce just the slightest doubt in the jury that someone other than his client had the motive to conspire in this ransome scheme, it wold meet the standard today.

But what was the standard back then, much more higher than reasonable doubt?  Perry would have to lay out the whole conspiracy and get a dramatic confession or catch the perpetrator on the stand, even though he’s got no experience trapping or “breaking” perpetrators?

 

I assume reasonable doubt was always the standard, though juries don't always really stick to it.

27 minutes ago, paigow said:

How much does a D.A. make???...eating caviar during a Depression

He has a job, so he's not really having a Great Depression!

 

[paigow]

The body theft must have happened at the funeral home...if it was recent, evidence of digging would have been obvious to the groundskeepers.

[Xantar]

55 minutes ago, edhopper said:

Waste of time?  We now know the whole case behind the kidnapping and what went wrong.

None of that was revealed during the attempted resurrection. Most of the episode itself moved the plot forward pretty well. But the last ten minutes did nothing other than reveal that Sister Alice isn't Jesus. 

[blixie]

Quote

I hadn't thought about that, but in his first episode Ham told Perry that he'd graduated from Yale Law.  Maybe we can intuit that he comes from Money.  

Additionally it was confirmed Della comes from money, so it makes sense she and Ham are old friends from her well to do past as well as both being gay.

I quite liked the resolution, it never made sense anyone would kill the golden goose and Ennis insinuated more than once it was essentially an accident. I still want to know if Baggerly is totally in on it. I assume he is, but I did think the motive would be about taking control of the church away from Sister Alice and Mommy.

[Chicago Redshirt]

31 minutes ago, paigow said:

Hard to believe that Ennis would cave...but who else is left?? Baggerly has already testified and was not part of the kidnapping conspiracy. Holcomb is an accessory after the fact. Seidel is dead.

They might have to recall Baggerly to the stand. I don't believe that he cut the church off financially, and I do believe that he had more awareness of the church's financial situation than he has let on. 

I don't believe that Seidel was the highest/only church figure that was in on the financial sketchiness or the kidnapping. So it could still be that Perry gets Birdy or the chief Elder to confess. Or it could be the one who is opposing Sister Alice is guilty as well.

16 minutes ago, paigow said:

The body theft must have happened at the funeral home...if it was recent, evidence of digging would have been obvious to the groundskeepers.

Alice made her announcement about Charlie's resurrection a fair bit before Easter Sunday. I suppose that would be plenty of time to exhume the body when people were not paying attention. It also could be that Birdy just paid the groundskeepers off to look the other way to a more recent exhuming.

I think that Sister Alice only came up with the notion of resurrecting Charlie after the coffin was already in the ground, and we are meant to think that she came up with the idea on her own. So that would suggest to me that it would be unlikely for a swap to have happened at the funeral home stage.

25 minutes ago, scrb said:

Young Alice doesn’t look anything like Sister Alice.

Momma didn’t even have a moment of anguish before turning out her prepubescent daughter.  So either it wasn’t the first time or it was the plan when money ran out on the trek from Saskatoon to LA.

I guess it’s suppose to show she would do anything to keep up the grift, including that little show she set up at the cemetery.

OK, Sister Alice was a rock star in her time, drawing throngs into the church and many more over the radio.  Yet the church was broke because it took out impossible to pay loans?

Alice and momma seem to live well, with a chauffeur-driven Rolls at their disposal.  So why did Seidel have to concoct this kidnap plan?  And why was Ennis involved, he expected to get his taste of the ransom or did he just steal it all?

Perry fashioned a plausible narrative.  If he can induce just the slightest doubt in the jury that someone other than his client had the motive to conspire in this ransome scheme, it wold meet the standard today.

But what was the standard back then, much more higher than reasonable doubt?  Perry would have to lay out the whole conspiracy and get a dramatic confession or catch the perpetrator on the stand, even though he’s got no experience trapping or “breaking” perpetrators?

Or is this mainly a TV trope, that a defense lawyer only gets an acquittal by proving in dramatic terms  who the real villain is, in effect also performing the roles of the prosecutor and the detective?

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a plan to turn out Alice. It could have just been that Birdy is a pragmatist who was at the end of her rope.

The money people behind the church were apparently expecting that its success would be greater and faster than it actually was. They took out loans at rates that would make mobsters blush, said Jim Hicks, the former accountant. The church spent lavishly trying to grow and did not yet have to pay the piper.  

The evidence seems to be that Seidel (and possibly others) needed money to cover the church's debts. Seidel knew Ennis from Denver and Ennish knew the other co-conspirators from there. So presumably, Seidel hired Ennis to help bring about the kidnapping to raise the $100k, and Ennis recruited the Milwaukee people. The plan was to hold Charlie, get the money, turn him back. Ennis screwed that plan up by using an addicted hooker to breastfeed Charlie, and he suffocated.  Ennis figured that he needed to get rid of the co-conspirators so he did. 

I am spacing on if we know what happened to the ransom money.   

As far as I know, the standard has always been beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal case. There's no definitive way to determine what is "beyond a reasonable doubt" is, though. We obviously know that in real life, people have been convicted of crimes that they were factually innocent of.

A reasonable jury could look at the prosecution's case in the best possible light -- at least as it stands now -- and say guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution has Emily's alleged confession via the jail matron, which carries weight. It was spontaneous, to her spiritual adviser so presumably an honest unburdening about her guilt, and as far as we saw, the jail matron seems credible in recounting it. Sister Alice's possible explanation that Emily did not mean it when she said she killed her baby is unlikely to be convincing in light of the resurrection stunt. The prosecution also has the fact that Emily's guilt in having an affair with George Gannon creates a strong sense of guilt by association. 

But then again, the classic Perry Mason cases also had prosecution cases that seemed airtight.

Perry Mason is pretty much the originator of the trope where a defense lawyer wins an acquittal by playing prosecutor/detective and extracting a confession from a witness or other person in the courtroom. Pretty sure that has never happened in real life. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

39 minutes ago, Xantar said:

None of that was revealed during the attempted resurrection. Most of the episode itself moved the plot forward pretty well. But the last ten minutes did nothing other than reveal that Sister Alice isn't Jesus. 

Well, they also revealed that Sister Alice truly thought she was Jesus and the extent of Birdy's cynicism.

It also created a situation where things have potentially gotten worse for the court case. 

The public outrage about the stunt failing, Sister Alice's freak-out, the effect on Emily all seem likely to play roles in the remainder of the evidence presented, the closing arguments and the verdict. (Assuming there is one as opposed to the case being solved via confession prior to that, like it usually was in Raymond Burr Perry Mason.) 

[sistermagpie]

20 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

It wouldn't necessarily have to be a plan to turn out Alice. It could have just been that Birdy is a pragmatist who was at the end of her rope.

I assumed Alice's reaction to being told to thank the nice man indicated it wasn't the first time. She seemed to get that say thank you did not mean say thank you.

Edited August 3, 2020 by sistermagpie

[rozen]

I know I shouldn't, but I laughed so hard at the shot of Emily scrabbling on the ground after the coffin, screaming "just put me in there, I don't care anymore!"

So Birdy is exactly as disgusting as I thought she'd be. I don't agree that her decision was pragmatic at all, she could have gotten to the next town and at least checked what her options were. What if passing pedophile decided whatever price she thought they'd agreed on wasn't enough? She didn't even put herself in a position to try to protect Alice if things passed whatever piss poor bottom line she has. She just looked up at the sky and waited for it to be over. Jeez, what if Birdy specifically sent Alice into that field to act as bait for her "woe is me, a put upon mother" act? I wish she'd been trampled to death at the graveyard stampede.

Pete was already angry enough at himself, having Perry pour grease on the fire drove him the rest of the way out the door. He'll feel even worse when he realizes losing Seidel gave him a one-way ticket to stab-palooza. Was there no cleaner way for Ennis to deal with that? Isn't there a locker of confiscated guns he could borrow or something? That entire scene was super harrowing. 

If they could snatch a junkie mother for baby Charlie, wouldn't that imply she wasn't shooting up enough to kill a kid (because presumably she was breastfeeding herself)? 

I appreciate Drake's thirst for justice, but how many black police officers are there in the county for him to be announcing himself all over town like this? Sending his wife out to his aunt's may not be far enough.

 

[Annber03]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Not sure where they're going with Sister, but I like the explanation of what happened to him and that again there was an outsiders network with the chambermaid talking to Drake. Poor girls at the whorehouse, though. I kept expecting for there to turn out to be a joke surprise when the girl Perry was speaking with spoke English.

Lupe is right, she did Perry a favor just grabbing the farm. It does at least make sense that his character has such an overdeveloped sense of sympathy he's even feeling like he's got to keep that farm for his father who does not actually care at all.

Still hope Pete doesn't die, but I like that he stood up for himself. Lupe too, not letting Perry paint her as the villain because he didn't pay his property taxes and she did what she always told him she wanted to do.

I liked those moments, too. And I also liked Drake coming to help save Perry when he was getting beaten up by those guys. 

And yes, those poor girls, indeed. The scene with Perry and the woman he met with there was good. 

1 hour ago, scrb said:

Perry fashioned a plausible narrative.  If he can induce just the slightest doubt in the jury that someone other than his client had the motive to conspire in this ransome scheme, it wold meet the standard today.

But what was the standard back then, much more higher than reasonable doubt?

You know, reading this part of the discussion reminded me that it's rather interesting how the public's been vilifying Emily and is so sure she's in on this crime somehow, because I've watched that show "Deadly Women", and there were a lot of women back in the 1800s and early 1900s who got away with crimes simply because the public, and a jury, absolutely refused to believe a woman could be capable of committing such awful crimes in the first place. Either that, or they got sympathy from the jury because it was all blamed on "hysteria" or some other mitigating factor. Even if Emily is convicted and even if people believe she's involved, maybe she'll ultimately get a lighter sentence because the jury may share some of those kinds of attitudes about female criminals. 

[dramachick]

Birdy is quite resourceful and ruthless. Of course, Alice is a delusional mess.

Chris Chalk is doing a great job as Paul Drake. He really inhabits the role.

Perry getting beat up so much reminded me of Easy Rawlins in Devil in a Blue Dress.

[kay1864]

 Religion was not the opiate of the masses tonight.

 Also, (spoiler) Alice is not a natural blonde.

[kay1864]

45 minutes ago, rozen said:

If they could snatch a junkie mother for baby Charlie, wouldn't that imply she wasn't shooting up enough to kill a kid (because presumably she was breastfeeding herself)? 

 I gotta admit, that was pretty dang astute of Perry to ask for a lactating prostitute. “Magically quieting the baby” doesn’t necessarily mean breast-feeding.  Unless maybe it dawned on him as he was looking at the pictures.

Edited August 3, 2020 by kay1864

[kay1864]

Why did Perry get beat up at the brothel anyway? The woman was crying, but they’ve probably had crying women in there before.  She had her money, was unhurt, and even still had her top on. Seemed a bit extreme to have three guys jump on him (and then what looked like two more). And then maim or murder him with a heavy chain?

[nilyank]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I had wondered when Burger showed up if the reason Della knew him was because he was also gay, but when it turned out he was one of the main RBPM characters I thought oh, maybe it's just because of that. So I'm glad they did bring the two things together, making it an outsider network thing.

 

When Burger ordered for Della and calling her his fiancee, I am wondering if in fact she originally was. We learned in earlier episodes that Della came from money and left her fiancee. Maybe it was Burger and they originally got together because they were friends that knew each other secrets.

[paigow]

36 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

Why did Perry get beat up at the brothel anyway? 

Madame Jin recognized Perry from the paper, remembered that Ennis mentioned he was a problem and waited until he was isolated...

[Cardie]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Well, they also revealed that Sister Alice truly thought she was Jesus and the extent of Birdy's cynicism.

I suspect Alice’s visions of God speaking to her were a response to rape trauma, that she mentally left her body behind as a coping mechanism. It’s like when abuse victims claim to have been abducted and probed by aliens. 

[thuganomics85]

Wow, Birdy/Mother basically whored out her underage daughter in that flashback.  Who knows what else she did in order for them "to get by thanks to the grace of God"?  She is the worst.  No wonder Sister Alice turned out that way she did: that kind of upbringing probably drove her to finding comfort in God and wheeling herself to believe that she is important enough to be his vessel.  And, naturally, Birdy took advantage of her daughter's fragile mind to benefit herself.  Even if she isn't somehow connected to Charlie's death, I hope Birdy gets hers.

But if I'm understanding everything correctly, it looks like the case boils down to the Church being in debt and after Baggerly refused to donate to them, the accountant or whoever he was hired Ennis and the other guys to kidnap him for ransom.  And it seems like Charlie's death was actually an accident, because Ennis took one of the prostitutes from that brothel to nurse him, but since the prostitute was on drugs, her milk actually made Charlie suffocate.  Yikes!  But, now Ennis seems to have killed everyone that can point the finger at him, so I don't know how Perry and the gang are going to get out of this corner.

Perry continues to be more comfortable working the courtroom at least and it was certainly satisfying watching Barnes' smug grin finally be wiped off his face for a second.  But he definitely hit some bumps elsewhere, by finding out he has now lost his family farm, because he didn't pay property taxes, which allowed Lupe to buy it out from under him.  And then he pushes Pete away, which was sad to watch, but I'm glad Pete stood up for himself, and I hope Perry realizes he was in the wrong.

Drake continue to step up and I'm enjoying his interactions with Perry.

Curious to see more of Della and Burger's relationship.  Certainly looks like he is gay too, and that's one of the reasons they seem to have bonded.

Hazel's giddiness over getting to hand Perry the surprise evidence was delightful.  I hope she sticks around next season.  

Can't wait to see how this all plays out next week!

[paigow]

14 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Curious to see more of Della and Burger's relationship. 

10 years from now, when Burger is still winless vs. Mason, is Della still going to be invited out for caviar?

Edited August 3, 2020 by paigow

[Blakeston]

There are a few things that don't make sense to me.

1. Burger telling Della that she should look into the church's finances. Shouldn't it have been extremely obvious that she and Perry had already looked into the church's finances, considering what had happened in court? Was that a flashback?

2. It turns out Birdy is the type who will orchestrate an extreme stunt like this one...and yet she fought so hard to convince Sister Alice that the whole resurrection thing was a bad idea. I really hope we get some explanation for this - like she thought it would be impossible to pull off, but then a plan occurred to her at the last minute.

3. Perry's land was seized by the government and sold at auction, and he had no idea it had happened, even two weeks after the sale? Huh?

 

[Bulldog]

I'm curious how Birdy's plan was supposed to work.  Surely, Emily would take one look at the baby and announce that it wasn't Charlie.  And where exactly did the new baby come from?  I suppose it would be somewhat easy to obtain an abandoned/unwanted baby back in those days, but there would be someone (the mother? hospital worker? orphanage worker?) who would have to be privy to the information.   Why was there already a crowd gathered? Were all of those people in on the switch?  Are the people to believe that the new baby just showed up in the middle of the street?

 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

1 hour ago, Bulldog said:

I'm curious how Birdy's plan was supposed to work.  Surely, Emily would take one look at the baby and announce that it wasn't Charlie.  And where exactly did the new baby come from?  I suppose it would be somewhat easy to obtain an abandoned/unwanted baby back in those days, but there would be someone (the mother? hospital worker? orphanage worker?) who would have to be privy to the information.   Why was there already a crowd gathered? Were all of those people in on the switch?  Are the people to believe that the new baby just showed up in the middle of the street?

 

There was a case from around that time period, which was recounted in the film Changeling, where a child goes missing and "returned" to his mother. Only it wasn't the right child, and the mother (who was played by Angelina Jolie in the film) knew that and kept saying that it wasn't her child. Rather than believe her, though, public opinion - with the help of the Los Angeles Police Department - was that she was hysterical and the LAPD had her committed. (It turns out that the son was murdered by a man who kidnapped and abused a number of boys).  I think that this was a nod to that incident.

I don't really see how we can say that the "resurrection" was a waste of time until we see next week's episode. No doubt there will be some fall out from it as there has been other plot points, but since it was the end of the episode, we won't know until the finale. 

Edited August 3, 2020 by eleanorofaquitaine

[Chicago Redshirt]

7 hours ago, rozen said:

I know I shouldn't, but I laughed so hard at the shot of Emily scrabbling on the ground after the coffin, screaming "just put me in there, I don't care anymore!"

So Birdy is exactly as disgusting as I thought she'd be. I don't agree that her decision was pragmatic at all, she could have gotten to the next town and at least checked what her options were. What if passing pedophile decided whatever price she thought they'd agreed on wasn't enough? She didn't even put herself in a position to try to protect Alice if things passed whatever piss poor bottom line she has. She just looked up at the sky and waited for it to be over. Jeez, what if Birdy specifically sent Alice into that field to act as bait for her "woe is me, a put upon mother" act? I wish she'd been trampled to death at the graveyard stampede.

Pete was already angry enough at himself, having Perry pour grease on the fire drove him the rest of the way out the door. He'll feel even worse when he realizes losing Seidel gave him a one-way ticket to stab-palooza. Was there no cleaner way for Ennis to deal with that? Isn't there a locker of confiscated guns he could borrow or something? That entire scene was super harrowing. 

If they could snatch a junkie mother for baby Charlie, wouldn't that imply she wasn't shooting up enough to kill a kid (because presumably she was breastfeeding herself)? 

I appreciate Drake's thirst for justice, but how many black police officers are there in the county for him to be announcing himself all over town like this? Sending his wife out to his aunt's may not be far enough.

 

"Pragmatic" is probably too value-neutral or even positive a word in this context. But it still fits IMO. If we take what she was saying at face value, she didn't have too many other options. If she said, thanks for the gas, mister, but that's as far as it goes, what happens? She is able to get to the next town but still doesn't have money for the two of them to eat, get shelter, or gas and where they have been starving. (Of course, Birdy could be lying about their food/money situation.) No way of knowing that things in that town will turn their fortunes around, whereas the not-so-Good Samaritan likely will. Again, there's of course a chance that he will renege on the deal when he got his jollies, or become even more harmful. 

Pete seems to written himself off the potential death list but now I wouldn't mind if something happened to him. Although "Dinge Tracy" is kinda funny, as far as racial slurs go....

The prostitute was not necessarily nursing a baby any more. One of the specialties Madame Jin's catered to was men who liked to breastfeed, as seen in the picture book. 

Drake only identified himself as a cop to the hotel manager. 

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

There are a few things that don't make sense to me.

1. Burger telling Della that she should look into the church's finances. Shouldn't it have been extremely obvious that she and Perry had already looked into the church's finances, considering what had happened in court? Was that a flashback?

2. It turns out Birdy is the type who will orchestrate an extreme stunt like this one...and yet she fought so hard to convince Sister Alice that the whole resurrection thing was a bad idea. I really hope we get some explanation for this - like she thought it would be impossible to pull off, but then a plan occurred to her at the last minute.

3. Perry's land was seized by the government and sold at auction, and he had no idea it had happened, even two weeks after the sale? Huh?

 

I think what Burger was saying was that he thought that focusing on the church's finances was not a winning strategy for Mason. Of course, we know from RBPM that he's not exactly the person to consult with about winning court strategies, lol.

We know to almost a mathematical certainty  that the church's finances did cause the kidnapping/murder because it's Perry freakin' Mason, because we're genre-savvy, and because we've seen directly from Jim Hicks and Elder Seidel and Ennis that church people were involved in the kidnapping. (Although I suppose there could be some crazy-ass subversion of tropes at the last minute)  

But neither Perry nor the jury knows these things. If the show were grounded in the real world rather than genre, Burger would probably be right.

Imagine being on a jury, especially one molded in the mindset of the 1930s where the notion of an affair would be way more scandalous than now. 

The prosecution's case in a nutshell: Slutty McSlutterson cared more about her lover than her baby. We know that her lover kidnapped her baby in an extortion plot and we know that Slutty confessed to personally murdering her innocent baby.

The defense's case in a nutshell: Nuh-uh! It was maybe the husband? Also, the church she and George went to was in big financial trouble, so maybe THEY did it?  

I don't think Birdy necessarily thought it would be impossible to pull off. It just has its risks, and is far riskier than just going on the run with boatloads of stolen cash. Especially if Birdy knows about the extent of how the Radiant Assembly is financially screwed, she could have thought (correctly) that the better plays were a. jetting out b. getting Sister Alice to walk back the resurrection promise. When those proved not to be options that she could pursue she had no real choice but for the Hail Mary (literally) of faking a resurrection and hoping that enough yokels buy it. It probably would have been better to try to clue Sister Alice in to that was what was happening and to have the Come-to-Jesus talk ahead of time that she is a fraud.

Perry has been an irresponsible alcoholic who does not focus on a lot of the nuts and bolts in the best of times, (for example, five years of missing tax payments). In the context of the show, he has been preoccupied for the last few months with defending Emily and cheating his way to pass the bar. Even if the county had given him notice of the sale directly (which it may or may not have done, dunno what the practice would have been back then), it's entirely plausible to me that he would have missed it. The only thing that surprises me is that there were apparently a lot of other bidders.

41 minutes ago, Bulldog said:

I'm curious how Birdy's plan was supposed to work.  Surely, Emily would take one look at the baby and announce that it wasn't Charlie.  And where exactly did the new baby come from?  I suppose it would be somewhat easy to obtain an abandoned/unwanted baby back in those days, but there would be someone (the mother? hospital worker? orphanage worker?) who would have to be privy to the information.   Why was there already a crowd gathered? Were all of those people in on the switch?  Are the people to believe that the new baby just showed up in the middle of the street?

 

Emily is so delusional and desperate to believe in a miracle (and exoneration) that she quite possibly would have gone along with anything Sister Alice said. The sticking point would have been Matthew. 

There are probably a fair number of mothers who could be bribed against the backdrop of the Depression to give up their children and either Birdy and co. could hope to keep their mouths shut, or they could arrange a more permanent solution.

I'm assuming that Birdy arranged for the crowd of loyalists to be like "Oh look, spontaneously generated Charlie!"

[Domestic Assassin]

8 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Even if the county had given him notice of the sale directly (which it may or may not have done, dunno what the practice would have been back then), it's entirely plausible to me that he would have missed it.

In the pilot, Perry received a letter from the court marked Third Notice.  This is probably what that was.

9 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

There are probably a fair number of mothers who could be bribed against the backdrop of the Depression to give up their children and either Birdy and co. could hope to keep their mouths shut, or they could arrange a more permanent solution.

It was established that the church ran an adoption service.

[TexasGal]

This is what I don't get about the elders trying to drive Sister Alice out.  I assume it's to try to blame the money issues on her and/or her mother.  But they do realize that she is the draw for the church right?  How do they expect to keep their following and radio show if she's gone?

[blixie]

Quote

Burger telling Della that she should look into the church's finances. 

I think he said HE was going to look into the church's finances officially as the DA v. trying to stop the "resurrection" with an injunction. AKA he didn't want any part of Emily Dodson except in helping himself by looking into the church and exposing it.
 

Quote

Surely, Emily would take one look at the baby and announce that it wasn't Charlie.

Actually there is much more recent case that was in the news, back in the 60's a baby was stolen in Chicago out of the hospital shortly after being born, and then another child was found in NJ everyone from the cops to the parents to the media and public embraced the child as being their lost kid. Then about ten years ago the guy found out he wasn't biologically related to his "parents" because of course he wasn't their kid. And about 6 months ago they found the REAL stolen baby in Michigan I think. In the 30's there were even less ways to establish biological connections to a baby so I can totes see Emily welcoming any baby Birdy handed her as her Charlie.

 

[Cardie]

10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I am spacing on if we know what happened to the ransom money.   

It was burned in George Gannon’s fire place, by Ennis I suppose  

 

 

 

[eleanorofaquitaine]

1 hour ago, TexasGal said:

This is what I don't get about the elders trying to drive Sister Alice out.  I assume it's to try to blame the money issues on her and/or her mother.  But they do realize that she is the draw for the church right?  How do they expect to keep their following and radio show if she's gone?

Sexism is a hell of a drug. Especially in this era, they see a woman amassing too much power, power that infringes on what they see as the natural order of things, and they want to stop it even if objectively, it would harm them to do so. Plus they recognize that the more Sister Alice is the draw, the less control they have.

On a more charitable note, they could see her becoming an increasingly loose cannon, which means she is even more of a threat to them when it comes to the money issues. It's probably some combination of both concerns. 

[Door County Cherry]

I feel like this show would make a good binge.  This episode moved the story forward but I'm ready for the wrap up.

I liked how Perry was becoming more comfortable in the courtroom but I'm surprised the DA didn't try objecting to the introduction of the proof that the church was in debt.  I do think people encouraged Perry to go down this route but to be careful to not get too detailed and I think he was successful at that.  He linked George Gannon's participation in the kidnapping and ransom amount directly to the church's debt. It's a clearer motive than what they have on Emily and isn't motive essentially all they have with her?

I will say the motive of greed might as old as time but I sure as hell didn't have baby essentially smothered by eating from a drugged up prostitute serving as a wet nurse in my "how did the baby die?" bingo card.

There have been a lot of comparisons to The Alienist with its baby napping/baby killing story but having both reference

Spoiler

lactophilia

is just weird. 

[DoctorAtomic]

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Isn't that often the way things work? if they hadn't made that much money to start with they wouldn't have had so much to gamble with.

Alice also made a comment about sponsorships for the radio, so they may not have been getting the ad money they thought they would. 

10 hours ago, rozen said:

Was there no cleaner way for Ennis to deal with that?

That may have been the point. It looks like a random highway robbery. With a gun, you can reason out what kind it is, where it might have come from. Bandits stabbing a guy who looks flush with a big suitcase is an easy out. 

 

 

[cardigirl]

11 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The money people behind the church were apparently expecting that its success would be greater and faster than it actually was. They took out loans at rates that would make mobsters blush, said Jim Hicks, the former accountant. The church spent lavishly trying to grow and did not yet have to pay the piper.  

The evidence seems to be that Seidel (and possibly others) needed money to cover the church's debts. Seidel knew Ennis from Denver and Ennish knew the other co-conspirators from there. So presumably, Seidel hired Ennis to help bring about the kidnapping to raise the $100k, and Ennis recruited the Milwaukee people. The plan was to hold Charlie, get the money, turn him back. Ennis screwed that plan up by using an addicted hooker to breastfeed Charlie, and he suffocated.  Ennis figured that he needed to get rid of the co-conspirators so he did. 

I am spacing on if we know what happened to the ransom money.   

 

 

1 hour ago, Cardie said:

It was burned in George Gannon’s fire place, by Ennis I suppose  

Or made to look like it was burned.  I wonder if only part of it was burned, the rest taken by George's murderer.  Who was probably Ennis.  And Ennis has a daughted afflicted with polio, so he may have taken the money for her. 

I'm still not sure how all these threads will tie together, especially Birdie and Sister Alice.  The last episode may tie them all together, or not. Hope so. 

 

[Blakeston]

3 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I think what Burger was saying was that he thought that focusing on the church's finances was not a winning strategy for Mason. Of course, we know from RBPM that he's not exactly the person to consult with about winning court strategies, lol.

I rewatched this, and I still don't have the slightest clue what was going on there.

Della asks him for an injunction to prevent the resurrection attempt, and Ham says, "Like I said, I wouldn't take the case. What would be interesting, though, would be poking into the finances of the Radiant Assembly. I bet there's a nice little scandal there just waiting to be unearthed."

To which Della says, "So you can run for DA next year."

Della's response makes me think that he seriously wants to know more about the finances. But if he was paying any attention to the trial at all, he'd know that Perry and Della had already poked into them.

Maybe there are even worse financial crimes to be discovered, which implicate the current DA directly? If that's the case, I think it would have made more sense if Burger had said, "I bet there's even more exciting information to be unearthed in the Radiant Assembly's finances."

[paigow]

15 minutes ago, cardigirl said:

I'm still not sure how all these threads will tie together, especially Birdie and Sister Alice.  The last episode may tie them all together, or not. Hope so.

Literally, Perry still has that thread sample which remains a loose [dead?] end....

[Thalia]

13 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't believe that Seidel was the highest/only church figure that was in on the financial sketchiness or the kidnapping. So it could still be that Perry gets Birdy or the chief Elder to confess. Or it could be the one who is opposing Sister Alice is guilty as well.

I wonder if he'll somehow get Sister Alice on the stand.  Tatiana Maslany can chew scenery and Alice looks close to cracking.  

1 hour ago, Door County Cherry said:

I liked how Perry was becoming more comfortable in the courtroom but I'm surprised the DA didn't try objecting to the introduction of the proof that the church was in debt.  I do think people encouraged Perry to go down this route but to be careful to not get too detailed and I think he was successful at that.  He linked George Gannon's participation in the kidnapping and ransom amount directly to the church's debt. It's a clearer motive than what they have on Emily and isn't motive essentially all they have with her?

I'm an attorney, and I kept wondering,"how is he getting this stuff in?"  Of course, it was 1931 and not 2020. 

[Door County Cherry]

14 minutes ago, Thalia said:

I'm an attorney, and I kept wondering,"how is he getting this stuff in?"  Of course, it was 1931 and not 2020. 

The only thing my non-attorney mind could think of is that perhaps, since it was the DA who asked for proof, he opened the door to it?  But it wouldn't be Perry Mason without very fluid courtroom rules.

1 hour ago, Blakeston said:

Della asks him for an injunction to prevent the resurrection attempt, and Ham says, "Like I said, I wouldn't take the case. What would be interesting, though, would be poking into the finances of the Radiant Assembly. I bet there's a nice little scandal there just waiting to be unearthed."

To which Della says, "So you can run for DA next year."

Della's response makes me think that he seriously wants to know more about the finances. But if he was paying any attention to the trial at all, he'd know that Perry and Della had already poked into them.

Della wanted him to stop the revival because she thinks her client participating in it would make her (the client) look bad.  Burger says doing things like that are reasons why he wouldn't have wanted to take the case.

He know Della and Perry looked into the financial aspects of the church but they aren't prosecutors or law enforcement.  They can bring it up but only the D.A.'s office can bring any kind of enforcement or criminal charges onto the church.  So I think he's going to take what Perry and Della give him, do some more diligence to see what laws were being broken and then charge the church/offenders.  Dell and Perry's focus is solely on creating doubt and one of the ways they're doing that is by showing that others had stronger motives/circumstantial evidence. 

[sistermagpie]

13 hours ago, rozen said:

Pete was already angry enough at himself, having Perry pour grease on the fire drove him the rest of the way out the door. He'll feel even worse when he realizes losing Seidel gave him a one-way ticket to stab-palooza.

And Perry's going to feel really bad if Pete winds up getting killed trying to make things right.

13 hours ago, rozen said:

If they could snatch a junkie mother for baby Charlie, wouldn't that imply she wasn't shooting up enough to kill a kid (because presumably she was breastfeeding herself)? 

Much more practical going to a prostitute who's got to keep lactating because it's her job to nurse clients with that fetish. Which again works for realism because the men she's breastfeeding aren't going to die from that small amount of heroin in her milk. Probably consider it a plus.

However, all this would probably be hard to present in court at that time. How is that jury going to sit through Perry explaining they called a brothel that they knew catered to guys who like milk maids... (or whatever it's called).

 

7 hours ago, Bulldog said:

I'm curious how Birdy's plan was supposed to work.  Surely, Emily would take one look at the baby and announce that it wasn't Charlie.  And where exactly did the new baby come from?  I suppose it would be somewhat easy to obtain an abandoned/unwanted baby back in those days, but there would be someone (the mother? hospital worker? orphanage worker?) who would have to be privy to the information.   Why was there already a crowd gathered? Were all of those people in on the switch?  Are the people to believe that the new baby just showed up in the middle of the street?

 

I suspect Emily would be expected to convince herself any baby was Charlie.

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The defense's case in a nutshell: Nuh-uh! It was maybe the husband? Also, the church she and George went to was in big financial trouble, so maybe THEY did it?  

I remember seeing on some show or somewhere that the main thing he has to do is present a story as compelling as the one the prosecution is telling. Which does seem to be what he's doing, laying out not just that maybe it was the husband since he's a liar, but also create a chain of events where somebody else had a reason to kidnap the kid for ransom and then the kid died--which is why the amount of money was so important.

Really we'll just get it in the confession on the stand--unless the show is planning to do a bait and switch there and make Perry not do that on the first try!