S01.E08: Chapter Eight

[kay1864]

2 hours ago, SeanC said:

He essentially just started arguing that she was guilty of adultery and therefore was guilty of murder;

 Well that, plus they had her “confession”.   In any event, that and the adultery was enough for nine jurors to vote for her to be hanged.

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, paigow said:

Holcomb and Ennis were on the casino "payroll", but Ennis was now a liability , so it was prudent for the mob to eliminate Ennis.

Can we say that ultimately Ennis was killed so he couldn’t be called by Perry to testify at a retrial and therefore DA Barnes inadvertently brought about justice by vociferously promising the reporters there would be a retrial? 
 

BTW, I didn’t find Ennis’s demise all that satisfying. I think I would have preferred him doing something foolish that caused a fatal accident, or, even better, that we just never hear about him again without any explanation.  

[kay1864]

57 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

And that blue thread was on my mind the entire season, and now poof, never mind? 

 I too was waiting for resolution on that. Looked to be a classic Hitchcock MacGuffin.

 I also read it as ‘scattering Charlie‘s ashes at sea’, in a small way.

Edited August 10, 2020 by kay1864

[paigow]

5 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Can we say that ultimately Ennis was killed so he couldn’t be called by Perry to testify at a retrial?

No. Perry had no evidence against Ennis at the trial and a retrial would be the same. This was a revenge kill planned by Holcomb because Ennis was creating more risk for both of them while not sharing the rewards.

Edited August 10, 2020 by paigow

[Cardie]

41 minutes ago, GussieK said:

After the hung jury, the DA said he was going to retry the case. So why didn’t that happen?  Because that other cop got killed?  
I was kind of shocked they bribed a juror. Did Della also know?  
Also, what everyone else said already. 

Once Burger’s investigation showed that the ransom ended up on the church’s books, there would be way too much reasonable doubt to convict Emily. 

[kay1864]

15 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

BTW, I didn’t find Ennis’s demise all that satisfying. 

 Drowning has to be a pretty painful way to die, since it’s slower than most forms of execution. IRL more like 5 to 10 minutes, not the one minute of screen time we saw (at least if everything I read on the Internet is true). He had time to realize that with four men holding him under, he had no chance of escape. Plus I recall reading that your lungs are burning.

 It probably wasn’t too hard to get the brothel ‘security guys’ to do it, since he had killed one of their valuable milkmaids, and a fellow Asian.

[sheetmoss]

36 minutes ago, Cotypubby said:

She said, “When Prohibition is over there will only be 5.” Which, I don’t really understand? I guess these are illegal airstrips used to fly in alcohol or something. 

I wouldn't say they were illegal, just not as many needed for smuggling in alcohol once prohibition ends to stay profitable w/o that revenue.

   Alcohol smuggling is keeping 30 open.

[AnimeMania]

Since the people who killed Ennis were Chinese I was wondering if it didn't have a connection to the brothel and the Chinese lady that Ennis killed. 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, kay1864 said:

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

BTW, I didn’t find Ennis’s demise all that satisfying. 

 Drowning has to be a pretty painful way to die

I wasn’t clear.  I didn’t care about whether Ennis suffered or not when he died. I was dissatisfied that the Most Evil Villain was killed by the Less Evil Villain. It seemed too neatly tied up with a bow. Sister Alice’s exit was also like that. The dialogue was good enough, but some of the plot construction seemed like it needed the transitions edited. For instance:

2 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

Since the people who killed Ennis were Chinese I was wondering if it didn't have a connection to the brothel and the Chinese lady that Ennis killed. 

…it wasn’t clear to me that the Chinese guys who drowned Ennis knew or cared about the Chinese prostitute being overdosed by Ennis.

[Cardie]

The cops’ protection racket involved both casinos and brothels. Holcomb would have access to thugs from both. 

[BingeyKohan]

Did folks here take it as proof of Birdie’s involvement when we saw her being stitched up above her eye with black thread? Or merely proof that the same church doctor likely stitched Charlie’s eyes open with the same thread? He seemed to follow her orders since she waved him away in order to have the new Charlie brought to her.

Also: did anyone else think it a little odd for Hazel to be dancing gleefully to ‘Million Dollar Baby’ to celebrate a mistrial in the case of a dead baby held for ransom?

Edited August 10, 2020 by BingeyKohan
Addition

[Pike Ludwell]

10 hours ago, SeanC said:

Barnes did a completely awful job of both cross-examining Emily and making his closing argument.  He essentially just started arguing that she was guilty of adultery and therefore was guilty of murder; Perry sort of went at this in his closing, but way less explicitly than I would have in responding to it were I the one arguing the case.

During Barnes questioning of Emily I am amazed at how quiet Perry was. He should have been objecting right and left. Barnes pushing proximate cause to the absurd (if she hadn't had the affair, the baby would still be alive, so she's responsible!!) in particular should have had Perry jumping out of his seat! Nothing - and Emily still had such guilt she couldn't fight it herself. The attorney's supposed to jump in and fight!

Edited August 10, 2020 by Pike Ludwell

[Dminches]

8 hours ago, Xantar said:

Meanwhile, I noted in the thread for the previous episode that the church was turning out to be an irrelevant sideshow, and I stand by that. In all honesty, Tatiana Maslany’s role could have been excised in its entirety without any problem, and it really hurts me to say that. She was completely wasted. 

 

How was the church an irrelevant sideshow when it was the sole reason for the kidnapping?  The church needed money, George discovered through Emily that her father-in-law was rich, and, thus, a plot to get the 100k via the ransom money was hatched.  Yes, some of the Sister Alice stuff was "extra" but it painted a picture of the church infrastructure and how it was a money making enterprise that was failing.

 

[sacrebleu]

I appreciated the Ennis testimony fake out-- because that scene is what you got in nearly every Perry Mason-- the hard charging attorney wringing a confession out of a guilty party by maneuvering them into a rhetorical corner.

I also appreciated Ham being the one to break the illusion by saying "No one ever confesses on the stand" since that's what happened in nearly every PM show. 

Stephen Root was so slimy and hateable-- it was quite impressive. 

I didnt mind the hung jury-- because a rookie lawyer -- in his first case-- outsmarting a corrupt DA would be pretty un-noir-like. The mistrial was really the best Mason could hope for, and he knew it, ergo the bribe.

I'd like to see another season-- but I havent heard if that's even in the works.

[Chicago Redshirt]

I have been trying to process the season finale for a while and still am working on it. But my initaly feelings are of disappointment. 

The notion that Perry bribed a juror sickens me. 

That there were not discussions from the beginning of the case about whether or not to have Emily take the stand was unrealistic. As others noted, the actual direct and cross for Emily didn't work as well as they could. I think this episode was the first to reveal that Emily had been on the phone with George during the kidnapping of Charlie at all, let alone for an hour.  (It's possible that it was discussed and I missed it, admittedly, but I don't think so.) That is a big deal. It would be something that would be objectively provable through phone company records that there was a call from a number for an hour to the Dodson home, right around the time the kidnapping took place. Even assuming that Emily wasn't a suspect, that is something she would have had to explain to the police. It is something I suppose one could argue both ways -- Barnes could say that she was on the phone for an hour with the kidnapper is yet another sign how deeply in lust they were and that they were in cahoots, while Perry could say that it would be absolutely foolish for Emily to have an hourlong conversation with her co-conspirator knowing that phone records would exist showing the conversation and knowing that they could come up with a better story that would make Emily not look guilty (such as masked men taking Charlie at gunpoint).

The closings: Perry made his so much about him personally. He is not important. He needed to spend his methodically attacking the weakness of the prosecution's case and pumping up the sincerity of Emily. He should have been explaining that Emily was distraught not only because of the murder of her son but at the shocking discovery that her lover was responsible. That Perry never tried in what we saw of the closing or his direct of Emily to attack the "confession" verges on ineffective assistance of counsel.

The aftemath: I would have liked to see more about Matthew and Baggerly's reactions. The Sister Alice-Perry conversation was painful. At least they didn't do it, which I thought they might go there. I don't see why Della doesn't just forge herself another E.B. letter saying that she too had been apprenticing under him and take the bar now while they are still using the same questions that Hamilton can supply her with the answers. I feel bad for Paul, taking a job with Perry thinking that it is a place with more integrity than LAPD, when he realizes not so much. I really hate when characters fake out other characters for the benefit of the audience like with Holcomb's killing of Ennis. There literally was no reason to give him his half of the cash and give him the speech about how he wanted Ennis to take care of his family if something should happen to him when Holcomb knew that Ennis was seconds away from being killed. (Kinda gross of me, but I wondered if Ennis got to taste some of Perry's bodily fluids from the time when he and Lupe were doing it in that fountain.)

Yes, the version of the classic RBPM theme was probably the best thing about the episode. 

 

 

 

[Cotypubby]

24 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I think this episode was the first to reveal that Emily had been on the phone with George during the kidnapping of Charlie at all, let alone for an hour.  (It's possible that it was discussed and I missed it, admittedly, but I don't think so.)

That was revealed in an earlier episode, I don’t remember when. They showed her talking on the phone and laughing. I think she was seen by a neighbor. 

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

8 hours ago, GussieK said:

After the hung jury, the DA said he was going to retry the case. So why didn’t that happen?  Because that other cop got killed? 

 

8 hours ago, Cardie said:

Once Burger’s investigation showed that the ransom ended up on the church’s books, there would be way too much reasonable doubt to convict Emily. 

Also remember that Emily now has new baby who she's claiming to be a resurrected Charlie, even if she knows he isn't. With no way to conclusively prove this living, healthy baby isn't her child (DNA testing was still decades away), good luck getting a conviction for his murder.

3 hours ago, BingeyKohan said:

Also: did anyone else think it a little odd for Hazel to be dancing gleefully to ‘Million Dollar Baby’ to celebrate a mistrial in the case of a dead baby held for ransom?

I was yelling "Doesn't someone want to change the radio station?" at the TV.

59 minutes ago, sacrebleu said:

I'd like to see another season-- but I havent heard if that's even in the works.

HBO has renewed the series for a second season.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Sir RaiderDuck OMS

[BradandJanet]

9 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

So who took the baby's body out of the casket? As Perry pointed out, everyone was watching.

AFAIK, I'd never seen Matthew Rhys in anything before, but found myself really impressed with both him and the rest of the cast.

Looking forward to next season.

I'd like to know who took the body too and when. This is all I can think of.  

Birdy didn't seem to approve of the original resurrection, but once Alice had announced it, maybe she decided to make it work. When the grave was being opened late at night or early in the morning, Birdy might have arranged for the body to be secretly removed and the casket re-closed for Alice's arrival. Birdy also certainly arranged for the substitute baby to be in the road. Alice may or may not have been in on the plan. When Perry asked Alice about Charlie's body in the last scene, she gave a vague answer about faith.   

Emily looked completely deranged holding "new" Charlie. I guess they'll both be part of Birdy's new cult. 

 

[Nampara]

24 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Also remember that Emily now has new baby who she's claiming to be a resurrected Charlie, even if she knows he isn't. With no way to conclusively prove this living, healthy baby isn't her child (DNA testing was still decades away), good luck getting a conviction for his murder.

 

The law doesn't recognize resurrection. Charlie Dodson was legally declared dead, so he stays dead. The fact that his mother later shows up with another infant is irrelevant. The reasons for not retrying Emily after the mistrial are practical; there is no need to prove or disprove anything about the replacement baby.

[Dminches]

37 minutes ago, Cotypubby said:

That was revealed in an earlier episode, I don’t remember when. They showed her talking on the phone and laughing. I think she was seen by a neighbor. 

I am not sure that was the same night as the kidnapping.  I am sure there was more than one phone conversation especially since the husband was never home.

 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, sacrebleu said:

Stephen Root was so slimy and hateable-- it was quite impressive.

Stephen Root has been great in everything I've seen. I am guessing the only reason he hasn't won more awards is because he tends to play such unlikable characters and he does it so well. I wonder if he made his Hitlerian mustache even more so himself.

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Matthew Rhys was great. He has a few signature gestures and expressions that make me harken back to The Americans.

Not thrilled with the ending. And that blue thread was on my mind the entire season, and now poof, never mind? 

That worked for me, the thread. It was there to lure you into thinking it would solve the case because it was forensic evidence, but that didn't have the same kind of power then. Even if they could link it to the taxidermy the jury probably wouldn't care much. Everyone already knows George was involved.

9 hours ago, GussieK said:

After the hung jury, the DA said he was going to retry the case. So why didn’t that happen?  Because that other cop got killed?  
I was kind of shocked they bribed a juror. Did Della also know?  
Also, what everyone else said already. 

I think he had to say he'd retry the case to save face, but it might not be worth it. Anyway Emily still had to live under a cloud that way.

Hated bribing the jury. They tried to soften it by showing it didn't change the outcome, but not only could that come back to bite him it basically makes it about who pays the most jurors. I could completely buy Perry not feeling bad about cheating on the bar exam, but he also wouldn't care if he found out the other attorney cheated the same way. He'd care a lot of the prosecution was bribing jurors.

Btw, re: Della going to law school, I think she'd have thought it was too fishy if she, too, had a secret apprenticeship, especially one that started the same time as Perry's when she'd been working for EB for so long so closely and so visibly. Plus there was no pressing reason for her to need to do it fast. She probably preferred to have the actual education, particularly since she'd be working with a lot of technical stuff, and plus as a woman it would be better for her to have the law school degree.

 

9 hours ago, Cotypubby said:

She said, “When Prohibition is over there will only be 5.” Which, I don’t really understand? I guess these are illegal airstrips used to fly in alcohol or something. 

Yes, Prohibition = need for more airplanes. After it's over there's not as much need for tiny airstrips running shady jobs for people. Once it's legal it can be shipped in bulk by bigger planes on bigger airstrips.

3 hours ago, BingeyKohan said:

Did folks here take it as proof of Birdie’s involvement when we saw her being stitched up above her eye with black thread? Or merely proof that the same church doctor likely stitched Charlie’s eyes open with the same thread? He seemed to follow her orders since she waved him away in order to have the new Charlie brought to her.

Nah, anybody getting stitches would get stitches like that--hers probably were with different thread. But I do think it was meant to remind us of Charlie, too, having his eyes sewn open.

2 hours ago, Dminches said:

 

How was the church an irrelevant sideshow when it was the sole reason for the kidnapping?  The church needed money, George discovered through Emily that her father-in-law was rich, and, thus, a plot to get the 100k via the ransom money was hatched.  Yes, some of the Sister Alice stuff was "extra" but it painted a picture of the church infrastructure and how it was a money making enterprise that was failing.

 

I think the reason it seems like a sideshow is that *any* business could have needed money. It seemed like they made it a church just for the spectacle of showing that kind of church that was in that time period.

I've been thinking about Sister Alice. The thing with her was she never worked for me as the person that was supposed to be the big draw of this church. I don't know a lot about Amy Semple McPherson but from what I understand she was very theatrical--would have loved to be in theater. So she would have been really into creating that vaudevillian show with the boat and all that. She had a big personality, like not John Lithgow Broadway but Ethel Merman Broadway. Outgoing extrovert. Very big presence. Vaudevillian-like, probably.

But Sister Alice, while believable as a member of the church, was just too small a presence and seemed to have little connection with the stuff they were doing. I thought it would actually have made more sense both with the casting and with the flashback her mother had given her a different role. For instance, if Birdie did the set up and then brought out Alice to have visions. Play her more like a beautiful, pure mystic who was fragile and eerie and then collapsed onstage or whatever. That would also fit more with the flashback where Alice is turning her face to the sun and smiling until her mother calls her over to the man in which she had no interest. It would fit with the idea that she'd become even more dreamy and prone to disassociation because of the abuse. It would, imo, much more fit her personality to come across as ethereal onstage but be surprisingly warm and earthy, if still somewhat dreamy, off-stage.

[Inquisitionist]

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't think the questions need answers. The eyes were sewn open to make him look alive,

Because babies never sleep and they're always rigidly still while awake.  🙄

10 hours ago, AnimeMania said:

What a pile of horse crackers. The only part I liked was when Emily threw her husband's supper on the floor. I thought they would have told Emily not to leave town.

Great summation, though I would say steaming pile of horse crackers.  Won't be tuning in for S2.  If this were named anything other than Perry Mason, would people care as much?  

[paigow]

15 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

She probably preferred to have the actual education, particularly since she'd be working with a lot of technical stuff, and plus as a woman it would be better for her to have the law school degree.

Lupe will hire Della for all the airport contracts, etc...

[shapeshifter]

A few stylistic critiques:

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I really hate when characters fake out other characters for the benefit of the audience like with Holcomb's killing of Ennis. There literally was no reason to give him his half of the cash and give him the speech about how he wanted Ennis to take care of his family if something should happen to him when Holcomb knew that Ennis was seconds away from being killed.

Yes, that is such a cheesy, eye-rolling trope (taking time to tell someone you're about to murder all kinds of information). I hope it was only done as a nod to the murder mysteries of OG Perry Mason's era, although I still see it done. 🙄 At least here it was done with some panache.

 

2 hours ago, sacrebleu said:

I also appreciated Ham being the one to break the illusion by saying "No one ever confesses on the stand" since that's what happened in nearly every PM show. 

• Yes, Ham's breaking "the illusion by saying "No one ever confesses on the stand" since that's what happened in nearly every PM show" was perfect --no doubt in part because it was Justin Kirk delivering the line. 
   
• Conversely, Della and Perry doing EB impersonations were not, IMO, very well worked into the script.  I can appreciate including them in the show (I enjoyed them); I just wish they'd been set up better so it didn't feel like a break of the fourth wall. They had Perry do an EB in the episode after EB died. I think if they had also had Perry and Della trading EB impersonations one other time before he died (behind his back, so to speak) it would have been a much better effect --partly because of the humor "rule of 3," but also just because.
   
• Similarly, having the OG Perry Mason music at the end of the finale seemed a little too fan-service-y. Maybe they should have had a few bars at the end of other episodes to lead up to the longer musical interlude in the finale.

 

Editing to add one more:

13 minutes ago, Inquisitionist said:

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't think the questions need answers. The eyes were sewn open to make him look alive,

Because babies never sleep and they're always rigidly still while awake.

The eyes sewn open and a few other WTH? plot points were taken from historical crimes on which the plot was based. In the real life crime, the only explanation for the baby's eyes being sewn open is so that he appeared to be awake. I am guessing at the moment the real-life baby's eyes were sewn open, the stitches were invisible, but became garishly apparent as the body decomposed. 
I think it was a mistake to just assume that viewers would (a) research the original crime and/or read about it in social media surrounding the show, and (b) not give an explanation similar to mine (e.g., maybe show seemingly "wide awake" Charlie when Emily first finds him and then have the stitches become apparent later in the morgue).

 

Edited August 10, 2020 by shapeshifter

[nuraman00]

How did Mason, Strickland, and others figure out that Sarecki and Nowak were the kidnappers / killers?

 

Pete had gone to Denver, then those names came up as having been associated with Ennis in Denver.  But what evidence was there that they were also tied to Charlie Dodson's kidnapping or murder or hostage holding?  To me, those names were kind of introduced during the season, but I didn't see where they really came from.

[edhopper]

10 hours ago, GussieK said:

I got Rosemary’s Baby vibes in the first scene with new little Charlie. 

After the hung jury, the DA said he was going to retry the case. So why didn’t that happen?  Because that other cop got killed?  
I was kind of shocked they bribed a juror. Did Della also know?  
Also, what everyone else said already. 

When Barnes said a retrial was "written in stone" you knew it would never happen. Barnes knows he doesn't have a case and now with Berger prosecuting the Church, his case is all that much weaker. Besides Emily has left town and is somewhere on the road near Mexico. I doubt they could get he for a new trial.

[nuraman00]

How exactly did they track down where Sister Alice now worked? 

[Enigma X]

I seemed to have enjoyed this show more than most and never expected it to be "your mother's" version of Perry Mason because it is on HBO, it is 2020, and we know that even in the late 50s to mid 60s things were a bit more complicated than the original portrayed it to be. I also did not really expect Alice to be part of the big bad. I did not rule it out, but I never got the impression that was her purpose on the show.

[DoctorAtomic]

9 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

She says "There are 30 airstrips in Los Angeles.  I'm a wetback and a woman.  When I'm done, there will be 5".

 

9 hours ago, paigow said:

When Prohibition is...

The key point there being the Prohibition era. All those flights to Mexico for tequila and Canada for whisky dry up. (oooh good pun totally unintentional)

I wasn't surprised about a mistrial either. Given the social context of the times, a woman having an affair is going to be judged harshly. That's all the DA had - destroy her character. Everyone knew she felt guilty about it all. 

I was slightly disappointed Mason didn't put Alice on the stand because she could have clearly refuted the 'confession' in the jail that the guard woman lied about, and he could have shown that the DA (whether true or not) was willing to let witnesses purger themselves to get the conviction. 

I don't know if I buy Mason paying off a juror. It kind of torpedoes his 'standing here for the law', and if Della found out, she'd probably kill him. 

I could see next season being one or two cases overlapping. A lot of this season was Mason becoming Perry Mason. With all the groundwork set up, they can just move on the cases. 

I was slightly confused if Emily thought the baby was actually Charlie because she clearly said that his arms were shorter, but when kind of wigged after the baby liked the turtle. Either way, girl needs *help*. She looked catatonic at the revival. 

 

[nuraman00]

When Della is reviewing which activities she will do for Mason, she says answering calls, for now, until they can "hire a girl".

 

Why can't Hazel do this, and some of of the other non-legal work?

Why did Hamilton Burger get back into law?  I thought when he was introduced in episode 5, he said he was retired.

 

But now he is the DA?

[Pike Ludwell]

This season he didn't get a confession on the stand - that will come next season. Here, he had to win it through a dynamite closing. 

[Patrizio]

I think the stitching of the babies eyes was just a little extra gruesomeness on the part of the writer. Babies sleep- a lot. Don't have to have their eyes open to know they're alive. Feel this was production was well casted, and direction was good. The stand out was Terence Blanchard's score - just great. I thought the writing was horrible though, and the ending a big ole nothing burger.  

[Xantar]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I have been trying to process the season finale for a while and still am working on it. But my initaly feelings are of disappointment. 

I think a large part of the disappointment for me is how little all the sleuthing and legal maneuvering really mattered. The theft of the body? Didn't really come into play. The dental retainer? Perry refused to use it and thus demonstrated that he had honor, and maybe that's what convinced Paul Drake to go work for him. But it therefore had no legal consequence. Tracing the church elder? He gave Pete the slip and got murdered, so that didn't pan out either. Figuring out that the baby died due to feeding from an addicted woman? That also didn't get introduced into the trial.

Basically, the only helpful thing Perry Mason & Associates did was uncover the church's finances, and that was genuinely significant to the case. But that's it. There was nothing clever about it. Perry failed to land any hits on the witness testimony, and arguably putting Emily on the stand didn't do much either. Fortunately, the prosecution's case was so weak that all Perry had to do was give a closing summary in which he reminds the jurors that the DA failed to meet his burden of proof. 

That's it? I realize that having Perry pull off some brilliant last minute legal stunt that saves the day on his first case would have been unrealistic, but these are highly paid writers we are talking about here. They couldn't come up with anything better than that?

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

1 hour ago, Nampara said:

The law doesn't recognize resurrection. Charlie Dodson was legally declared dead, so he stays dead. The fact that his mother later shows up with another infant is irrelevant. The reasons for not retrying Emily after the mistrial are practical; there is no need to prove or disprove anything about the replacement baby.

Respectfully disagree. There's no corpse anymore and Emily and her friends in the church have a baby who they claim is Charlie. Assuming the blood types are compatible (and remember this is even before they knew about positive and negative blood factors), all the defense need do is put Emily on the stand to say "My baby's not dead. He's sitting right over there in Birdy's lap." If even one juror is religious enough to believe the child could be a resurrected Charlie, getting a murder conviction would be impossible.

[paigow]

26 minutes ago, nuraman00 said:

How did Mason, Strickland, and others figure out that Sarecki and Nowak were the kidnappers / killers?

 

Pete had gone to Denver, then those names came up as having been associated with Ennis in Denver.  But what evidence was there that they were also tied to Charlie Dodson's kidnapping or murder or hostage holding?  To me, those names were kind of introduced during the season, but I didn't see where they really came from.

The empty suitcase found at the multi-murder scene was definitively identified as belonging to Matthew Dodson, therefore, it was the ransom suitcase. Pete knew that at least one of the dead guys was linked to Ennis in Denver BEFORE going there.   

[Tachi Rocinante]

When did Robert Patrick turn into Walter, Jeff Dunham's grumpy old man puppet?  He looks just like him now.

That's all I got.

[paigow]

3 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Respectfully disagree. There's no corpse anymore and Emily and her friends in the church have a baby who they claim is Charlie.

There are detailed autopsy records listing height, eye colour etc...

There is a difference between resurrection, reincarnation and reanimation...

[Penman61]

I'm sorry...what was the thread that Perry blew into the ocean?

[Dminches]

2 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

I'm sorry...what was the thread that Perry blew into the ocean?

I was from the baby's eyes.  His friend in the morgue allowed him to snip a piece.

 

[Penman61]

Thanks, Dminches. 🙂

 

[DoubleUTeeEff]

2 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The notion that Perry bribed a juror sickens me. 

Me too. I don't mind that the trial ended with a hung jury. It makes much more sense for it to happen that way rather than 12 mostly male jurors unanimously deciding Emily was not guilty. However, the fact that Perry bribed one of the jurors is just so far over the line of "what's right" as they kept harping on that it made me really hate the ending. I especially hate that both Della and Paul Drake have been duped by Perry in this way. Della even mentioned something about how surprised she was by that juror's verdict. That juror really did work for the bribe money though given that the jury deliberated for 3 days.

I also disliked Emily's ending although I guess it makes sense. I feel sorry for the replacement Charlie.

I didn't like Sister and Perry's conversation either. It seems Sister wants to have it both ways, have faith, peace and contentment but also leave the church because she knows the truth about Charlie. Pick one: either you don't care about the truth and you really did raise the dead or you do care about the truth over your own selfish need for ignorant bliss.

I'm glad Ennis got his comeuppance but it was a little unsatisfying that his partner is still in a position of power.

After all that negativity, I will say that I did love a lot about the show. Mostly the characters. I loved Perry, Della, Paul Drake, Lupe, Pete, Burger and even the coroner. I'm really glad that Paul will be sticking around and working with Perry. I just want a less convoluted case next time around.

The thread thing didn't bother me. I just figured it was symbolic of Perry's investment in the case. At the end, he finally let it go.

[Penman61]

I don't understand why every fan of this show isn't revolting against PERRY BRIBING A JUROR.

I mean...that's in a whole other league of corruption. It means Perry cares more about outcome than the process/institutions, and while those two are always in tension...BRIBING A JUROR just shortcuts all those debates to completely, corrosively, corrupt the process. Even bribing a judge is less corrupt.

(And I enjoyed the show very much. But Perry Mason BRIBED A JUROR, y'all.)

ETA: Did not see DoubleUTeeF's nearly simultaneous post before I posted this one, I swear.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Penman61

[paigow]

5 minutes ago, DoubleUTeeEff said:

At the end, he finally let it go.

Drake: Forget it Perry, this is Arendelle....

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

14 minutes ago, paigow said:

There are detailed autopsy records listing height, eye colour etc...

There is a difference between resurrection, reincarnation and reanimation...

Again: All you need is one juror saying "The Lord works in mysterious ways. That child Emily keeps bringing to court could be Charlie" to result in another embarrassing mistrial for the DA's office. Better for them to quietly switch focus to the church's considerable financial chicanery whilst everyone gets on with their lives and gradually forgets about Emily.

[Nampara]

21 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Respectfully disagree. There's no corpse anymore and Emily and her friends in the church have a baby who they claim is Charlie. Assuming the blood types are compatible (and remember this is even before they knew about positive and negative blood factors), all the defense need do is put Emily on the stand to say "My baby's not dead. He's sitting right over there in Birdy's lap." If even one juror is religious enough to believe the child could be a resurrected Charlie, getting a murder conviction would be impossible.

1. Stealing a corpse after the body has been identified, an autopsy has been performed, a coroner's report as to cause of death has been prepared and filed, a burial has taken place, etc., does not prevent a murder trial from going forward. It's just a separate crime -- grave robbing. Arguing that "there's no body!" works only if the alleged homicide victim's body was never found, so that it's plausible that death didn't actually occur. "Someone dug up my baby, so I couldn't have murdered him," is an illogical and legally frivolous argument.

2. Emily testified in her first trial about how her son's murder and death destroyed her. It would be impossible to recant all that. Any testimony to the effect of, "Oops, I guess I was wrong and good ol' Charlie isn't dead after all," would be a complete joke. And no competent judge would allow a stunt like pointing to a baby on someone's lap and claiming it's the deceased.

3. Even if the law recognized fantastical claims about resurrection, as a matter of logic, an alleged resurrection would not preclude a charge of homicide for having caused the death in the first place. I.e., you first have to kill someone for them to be "resurrected" months later. Reanimation in some ghoulish way doesn't get the accused off the hook.

[Blakeston]

4 minutes ago, BradandJanet said:

Birdy didn't seem to approve of the original resurrection, but once Alice had announced it, maybe she decided to make it work. When the grave was being opened late at night or early in the morning, Birdy might have arranged for the body to be secretly removed and the casket re-closed for Alice's arrival. Birdy also certainly arranged for the substitute baby to be in the road. Alice may or may not have been in on the plan.

I don't think Alice had anything too do with Birdy's plan. She seemed surprised by (and very unhappy with) the empty casket and the new baby.

A few scattered thoughts:

1. It seems straight-up incompetent for Perry not to address the prison matron's testimony about Emily's "confession" in any way. If Sister Alice is unavailable to testify that Emily didn't answer "yes," then when you have Emily on the stand, at least ask her about it.

2. Della seems way too perfect to be a real person - the absolute embodiment of extreme competence, with more common sense than everyone else on the show combined. Has she ever been wrong about anything? I guess her willingness to falsify Perry's legal internship records could be seen as a flaw, but the show presented that as being very justifiable. (I like the character and the actress, but she should be fleshed out better.)

3. I have a hard time believing that Barnes acting so incredibly smug in court wouldn't backfire on him on a regular basis. I can't imagine juries responding well to that. I know there have been some very successful smug attorneys, like Johnnie Cochran, but he at least showed a sense of humor.

4. I have a hard time believing that Drake would be able to righteously resign and give the dirty money back without the police trying to kill him.

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Editing to add one more:

The eyes sewn open and a few other WTH? plot points were taken from historical crimes on which the plot was based. In the real life crime, the only explanation for the baby's eyes being sewn open is so that he appeared to be awake. I am guessing at the moment the real-life baby's eyes were sewn open, the stitches were invisible, but became garishly apparent as the body decomposed. 
I think it was a mistake to just assume that viewers would (a) research the original crime and/or read about it in social media surrounding the show, and (b) not give an explanation similar to mine (e.g., maybe show seemingly "wide awake" Charlie when Emily first finds him and then have the stitches become apparent later in the morgue).

 

 

I don't think anyone was meant to look up the real crime. The eyes being sewn open was meant as a sign that the death was accidental. The kidnappers thought sewing the eyes open would give them just a little more time before the parents knew he was dead--remember the first time they saw him, the only time that mattered, was when he was going by on the tram. Once the kidnappers left they didn't care.

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

 

I don't know if I buy Mason paying off a juror. It kind of torpedoes his 'standing here for the law', and if Della found out, she'd probably kill him. 

Yes, it seems like they wanted to stick with the whole "everybody has to play a little dirty" without realizing that this particular thing invalidates everything we're rooting for.

1 hour ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I was slightly confused if Emily thought the baby was actually Charlie because she clearly said that his arms were shorter, but when kind of wigged after the baby liked the turtle. Either way, girl needs *help*. She looked catatonic at the revival. 

 

I think she clearly knew it wasn't him but had accepted him and the turtle thing was just a sign that this could work. She was going to make herself accept it, but obviously didn't believe it in a psychologically healthy way.

1 hour ago, nuraman00 said:

When Della is reviewing which activities she will do for Mason, she says answering calls, for now, until they can "hire a girl".

 

Why can't Hazel do this, and some of of the other non-legal work?

Why should Hazel have to do it? Give some other girl an income!

1 hour ago, nuraman00 said:

Why did Hamilton Burger get back into law?  I thought when he was introduced in episode 5, he said he was retired.

 

But now he is the DA?

I thought he wanted to be the DA all along and that's why he was helping.

 

4 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

1. It seems straight-up incompetent for Perry not to address the prison matron's testimony about Emily's "confession" in any way. If Sister Alice is unavailable to testify that Emily didn't answer "yes," then when you have Emily on the stand, at least ask her about it.

I think we can assume a lot happened that we didn't see. Since the DA was harping on how her actions caused Charlie's death in his summation, which was what she was really confessing, it seems like his case wasn't resting on the matron's statement.

5 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

2. Della seems way too perfect to be a real person - the absolute embodiment of extreme competence, with more common sense than everyone else on the show combined. Has she ever been wrong about anything? I guess her willingness to falsify Perry's legal internship records could be seen as a flaw, but the show presented that as being very justifiable. (I like the character and the actress, but she should be fleshed out better.)

I admit when she told Perry if they were going to work together they had to be prepared to see each other at their worst I wondered if she was planning to show us any worst!

 

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

30 minutes ago, Nampara said:

1. Stealing a corpse after the body has been identified, an autopsy has been performed, a coroner's report as to cause of death has been prepared and filed, a burial has taken place, etc., does not prevent a murder trial from going forward. It's just a separate crime -- grave robbing. Arguing that "there's no body!" works only if the alleged homicide victim's body was never found, so that it's plausible that death didn't actually occur. "Someone dug up my baby, so I couldn't have murdered him," is an illogical and legally frivolous argument.

2. Emily testified in her first trial about how her son's murder and death destroyed her. It would be impossible to recant all that. Any testimony to the effect of, "Oops, I guess I was wrong and good ol' Charlie isn't dead after all," would be a complete joke. And no competent judge would allow a stunt like pointing to a baby on someone's lap and claiming it's the deceased.

3. Even if the law recognized fantastical claims about resurrection, as a matter of logic, an alleged resurrection would not preclude a charge of homicide for having caused the death in the first place. I.e., you first have to kill someone for them to be "resurrected" months later. Reanimation in some ghoulish way doesn't get the accused off the hook.

You give compelling legal and logical points. But if Emily blurts out "My son's alive! He's sitting right there! Praise be to God Almighty!", the jury's going to hear that, no matter how much the judge admonishes them to ignore it and/or yells at Emily for saying it. He can't unring a bell. California juries are infamous for ignoring facts and law in high-profile cases and going with emotions instead, and you only need one juror who thinks the presence of a living "Charlie" constitutes reasonable doubt. Any retrial of this case is likely to be a loser for the prosecution, especially given how flimsy their case was in the first place.

Bottom line is that we'll have to agree to disagree, and I suspect we've each given considerably more thought to this than the writers did.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Sir RaiderDuck OMS

[tennisgurl]

My favorite part was actually when Perry closed EBs briefcase and he touched EBs initials for a second, it was really subtle and emotionally powerful. 

They totally got me on the opening, with the classic Perry Mason confession on the stand, I thought that was really happening until Berger stood up and told him that no one confessed on the stand. Yeah, you wish Berger. I kind of liked the acknowledgment of the classic Perry Mason ending, while also noting how thats not really how it works, but I do feel like this needed more of a climax. At least we got to see Ennis get his though, and in a pretty nasty way too. Couldn't have happened to a nicer guy...