Jump to content

Type keyword(s) to search

S01.E08: Chapter Eight


  • Reply
  • Start Topic

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, dramachick said:

But we didn't know he bribed the juror until after the courtroom drama.

How did Perry contact a sequestered juror? Guess bribing the bailiff happened off screen also...

  • Love 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

Well, that was horribly disappointing. Both the episode and the series as a whole. Perry bribes a juror. (Jurors?) The case is declared a mistrial and everybody is behaving like they won, when Emily is one whim of the DA's from getting her ass dragged back into court.  Chekhov's Eye-Thread was a complete waste of time, 

He bribed one juror, that's why it was a thing that he actually won without doing that by convincing two others. Sure it was a mistrial and not a win, but I wouldn't call that particular part bad change. He didn't have proof and this universe is different from the 50s one in that people don't confess on the stand. I understand liking one and  not the other, but on that one issue, the TV show is dealing in fantasy and this is dealing a bit more realistically and that's more of a lateral move, imo.

Quote

Why is she bothering with law school?  She just has to wait a suitable interval, have Perry sign a bogus apprenticeship letter and rote-learn the answers to the known bar exam questions.

Because she wants a diploma, wants to have more knowledge and has no pressing need to become a lawyer overnight like Perry did.

1 hour ago, DoubleUTeeEff said:

Regarding the girl/lady lawyer discussion, I think we have to take the full context into account. Given the realities of the time, a young unmarried woman would probably fill a secretarial position so Della was most likely calling a young woman a "girl." I don't think calling a young person in their late teens or early 20's a "girl" or a "boy" (taking race out of the equation) is necessarily demeaning. However, Perry told Della that she "would make a great lady lawyer." That's akin to saying "you're really smart for a woman" or "you're really attractive for your age." Those are really insulting backhanded "compliments." That's what Della was objecting to. Not just that she would be a "lady lawyer" but that as woman she wouldn't be in the same league as men when it came to lawyering even if she were a great lawyer (yes, I just made up a word). Whether people were making that argument in that time, I don't know. But Perry just calling her a "lady lawyer" wasn't the whole picture.

That's the point, from my pov, that this argument is just taking the way the average person would hear those terms today and assuming it was always obvious. But, for instance, there's no reason at all to assume that the person Della and Perry would be hiring would be in their late teens or early 20s--she could be older than both of them. Della herself would have been referred to as EB's girl the whole time she was working for him. And the "lady" part of lady lawyer might more likely be thought to emphasize her being unique rather than her being less than.

I think it just stood out because the scene was obviously taking two dated expressions that would be considered offensive or just weird in 2020 and played one as Della being a woman of her time and the other as Della the second wave feminist. I wasn't bothered by it either, it's just to me a really complex moment to think about.

5 minutes ago, dramachick said:

But we didn't know he bribed the juror until after the courtroom drama. Of course, we don't want to see this as a regular occurrence because it would make for bad television. However, I'm of the belief that a fictional courtroom drama will not surpass real life in terms of "things you just can't make up" in the criminal justice system -- and not good things.

Sorry, I did mean after the fact, meaning that once you introduce that as a cheat code the hero can use you have to adjust your pov to it in general.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, dramachick said:

Pete was shocked to discover that Perry did a legitimately good enough job to hang the jury on his own without any bribes. He and Perry could not imagine that any jurors, let alone two, would vote not guilty.

The guy who got paid off identifies the other 2 who voted to acquit as "The lady librarian, and the guy that drives the trolley." As a "lady librarian" myself, that sounds about right. I wonder if "the guy that drives the trolley" had seen Emily as a passenger with Charlie. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

Would the record company even have those kind of records back then?  However, I think this was back when people could overhear other people's conversations.  Maybe the operator would have listened into a scandalous affair.

As for Emily on cross, it was a weak cross but she also seemed very unprepared for it.  So Della prepped her well for Perry's part of the questioning but I think Emily could have done better on cross.  

For instance, when Barnes was saying that the only reason George could have known about access to Baggerly's money is because she told him, couldn't it also be possible that she was targeted by George because of her husband's connection?  I guess I was confused as to what came first. 

...

I thought Burger was the assistant DA.  He wants to run for DA.  I didn't get the sense that he was retired. Maybe I missed something.

...

Perry didn't have hard evidence that what she said was a lie.  He could put Alice on the stand to dispute it but it'd just be a she said/she said.  He could even offer deals to other women there to claim the matron was telling the truth.  

So I doubt inadequate counsel could be supported by that decision.  But Perry and Della could admit to the fraud behind him becoming a lawyer.  They'd sacrifice their careers but if inadequate counsel was a thing back then, that'd likely do it.

I'm just guessing, but I assume the phone company back then still would have a way of knowing what number was connected to what other number and for how long.

Perry shouldn't have needed index cards for his direct of Emily and like others pointed out, he should have objected vociferously to Barnes's cross. 

I don't think we literally know whether George targeted Emily knowing about Baggerly, or if he was having an affair with Emily and found out through the course of the affair that Baggerly was her father-in-law(ish). A failing in retrospect of the series was that it did so little to establish what the relationship actually was. I think it was stated that she stated in the letters the connection with Baggerly, but whether George had already known that, who can say?

Burger was/is a deputy district attorney. Though different offices use different labels like "deputy" and "assistant," I am operating under the assumption that deputy in this case denotes a high-ranking member of the office, as opposed to one of the front-liners.

Perry had two witnesses he could have trusted to dispute the matron's account - Sister Alice and Emily. As far as we saw, he did not use either of them. Nor did he use any of the other women present. Perry could have cross-examined the jail matron on some basic points, such as her bias because she works for the Man, her complicity in the illegal interrogation of Emily (which is certainly something that should have been brought up, that the officers were literally slapping her around and couldn't get a confession ou of her), the potential issues with her recall of the incident (in the scene itself, she was not close to where the confession was). Maybe we are to believe that happened off-screen. 

The bar for ineffective assistance of counsel (at least today) is pretty high. If one can argue that it was a tactical decision, albeit one that was poorly considered, it doesn't rise to that level. I would say that not trying to knock down one of the most damning pieces of evidence in the case at least approaches the bar. I don't think the Perry we have seen is selfless enough to go to jail or risk anything personally for Emily.

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

Does this sound like Pete's moving towards the bad guy side? Like why does he want to become a cop at the very time Paul's realizing there are no good cops?

I don't think Paul would say (and I just realized that we have Peter and Paul together-- Peter being Jesus's rock and Paul being the biggest evangelist) that there are no good cops. He obviously was one, and there are presumably are others. Rather, he worked in a district dominated by corruption by the commander, Ennis and Holcomb. It's possible/probable that other cops are not bent. Indeed, the commander made it sound like his district was particularly corrupt.

1 hour ago, Netfoot said:

Why is she bothering with law school?  She just has to wait a suitable interval, have Perry sign a bogus apprenticeship letter and rote-learn the answers to the known bar exam questions.

Della probably thinks it important that a) at least one of them has actual formal book learnin' b) her status is independent of Perry's in case Perry's fraud ever comes to light c) she has impeccable credentials as a woman.

Also, at some point she has to suspect the bar will wise up and stop recycling questions.

2 minutes ago, paigow said:

How did Perry contact a sequestered juror? Guess bribing the bailiff happened off screen also...

I don't remember it having been established that the jury was actually sequestered. That is a pretty dramatic step for a three week trial.

But when the jury was selected, there presumably was some time spent with each of them that had them revealing their names and backgrounds. It also would be possible to interact with the jurors as they come and go to the courthouse, during bathroom breaks, lunches, etc. 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
6 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't think Paul would say (and I just realized that we have Peter and Paul together-- Peter being Jesus's rock and Paul being the biggest evangelist) that there are no good cops. He obviously was one, and there are presumably are others. Rather, he worked in a district dominated by corruption by the commander, Ennis and Holcomb. It's possible/probable that other cops are not bent. Indeed, the commander made it sound like his district was particularly corrupt.

A good cop in a district (or simply a profession since it seems odd to think this one district somehow became this corrupt on its own) is not that much of force. There's a reason that in the very first ep, I think it was, it was stated that people shouldn't trust the LAPD. The DA is connected to that. Pete might think he's a good cop, but plenty of cops I might consider corrupt would also think of themselves that way. Ennis and Holcomb probably do too. You can't join a corrupt organization and expect to be a force for good. Paul was a good cop and realized that.

 

Link to comment

Re:  "Lady Lawyer."  When I was in law school a local attorney helped break her client/lover out of prison and they went on the run for a month or so until they were caught.  The headlines, circa 1984, blared out "Woman Lawyer Helps Lover Escape."   

Edited by Thalia
  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

But when the jury was selected, there presumably was some time spent with each of them that had them revealing their names and backgrounds. It also would be possible to interact with the jurors as they come and go to the courthouse, during bathroom breaks, lunches, etc. 

There's still the selection of who he decides to bribe, how the juror was approached, did it take a lot is convincing. I mean, it just happened. Like it was said, it's just a cheat code. 

 

 

Why can't the lady librarian just be a librarian? 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
23 hours ago, paigow said:

When Prohibition is...

The number of airports is unsustainable without criminal activity. Only the biggest and best located will survive post-Prohibition

 

23 hours ago, GussieK said:

Lupe said after prohibition was over there would be fewer airstrips. I guess there would be less smuggling. So she being a wetback and a woman wanted to be holding on to a remaining airstrip. 

 

23 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. 

What does she do with the other 25 airstrips then?  Turn them into different businesses?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, paigow said:

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.   

Hmm, ok.

 

12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:
13 hours 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!

 

 

Would there be enough of a budget to have both Hazel, and another girl?

 

Wouldn't their jobs overlap?

Edited by nuraman00
Link to comment
12 hours ago, sistermagpie said:
Quote

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.

Ok, I guess he was introduced so quickly, and didn't have many lines overall, it was hard for me to get a read on him.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:
13 hours 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 don't think he said he was retired. I think he said he was a deputy district attorney, and that his office was next to/underneath Barnes's. He gave his rationale for helping as wanting to position himself to run for D.A. I am operating under the assumption that when they show his trial with the church, he is still a deputy district attorney, although Pete's saying that he was going to work for Burger might mean that he has in fact become the head D.A.

Thanks.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:
13 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

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?

Hazel has a job as a hand model.  I think she was helping out for Della but there's little indication she needs another job at the moment.  They probably won't need more help around the office until they start making more money and Della takes on more lawyerly work.  

I thought Burger was the assistant DA.  He wants to run for DA.  I didn't get the sense that he was retired. Maybe I missed something.

Thanks.

Link to comment

Unlike many of you, I had never heard of most of these actors, or I didn't recall them from anywhere.

 

The one actor I had heard of, Lithgow, I hadn't seen any episodes of the TV show that he starred in.

 

So I came into this with an open mind on the acting, and had no biases or preconceived notions.

 

The acting was good.  I didn't like the first episode though, as it wasn't focused much on the plot, and more about the characters.

 

After a few more episodes, I saw that this was supposed to be a Mason that hadn't yet turned into a lawyer.  So I understood more on why they needed to have some character development early on.

 

I wish Pete and Paul had formed a detective team.  They would have been fun to watch, moving forward.

 

I kind of wish they would keep Barnes as the villain DA, since they had already established him.  Keep Burger in another role.  Maybe Mason uses Burger as a friend on the inside, from time to time.

 

Plus Barnes looks like a better villain.

 

Just because Burger was the DA on the old show, it doesn't mean they have to keep him in the same capacity in this show.  They already established that this show was going to do some things differently.

 

Della's "no modifier needed" is one of the best lines I've ever heard.

 

I liked how there was no confession from Ennis on the stand.  While that might be fun, and characteristic of some other lawyer shows, including the old show, what they did was more realistic as to what happens.

 

I'm surprised Ennis death scene didn't involve something with his penis, since the show had already made a joke about his name.

 

I enjoyed the show more as the case got closer to a resolution.  It's watchable.

 

I usually only keep HBO for a few weeks a year, and was going to cancel it after Curb Your Enthusiasm, but the promo for this show got me interested in keeping it a little longer.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
1 hour ago, nuraman00 said:

 

 

What does she do with the other 25 airstrips then?  Turn them into different businesses?

She owns one of the 30 airstrips that are healthy-ish now, because Prohibition means smugglers use the airstrips to get booze from Mexico and Canada to L.A. 

She is anticipating a time when Prohibition means less of a need for smuggling, killing off most of the competition since in the 30s not too many people would need to/want to travel by air. She is hoping that her airstrip will be one of the five surviving ones despite racism and sexism because she is a smart businesswoman.

But not so smart, because she paid Perry $7,000 for something she already won the rights to at auction to avoid a legal fight that he probably couldn't win. 

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
14 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

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.

I don't think that the case is a loser for the prosecution. Mason gave it his best shot, and he got 2 jurors to believe in Emily's innocence. 

It's true that Perry is now more experienced and more steady. In a second trial, presumably he will do better.

But Barrnes went in overconfident and underestimated him. In a second trial, he could bring his legal experience more to bear. He can better anticipate Perry's defense strategies and cut at least some of them off. One of the things that you mentioned is the chance of a juror buying into the resurrection of Baby Charlie. Well, Barnes can presumably screen out such jurors.  He could blatantly screen out women who might have sympathy for Emily. 

Strong circumstantial evidence plus a confession is not a flimsy case.

All that said, Barnes would probably might be smart to offer a better plea deal than before.  

  • Love 1
Link to comment
2 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

Would there be enough of a budget to have both Hazel, and another girl?

 

Wouldn't their jobs overlap?

Della is anticipating a future where they are successful enough to have the additional hire of another girl. Hazel doesn't formally work for Mason or Della; she is Della's girlfriend.

In Raymond Burr Perry Mason, Della was Perry's personal secretary, whose job was to take notes, type memos and motions, pay bills, be a sounding board for Perry, look up people's phone numbers and call them, and to screen Perry's calls and visitors. Every so often, she would play a role in the in-the-field sleuthing and mild evidence tampering. 

Perry also had a full-time receptionist named Gertie who handled the phones and didn't seem to leave the office. 

Link to comment
14 hours 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.)

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.

Sometimes I wish the show were "Della Street" rather than Perry Mason, from the superficial of getting scenes of her hooking up with Gloves to seeing more of her character.

To review what Della brought in this first season:

1. Basicallysingle-handedly kept E.B.'s office afloat

2. Served as Emily's confidant and protector

3. Literally made Mason into the lawyer he is today.

4. Did the key detective work that led to discovery of the financial situation of the church.

5. Broke up the illegal interrogation of Emily

6. Prepped Emily for her testimony.

But she's not entirely perfect. Here's a complete list of her flaws:

1. Sometimes answered the phone differently than E.B. wanted.

I think Barnes probably had his funny side too, but juries probably preferred smug and self-righteous. No offense to any prosecutors in the crowd, but that's kind of part of the job description. 

I don't think that the cops would ever kill Paul just for quitting, or even give him much guff. They didn't kill or even really physically harm Mason, who was overtly challenging them and a direct threat. As far as they know, Paul is not.The commander probably was like, "The fuck is this n----er doing calling me Joe?" and then he was like "Oh well, $5,000 more for me." The main thing they are concerned about is not getting exposed and Paul's not threatening to do that. Also, Ennis is the most violent and stupid of the corrupt cops (as far as we know), and he's dead. 

  • Love 5
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

She owns one of the 30 airstrips that are healthy-ish now, because Prohibition means smugglers use the airstrips to get booze from Mexico and Canada to L.A. 

She is anticipating a time when Prohibition means less of a need for smuggling, killing off most of the competition since in the 30s not too many people would need to/want to travel by air. She is hoping that her airstrip will be one of the five surviving ones despite racism and sexism because she is a smart businesswoman.

But not so smart, because she paid Perry $7,000 for something she already won the rights to at auction to avoid a legal fight that he probably couldn't win. 

I missed the bolded part. Maybe $7,000 is what Lupe felt like she could afford to gift Perry to help him get on his feet without it seeming like a gift,  
and/or $7,000 is what Lupe feels is a fair price for her friend Perry, considering future income from the property. 
In a future story arc maybe Perry will acknowledge her financial generosity and give her the Friends & Family Discount on legal matters. 
I can even imagine Della being the one to recognize Lupe's generosity while Della goes over Perry's financial records, and that it is Della who returns the favor for Lupe, perhaps even without Lupe realizing that she is getting a discount so as to preserve her dignity as Lupe may have been doing for Perry by paying him the $7K.

 

  • Love 2
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

But we cannot say for sure that she did not know that George was going to kidnap her son and get ransom money, or that she didn't want to run away with him. We can say pretty much for sure there was a conspiracy to ransom Charlie to cover the church's debts, but nothing about that makes it impossible or even improbable that George hadn't brought Emily into the kidnapping plot and that she helped out in order to run away with him.

Assuming what Emily said on the stand was the truth, why would she have had to be on the phone with George to allow the kidnappers to take Charlie?  I guess we can say everything she said was a lie but if her testimony about that night was true then I would conclude she had no knowledge of the plot.

 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The commander probably was like, "The fuck is this n----er doing calling me Joe?" and then he was like "Oh well, $5,000 more for me." The main thing they are concerned about is not getting exposed and Paul's not threatening to do that. Also, Ennis is the most violent and stupid of the corrupt cops (as far as we know), and he's dead. 

Drake has kept his mouth shut so far too. They'll likely know if he says something about kickbacks and payoffs. It's likely they'll see him here and there given his new job and will be happy to remind him. 

26 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I missed the bolded part. Maybe $7,000 is what Lupe felt like she could afford to gift Perry to help him get on his feet without it seeming like a gift,  
and/or $7,000 is what Lupe feels is a fair price for her friend Perry, considering future income from the property. 
In a future story arc maybe Perry will acknowledge her financial generosity and give her the Friends & Family Discount on legal matters. 

She continually made him offers too. So it's not like out of the blue. I could infer enough that a legal battle means she's probably not flying planes and making money either. Perry was quite clear in wanting to go to court to file lots of motions. He may lose, but she'll still pay court fees and maybe lose some business. 

Link to comment
1 minute ago, Dminches said:

Assuming what Emily said on the stand was the truth, why would she have had to be on the phone with George to allow the kidnappers to take Charlie?  I guess we can say everything she said was a lie but if her testimony about that night was true then I would conclude she had no knowledge of the plot.

Assuming she really was on the phone for an hour with George at the time Charlie was taken, it potentially gives her some sort of semi-plausible deniability. It could be in their minds "I didn't hear the kidnappers come in because I was talking to a friend" is a more believable story than "Out of nowhere masked men kidnapped Charlie at gunpoint." 

They also could have been talking through the ins and outs of the kidnapping plot, fantasizing about what they were going to do with the money, even plotting to actually kill Charlie to sever the last link to a husband she didn't love anymore. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I don't think that the cops would ever kill Paul just for quitting, or even give him much guff. They didn't kill or even really physically harm Mason, who was overtly challenging them and a direct threat. As far as they know, Paul is not.The commander probably was like, "The fuck is this n----er doing calling me Joe?" and then he was like "Oh well, $5,000 more for me." The main thing they are concerned about is not getting exposed and Paul's not threatening to do that. Also, Ennis is the most violent and stupid of the corrupt cops (as far as we know), and he's dead. 

If Joe is that racist, I can't imagine he'd take kindly to a black subordinate effectively saying, "I'm too ethical to work with you dirty cops, and I won't even keep your money."

He didn't threaten to tell anyone about their grift, but I think they'd have to consider him a loose end. I'm not saying they'd definitely kill him, but I don't think it was a good time for him to feel so safe that he'd move his wife back into his house.

  • Love 1
Link to comment
38 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Assuming she really was on the phone for an hour with George at the time Charlie was taken, it potentially gives her some sort of semi-plausible deniability. It could be in their minds "I didn't hear the kidnappers come in because I was talking to a friend" is a more believable story than "Out of nowhere masked men kidnapped Charlie at gunpoint." 

They also could have been talking through the ins and outs of the kidnapping plot, fantasizing about what they were going to do with the money, even plotting to actually kill Charlie to sever the last link to a husband she didn't love anymore. 

Wasn't that why the neighbor lady killed?  The one who talked about drowning cats? She told Perry that Emily was on the phone a lot in the evenings. She was a witness to that night, to seeing her on the phone.   One of the loose ends Ennis had to clean up. Although, yeah, they didn't make that real clear.   

  • Love 2
Link to comment
Quote

The notion that Perry bribed a juror sickens me. 

I'm not that upset about it. He knew Emily was innocent-- he knew exactly how the kid died, but couldn't prove it in court. Emily would have hanged had the jury convicted- so he did the only thing he could to ensure she didnt die for a crime she didn't commit.

It's doing the wrong thing for the right reasons-- very neo-noir.

  • Love 5
Link to comment
On 8/10/2020 at 8:38 PM, DoctorAtomic said:

Why can't the lady librarian just be a librarian? 

There were few women on the jury.  It made sense in the context of the times that he pointed out that it was a woman who found Emily not guilty.  Only one man -- who wasn't bribed -- apparently was a not guilty vote, so it was important to show how a woman voted.  

The fact that she was a professional woman, educated and working away from the home, likely had some significance in her vote.
   --Another (retired) lady librarian

Edited by buckboard
  • Love 10
Link to comment
4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Assuming she really was on the phone for an hour with George at the time Charlie was taken, it potentially gives her some sort of semi-plausible deniability.

There's no assuming. Mason got that confirmed by the busy body neighbor. Emily happened to be on the phone when Mason was talking to the neighbor and took a picture. While one may speculate and dispute what was said on the phone since one of them was dead, the fact that she was on the phone at the time was observed. 

 

I was making a joke about lady librarian /lady lawyer, since I initiated that thread of discussion. 

  • Love 1
Link to comment
8 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:
12 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

3. Literally made Mason into the lawyer he is today.

Can I just say what a pleasure it is to see "literally" used correctly for once?

That's literally the first time that has happened!

  • Love 1
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

There's no assuming. Mason got that confirmed by the busy body neighbor. Emily happened to be on the phone when Mason was talking to the neighbor and took a picture. While one may speculate and dispute what was said on the phone since one of them was dead, the fact that she was on the phone at the time was observed. 

Busybody neighbor can confirm that Emily was on the phone for a while the night Charlie was taken.

She probably can't confirm who Emily was speaking to, or exactly how long the conversation was,  or indeed if it was one lengthy conversation with one person or several shorter conversations.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Busybody neighbor can confirm that Emily was on the phone for a while the night Charlie was taken.

She probably can't confirm who Emily was speaking to, or exactly how long the conversation was,  or indeed if it was one lengthy conversation with one person or several shorter conversations.

Busybody neighbor was killed several episodes back.

  • Useful 1
Link to comment

The highlight of the episode for me was Perry and Della's dueling Lithgow impersonations. 

Were paralegals not a thing back then?  Seems like that would be the job description that Della was proposing for the time between her being a secretary and obtaining her law degree. 

I suppose next season's regulars will be Perry, Della, Drake, Pete, Burger and whatever big name guest star they get.  I do hope Hazel sticks around and has a bigger role next season.  The actress, in all her glove wearing glory, is quite the scene stealer.   I assume having Della and Hazel be a couple is 2020 convention and not from the original novels.  I've actually never seen an episode of the old series, but weren't Perry and Della a couple there (even if not shown, wasn't it at least implied)?

  • Love 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Bulldog said:

I assume having Della and Hazel be a couple is 2020 convention and not from the original novels.  I've actually never seen an episode of the old series, but weren't Perry and Della a couple there (even if not shown, wasn't it at least implied)?

In  Raymond Burr Perry Mason, there was enough going on so that you could read whatever you wanted into the relationship.

AFAIK, there was never an explicit statement about Perry dating anyone, being romantically attracted to anyone (other than possibly Della). Some of the women of the week seemed to hit on him with no response. He definitely appreciated a good looking woman but it struck me that he did so in the way that you might appreciate a classic work of art, as opposed to with lust. Now that could be because Perry's only true love was the law (and pouring cans of whoop-ass on Burger). It could be because he was gay. It could be because he only had eyes for Della.

Perry and Della definitely were friendly, loving and supporting of one another, and banter with each other. Perry regularly went out to dinner with Della to pretty swanky places suggesting more-than-friends (sometimes Paul would join them). 

By contrast, pretty frequently, Paul would walk into the office and say "Hello, Beautiful!" to Della, checks out women, and has at least once talked about going on a date. 

  • Useful 2
  • Love 1
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Bulldog said:

Were paralegals not a thing back then?  Seems like that would be the job description that Della was proposing for the time between her being a secretary and obtaining her law degree. 

According to some light Googling, the term "paralegal" was something coined relatively recently (like in the 1960s in the U.S.), although the sort of work that Della is talking about doing was obviously done for ages.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
On 8/10/2020 at 1:38 PM, shapeshifter said:

@BingeyKohan, I appreciate your "more meaningful" explanation of Alice's final scene. I wish you or someone like you was in the writers' room so that Perry would have said those words to Alice ("there's what true and there's what feels true"). It would have nailed the finale for me.

I would've made a different tweak to that final scene: Perry's last line to Sister Alice shouldn't have been "Did you really think you could bring Charlie back?" It should've been "Did you really think you could bring him back?" That ambiguity would've reinforced the connection between Alice's storyline and Perry's, which is that they were both engaged in a hopeless quest to save a grieving mother by raising the dead -- Charlie in Alice's case, E.B. in Perry's. And Alice's response, "I did, didn't I?" is the only answer that might also bring Perry peace. Because the best either of them could do is arrange some pale substitute for the dearly departed, but if they're lucky it might still be enough.

  • Love 4
Link to comment
9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

In  Raymond Burr Perry Mason, there was enough going on so that you could read whatever you wanted into the relationship.

AFAIK, there was never an explicit statement about Perry dating anyone, being romantically attracted to anyone (other than possibly Della). Some of the women of the week seemed to hit on him with no response. He definitely appreciated a good looking woman but it struck me that he did so in the way that you might appreciate a classic work of art, as opposed to with lust. Now that could be because Perry's only true love was the law (and pouring cans of whoop-ass on Burger). It could be because he was gay. It could be because he only had eyes for Della.

Perry and Della definitely were friendly, loving and supporting of one another, and banter with each other. Perry regularly went out to dinner with Della to pretty swanky places suggesting more-than-friends (sometimes Paul would join them). 

By contrast, pretty frequently, Paul would walk into the office and say "Hello, Beautiful!" to Della, checks out women, and has at least once talked about going on a date. 

replied in the Compare & Contrast HBO with Books, Raymond Burr, and Other Versions thread: 
forums.primetimer.com/topic/110111-compare-contrast-hbo-with-books-raymond-burr-and-other-versions/?do=findComment&comment=6281078

 

Edited by shapeshifter
Link to comment

That's another thing that bothered me: She didn't confess to Murder like the DA said. She confessed to adultery and talking on the phone.

Why didn't Perry Mason bring this up? "My client isn't on trial for Adultery, she is on trial for MURDER. Even if she was WITH little Charlie she couldn't have stopped those men."

Of course, if you've BRIBED A JUROR you don't have to be a good lawyer, just a corrupt one. Boo! Boo this man!

Link to comment

To be fair, we can't expect him to be perfect in his first case, and he did say as much in the closing argument. I think TPTBs knew they needed a mistrial but didn't know how to execute it. Even being the first case, the strategy to 'prove her innocence' was short sighted. I think if they acknowledged that the mistrial/hung jury was the best outcome and then put her on the stand to that end, and got the mistrial, then it's fine. I get they needed to put Ennis on the stand because it's the "Perry Mason move", but with that out, they should have realized hung jury was the way to go. I get Della was pushing that, but he needs to put his foot down and be real. You want to be thought of as a slut or be dead? You tell me. 

*If* they did that, then it's natural you put on the husband and show off what a heel he was and it wasn't her fault that she needed companionship. Everything else then you don't really need. 

He went for the confession, didn't get it, and then bribed the juror. There's not much drama there when you can basically flip the off switch on the game if you're losing. 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
25 minutes ago, Hootis said:

That's another thing that bothered me: She didn't confess to Murder like the DA said. She confessed to adultery and talking on the phone.

But more than once (including while the DA was questioning Emily on the stand in this episode) DA Barnes got Emily to say that it was her fault that Charlie was dead. 
Guilt is part of the grieving process --whether it is from the loss of an aging parent, an acquaintance's suicide, the survivor's guilt of war, or, in this case, because Emily failed to imagine her son was in danger of being kidnapped by a man who had seduced her.
The DA knew this and used it to get Emily to admit to a kind of survivor's guilt on the stand, knowing that the jury would be confused by it when he, the DA and a learned attorney, pointed out to the jury that the person on trial had just admitted to being guilty.  
I am guessing Perry didn't see a way to separate that kind of survivor's guilt from the guilt of admitting to literally masterminding the crime. I imagine Perry figured it would just confuse the jury more, and what they might remember is the word "guilt" being said by him several times in association with Emily. 


 

 

 

 

  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Hootis said:

Why didn't Perry Mason bring this up? "My client isn't on trial for Adultery, she is on trial for MURDER. Even if she was WITH little Charlie she couldn't have stopped those men."

He basically did. On this issue I see his closing argument actually framing it better. If he focused on this it would be a technicality--yes, she did these terrible things, but that's not the thing she's on trial for, so acquit her. In his version rather than presenting it as a technicality he identified with their anger about the crime and the need for justice and said that's exactly why they *shouldn't* vote guilty because she wasn't the one who did it. Essentially it would be taking away justice, letting the person who did it get away with it. He challenged Barnes' self-righteousness with his own. Barnes was all about punishing Emily; Perry was about getting justice for Charlie. He was the baby's protector, not Barnes.

Edited by sistermagpie
  • Love 4
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Barnes was all about punishing Emily

More like convicting somebody quickly. Knowing that the case was weak, he ordered Holcomb to beat a confession out of her. Failing that and still lacking hard evidence, he was stuck with stretching adultery into kidnapping / felony murder to protect his mayoral hopes.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, paigow said:

More like convicting somebody quickly. Knowing that the case was weak, he ordered Holcomb to beat a confession out of her. Failing that and still lacking hard evidence, he was stuck with stretching adultery into kidnapping / felony murder to protect his mayoral hopes.

Oh yes, I meant in court that was how Barnes was presenting himself, emphasizing how this sinful woman cared more about herself than her baby and needed to be punished for it. In reality Barnes didn't seem to really angry at Emily because she had an affair even if he did think she was guilty, he just wanted the win.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Hootis said:

That's another thing that bothered me: She didn't confess to Murder like the DA said. She confessed to adultery and talking on the phone.

To be clear, Emily literally did say "I killed my baby" to Sister Alice with the jail matron and a metric ton of inmates in earshot. She also pled guilty rather than not guilty initially to the charges.

In reality, both were expressions of guilt over having the affair. Paying attention to what happened afterwards when Sister Alice was basically like, "Were you the one who did x? Were you the one who did y? You no more killed your baby than I did." would have made it clear that it was guilt over having the affair rather than conspiring to kill Charlie.

But whether the matron deliberately lied about this point to Barnes, misremembered what happened, or was in cahoots with Barnes to paint the statement and the others into a confession to the crime is unclear.  

So there were a few things supporting a fair case vs. Emily:

1. She lied to detectives about her whereabouts when Charlie was taken. Originally, she said she fell asleep downstairs listening to the radio. In reality, she was having an hour-long conversation with George, the kidnapper. Naturally, she could have been lying to cover up her having the affair or her guilt over not stopping the kidnapping. But it is also reasonable to come to the conclusion she was lying to cover up her part in the conspiracy.

2. It's not just that she had an affair. She had an affair with one of the kidnappers of her child, one where she wanted to escape from her current life. Guilt by association may not always be a fair assumption, but it often is.

3. The notion of someone sneaking into a house, going upstairs, getting a baby and neither the baby nor the person making enough noise to draw notice to the act is hard to swallow. Her explanation was that George was distracting her by talking to her on the phone. But that still is a risky plan if Emily is an innocent party. At any time, the baby could get her attention or she could hear a creaky step.

4. She was one of a handful of people who knew that kidnapping Charlie could potentially extract $100k..

5. She confessed to the crime.

  • Love 3
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

3. The notion of someone sneaking into a house, going upstairs, getting a baby and neither the baby nor the person making enough noise to draw notice to the act is hard to swallow. Her explanation was that George was distracting her by talking to her on the phone. But that still is a risky plan if Emily is an innocent party. At any time, the baby could get her attention or she could hear a creaky step.

Just a small point of order.  The kidnappers used a ladder to get in through a bedroom window.  It was shown clearly one of the times they showed Emily talking on the phone with George.

  • Useful 1
  • Love 1
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, Roxie said:

Just a small point of order.  The kidnappers used a ladder to get in through a bedroom window.  It was shown clearly one of the times they showed Emily talking on the phone with George.

Fair enough. Doesn't make a difference in the overall point, though, that it is more believable that the kidnapper would have gotten in with the consent of someone inside the house than without it AND without the person on the inside not noticing. 

Link to comment
5 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

Fair enough. Doesn't make a difference in the overall point, though, that it is more believable that the kidnapper would have gotten in with the consent of someone inside the house than without it AND without the person on the inside not noticing. 

You'd think they know it was more than possible since the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped the same way with people in the house. The house was somewhat bigger, but there were also more people there and nobody heard it. (Though Lindbergh did remember hearing a sound that sounded like the slap of slats on an orange crate.)

  • Useful 1
  • Love 2
Link to comment
2 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

You'd think they know it was more than possible since the Lindbergh baby was kidnapped the same way with people in the house. The house was somewhat bigger, but there were also more people there and nobody heard it. (Though Lindbergh did remember hearing a sound that sounded like the slap of slats on an orange crate.)

Possible, even very possible, is different from probable.

  • Love 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...