S02.E02: Chapter Ten

[Door County Cherry]

After a manhunt pegs brothers Rafael and Mateo Gallardo for the McCutcheon cuddle, Perry initially resists taking the case... until a hunch reels him in. Later, Della goes on a date with a new flame while Paul wrestles with a shocking truth.

[shapeshifter]

This is the only summary I could find. Are they maybe trying to tamp down spoilers?

Quote

S02E02 Chapter 10: Spaced Out Summary
https://www.pogdesign.co.uk/cat/Perry-Mason/Season-2/Episode-2

After a manhunt pegs brothers Rafael and Mateo Gallardo for the McCutcheon cuddle, Perry initially resists taking the case... until a hunch reels him in. Later, Della goes on a date with a new flame while Paul wrestles with a shocking truth.

Anyway, the acting and writing and cinematography and costuming are excellent, but it's a bit dark for me. 

[Door County Cherry]

25 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

This is the only summary I could find. Are they maybe trying to tamp down spoilers?

I doubt that's the reason but I appreciate the summary.  I usually base it on what my cable provides but they had nothing but the basic premise for the series in the description. 

[kay1864]

Anyone figured out the point of having both defendants sight along a measuring tape?

And Gretchen Mol was in the final credits? How did I miss her? ETA: Ah she played Linda, Perry’s ex. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by kay1864

[aghst]

29 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

Anyone figured out the point of having both defendants sight along a measuring tape?

And Gretchen Mol was in the final credits? How did I miss her? ETA: Ah she played Linda, Perry’s ex. 

Yeah I was wondering about that too.

I guess Perry doesn't believe anyone could hit Brooks right in the face with one shot from a certain distance?

When he and Paul examined the evidence, they could see for instance that Brooks shirt showed no sign of the struggle.

Wasn't sure Della really cared about the case when she was trying to get Ham to offer a plea deal without death, life without parole was her last offer but do the defendants and their families want that?  I guess better than the death penalty but maybe Della thought at that point that they were guilty.

So Perry gave up criminal law because he was haunted by how the season 1 case turned out.  But he could go do civil cases to pay the bills -- I think today, lawyers are way more specialized and they wouldn't be able to easily switch.

They keep Sunny around so he could bankroll them and allow to take on these indigent clients.  Maybe Perry was inclined to want to make up for ruining the other grocer because I think he saw an ad that the other guy was liquidating and closing his store.

The fire on the casino ship now makes more sense, Brooks wanted his own ship to burn so he could collect insurance?  Otherwise the ship was losing money or barely making some money?

What seems likely to happen is that this case will put Perry on the hot seat, because public sentiment seems to be against the Gallardos.  So Sunny may threaten to revoke his retainer if the public finds out that Perry is funding the defense of the Gallardos with that retainer.

BTW, the police just ran through their camp and grabbed two young guys that they could find.  There is probably no specific evidence though the finger print on Brooks' car is probably going to be explained some other way.

 

[Door County Cherry]

25 minutes ago, aghst said:

BTW, the police just ran through their camp and grabbed two young guys that they could find.  There is probably no specific evidence though the finger print on Brooks' car is probably going to be explained some other way.

 

Not really anyone.  The person who killed Brooks took his wallet and trashed it--probably hoping someone would pick it up.  One of the brothers did just that which immediately transferred suspicion to him. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

20 minutes ago, aghst said:

Yeah I was wondering about that too.

I guess Perry doesn't believe anyone could hit Brooks right in the face with one shot from a certain distance?

When he and Paul examined the evidence, they could see for instance that Brooks shirt showed no sign of the struggle.

Wasn't sure Della really cared about the case when she was trying to get Ham to offer a plea deal without death, life without parole was her last offer but do the defendants and their families want that?  I guess better than the death penalty but maybe Della thought at that point that they were guilty.

So Perry gave up criminal law because he was haunted by how the season 1 case turned out.  But he could go do civil cases to pay the bills -- I think today, lawyers are way more specialized and they wouldn't be able to easily switch.

They keep Sunny around so he could bankroll them and allow to take on these indigent clients.  Maybe Perry was inclined to want to make up for ruining the other grocer because I think he saw an ad that the other guy was liquidating and closing his store.

The fire on the casino ship now makes more sense, Brooks wanted his own ship to burn so he could collect insurance?  Otherwise the ship was losing money or barely making some money?

What seems likely to happen is that this case will put Perry on the hot seat, because public sentiment seems to be against the Gallardos.  So Sunny may threaten to revoke his retainer if the public finds out that Perry is funding the defense of the Gallardos with that retainer.

BTW, the police just ran through their camp and grabbed two young guys that they could find.  There is probably no specific evidence though the finger print on Brooks' car is probably going to be explained some other way.

 

Perry did not believe that these two kids could have hit Brooks from a distance with the angle we are talking about, is what I got from the measuring tape stuff.

In the 30s, lawyers were more generalists, but hypothetically, even today, someone can try to be a jack-of-all-trades style lawyer. It's just generally not a good idea because the legal field is so much more populated now than it was then. So it pays to specialize.

The implication is that Perry and Della are taking Sunny for a ride since he can pay and are going to either sit on the fat retainer or generate more make-work to justify getting more ongoing cash flow. Again, not the most ethical of moves by Perry, who owes a fiduciary duty to his client not to make a sucker out of him.

Brooks ordered a rival ship (I think), the Lux, to be put to the torch as I understood it, to open a path for his piece of shit ship, the Morocco, to have a better shot at doing well as it was losing money.

The Gallardos did have something that tied them to the killing -- they pawned off a gold coin that Brooks had in his wallet and actually frequent the area trying to collect bottles so that they can get the return deposit money. (is that a thing anymore? I remember growing up in the 70s it still was)  So it isn't 100 percent pure racism that led the cops to arrest them.  So they apparently are a classic Perry Mason style client where there are legit signs suggesting that they are guilty but someone else actually did it. It would be an interesting flipping of the script if in fact they did do it, and Perry just was on a wrong presumption about the distance/angle thing. But the fact that there was another killing and that Brooks had just received a grand jury subpoena means that the Gallardos are almost 100 percent innocent. 

[thuganomics85]

Looks like I got my actresses mixed up last week: Della's love interest is actually played by Jen Tullock and Katherine Waterston is playing Perry son's teacher instead.  Whoops!  Since she's billed as a regular though, I imagine she'll be having a significant role going forward.  Seems like something might have been brewing between Perry and her, so I can see things heading in that direction (although, I doubt it will last long since Perry is still kind of a mess.)

So, the suspects of the murder seem to be the combination of being at the wrong place at the wrong time (finding the victim's wallet in the trash and trying to pawn off a coin) and just flat-out bigotry and racism, since "Poor immigrants killing rich white guy" will no doubt be like catnip for this lot in the 1930s.  There is obviously so many holes being shown already, but I can totally believe the prosecution and law enforcement would head in this direction.  Love that both Perry and Della individually got involved despite not being "their lawyers", and them both finally just meeting up and being like "Yep, I guess we got to take this one!"  Those two just can't sit by the sidelines when they know an injustice is happening.

It was obvious the suspects wouldn't make bail, but it was nice already seeing Perry stand up for them and have no qualms calling out the unfairness of it all.  Can't wait to see how he fares when the case really starts ramping up.

So, Drake's case seem to just be about a guy who was a loan shark and a bit shady, but not really anywhere near as bad as anyone thought and actually helpful to the community in some ways, but Pete and the prosecution basically hoodwinked him and arrested the guy anyway.  Yeah, I can see why Drake is going to be kind of side-eyeing not just Pete, but Perry as well even though he clearly didn't think that was going to happen.  Hopefully they can rebuild that trust.

It will probably eventually blow up in their face, but I love Perry/Della taking Sunny/Sean Astin for a ride and using his money to help fund the criminal case.

I wonder what's going to be up with Hope Davis new character as well?

Still not sure how the case is going to fully play out, but it certainly looks like Brooks was involved in some shady deals and he was subpoenaed at some point.  And now we just watch another guy who was subpoenaed get killed as well, so I imagined it will be all connected.  Still think Holcomb will be involved: maybe Brooks' dad too.  

[Chicago Redshirt]

By the rules of genre fiction, we have already met the killer or killers.

So as far as I can tell the list of suspects is something as follows:

Papa Brooks: he's got the money, connections and possible motives like protecting the family name/wanting to end the embarassment of his ne'er do well son. That said, I think he is too obvious a suspect to be the big bad.

Whoever got the phone call about the other gj subpoena suspect being killed: probably tied into whatever shenanigans Brooks had going on but I don't see him as the Big Bad

Sunny: Not to contradict my previous prediction of him being a future murder victim too much, but I suppose that there could be an unrevealed Brooks-Sunny connection that gave him motive to kill Brooks.

Holcomb: I think he's going to continue to lurk around for additional seasons of this. But it could be that he didn't like Brooks getting attitude or being able to tie him to the arson of the Lux.

Brooks' wife or mistress: They both have jealousy as a possible motive, but it seems tough for me to buy that they would be able to get to the scene of the crime in the first place and that they would kill with a gun. 

Baseball ambassador guy or others trying to get a team to LA: seems a big stretch. In particular, we saw the ambassador guy drive off, so I don't think it would make sense for him to have been able to reverse course and pull off the shooting.

Probably missing some people...

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, aghst said:

There is probably no specific evidence though the finger print on Brooks' car is probably going to be explained some other way.

Did we see the fingerprint get planted in the evidence box, or was that something else going on?
 

 

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The implication is that Perry and Della are taking Sunny for a ride since he can pay and are going to either sit on the fat retainer or generate more make-work to justify getting more ongoing cash flow. Again, not the most ethical of moves by Perry, who owes a fiduciary duty to his client not to make a sucker out of him

But non-legally ethically, it is “for the Greater Good” that Perry and Della appeal to Sunny’s ego and greed to get him to unwittingly bankroll the defense of innocent, indigent non-whites.
With Sunny arguably being a blight on society, he deserves to be swindled into bankruptcy——but that probably won’t happen anyway.
 

 

5 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

By the rules of genre fiction, we have already met the killer or killers…

Sunny: Not to contradict my previous prediction of him being a future murder victim too much, but I suppose that there could be an unrevealed Brooks-Sunny connection that gave him motive to kill Brooks.

The grocer who got horrifically killed this episode could be foreshadowing grocer Sunny’s fate.😳   

So, did the grocer get offed for possibly being the only grocer still supplying the speak easy boat? Or did he know too much? Or was it partly that his having an ethnic name make him a Scape Goat, paralleling the Gallardos’ situation? Or did I miss something?

Edited March 14, 2023 by shapeshifter

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

In the 30s, lawyers were more generalists, but hypothetically, even today, someone can try to be a jack-of-all-trades style lawyer. It's just generally not a good idea because the legal field is so much more populated now than it was then. So it pays to specialize.

Yes, my grandfather (born in the 1890s) was a lawyer in Newark NJ during the time of this series (The Great Depression). I'm pretty sure he would take on any case for economic reasons, including just to gain clientele. My uncle tells of him coming home with a decorative glass jar as payment for legal services, and my grandmother then asking my lawyer grandfather "Can we eat it?"

But even today in remote, rural areas, or perhaps in communities of non-English speakers, I'm sure there are still some generalist lawyers, especially during times of economic downturn. 

 

 

7 hours ago, kay1864 said:

Anyone figured out the point of having both defendants sight along a measuring tape?

6 hours ago, aghst said:

Yeah I was wondering about that too.
I guess Perry doesn't believe anyone could hit Brooks right in the face with one shot from a certain distance?

Perry's a veteran. Maybe he figures it had to be a sharpshooter? But did they have those in WWI?

 

[paigow]

26 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Perry's a veteran. Maybe he figures it had to be a sharpshooter?

Perry CSI estimated the height range of the shooter based on the exit damage to the glass panel. The brothers probably are not a match.

[Starchild]

Season 1 was so long ago I can't remember, is this the first time it was implied Hamilton is gay? ("Your ideal wife looks like Clark Gable.")

[paigow]

51 minutes ago, Starchild said:

 is this the first time it was implied Hamilton is gay? ("Your ideal wife looks like Clark Gable.")

No. Season 1 showed Ham & Della as Depression Era Will & Grace - except both are gay...

[kay1864]

1 hour ago, Starchild said:

Season 1 was so long ago I can't remember, is this the first time it was implied Hamilton is gay? ("Your ideal wife looks like Clark Gable.")

Plus (in the lounge with Bella, after Perry left) his admiration for the male bartender, thinking he might want to switch his bourbon order to a “dirty martini.”

2 hours ago, paigow said:

Perry CSI estimated the height range of the shooter based on the exit damage to the glass panel. The brothers probably are not a match.

Ah, that makes sense. Although in that case, he should’ve been measuring the height of their trigger finger, not sighting along a measuring tape. 

IIRC he wasn’t even angling the tape down, as if to a seated victim.

Edited March 14, 2023 by kay1864

[paigow]

40 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

IIRC he wasn’t even angling the tape down, as if to a seated victim.

This show is not Perry Grissom😉

Unless somebody kills D.A. Milligan, Burger will remain personally undefeated against Perry

[Pop Tart]

10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The implication is that Perry and Della are taking Sunny for a ride since he can pay and are going to either sit on the fat retainer or generate more make-work to justify getting more ongoing cash flow. Again, not the most ethical of moves by Perry, who owes a fiduciary duty to his client not to make a sucker out of him.

 

9 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

It will probably eventually blow up in their face, but I love Perry/Della taking Sunny/Sean Astin for a ride and using his money to help fund the criminal case.

I didn't get the sense that Della and Perry wouldn't do the work they were getting paid for by Sunny - just that they were perhaps inflating the price. What they were talking about doing for him is work that can be done alongside their work on the Brooks case. 

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

So, did the grocer get offed for possibly being the only grocer still supplying the speak easy boat? Or did he know too much? Or was it partly that his having an ethnic name make him a Scape Goat, paralleling the Gallardos’ situation? Or did I miss something?

I was lost on this one too. Not sure why that happened.

Otherwise I really liked the episode. It filled in some blanks we had after episode one (without revealing everything) and set up storyline for the remainder of the season. 

[Door County Cherry]

10 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The implication is that Perry and Della are taking Sunny for a ride since he can pay and are going to either sit on the fat retainer or generate more make-work to justify getting more ongoing cash flow. Again, not the most ethical of moves by Perry, who owes a fiduciary duty to his client not to make a sucker out of him.

I don't know their plan but I do think they're going to do the work they said they would that they wouldn't be doing if they didn't need the money.   But that doesn't mean they don't have another card up their sleeves. 

[aghst]

Yeah it seemed like they proposed all these transactions for him to grow Sunny's empire.

So instead of billing hundreds of hours for all the work these transactions would entail, they're offering a $1000 a month retainer.

During the Depression, that is a pretty penny.

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Looks like I got my actresses mixed up last week: Della's love interest is actually played by Jen Tullock and Katherine Waterston is playing Perry son's teacher instead.  Whoops!  Since she's billed as a regular though, I imagine she'll be having a significant role going forward.  Seems like something might have been brewing between Perry and her, so I can see things heading in that direction (although, I doubt it will last long since Perry is still kind of a mess.)

When I first saw the teacher I thought it was the same actress as played Don Draper's teacher mistress on MM and was so relieved when it wasn't. The actress was fine on Rectified, but boy did I hate that character on MM!

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

But non-legally ethically, it is “for the Greater Good” that Perry and Della appeal to Sunny’s ego and greed to get him to unwittingly bankroll the defense of innocent, indigent non-whites.
With Sunny arguably being a blight on society, he deserves to be swindled into bankruptcy——but that probably won’t happen anyway.

I thought what they were doing was in some ways on the up and up anyway. They presented him with the actual plan, he knows what they're doing for him, they're actually doing it.

 

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Perry's a veteran. Maybe he figures it had to be a sharpshooter? But did they have those in WWI?

 

Richard on Boardwalk Empire was one, so I'm going to say yes, based on my degree in TV History.

Edited March 14, 2023 by sistermagpie

[realityplease]

11 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

In the 30s, lawyers were more generalists, but hypothetically, even today, someone can try to be a jack-of-all-trades style lawyer. It's just generally not a good idea because the legal field is so much more populated now than it was then. So it pays to specialize.

The implication is that Perry and Della are taking Sunny for a ride since he can pay and are going to either sit on the fat retainer or generate more make-work to justify getting more ongoing cash flow. Again, not the most ethical of moves by Perry, who owes a fiduciary duty to his client not to make a sucker out of him.

 

Even today, there are generalists. Many are sole practitioners. They take anything that walks in the door when they start out in order to pay the rent.  Some remain generalists. Others hit big in one area & draw clients hearing about that win & stick to that. (Like the Gallardo family hearing about Perry's 1st trial.)  Mid-size or larger firms have the manpower that enables specialty & permits lawyers who join them to choose a specialty within the firm.  Certain practice areas are more lucrative but too expensive for a solo to take on, so yes, it might pay to specialize.

Also, it's safer to stick to what you know.  Unlike the 30's when lawyers refrained from suing other lawyers (due to professional courtesy or protection or whatever), nowadays, legal malpractice lawsuits are not rare.  "Dabblers" who take on cases but aren't up to speed on the nuances of that practice area or lack someone to supervise their work, are most likely to screw up.  And malpractice insurance is required now (where it wasn't in the '30's) & expensive to carry.

I hope Perry & Della aren't taking Sunny for a ride - but merely using Sunny's ambitions & necessary work to fund less remunerative work.  And I too, am confused about why the grocer was killed.  Wasn't he the one who got the grand jury subpoena? So killed to prevent his testimony? And who burned the subpoena (the grocer's or someone else's?) at the end of the episode?  The one who ordered him to be hit? Expect the loose ends to be tied up at some point. Or maybe I missed something.

Edited March 14, 2023 by realityplease

[paigow]

20 minutes ago, realityplease said:

 And I too, am confused about why the grocer was killed.  Wasn't he the one that got the grand jury subpoena? So killed to prevent his testimony?

Brooks [and his cronies] was scamming all his suppliers and creditors. Goldstein Produce was a shill to convince other suppliers / contractors that  The Morocco was a good credit risk.

[shapeshifter]

38 minutes ago, realityplease said:

about why the grocer was killed.  Wasn't he the one that got the grand jury subpoena? So killed to prevent his testimony? And who burned the subpoena

Right! I forgot about that.

11 minutes ago, paigow said:

Brooks [and his cronies] was scamming all his suppliers and creditors. Goldstein Produce was a shill to convince other suppliers / contractors that  The Morocco was a good credit risk.

I don't quite understand how this👆worked.
Goldstein was delivering potatoes and one other vegetable, but, as the food prep guy pointed out, that was not really adequate to provide for the clientele of a party boat.
Oh well, maybe in the equally opaquely titled 'Chapter Eleven" we will get specifics about the late Mr. Goldstein's subpoena.

Today's rerun of the old Perry Mason on METV was titled "The Case of the Wednesday Woman," which doesn't really reveal any more about the plot, so I guess it doesn't matter that we only get numeric titles in this iteration of the series.

 

[paigow]

23 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I don't quite understand how this👆worked.
Goldstein was delivering potatoes and one other vegetable, but, as the food prep guy pointed out, that was not really adequate to provide for the clientele of a party boat.

Brooks has no intention of paying his debts... but he needs to show evidence that some other supplier will extend credit... so the propeller repair company calls Goldstein, does the job, sends an invoice and gets ripped off. Burger wants to indict Goldstein as a co-conspirator... 

[Moxie Cat]

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

When I first saw the teacher I thought it was the same actress as played Don Draper's teacher mistress on MM and was so relieved when it wasn't. The actress was fine on Rectified, but boy did I hate that character on MM!

Haha! So did I! The whole scene reminded me of that scene in Mad Men when the Drapers meet with Sally's teacher.

On another note, did Perry kill that dog just to get into the evidence garage?!? I'm hoping I missed something there. Geez, showrunners, he could have just picked a lock. I don't care if a dog was period-appropriate, I don't need to associate the show's protagonist with that.

[Starchild]

3 hours ago, realityplease said:

I hope Perry & Della aren't taking Sunny for a ride - but merely using Sunny's ambitions & necessary work to fund less remunerative work.

I suspect they are giving him a relatively reasonable price, because as a businessman it would be relatively easy for him to ask around and find out if he's being cheated. A colleague might tell him it's a little on the higher end of the range for an expansion retainer, but not outrageous.

In the meantime, they will use some of the funds to facilitate their other work. If sometimes that means unpaid overtime on Gryce's stuff, so be it.

37 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

On another note, did Perry kill that dog just to get into the evidence garage?!? I'm hoping I missed something there. Geez, showrunners, he could have just picked a lock. I don't care if a dog was period-appropriate, I don't need to associate the show's protagonist with that.

I think he gave just enough for the dog to feel too sick to chase after him, but would mostly recover by morning, so as not to arouse suspicion when warehouse staff came back to work.

[paigow]

42 minutes ago, Moxie Cat said:

On another note, did Perry kill that dog just to get into the evidence garage?!? I'm hoping I missed something there.

No. Perry put Chloroform on the dog toy

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours ago, Pop Tart said:

 

I didn't get the sense that Della and Perry wouldn't do the work they were getting paid for by Sunny - just that they were perhaps inflating the price. What they were talking about doing for him is work that can be done alongside their work on the Brooks case. 

The sort of things that Perry and Della were saying they would have to do sounded transparently like BS to me. Maybe I'm too cynical about my own profession but it seemed clear that they were going to be extremely padding their bills to allow them to actually spend time defending the Gallardos.

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Right! I forgot about that.

I don't quite understand how this👆worked.
Goldstein was delivering potatoes and one other vegetable, but, as the food prep guy pointed out, that was not really adequate to provide for the clientele of a party boat.
Oh well, maybe in the equally opaquely titled 'Chapter Eleven" we will get specifics about the late Mr. Goldstein's subpoena.

It is also possible that Goldstein was one of the victims of Brooks' scummery, or that he was in a position to point the finger at some bigger scam/scammer than poor Brooks, who seems like he was never in the position to handle anything more than being a pretty boy face of the soup kitchen.

[sistermagpie]

21 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The sort of things that Perry and Della were saying they would have to do sounded transparently like BS to me. Maybe I'm too cynical about my own profession but it seemed clear that they were going to be extremely padding their bills to allow them to actually spend time defending the Gallardos.

3 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I don't know anything about how lawyers work, but wasn't the idea that they'd be on retainer? So they wouldn't be padding bills, just getting a set fee to be on retainer and then if they had other bills they'd probably be fairly honest about it?

[Moxie Cat]

36 minutes ago, paigow said:

No. Perry put Chloroform on the dog toy

Thank you so much!!! I figured I missed something, especially if no one was talking about that scene here. Much obliged!

[tennisgurl]

Just when Perry's out, they pull him back in. We are now really getting into our case of the season, meeting our defendants, we get to get to know our suspects more, it looks like its going to be a classic Perry case where our hapless client/clients were in the wrong place in the wrong time or have some evidence actually pointing towards them, but will inevitably end up being proven innocent and Perry will find the real killer. Perry might have tried to fight it at first, clearly still shaken from the last big case, but as soon as he heard about those shots you could hear the gears turning in his head as he started to see the holes in the story, you knew that he was taking the case, No way could he and Della not take the case when they realized how much these guys and their family was getting screwed over. 

Looks like Della and Perry finally found something that they like about Sunny, the fact that he's willing to pay a LOT of money to build his supermarket empire and feel like a big man. I don't think that they're giving him the run around, they really are going to help him expand his stories the way they said they would, but they put forth the idea so that his constant payments for litigation could let them afford to defend the Gallardos, knowing that he would pay tons of money for his ambitions. It also seems like a bit too much of a coincidence that Della and Perry are working for a predatory grocer when something sketchy is going on with local produce suppliers. I suspect that these plots might end up colliding. 

 Glad that Perry is going ahead and leading with how unfair this trail has been and the obvious prejudice going on, good on him for not hemming and hawing about what's going on here. Cant wait to see how it goes when he really gets his lecturing on. 

A lot of really great facial acting in this episode, like when the aunt said how Perry saved Emily Brent, you could just hear him thinking "I didn't" even before he said it, Paul trying to hide his anger when he realized what he accidently helped make happen with the arrest, and then when Sophia said how Della gets to be herself, you could tell that hit her extra hard, of course she's definitely going to be taking the case. 

The sets, costumes, clothes, and all of the period details continue to be excellent. 

[Chicago Redshirt]

29 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I don't know anything about how lawyers work, but wasn't the idea that they'd be on retainer? So they wouldn't be padding bills, just getting a set fee to be on retainer and then if they had other bills they'd probably be fairly honest about it?

I wasn't paying super-close attention to the actual exchange. But generally speaking, a retainer is a fee that is a floor, not a ceiling. So if the agreement is for a $1,000 monthly retainer, the firm is saying that it is locked into doing $1k of work for the client each month. But it can also say "Hey, this month we had to work extra hard to get that zoning variance on Sunset Boulevard, so we will bill you an extra $200 above the retainer."

It also seems to me that it is likely that in 1930s L.A., the legal needs to open and maintain 5 new grocery stores could not be so complex as to require that much work in the first place. And based on how they sold Sunny on the need for their services, they will keep on selling him on it by padding their bills, saying that they're performing tasks that they didn't, saying the tasks that they actually do took longer than they did, performing unnecessary busywork, etc.

I may be too cynical because of real life/HBO Perry being of someone malleable morality.

[realityplease]

1 hour ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I wasn't paying super-close attention to the actual exchange. But generally speaking, a retainer is a fee that is a floor, not a ceiling. So if the agreement is for a $1,000 monthly retainer, the firm is saying that it is locked into doing $1k of work for the client each month. But it can also say "Hey, this month we had to work extra hard to get that zoning variance on Sunset Boulevard, so we will bill you an extra $200 above the retainer."

It also seems to me that it is likely that in 1930s L.A., the legal needs to open and maintain 5 new grocery stores could not be so complex as to require that much work in the first place. And based on how they sold Sunny on the need for their services, they will keep on selling him on it by padding their bills, saying that they're performing tasks that they didn't, saying the tasks that they actually do took longer than they did, performing unnecessary busywork, etc.

I may be too cynical because of real life/HBO Perry being of someone malleable morality.

Generally a retainer is "upfront' money the attorney bills against.  Here, they're taking it monthly, instead of in a big lump at the start of the case. They'd send a bill each month to show what was used & what remains. Anything unused rolls over.  Presumably, if something big comes up or a glitch & they can't wait for the next replenishment, they could send a bill for the overage.  Della laid out a number of areas to be addressed to obtain the properties & to get them up & running - leases, contract negotiation & formation, attending to government (city, health dept., etc.) regulations & compliance, taxes, labor issues, etc.  These did not seem to be mere B.S.  Some require an attorney's attention - some, Della or the secretary could perform.  It's not an insignificant amount of work.

The client is experienced - he already set up one grocery.  So he'd be well able to question any bills he deemed excessive. Moreover, padding bills, performing imaginary tasks, overbilling, performing unnecessary tasks, if shown, could get Perry disbarred - in the '30's no less than at present.  It's always been the case that while some conduct may be excused or censured, the surest way to get disbarred is to touch client money or screw with the billing.  It doesn't mean that some attorneys don't try (look at Tom Girardi!) but it's not the norm.  And this client doesn't seem to be a clueless mark, but rather, someone who would scrutinize the bills & match them to results.

[Door County Cherry]

Another thing I'd like to mention about the proposal Della and Perry brought to Sunny--it's an advantageous business proposal for him.  At the time, the only additional store Sunny was thinking about was the store his former employee started.  But Perry and Della walked in and handed him a researched business proposition for expansion including locations and knowledge of potential targets that owned money and likely could be purchased easily...etc.  

So they've already done free work for him.  

Did they use some flim flam razz matazz?  "You could be known and Mr. Los Angeles?"  Sure.  But that doesn't mean they're going to defraud him. 

As I said above, I do not think they like Sunny after their last case with him.  I do not think they'd be doing this for him if they hadn't decided the brothers deserved a not-poor representation.  But due to his money and greed, he has become a means to an end.  

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

The client is experienced - he already set up one grocery.  So he'd be well able to question any bills he deemed excessive. Moreover, padding bills, performing imaginary tasks, overbilling, performing unnecessary tasks, if shown, could get Perry disbarred - in the '30's no less than at present.  It's always been the case that while some conduct may be excused or censured, the surest way to get disbarred is to touch client money or screw with the billing.  It doesn't mean that some attorneys don't try (look at Tom Girardi!) but it's not the norm.  And this client doesn't seem to be a clueless mark, but rather, someone who would scrutinize the bills & match them to results.

That was my impression of what was going on--not that they were going to defraud him, since the guy's already proved able to strike back at somebody doing that, but to use his greed to do some good by pretending to be as excited by his greed as he was. It didn't seem like they'd need to pad the bills etc., since they're not trying to get rich here, just finance their work for people who can't pay much. He's the corporate client--but they probably will be doing a lot of work for that money, albeit a lot of it tedious. 

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

It also seems like a bit too much of a coincidence that Della and Perry are working for a predatory grocer when something sketchy is going on with local produce suppliers. I suspect that these plots might end up colliding. 

Ooo! Good catch!

[paigow]

3 hours ago, realityplease said:

It's always been the case that while some conduct may be excused or censured, the surest way to get disbarred is to touch client money or screw with the billing. 

Season 1 plot catalyst was E.B. stealing from clients and killing himself when caught... so Perry had to take over the Dodson case...

[realityplease]

22 minutes ago, paigow said:

Season 1 plot catalyst was E.B. stealing from clients and killing himself when caught... so Perry had to take over the Dodson case...

Exactly!  So Perry well knows that stealing from clients is verboten. 

While I agree his morality can be dubious at times (drugging a dog to sneak into a garage to look at evidence, boarding a gambling boat & then sneaking around to off limits areas), he does seem to have his own moral code & lines he will not cross.  Screwing his own clients doesn't seem to be something he does.  He adequately defended the grocer & followed the guy's wishes as to settlement.  You don't have to like the client - but you do have to do right by them.  And I think he tries to do right by them - even if he thinks it's okay to cross some lines to obtain the evidence to help them.  

Edited March 15, 2023 by realityplease

[shapeshifter]

Loved this bit in the courtroom:

• [Perry]  Your Honor, we believe our clients should be released on their own recognizance. They have strong ties to the community.
• [D.A.]  What ties? They live in a vagrant camp, and they're a flight risk to Mexico.
• [Perry]  They've never been to Mexico.
• [D.A.]  Well, they'd sure blend in if they did. 
  Maybe go on a nice killing spree down there too.
• ...
• [Perry]  Your Honor . . . 
  will you at least instruct the D.A. to be more logical? 
  Why would my clients try and blend in and then go on a killing spree?

Edited March 15, 2023 by shapeshifter

[paigow]

19 minutes ago, realityplease said:

Exactly!  So Perry well knows that stealing from clients is verboten.

But life insurance fraud is OK when your mentor is involved....

[realityplease]

41 minutes ago, paigow said:

But life insurance fraud is OK when your mentor is involved....

Good point!  But that fits the dubious morality that he applies.  That didn't screw any of E.B.'s clients as I recall (unless I'm not remembering accurately.)  To Perry's mind, it was victimless (except, of course, for the insurance company that paid out & would consider it fraud.)  Like many who try to justify what they've inappropriately, fraudulently or criminally done, he has a "unique" moral code - there's lines he won't cross, while at the same time, he excuses transgressions he does make as being for the greater good or not harming individuals except those he's loyal to or decided to help. 

Just my opinion, but I can't see him screwing a client who's trust he has accepted, while corporations or "bad" guys might be fair game.  Like Paul said, "How do we get to trust again?"  And Perry couldn't say how - because he knows it when he sees it - & it's particular to him.  

Edited March 15, 2023 by realityplease

[Chicago Redshirt]

5 hours ago, realityplease said:

Generally a retainer is "upfront' money the attorney bills against.  Here, they're taking it monthly, instead of in a big lump at the start of the case. They'd send a bill each month to show what was used & what remains. Anything unused rolls over.  Presumably, if something big comes up or a glitch & they can't wait for the next replenishment, they could send a bill for the overage.  Della laid out a number of areas to be addressed to obtain the properties & to get them up & running - leases, contract negotiation & formation, attending to government (city, health dept., etc.) regulations & compliance, taxes, labor issues, etc.  These did not seem to be mere B.S.  Some require an attorney's attention - some, Della or the secretary could perform.  It's not an insignificant amount of work.

The client is experienced - he already set up one grocery.  So he'd be well able to question any bills he deemed excessive. Moreover, padding bills, performing imaginary tasks, overbilling, performing unnecessary tasks, if shown, could get Perry disbarred - in the '30's no less than at present.  It's always been the case that while some conduct may be excused or censured, the surest way to get disbarred is to touch client money or screw with the billing.  It doesn't mean that some attorneys don't try (look at Tom Girardi!) but it's not the norm.  And this client doesn't seem to be a clueless mark, but rather, someone who would scrutinize the bills & match them to results.

Perry and Della are telling Sunny that buying properties that are at or near foreclosure and show 6 photos. So let's say that there are six such properties. Perry pitches that it would take "an enormous amount of legal advice" and Della chimes in "contract negotiations, zoning, bankruptcy law, title transfers, dealing with creditors" and Perry chimes in "hundreds of hours of our time."

Now, I'm not in real estate. But to me, that seems an obvious exaggeration. Especially operating under the assumption that the six properties are behind on their property taxes, it does not seem like that complex a transaction to buy the properties. It doesn't seem like it's Sunny/Perry's job to negotiate with the creditors of the previous owners. There's certainly some work to be done. But a hundred hours a month? 

I suspect that when it comes down to it, Perry and Della are not going to put 100 hours on Sunny's grocery issues at first, and are going to be spending their time and money on the defense of the Gallardos. 

And while fleecing a client is a trip to getting disbarred, again, this Perry Mason cheated to pass the bar and lied to defraud the insurance company. It's not clear if there's a line he won't cross if he thinks it serves the greater good, such as getting paid by Sunny so that he can defend the Gallardos.  

[Chicago Redshirt]

2 hours ago, realityplease said:

Exactly!  So Perry well knows that stealing from clients is verboten. 

While I agree his morality can be dubious at times (drugging a dog to sneak into a garage to look at evidence, boarding a gambling boat & then sneaking around to off limits areas), he does seem to have his own moral code & lines he will not cross.  Screwing his own clients doesn't seem to be something he does.  He adequately defended the grocer & followed the guy's wishes as to settlement.  You don't have to like the client - but you do have to do right by them.  And I think he tries to do right by them - even if he thinks it's okay to cross some lines to obtain the evidence to help them.  

I think that Perry likes and respects Paul and so has no interest in swindling him or leading him on. By contrast, Perry doesn't seem to care for Sunny at all. And Perry has a bad taste in his mouth from destroying the Ex-Employee when just winning a decent settlement would have been good enough. It seems to me that he doesn't mind sticking it to him. 

Anyway, I guess we will see how it plays out. Maybe we will see explicitly Perry racking up huge bills or being accused of it. Maybe this is the last we will see of Sunny and that plot line and it will just be open to debate. Maybe we will see Perry and Della dedicate a ton of time to earning every penny of that thousand a month. 

[cardigirl]

On 3/13/2023 at 10:52 PM, shapeshifter said:

Anyway, the acting and writing and cinematography and costuming are excellent, but it's a bit dark for me. 

It is dark, but as you said, excellent. Not sure I have the stomach for all the trouble Perry et al will be going through only to have real justice escape them. Again. Because you know the real killer(s) will not be brought to justice.  

I was about 10 minutes into this episode when I realize just how much I love watching Rhys in this role. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by cardigirl

[chediavolo]

13 hours ago, Moxie Cat said:

Thank you so much!!! I figured I missed something, especially if no one was talking about that scene here. Much obliged!

Does chloroform come in a bottle that says Poison on it? Or used to is what I should say? I couldn’t get past the blasé horrific Animal abuse this episode. Between killing the dog just to do his job, and all the talk of the diving horse and then actually showing it at the end. I love some things visually about 30s but the way they treated animals in so many ways,  just makes me want to scream. Were people really that ignorant then? 

[paigow]

Chloroform was known to be fatal in high doses... so, a Poison Warning label should be expected. The FDA was created in 1906

The dog might feel sick for a few days, but death from the small amount Perry used is unlikely. 

[cardigirl]

I did pause for a moment when I saw the Poison label on the chloroform bottle and realized Perry was using it to neutralize the guard dog. I'm pretty sure he intended to only knock the dog out, rather than kill it, at least I hope so. 

I wonder what Perry's son's teacher's role is going to be in this series. Was she flirting with Perry at the parent-teacher conference or was she challenging him? (Could be both.) Katherine Waterston is a big enough name, I think the role will be important, but I'm not sure how. 

This show is sure slow about rolling out its plot. 

Edited March 15, 2023 by cardigirl

[aghst]

So this case seems to energize Perry, though at first he was indifferent, if moved by the women who pleaded for his help.

The Sunny case was soul-crushing, working for a client who was wronged but wanted to destroy his adversary as if he was an enemy combatant from WWI, in which he served.

The call of justice was something he couldn’t ignore.  Della didn’t hesitate to be on board as she visited the woman in the camp, the ruse being to return the doll.  
 

Mexicans probably didn’t have too many advocates in that time period even though many worked and lived here all their lives.  The Gallardo brothers were born and raised in LA area, had similar aspirations as any other young American men of their age.  But they were regarded as others, cheap labor.  Pete casually calls them Spics, though he’s not inclined to see them as guilty by virtue of their ethnicity.

So it must be eye-opening for Della, who attends dinner parties at homes of the rich, decked out in finery, to see these living conditions yet be moved on a human level By these women.

I’m not sure in tHe first season, Perry and Della’s desire for achieving a measure of social justice or justice period was as well sketched.  Perry was a private dick for hire and Della had personal ambitions to be one of few female attorneys — she wanted to break out beyond the strictures of roles traditionally meant for women, either stay at home or settle for a very subordinate role like secretary.  

Did she influence EB to take the case they did in the first season?  In this second season she’s a partner with Perry and will work with whichever direction Perry wants to follow, first dropping criminal cases for civil cases, then jumping back to criminal in a very high-profile case — there could be a backlash to their firm as the victim was a well-regarded — on the surface anyways — scion of a wealthy family.

This case is as much if not more a cause for Perry and Della.  However long this series lasts, will it always be them pursuing ideals?  
 

Hamilton said there is no such thing as justice, just the illusion of justice.  But Perry and Della are still believers in justice, which is not necessarily limited within the confines of a courtroom to them.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, cardigirl said:

I did pause for a moment when I saw the Poison label on the chloroform bottle and realized Perry was using it to neutralize the guard dog. I'm pretty sure he intended to only knock the dog out, rather than kill it, at least I hope so. 

Yes, that *Poison* on the bottle was alarming.
But then I saw "chloroform" and relaxed, since I've seen countless TV kidnap victims recover from cholorforming, although apparently it can be very harmful in large doses or over long periods of exposure.
I imagine Perry would have read something like this 1906 journal article, "The anæsthetic and lethal quantity of chloroform in the blood of animals," from the University of London:
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rspb.1906.0074

Anyway, I hope we see Dobie the Guard Dog wagging his tail at Perry in a future episode.
Or at least growling at him.

[sugarbaker design]

3 hours ago, chediavolo said:

Were people really that ignorant then? 

Yes, and some still are in 2023.