S02.E03: Chapter Eleven

[Door County Cherry]

Quote

Given three weeks to work the case, Perry and Della try to build a defense for their clients, while Paul chases leads in Hooverville. 

 

[aghst]

Paul must have suspected the Gallardo brothers to go look for guns in Hooverville, where they were living.

Interesting way to get ballistics info.  I thought they had to look at the slugs under a microscope to get the identifying marks.  So there weren't forensics specialists yet Paul, who wasn't a detective, can identify whether one of the guns he rented was the murder weapon.

And Perry in the season premier also did some kind of ballistics geometry to figure whether the Gallardos were the right height to shoot Brooks so accurately in the eye or face?

Perry only has to seed doubt to the jury, that it could have been another suspect.  But it seems like the only way they can win the case is to find what really happened, so Drake will be busy.

 

Was Perry using his kid to chat up the teacher?  Maybe he's not so morose, though we find out he feels guilty about Emily's death, since she had sent mail and postcards talking about it for 3 months before she committed suicide.

Brooks apparently had a lot to hide and his father is trying to protect his reputation or is he also up to something shady?

 

[shapeshifter]

I like the classic noir detective background music.

Kind of cool to me that Redding CA got a mention, even if it was by the violent, crooked cop.

Sheesh. No wonder Brooks McCutcheon was such a peace of work. His father, Lydell, is a sadistic sociopath.

 

28 minutes ago, aghst said:

Paul must have suspected the Gallardo brothers to go look for guns in Hooverville, where they were living.

Good point. But did the gun renter really confirm that the Gallardo's rented the gun? That wasn't clear to me. It seemed he just didn't want to be asked about it, or, especially, be implicated as providing the murder weapon. 
I'm just hoping Paul is wrong in his assumption. He was wrong about what would happen with the information he gave to the guy who hired him in the earlier episode. But, yeah, not wrong about the info he gathered. 😞
The artist Gallardo brother does have a scar on his neck and ear that could have been caused by the same treatment Lydell McCutcheon visited upon the smart Alec who came to collect his back wages owed by Brooks. 
IDK. I don't see the Gallardo's as guns for hire or as revenge killers, but maybe??

28 minutes ago, aghst said:

Interesting way to get ballistics info.

But, yeah, it was enjoyable to see Paul as a pioneer inventor of ballistics forensics. 

 

28 minutes ago, aghst said:

Was Perry using his kid to chat up the teacher?

No. I don't think so.
Perry genuinely loves his son. Perry is a good guy among a lot of pigs. 
But Perry's also got an irresponsible streak (related to his WWI PTSD) that makes him a poor choice for a partner——whether domestic partner or professional partner.
But yes, Perry and the teacher are like a magnet and iron when they get near each other. They appreciate each other's viewpoints.

 

Edited March 21, 2023 by shapeshifter

[thuganomics85]

Got not one but two folks from the Arrowverse here!  Tom Amandes a.k.a. Felicity's Dad shows up as the judge (although, I always think of him first as Harold Abbott from Everwood), and Aubrey Marie Anderson a.k.a. Lyla Michaels is playing Holcomb's wife!  Always fun seeing those familiar faces!

So, judging from Drake's sleuthing and disappointed/upset reaction, it sounds like the Gallardo boys did actually rent out the gun that likely killed Brooks.  Still think they are innocent but that is definitely not a good look for them, so hopefully Perry and the gang will be able to find a way to counterattack it, since I imagine it will only be a matter of time before the prosecution gets involved.

Continue to like that Perry isn't perfect in court, with him occasionally stuttering and stumbling through is arguments, but still showing smarts and enough basic competency to find it believable that he can still toughen up and truly provide the best defense for his clients when it is all said and done.  Certainly helps to have Della and her helpful ability to find previous cases on a dime to help them out!  Plus, the whole Matthew Rhys thing.  The man is good!

Kind of disappointed that Della seems to be trying something with this Anita character, without officially ending things with Hazel yet.  I know they had established that their relationship was probably never going to be anything too serious, but I remember her being likable enough and feel like she deserves to at least have a proper break-up before Della likely falls into bed with her new love interest.

Speaking of which, I totally think the teacher is being set up as Perry's new love interest.  The vibes are totally there!

Figured Lydell was going to be more than just a grieving father but the man's already gone full-blown mobster here!

Still curious about Camilla/Hope Davis' character: especially since she apparently knew about the mysterious woman that Perry found in that ward and was not happy at all that he has put at least those pieces together.

I do like how Emily Dobson's shadow still lingers with all of these characters.  Even if they avoided jail time, it does have to feel like they lost in a lot of ways since she ended up taking her own life months later.

[Chicago Redshirt]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Good point. But did the gun renter really confirm that the Gallardo's rented the gun? That wasn't clear to me. It seemed he just didn't want to be asked about it, or, especially, be implicated as providing the murder weapon. 
I'm just hoping Paul is wrong in his assumption. He was wrong about what would happen with the information he gave to the guy who hired him in the earlier episode. But, yeah, not wrong about the info he gathered. 😞

I think it is the right conclusion to jump to based on how quick he was to pull a gun on Paul.

But it almost is besides the point if Gun Renter literally rented the gun to the Gallardos. The fact that they had potential access to guns at all, let alone the actual murder weapon, starts to erode the reasonable doubt as to their guilt. 

This season's murder is much more classic Perry Mason. The murder last season frankly made little sense to put at the feet of Emily Dobson. Here, it makes sense that the police suspect the Gallardos. 

[Blakeston]

9 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The murder last season frankly made little sense to put at the feet of Emily Dobson. 

Yes, thank you! One of my biggest complaints about season one was that the case against Emily was so weak.

I get that people are often quick to judge women who they perceive as bad mothers, and that adultery was a bigger taboo in the 1930s than it is today. But I didn't buy that the public would assume that Emily had to be guilty, and want to see her hanged.

II find it much easier to believe that people would assume that the Gallardos were guilty.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Blakeston

[paigow]

6 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Figured Lydell was going to be more than just a grieving father but the man's already gone full-blown mobster here!.

He just skipped jury tampering.. and went to attorney threatening...

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Kind of disappointed that Della seems to be trying something with this Anita character, without officially ending things with Hazel yet.  I know they had established that their relationship was probably never going to be anything too serious, but I remember her being likable enough and feel like she deserves to at least have a proper break-up before Della likely falls into bed with her new love interest.

I don't mind Della testing the waters with someone else before she gives Hazel notice. 
My issue is that the first thing we learn about Anita's interests is that she is seriously into the blood sport of boxing. Seemed like a red flag to me, and even more so after this episode where we saw Lydell's tactics for squashing opponents.

I'm wondering [putting in spoiler tags in case I'm right]

Spoiler

...if Lydell hired the Galladardos or, more likely, hired someone else to arrange to have his son killed and clearly implicate someone (the actual killers or others) in the crime.
This could maybe give the brothers life without parole, which might end with the artistic brother (with no wife or kids and who expressed despair in this episode) committing suicide——which would be, IDK, redundant?
So maybe there Gallardos were only the fall guys, and can get out in a few years or decades???

 

[paigow]

44 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

and even more so after this episode where we saw Lydell's tactics for squashing opponents.

Perry has an appointment for facial exfoliation... 

[Xantar]

I liked the episode and the way the case is unfolding. The problem is I can’t follow what they are discovering about Brooks and his business dealings. They are saying a lot of names and I don’t know who any of them are. Can anybody tell me what we know so far?

[Chicago Redshirt]

43 minutes ago, Xantar said:

I liked the episode and the way the case is unfolding. The problem is I can’t follow what they are discovering about Brooks and his business dealings. They are saying a lot of names and I don’t know who any of them are. Can anybody tell me what we know so far?

This is a partial summary from memory, so I apologize if I leave something out or get something wrong. And I don't remember the names of the characters either, but have a sense of what they represent.

We know that Brooks had a casino boat called the Moroccan. He had a partnership with crooked cop from Season One, Detective Holcomb, and Holcomb and his boys set a fire on a rival boat called the Luxe, presumably to weaken his competition.

We know that Brooks was losing money left and right, and had a pattern of stiffing suppliers and contractors, as is a disappointment to his rich father Lydell.

We know that Brooks was the pretty face behind McCutcheon Soup Kitchens and that he talked about that charity expanding so there would be more soup kitchens around the City.

We know that Brooks had a passion for trying to bring a baseball team to L.A., that he built a big stadium in the hopes it would bring a baseball team and he brought on someone I took to be a famous ex baseball player (whose name I am not remembering) to be a "baseball ambassador." We know that he promised big that he was succeeding in bringing a baseball team to L.A., but that those were empty promises and MLB was not in fact considering having a team there.

We know that Brooks was being called to testify in front of the grand jury, but don't know exactly what for, and whether it was as a witness or target. We also know that another person who was subpoenaed (presumably by the same grand jury, but not 100 percent sure), a person who supplies grocery stores with food and who was one of Brooks' suppliers for the Morroccan, was also murdered. I think it was last episode, but it could have been the episode before that, that murderer called a person who I understand to be Lydell's attorney to report that the supplier would not be a problem, and then Lydell's attorney burned the grand jury subpoena to Brooks.

We know that Brooks had an affair/mistress/possibly prostitution situation where he would choke the woman he was sleeping with with a belt. We know from this episode that he had some sort of unsavory interaction with a woman that seemingly left her catatonic and institutionalized.

So in terms of alternative motives to the Gallardo's "rob the rich guy," we have (at least) the following possibilities:

1. Someone wanting to stop Brooks from ratting them out to the grand jury

2. Pops Lydell being tired of Brooks being an embarrassing liability and blight to the family name

3. Someone pissed off because Brooks shorted them on a business deal.

4. Someone interested in getting revenge for Brooks' leaving the woman catatonic, cheating on his wife, receiving a less-than-consensual choking or other romantic/sexual things.

[paigow]

Brooks is wasting the family fortune on numerous bad investments. The primary money losers are the Casino Boat and The Baseball Team / Stadium. Daddy cut him off, so he asked Rich Pool Lady (Camilla] for stadium funding  but was denied.. Noreen Lawson is a new angle. 

[Broderbits]

43 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

2. Pops Lydell being tired of Brooks being an embarrassing liability and blight to the family name

I'm convinced that dear old dad had his son killed not only for the above reason, but also because Brooks was going through money recklessly with no sign of stopping.

I'm really surprised the brothers are still alive!

[Chicago Redshirt]

12 minutes ago, Broderbits said:

I'm convinced that dear old dad had his son killed not only for the above reason, but also because Brooks was going through money recklessly with no sign of stopping.

Lydell seems almost too obvious a suspect -- he's got a ton of money, he's a ruthless sociopath, and we now know that he isn't afraid to get his own hands dirty to rough someone up. 

I do think that despite Brooks being a screwup, Lydell probably loved him as much as a ruthless sociopath could. I think it's possible that Lydell's lawyer/business manager/No. 1 acted on his own.

If I were to go to the Moroccan to place a bet on who will be behind the killing, I think the Rich Society Lady is a decent bet. She is clearly knowledgeable and shaken about whatever happened to Catatonic Woman and I like the irony that a murderer would have invited D.A. Burger to fundraise at one of her soirees. 

[Xantar]

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

 

We know that Brooks had an affair/mistress/possibly prostitution situation where he would choke the woman he was sleeping with with a belt. We know from this episode that he had some sort of unsavory interaction with a woman that seemingly left her catatonic and institutionalized.

This was a fantastic summary, thank you very much! So now what I’m trying to figure out is how did Perry and Della find out about the catatonic woman (whose name I’ve found is Noreen Lawson). I think Perry got her name from that phone conversation in the beginning of the episode, but I don’t know why he was calling that number in the first place. 

[paigow]

10 minutes ago, Xantar said:

I think Perry got her name from that phone conversation in the beginning of the episode, but I don’t know why he was calling that number in the first place. 

When Perry was inspecting the evidence, the phone number for the home was in the wallet.

[shapeshifter]

Thank you @Chicago Redshirt (and others) for the recap of the story facts thus far, and for the further analysis!
Do you watch the episodes more than once? And, if you do watch them, say, twice, do you watch them again right away?

 

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

I think it was last episode, but it could have been the episode before that,

Even though I am terrible at recalling names of people, places, and events, this👆 really makes the case for there having been episode titles. 
Hrmmm. Or does it?

[Xantar]

1 hour ago, paigow said:

When Perry was inspecting the evidence, the phone number for the home was in the wallet.

It was in Brooks’ wallet? Meaning Brooks calls that home on a regular basis?

[paigow]

54 minutes ago, Xantar said:

It was in Brooks’ wallet? Meaning Brooks calls that home on a regular basis?

No.. The number was planted after the murder by an unknown party

[realityplease]

I thought in a prior episode we saw an arm (I don't know who it was - went by too fast) that reached into the evidence box & slipped a card into Brooks' wallet.  And now it seems that card bore the number of the home where the catatonic woman resides. 

I like that there's lots going on at once - with various loose ends that don't make sense - until they do! But I can't read or double task while this show is on - I've gotta pay attention!

[paigow]

1 hour ago, realityplease said:

I thought in a prior episode we saw an arm (I don't know who it was - went by too fast) that reached into the evidence box & slipped a card into Brooks' wallet.

Holcomb is the obvious suspect... but that would be too easy...

[sugarbaker design]

14 hours ago, realityplease said:

But I can't read or double task while this show is on - I've gotta pay attention!

No, this is a definite put your phone away show.  I'm loving this season way more than last season, more compelling mystery, excellent actors playing interesting characters.

13 hours ago, paigow said:

Holcomb is the obvious suspect... but that would be too easy...

Holcomb at best would be the muscle, not the mastermind, like McCutcheon the Exfoliator and Camilla Nygard the patron of the fine arts.

[sistermagpie]

Definitely liking this season better so far, and love spending time with the characters. I still wish they'd just disappeared Perry's ex wife and child, because it still always feels like as a prestige HBO dad he's got to try and fail to live up to 2023 expectations for fathers that just seem anachronistic and they never made me believe he'd married that woman.

But since they're leaning into it, at least they seem to be doing it well.

I love the fail son story, especially the chat with his former piano teacher. You don't often hear somebody throw shade by comparing someone to French realist painting. Loved her. 

[kay1864]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:49 AM, Broderbits said:

I'm really surprised the brothers are still alive!

Yep, the whole time they were playing that button game I was thinking, “Maybe you shouldn’t be quite so close to those bars.”

[kay1864]

On 3/21/2023 at 11:49 AM, Broderbits said:

I'm really surprised the brothers are still alive!

Yep, the whole time they were playing that button game I was thinking, “Maybe you shouldn’t be squatting with your backs quite so close to those bars.”

Also… I’m wondering if the shooter got rid of the gun by selling it to the gun renter. Although it’s odd that he apparently rented a gun to the Gallardos.

Edited March 23, 2023 by kay1864

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, kay1864 said:

I’m wondering if the shooter got rid of the gun by selling it to the gun renter. Although it’s odd that he apparently rented a gun to the Gallardos.

Ooo! Maybe part of the frame-up of the Gallardos was just that!
––maybe the murder weapon was “sold” to the gun renter in exchange for the gun renter saying he rented it to the Gallardos.

––or, maybe a bunch of guns just showed up at the gun renter’s doorstep and Gun Renter had no idea one would be tied to the murders until Paul said something. 

Either of these contrivances👆could explain why Paul says he’s keeping all the other guns except that one. Paul would be giving the gun renter a heads-up as to that one being the murder weapon.  
Maybe Paul is going to trace where the other gun came from???

This👆 rather complicated exchange is actually very similar to the plot devices used in some of the old Raymond Burr episodes of Perry Mason I’ve been watching.

[kay1864]

22 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I love the fail son story, especially the chat with his former piano teacher.

Anybody else think, “Geez, really?” when Perry decided to take his son to see King Kong instead of finishing his homework? Especially after his son thought he’d better do his homework before playing with the new toy.

[EtheltoTillie]

I think the expression "That's a yes" was anachronistic for this time period.  But I suppose people have always recognized startled/guilty silence as agreement with whatever was asked.

I admired the improvised ballistics testing lab. 

[paigow]

9 hours ago, kay1864 said:

Anybody else think, “Geez, really?” when Perry decided to take his son to see King Kong instead of finishing his homework? Especially after his son thought he’d better do his homework before playing with the new toy.

But ideal reason for hanging out with teacher....

[realityplease]

19 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I think the expression "That's a yes" was anachronistic for this time period.  But I suppose people have always recognized startled/guilty silence as agreement with whatever was asked.

I admired the improvised ballistics testing lab. 

It's a lawyer thing.  Silence & gestures are not picked up by a reporter (whether it's a court reporter in court or reporter at a deposition.) Reporters only put down what is actually said.  So a careful lawyer wants ALL responses voiced for the record.  Lawyers are used to saying, "That's a yes?" to get the witness/deponent to say "Yes" clearly on the record.  (Where it can be used as evidence, for impeachment, on appeal, whatever.) After a time, it's almost reflexive, whether speaking in court, at a deposition, or just in conversation with a witness.  Maybe anachronistic for regular folks at the time - maybe not if you're a lawyer or judge. You get silence in response, or something mumbled, and it's on the lawyer to get a clear response on the record.

Edited March 24, 2023 by realityplease

[EtheltoTillie]

15 minutes ago, realityplease said:

It's a lawyer thing.  Silence & gestures are not picked up by a reporter (whether it's a court reporter in court or reporter at a deposition.) Reporters only put down what is actually said.  So a careful lawyer wants ALL responses voiced for the record.  Lawyers are used to saying, "That's a yes?" to get the witness/deponent to say "Yes" clearly on the record.  (Where it can be used as evidence, for impeachment, on appeal, whatever.) After a time, it's almost reflexive, whether speaking in court, at a deposition, or just in conversation with a witness.  Maybe anachronistic for regular folks at the time - maybe not if you're a lawyer or judge.

Interesting, but I'm not talking about the same thing.  And I am a lawyer, BTW.  Yes, in depositions and on the witness stand, you have to get someone to say yes or no out loud for the record.

This was a different thing, where people ask a question off the record just to see what happens.  "So you were out with your mistress last night?"  Guilty silence.  "I'll take that as a yes."

That's an anachronistic language trope, IMHO, but I think the technique has always been used.

Edited March 24, 2023 by EtheltoTillie

[Door County Cherry]

22 hours ago, kay1864 said:

Anybody else think, “Geez, really?” when Perry decided to take his son to see King Kong instead of finishing his homework? Especially after his son thought he’d better do his homework before playing with the new toy.

Not really because I thought it odd a kid his son's age would be doing homework.   From what I understand, homework wasn't really a thing for kids that young at that time. 

[sistermagpie]

Just now, Door County Cherry said:

Not really because I thought it odd a kid his son's age would be doing homework.   From what I understand, homework wasn't really a thing for kids that young at that time. 

Seems like another example of the show assuming that parenting is something that never changes rather than a story that evolves over time - unlike the way it deals with things it knows are a story, like attitudes about race or sexuality.

[aghst]

31 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Interesting, but I'm not talking about the same thing.  And I am a lawyer, BTW.  Yes, in depositions and on the witness stand, you have to get someone to say yes or no out loud for the record.

This was a different thing, where people ask a question off the record just to see what happens.  "So you were out with your mistress last night?"  Guilty silence.  "I'll take that as a yes."

That's an anachronistic language trope, IMHO, but I think the technique has always been used.

Yeah I agree, Perry saying that threw me out of the scene.  They wouldn't say it like that back then.

Basically in the modern context, it's people calling someone out who doesn't want to answer some question, so the question was set to trap the person whom they know probably don't want to admit to something.

That's what I thought of.  Perry didn't say "can you state yes for the record."  It was more like, "that's an admission that the premise of my question is true."

[EtheltoTillie]

3 minutes ago, aghst said:

Yeah I agree, Perry saying that threw me out of the scene.  They wouldn't say it like that back then.

Basically in the modern context, it's people calling someone out who doesn't want to answer some question, so the question was set to trap the person whom they know probably don't want to admit to something.

That's what I thought of.  Perry didn't say "can you state yes for the record."  It was more like, "that's an admission that the premise of my question is true."

Yes, exactly, but also it was Paul Drake in that scene, not Perry. 

31 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

Not really because I thought it odd a kid his son's age would be doing homework.   From what I understand, homework wasn't really a thing for kids that young at that time. 

That kid is not that young.  I wasn't surprised at all. He had advanced Latin homework.  He must be older than you thought. 

[realityplease]

As to "I'll take that as a yes," why overthink it?  I wasn't limiting it to the courtroom/deposition scenario or only to lawyers.  Could be used any time when gathering information from anybody.

I've been around plenty of folks in their 90's - born 1925 or so, therefore, alive & aware in the 30's. They used the phrase -usually with a knowing look & to nail someone down (an evasive child, grand-kid, teenager or anyone) when they caught them not wanting to admit to something & met their question with silence.  Wasn't alive back in the 30's & don't know if these folks used the phrase as far back as that -- or picked it up later.  Guessing you weren't either. Many things escape people's notice (or the world begins the day they were born) & things pop out at them later as odd -- when it's just something whose genesis they never noted before.  It's not like he said, "Groovy!"

Edited March 24, 2023 by realityplease

[Kath94]

On 3/21/2023 at 7:59 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

We know that Brooks had an affair/mistress/possibly prostitution situation where he would choke the woman he was sleeping with with a belt. We know from this episode that he had some sort of unsavory interaction with a woman that seemingly left her catatonic and institutionalized.

Thank you for pointing that out!  I'm SO bad with faces that I hadn't realized the catatonic, institutionalized woman was the mistress from earlier.

[Chicago Redshirt]

5 minutes ago, Kath94 said:

Thank you for pointing that out!  I'm SO bad with faces that I hadn't realized the catatonic, institutionalized woman was the mistress from earlier.

I actually do not know/remember that it is. I may go back and check. But I was primarily hypothesizing that the situation we saw was not Brooks's first choking and that a previous one (or something else sex-shenanigan related) probably left the institutionalized one where she is.

[shapeshifter]

9 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I thought it odd a kid his son's age would be doing homework.   From what I understand, homework wasn't really a thing for kids that young at that time. 

9 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

That kid is not that young.  I wasn't surprised at all. He had advanced Latin homework.  He must be older than you thought. 

Based on Wikipedia and a linked article there, I wonder if the teacher assigning homework is another indication of her being progressive for her time. 

Edited March 25, 2023 by shapeshifter

[EtheltoTillie]

Just now, shapeshifter said:

Base on Wikipedia and a linked article there, I wonder if the teacher assigning homework is another indication of her being progressive for her time. 

This is funny.  I scanned some of this same stuff earlier.  It looks like homework was assigned as punishment earlier in the 20th Century, and maybe it was not used much until later in the century.  But I think in fancy prep schools people always had to do more work. 

[kay1864]

19 hours ago, Kath94 said:

Thank you for pointing that out!  I'm SO bad with faces that I hadn't realized the catatonic, institutionalized woman was the mistress from earlier.

I don’t think they’re the same person. The woman early in episode 1 is the waitress we see later on the gambling boat—as opposed to Noreen Lawson.

Oddly though the waitress is no longer listed on imdb, but she was two weeks ago. 

[paigow]

33 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

I don’t think they’re the same person. 

Additional evidence is that Rich Pool Lady Camilla recognizes the name Noreen Lawson. Very unlikely that Noreen was a waitress...

[shapeshifter]

On 3/21/2023 at 10:59 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

We know that Brooks had an affair/mistress/possibly prostitution situation where he would choke the woman he was sleeping with with a belt

On 3/24/2023 at 4:22 PM, Kath94 said:

Thank you for pointing that out!  I'm SO bad with faces that I hadn't realized the catatonic, institutionalized woman was the mistress from earlier.

11 hours ago, kay1864 said:

I don’t think they’re the same person. The woman early in episode 1 is the waitress we see later on the gambling boat—as opposed to Noreen Lawson.

10 hours ago, paigow said:

Additional evidence is that Rich Pool Lady Camilla recognizes the name Noreen Lawson. Very unlikely that Noreen was a waitress...

Alexandra Grossi is credited as Lina Falcone (imdb.com/title/tt16433672/fullcredits). I guess she's the waitress who is also the woman being choked by Brooks McCutcheon during sex in the first episode of the season (before he was murdered)?

And then Danielle Gross plays catatonic Noreen Lawson in Chapter Eleven, who we are speculating was also choked by Brooks (imdb.com/title/tt16433670/fullcredits).

They're both played by actresses who seem to share the same approximate hair color, eye color, height, body build, and age. Kersti Bryan plays the wife/widow of Brooks, and is also similar.
So, assuming the institutionalized woman was also Brooks' lover, perhaps Brooks McCutcheon had a type?

Hope Davis, who plays Camilla Nygard, has an IMDb picture from when she was the same age as Grossi and Gross (I just noticed even the 2 actors' names are coincidentally similar!) and Davis is the same of the same general phenotype too. Probably just another coincidence, or maybe the casting department had a type?

 

On 3/21/2023 at 7:05 PM, realityplease said:

I thought in a prior episode we saw an arm (I don't know who it was - went by too fast) that reached into the evidence box & slipped a card into Brooks' wallet.  And now it seems that card bore the number of the home where the catatonic woman resides. 

Yes. I had thought it was fingerprint proof from the car that was slipped into the evidence box, but the card from the mental institution makes more sense. 
It was probably placed there by someone who wants to out Brooks McCutcheon for his crime of choking someone enough to cause brain damage ― rather than free or convict the Guillardos.
But maybe Brooks learned the technique from looking through a keyhole at Daddy Lydell? It would fit the behavior of Lydell we saw in this episode. 

 

[heatherchandler]

On 3/24/2023 at 1:29 PM, realityplease said:

As to "I'll take that as a yes," why overthink it?  I wasn't limiting it to the courtroom/deposition scenario or only to lawyers.  Could be used any time when gathering information from anybody.

 

And it comes from an old German(?) saying “Zwijgen is instemmen” so it may have been a saying back then.  

I am sensitive to anachronisms in speech in tv shows, but this one didn’t bother me.

[paigow]

On 3/26/2023 at 11:27 AM, heatherchandler said:

And it comes from an old German(?) saying “Zwijgen is instemmen” so it may have been a saying back then. 

Maybe Perry heard it a lot during WW1...