S01.E06: The Big Top

[Bort]

Airdate: May 18, 2023

[Snazzy Daisy]

Don is clearly loving the limelight despite not getting along with Judge Ryan and his fat f*ck-ism.

He intentionally reveals to the media that Candy acted in self-defense and promises them a juicy story from the axe-murderer herself. He manipulates Ron to give an impression that God is on Candy’s side. To him, everything is about optics.

Don is lucky that Allan’s testimony is more useful to the defense team than the prosecution.

One thing that Don cannot control - Candy and her Serax pills. He wants the juries to see Human Candy, not Zombie Candy.

The gruesome details about Betty’s injuries are finally revealed and they’re hard to swallow. 40 blows. Two (2) injuries came from above, they went so deep that the axe has to be wiggled back and forth. One (1) wound occurred post-mortem. This means Betty was alive for the other 39 injuries.

Candy Montgomery is a f-king monster! 👿  

 

[Roseanna]

1 hour ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Don is lucky that Allan’s testimony is more useful to the defense team than the prosecution.

Don was an unusual witness: being under the oath, he spoke the truth.

As Candy didn't know about the axe, she had no plan to kill Betty. But self-defence? Candy has only a little wound on her face, so she got the axe from Betty almost immediately and she just continued to hit her savagely. 

I don't know the US law, so I ask: is it really either lifetime in prison or not guilty at all.  

 

[Roseanna]

Candy is afraid to break down, but would it really so bad? Wouldn't she as a religious person want to atone her deeds?

Her pastor doesn't believe her because she lied to her before.

[cuppasun]

7 hours ago, Roseanna said:

I don't know the US law, so I ask: is it really either lifetime in prison or not guilty at all. 

These are two different parts of the process: first is the guilt phase, where the jury decides if the defendant is guilty or not guilty, and if guilty, of what crime (if there is more than one choice available). If found guilty, then the penalty phase happens, which determines what the punishment will be. In the penalty phase, except for death penalty cases, the jury is generally not involved; it usually involves a separate hearing where the judge imposes the penalty, based on a number of factors (sentencing guidelines, DA recommendation, etc) How much time in prison ultimately depends on all those factors. So at this point, the decision isn't about prison at all (and it could absolutely be less than life, if the jury convicts her of a lesser charge), just whether or not she's guilty of the crime she's been charged with beyond a reasonable doubt. Her lawyer keeps reminding her what the consequences might be if she's found guilty to try to scare her into cooperating with his strategy, but technically, the jury can't take that into consideration in deciding whether she's guilty.

I gotta say, when they had her lawyer cross the medical examiner (I think) to emphasize that even if Betty was still alive she was likely unconscious, all I could think was "ummmm... did you just basically spell out to the jury that even if your claim of self-defense was true at first, most of the attack took place when Betty was clearly and unequivocally not a threat anymore?!!" Seems a pretty dumb move in my view, not to mention making it even clearer that there was way more to the attack than self-defense (assuming one believes that... which I'm disinclined to. I think it's reasonable to conclude it wasn't premeditated...but I just don't find the self-defense theory very credible. YMMV, of course.).

Edited May 19, 2023 by cuppasun

[Snazzy Daisy]

8 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Don was an unusual witness: being under the oath, he spoke the truth.

You mean Allan Gore, Betty’s husband.

[Roseanna]

4 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

You mean Allan Gore, Betty’s husband.

Yes if course.

[Roseanna]

8 hours ago, cuppasun said:

I gotta say, when they had her lawyer cross the medical examiner (I think) to emphasize that even if Betty was still alive she was likely unconscious, all I could think was "ummmm... did you just basically spell out to the jury that even if your claim of self-defense was true at first, most of the attack took place when Betty was clearly and unequivocally not a threat anymore?!!" Seems a pretty dumb move in my view, not to mention making it even clearer that there was way more to the attack than self-defense (assuming one believes that... which I'm disinclined to. I think it's reasonable to conclude it wasn't premeditated...but I just don't find the self-defense theory very credible. YMMV, of course.).

I guess that Candy's lawyer's intention was to hint that Betty didn't felt pain any more *if* she lost consciousness. But as you say, in that case she wasn't a threat to Candy any more.

You are right to doubt self-defence. Actually, we have seen the scene where Betty had the axe in her hand but we haven't seen her actually hit Candy or try to do it or even threaten to do it. Candy had no wounds (except a little one on her face) which means she took the axe either when Betty tried to hit her (but how on earth did she succed as Betty was taller?) or even before (did Betty just let her to take it?). In both cases, once Candy had the axe in her hand(s), she had no reason to be afraid of Betty and could have just left her home. 

[chediavolo]

I must have missed this explanation in the series, but how is Candy, a murder suspect, not in custody? In all the police dramas, murder mysteries I’ve seen, the person arrested for suspicion of murder is jailed . 

[bilgistic]

19 hours ago, Roseanna said:

Wouldn't she as a religious person want to atone her deeds?

Sweet summer child, you really don't know the U.S., do you?😂

[txhorns79]

On 5/19/2023 at 5:55 AM, chediavolo said:

I must have missed this explanation in the series, but how is Candy, a murder suspect, not in custody? In all the police dramas, murder mysteries I’ve seen, the person arrested for suspicion of murder is jailed . 

She got bail.  In real life, remand is usually reserved for someone who is particularly dangerous, or a flight risk. 

Quote

In both cases, once Candy had the axe in her hand(s), she had no reason to be afraid of Betty and could have just left her home. 

If someone was attacking me with an ax, I would still consider the person a real threat, even if I had disarmed them.  I'm not saying that the forty whacks was justified, but I can also see why things didn't stop once Candy had the ax.

[Roseanna]

On 5/19/2023 at 10:39 PM, txhorns79 said:

If someone was attacking me with an ax, I would still consider the person a real threat, even if I had disarmed them.  I'm not saying that the forty whacks was justified, but I can also see why things didn't stop once Candy had the ax.

How can an unarmed person to be a threat to a person with a deadly weapon? Only if the former person is still stupid,or distraught, enough to attack. In other cases the best option is leave, of course backward. But as somebody said about a previous episode, Candy should have left already before, once she saw the axe in Betty's hand. 

 

[AstridM]

On 5/19/2023 at 3:39 PM, txhorns79 said:

If someone was attacking me with an ax, I would still consider the person a real threat, even if I had disarmed them

Really? In this case, if the other person was laid out on the floor injured, and you had possession of the axe, you would feel they were still a legitimate threat to you? 

3 minutes ago, Roseanna said:

How can an unarmed person to be a threat to a person with a deadly weapon? Only if the former person is still stupid,or distraught, enough to attack. In other cases the best option is leave, of course backward. But as somebody said about a previous episode, Candy should have left already before, once she saw the axe in Betty's hand. 

 

She absolutely had the chance to retreat at a variety of points, imo.  She could’ve just immediately tried to run out the front door. There were others outside and I don’t think Betty would’ve followed her out there and continued to try and attack her. 

[txhorns79]

8 hours ago, AstridM said:

Really? In this case, if the other person was laid out on the floor injured, and you had possession of the axe, you would feel they were still a legitimate threat to you? 

Yes.  If someone is desperate and crazy enough to attack me with a deadly weapon, I would not feel at all safe around them until they were in custody or completely subdued.  It's a terrifying situation.  People freeze, people panic, etc.  They aren't necessarily making rational choices in how they respond. 

[Roseanna]

6 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Yes.  If someone is desperate and crazy enough to attack me with a deadly weapon, I would not feel at all safe around them until they were in custody or completely subdued.  It's a terrifying situation.  People freeze, people panic, etc.  They aren't necessarily making rational choices in how they respond. 

So far, we have no proof that Betty actually attaked Candy, only her claim that she did so which is her only way to defend herself in the trial. But as we know that she has deliberately lied for long time to her husband, Betty and several other person.

There are odd things in the scenario: if Betty really attacked Candy with the axe, how on earth could Candy get the axe from Betty who is much taller? One option is that it was Betty who freezed - that is, she had the axe in her hand but she didn't attack at all but Candy just took the axe from her without her resistance (remember that Candy has no wounds except a small one on he face) and begin to hit her again and again, not even with the hammer of the axe.   

 

[EtheltoTillie]

There's no way to ever figure this out.  It's so hard to believe that the jury voted for the self-defense plea. 

It just hit me that Betty and Alan were aptly named "Gore."