S03.E09: Thirty

[callie lee 29]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Definitely not before your time if M*A*S*H isn't. You must have just been in a place where they didn't do it, because it's a really old game.

Yeah I both watched M*A*S*H and played MASH as a kid so close on time frame.

Personally I still don't know who did it but I hope it's Loretta. I really cannot stand her. I dislike her just about as much as I disliked whoever the other girlfriend in jail is (can't remember her name).

[shapeshifter]

46 minutes ago, SourK said:

For some reason, when I saw the scene, I immediately thought cookies instead of people and it's hard to say why -- I think maybe because whoever he was talking to wasn't answering, and it just felt like a frozen cake commercial from the 90s or something where you think they're talking about romance but no -- it's the frozen cake

Ah-ha! I didn’t have a TV then.
Now I can appreciate learning the talking-to-tempting-food trope via online discussion.

I didn’t know MASH either — although I figured out the jist of it from the context. 
I guessed it was a cross between a Choose Your Own Adventure book and a paper fortune teller.

Now I see MASH has a more limited, pre-determined focus: 
wikihow.com/Play-M.A.S.H
Interesting.
Representative of the 90s?

I like that a career was part of it. In this episode Mabel seems to determine her own career path.

Edited September 27, 2023 by shapeshifter

[peeayebee]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Actually, Dickie doesn’t say he “suppressed” Ben’s blood work:

• [MABEL]… you told me you cover up things, so I kinda figured you covered up his blood work to hide the poison in his system.
• [DICKIE] I did do that. I mean, I didn't know he was poisoned when I did it. I just knew there was other stuff in there he wouldn't want getting out…

IDK.
It seems ambiguous to me as to whether Dickie physically altered Ben’s blood sample, or if he just kept it out of the press. 

I'm going with Dickie just having kept the blood results out of the press. 

 

Quote

And the reveal that Ben’s “five whores” were really his sewing buddies confuses me even more about what Dickie really knew about Ben.

I think Ben was a softie who covered up his insecurities by pretending to be the tough guy, by being rude and mean to people, by acting like an arrogant jerk. So telling Dickie he was out doing drugs and having sex with his whores was just part of this ruse.

It just occurred to me that Loretta said, "Who do you think did it?" and Dickie said, "If you think the killer is still out there..." These characters are focusing on the trio's opinion about the murder. I'm sure there have been other examples thruout the show's run. I believe this is the writers choosing to emphasize the process that the trio is going thru to figure out the crime. The show's not really about who is the murderer, but about how the trio solve it.

I didn't realize MASH had been around so long. I guess I led a sheltered life. Boring, sheltered, whatever.

[DoctorAtomic]

I'm going to crack up if my nut theory that everyone tried to kill Ben has any traction. I think Donna definitely did the poisoning but everyone else chased him down the hallway and he freaked out and fell. So the second wasn't exactly premeditatated. 

Acting out the interrogations with the trio in the scene was a clever way to deliver the exposition with the asides. 

I'm super excited Ben was actually ranting at the cookies! And those of you that called writing on the mirror!!

 

[secnarf]

16 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Meh, since the first aroma of The Ben Was Talking To The Cookie 🍪Theory wafted through these threads, Reddit, X Formerly Known As Twitter, and elsewhere, I suspected a huge, genuine spoiler had been leaked — which kind of ruined this episode’s reveal for me — which is why I try valiantly to avoid them.🫣😨😤

IDK. Maybe it was supposed to be obvious to the viewers?

I hadn't thought of it until I read it here, but latched onto the theory primarily because nobody was responding back to Ben - and if it was a person, and he was saying those things to a person, they would have responded.

8 hours ago, peeayebee said:

That was all a lot of fun. I particularly like the scene where they're watching Loretta and Ben at the lighthouse. After Loretta says her lines about protecting the children, Charles says, "Wow, this dialog really lines up."

I think the reason we don't know who killed the mother in Death Rattle Dazzle is because the entire play is similar to the plotline of the season, and that comment was a way of lampshading it. We all know, none of the Pickwick triplets did it!

I had a feeling Maxine would turn out to be somehow important to the plot - I didn't think they would get Noma Dumezweni for a one-off, and then she reappeared last episode. But, I hadn't thought about the sequence of events closely enough until now. Maxine was at opening night, so wasn't that when she was meant to see the show for her review? But Ben collapsed right at the beginning of the show; they never got through it. She couldn't have written a review based on Ben's opening line. And if she had seen an earlier performance and written her review based on that, why was she at opening night?

[JenE4]

11 minutes ago, secnarf said:

I hadn't thought of it until I read it here, but latched onto the theory primarily because nobody was responding back to Ben - and if it was a person, and he was saying those things to a person, they would have responded.

I think the reason we don't know who killed the mother in Death Rattle Dazzle is because the entire play is similar to the plotline of the season, and that comment was a way of lampshading it. We all know, none of the Pickwick triplets did it!

I had a feeling Maxine would turn out to be somehow important to the plot - I didn't think they would get Noma Dumezweni for a one-off, and then she reappeared last episode. But, I hadn't thought about the sequence of events closely enough until now. Maxine was at opening night, so wasn't that when she was meant to see the show for her review? But Ben collapsed right at the beginning of the show; they never got through it. She couldn't have written a review based on Ben's opening line. And if she had seen an earlier performance and written her review based on that, why was she at opening night?

I was also confused as to how the review was written before Maxine saw the show—but then assumed she saw a dress rehearsal just like they had her in for the sitzprobe. Yet another detail that stuck out to me was that the review said that Ben couldn’t sing. But it was just a drama, not a musical, when Ben was in it. Or am I totally just misremembering? I thought they turned it into a musical after Ben died and Maxine told Oliver the play was terrible. But if my initial thought is correct then this might be proof it’s a fake review and Harold planted it because he’s the real killer. But wouldn’t Oliver pick up on it right away—hey why did they mention Ben’s singing when he never sang? Either I’m totally wrong or it’s a clue, lol.

[Crs97]

3 minutes ago, JenE4 said:

Yet another detail that stuck out to me was that the review said that Ben couldn’t sing

What she told Oliver was that the production didn’t sing, as in it was forgettable and boring.  That phrase inspired him to revamp it as a musical.

[TimWil]

Geez, that was an AWFUL episode, absolutely terrible. Incredibly slow pacing and badly shot. The credited director was someone called Cherien Dabis, which I think is a fake name/anagram because the “direction” was so embarrassing and downright inept.

And that was NOT 35th/Broadway-the exterior street area of the Snitch N Stitch shop was clearly somewhere in Queens or Brooklyn.

I loved last week’s episode. The directors (Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini) did a great job. I really hope next week’s finale is good. Because I thought this penultimate episode was horrendous.

Edited September 27, 2023 by TimWil

[Fiftyninth]

17 minutes ago, TimWil said:

Geez, that was an AWFUL episode, absolutely terrible. Incredibly slow pacing and badly shot. The credited director was someone called Cherien Dabis, which I think is a fake name/anagram because the “direction” was so embarrassing and downright inept.

And that was NOT 35th/Broadway-the exterior street area of the Snitch N Stitch shop was clearly somewhere in Queens or Brooklyn.

I loved last week’s episode. The directors (Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini) did a great job. I really hope next week’s finale is good. Because I thought this penultimate episode was horrendous.

Wow, that’s a bit of a rant. This was the sixth episode that Cherien Dabis has directed — 2 per season, including the excellent season 1 episode about Theo Dimas.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Fiftyninth
Typo

[kay1864]

10 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I thought it was weird that we see Ben turn off the camera in his dressing room.

1. And after he did, how could the trio possibly deduce the rest of his dialogue?

2. They had only 20 minutes, and they spent at least 5 of that for Charles and Oliver to… put on tuxes?

3. It’s a public hearing. Spectators were there. So why the ruse to get in?

[MisterGlass]

Joy's mother had quite a risque wedding dress for the era when she got married.

Maxine would have had to have seen a preview performance, and written a review outline based on it.  I'm not sure if that's typical.  The thing that really didn't square with me was that anyone would have a printout of a review to shred, instead of a digital copy on a smart phone.

Wai Ching Ho, the actress who played Mei Mei, played the antagonist Madame Gao on the Netflix Marvel shows like Daredevil.

I have one long shot suspect in mind if it isn't Donna, and that's

Spoiler

KT.  She also wants the play to be efficient and a success, and Ben is a frequent obstacle to that success.

But, I think the idea of Donna makes sense, and I wouldn't be surprised if she is the poisoner.

[KerleyQ]

22 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Ah, got ourselves a Father of the Bride reference.  Lets see if we can get a Three Amigos next!

I noticed that the description of the episode included a line about the trio having "a plethora (yes, a plethora) of suspects."

19 hours ago, ofmd said:

Hmmm... It's only the penultimate episode, so I doubt it was Donna. I'm still not totally discounting my 'Loretta gets exonerated but it was her after all' theory. Could be she finished Ben off after his miraculous recovery, to free dickie. But... Joy was mentioned numerous times. Hmmm...

How about this: Ben stumbled and fell, and Tobert just decided not to save him, much like the baby elephant?

Didn't we know, last season, as the penultimate episode was wrapping up, that the cop was involved? 

I remember seeing someone suggest, back when Tobert told that story, that he was actually talking about seeing Ben fall down the elevator shaft and not saving him, but he used the elephant story as a cover. Kind of like he was dealing with his guilt and used a fake story to partially unburden himself. (I don't think it's Tobert, but at the same time, I could kind of see that being the story). 

8 hours ago, Affogato said:

I thought it was pretty obvious he was talking to cookies. I thought it was possible they would avert it and he would be talking to someone else, but yeah, that's how you scold a plate of snickerdoodles.  We knew he had an issue with cookies, after all.

I don't think it needed to be leaked. 

I agree. It just seemed obvious, after we'd seen the whole bit about him needing to stay away from cookies because he has no self control, that he was ranting at the cookies for tempting him. 

My guess on the whole story is that Donna poisoned the cookie, but she didn't push him down the elevator shaft. I think Ben thought Cliff poisoned him, since he was the one who came around to his dressing room with the cookies. He then confronted him by the elevator, and Cliff, realizing his mother must have done it, shoved Ben to protect his mother. 

The only little hiccup in my feeling fully confident in that theory is Loretta's reaction when they showed up in the courtroom. Instead of being relieved that it wasn't Dickie, she said that she's already gone so far down this road. That just seemed like such an odd reaction to finding out that her son was innocent and, theoretically, she'd be able to stop pretending to be guilty, so neither of them would need to go down for this. That scene left me a little piece of doubt about my Cliff theory, that maybe instead of him pushing Ben, either Loretta did it or she saw (or thinks she saw) Dickie doing it. 

[HelloooKitty]

YES!!! I was RIGHT about the cookie,I WAS RIGHT about the mirror writing, and I was RIGHT about the producer being “who done it” for the producers type reasons!! And I guessed that part way back when the first 2 episodes aired!!!

 

I am feeling very smart right now. 
 

 

okay, but Donna totally didn’t push him down the elevator shaft. I still think it was some sort of accident type thing. Even that Ben was arguing with someone and stepped backwards expecting the elevator to be there as he shot off his final quip. But it wasn’t.  And he had a Rosalind Shays moment. 
 

I do think Donna may be sick and that’s why she feels so much pressure to get Cliff’s show off on the right foot and get him a start. She won’t be there much longer to clean up his messes and be the known power behind him. He has to get his own star producer power before she’s gone if he’s going to succeed. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by HelloooKitty

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, kay1864 said:

2. They had only 20 minutes, and they spent at least 5 of that for Charles and Oliver to… put on tuxes?

3. It’s a public hearing. Spectators were there. So why the ruse to get in?

I accepted both of these👆ridiculous bits as being worthy of comedic license.

And they kind of hung a lantern on it when the bailiff at the door first asked if Oliver and Charles were the 2 dads, and then asked if there was a groom in the room, and Mabel responded with “Why does there always have to be a groom?”

I loved that line, but my sense of humor is a tad skewed.

But real life gatekeepers in uniform can sometimes be unnecessarily officious — asking unnecessary questions.🙃😆

 

 

I agree with those upthread(s) who are still expecting a reveal that Tobert watched Ben fall to his death just as he let the baby elephant struggle.
Poor Ben had no mother elephant to rescue him — unlike Dickie and Cliff. 
But does this make Tobert guilty of a crime? 

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I agree with those upthread(s) who are still expecting a reveal that Tobert watched Ben fall to his death just as he let the baby elephant struggle.
Poor Ben had no mother elephant to rescue him — unlike Dickie and Cliff. 
But does this make Tobert guilty of a crime? 

Given that I have been saying all season that I don't think that one or both of these was a murder or involved murderous intent and that Tobert was involved in one of them, I agree with you and the others on this.

I like the theory that Tobert might have watched Ben fall and not done anything to save him but it doesn't look like that can be considered a crime in most places if it can be established that he did just watch him fall and didn't push him, and that he did not willfully put him in harm's way. 

If the above is true about Tobert, he's not guilty of murder. He might be anyway but they'd have to establish how or at least convince a jury that he pushed him or something else.   If there is no evidence that he actually pushed Ben (or any witnesses) then he might not be convicted but it's all so gray right now and depends on so many things that it would be hard to call.   

So technically neither of these might be technically called murder.  Donna's attempt to either hurt or kill Ben didn't succeed so it might be considered a murder attempt.  If Ben fell to his death without provocation, that also isn't technically a murder.  But then that wouldn't be "murders in the building", would it?  So I'm not sure how I feel about that.

Personally I have suspected Tobert's involvement because he's basically been a useless character.   I would have thought they'd utilize him more in solving the murder but the show just kind of excluded him from that after a while and dropped him like a hot potato.  We didn't even get to see too many scenes of him and Mabel together.  I felt that was strange.  What is he there for anyway?   And I have to think that something has to happen to put a wrench in his relationship with Mabel because I can't see that going on after this season.  So those are some peripheral reasons I have felt that Tobert is a suspicious character.  What we saw in this episode is only lending to that suspicion.

[Yeah No]

14 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Thank you, @peeayebee🙏
I feel better knowing I’m not the only one who was disappointed by the big cookie 🍪 reveal fizzling because of online chatter. But I still *really* want to know if it was leaked, and, if so, accidentally or maybe even on purpose?? 
Or was it just supposed to be obvious to a lot of viewers that Ben was talking to a cookie(s)? 🍪 
Heh. Sort of a meta-mystery to solve.

I was also disappointed that I already knew about the cookie thing from reading the board, but I guess that's par for the course.   I'm also disappointed because I'll never know if I would have figured that out myself after a while.  

That said, hats off to the super sleuths that figured it out.  I don't know how, though, but we all have our gifts, I guess.  I know a lot of people here thought the first two seasons were impossible to figure out but I did actually figure out the first season's killer and had the second season's on my short list of suspects.  How?  I don't know.  I'm one of those that goes based on instinct and intuition more than any hard clues, and I just knew.  We'll see if I'm right about Tobert, but I'm not even convinced he murdered Ben, just was involved as in not preventing him from falling.  Although I do think he could have murdered him. 

8 hours ago, callie lee 29 said:

Yeah I both watched M*A*S*H and played MASH as a kid so close on time frame.

I don't remember the MASH thing but that doesn't mean I didn't know about it when I was a kid and have forgotten after so long.  It sounds like something my friends and I would have done.  Of course I watched M*A*S*H heavily as a teenager.

I also wanted to address something someone said above but I can't find the quote right now.  A lot of what we saw in the reenactments was "mind's eye" stuff that might be conjecture on the part of our trio, so are we really seeing what happened or just their interpretation of what happened based on the testimony?  Or was some of it based on the testimony itself?  And how reliable is that testimony?  We really don't know.   I know I discussed that in a previous episode too.  So I admit that confuses me.

Also I realize now that one of the BIG things that had been bugging me all season is seeing our trio not in sync or working together.  Seeing them reunite to solve the crime in this episode felt very good indeed and made me wish it had happened earlier.  I also liked the brief street scene in NYC, although I agree with the poster upthread that that shop location looked more like a borough (probably Queens) than Manhattan.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Yeah No

[ofmd]

Is failure/ neglect to render assistance not a crime in the US?

[shapeshifter]

30 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

A lot of what we saw in the reenactments was "mind's eye" stuff that might be conjecture on the part of our trio, so are we really seeing what happened or just their interpretation of what happened based on the testimony?  Or was some of it based on the testimony itself?  And how reliable is that testimony?  We really don't know. 

Yes. When we saw Donna in the courtroom, something about her facial expression made me wonder if Mabel, Charles, and Oliver had it wrong. 
Like maybe someone else put — or even just accidentally spilled — rat poison on the cookie before Donna unwittingly put it in Ben’s dressing room.
Or Donna spilled(?) the poison on the cookie, and someone else found it and put it in Ben’s dressing room — either with or without bad intent.
Perhaps a Triplet of killers.

[peeayebee]

 

8 hours ago, MisterGlass said:

Joy's mother had quite a risque wedding dress for the era when she got married.

Plus if it was tailored for Joy, no way would it have fit Mabel like that.

 

7 hours ago, HelloooKitty said:

I do think Donna may be sick and that’s why she feels so much pressure to get Cliff’s show off on the right foot and get him a start. She won’t be there much longer to clean up his messes and be the known power behind him. He has to get his own star producer power before she’s gone if he’s going to succeed. 

I forgot about the signs that Donna may have cancer. No idea if that's relevant to the murder or just a red herring.

 

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Personally I have suspected Tobert's involvement because he's basically been a useless character.   I would have thought they'd utilize him more in solving the murder but the show just kind of excluded him from that after a while and dropped him like a hot potato.  We didn't even get to see too many scenes of him and Mabel together.  I felt that was strange.  What is he there for anyway?   And I have to think that something has to happen to put a wrench in his relationship with Mabel because I can't see that going on after this season.  So those are some peripheral reasons I have felt that Tobert is a suspicious character.  What we saw in this episode is only lending to that suspicion.

I can see a few purposes for his character. His camera ended up in Ben's dressing room recording key footage. He provided a love interest for Mabel just as Joy did for Charles and Loretta for Oliver. He was a temporary member of the podcast trio (along with Theo) that Mabel used a substitute for Charles and Oliver.

I don't have a strong feeling about any particular person being the murderer. Tolbert may be it, either as someone who let Ben fall or as a more deliberate act. 

[Haleth]

7 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

I forgot about the signs that Donna may have cancer. No idea if that's relevant to the murder or just a red herring.

Cliff didn't want his sick mother to spend her last year(s) in jail for trying to poison Ben so he pushed Ben down the elevator?

[Ohiopirate02]

8 hours ago, KerleyQ said:

I noticed that the description of the episode included a line about the trio having "a plethora (yes, a plethora) of suspects."

As a longtime fan of Three Amigos, I see no need for (yes, a plethora).  

[chaifan]

I'm going to throw out a crazy idea for consideration...  What if the sewing ladies were involved somehow?  It seems random, and sort of 11th hour, but...

1. There was a lot of time spent on them not being at the theater.  And that they had front row seats. 

2. During the sitzprobe, when Charles was doing his patter song, as he got to the end "or you, or you, or you", he was pointing to the front row.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there five "and you"'s at the end of the patter song?  One for each sewing lady.

4. Why introduce these characters in the 9th episode?  Just to show that Ben had a soft side and sewed his own hankies for the cast?  That seems a little odd to me.

And that's all I've got.  I have no idea as to motive or how they did it.  Or even if they meant to.  Just a wild idea that came to me last night.

 

3 hours ago, Yeah No said:

Also I realize now that one of the BIG things that had been bugging me all season is seeing our trio not in sync or working together.  Seeing them reunite to solve the crime in this episode felt very good indeed and made me wish it had happened earlier. 

I commented on an earlier thread, I think this was quite deliberate in this season.  We had gotten so used to the trio being a trio, they were purposely separated for the first half of the season, so we'd realize how much we really miss that.  And then they were brought back together and we're all happy again.  I think it worked well. 

Ben & the cookie...  I loved someone's analogy earlier that it's like the commercials where someone is talking to a frozen cake.  That's pretty much how I felt during the episode it aired - it was pretty obvious there wasn't a person in the room.  Was he talking about cookies?  Was he rehearsing another script?  I wasn't sure, but I was sure he wasn't speaking to another person in the room. 

[peeayebee]

11 minutes ago, chaifan said:

I'm going to throw out a crazy idea for consideration...  What if the sewing ladies were involved somehow?  It seems random, and sort of 11th hour, but...

In an earlier post, I semi-jokingly suggested Trixie as the murderer. At this point I think the show could get away with it being just about anyone.

Ben did have one of those hankies on his body, so perhaps that could tie to at least one of the sewing ladies. 

[ofmd]

Trixie, after the evil deed: "It's called sex worker, b*tch!"

[chaifan]

40 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

In an earlier post, I semi-jokingly suggested Trixie as the murderer. At this point I think the show could get away with it being just about anyone.

Maybe they were in on it with Dickie, they'd be his alibi, and Loretta was right all along. 

As you said, anything is possible...

I'm actually hoping some of what the trio was envisioning isn't right, even though it made sense to them at the time. 

[Yeah No]

4 hours ago, ofmd said:

Is failure/ neglect to render assistance not a crime in the US?

No, although these laws are state specific and may vary a little as to which cases apply.  In general unless it can be established that you set up the dangerous situation you have no legal duty to rescue a stranger from harm.  One reason why all those people recording videos on their cell phones of someone in distress aren't brought up on charges.

I've read that some other countries do consider it a crime not to attempt to help someone in distress but I don't know much else about which countries and which situations apply.

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes. When we saw Donna in the courtroom, something about her facial expression made me wonder if Mabel, Charles, and Oliver had it wrong. 
Like maybe someone else put — or even just accidentally spilled — rat poison on the cookie before Donna unwittingly put it in Ben’s dressing room.
Or Donna spilled(?) the poison on the cookie, and someone else found it and put it in Ben’s dressing room — either with or without bad intent.
Perhaps a Triplet of killers.

Yeah, I agree, there is still room for more twists coming in the future like this.  The show certainly made Donna's presence in the courtroom, and her expression look significant somehow and my thoughts went to her possible innocence too.

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I can see a few purposes for his character. His camera ended up in Ben's dressing room recording key footage. He provided a love interest for Mabel just as Joy did for Charles and Loretta for Oliver. He was a temporary member of the podcast trio (along with Theo) that Mabel used a substitute for Charles and Oliver.

I don't have a strong feeling about any particular person being the murderer. Tolbert may be it, either as someone who let Ben fall or as a more deliberate act. 

True, Tobert did fulfill those purposes.  Something about the way they've set this up makes me more suspicious of him than of say, Cliff, though.  Again, just a hunch based on a feeling in my gut, LOL.

1 hour ago, Haleth said:

Cliff didn't want his sick mother to spend her last year(s) in jail for trying to poison Ben so he pushed Ben down the elevator?

Cliff is another character that hasn't been cleared or implicated other than his mother being implicated so I think that's possible, but I think it would be a little anti-climactic because it would seem so obvious.  Of course that's just my hunch there.

1 hour ago, peeayebee said:

In an earlier post, I semi-jokingly suggested Trixie as the murderer. At this point I think the show could get away with it being just about anyone.

Ben did have one of those hankies on his body, so perhaps that could tie to at least one of the sewing ladies. 

Yeah, I agree, and I also think it's suspect that they introduced them so late in the season. 

[Milburn Stone]

10 hours ago, TimWil said:

Geez, that was an AWFUL episode, absolutely terrible. Incredibly slow pacing and badly shot. The credited director was someone called Cherien Dabis, which I think is a fake name/anagram because the “direction” was so embarrassing and downright inept.

I don't want to get into an argument, so I'm genuinely asking why you thought the direction was so terrible. The episode to me seemed totally of a piece in tone and style with all the other episodes of the season. Can you specify what you thought was badly shot? Perhaps I'll learn something.

[peeayebee]

47 minutes ago, chaifan said:

Maybe they were in on it with Dickie, they'd be his alibi, and Loretta was right all along. 

Maybe they really were his 5 whores, and it was a crime of passion!

[DoctorAtomic]

47 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I've read that some other countries do consider it a crime not to attempt to help someone in distress but I don't know much else about which countries and which situations apply.

I remember this being an big issue when Princess Diana passed. 

With everyone putting up such a variety of suspects, I think it's all of them even more.

I did like when the trio got to the cab and there were people in it, the woman looked at the wedding dress and then the guy to her left - "You. out." 

[Yeah No]

15 minutes ago, DoctorAtomic said:

With everyone putting up such a variety of suspects, I think it's all of them even more.

I mentioned the all of them theory a few weeks back and still think it's a possibility.  There may be one murderer and several accessories to murder.  They may have all been working together or even separately and only one person was successful.  So all of our theories may be right to some degree or another and several people's hands are dirty in this.

Loretta's behavior in this episode showed that even though she may not be the murderer, she harbors some degree of guilt over it and any part she played in it behind the scenes, and thinks she deserves to be where she is.  Perhaps she (and several of them) would have loved to see Ben dead and she assumed that Dickie was the successful one because he had the strongest motive (that we know of right now anyway) and/or made his intentions or wishes very obvious to her.  And so she feels responsible for it for that reason as well as for putting him in that situation by putting him up for adoption.  But someone else got there first.

Edited September 27, 2023 by Yeah No

[Lugal]

18 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Actually, Dickie doesn’t say he “suppressed” Ben’s blood work:

• [MABEL]… you told me you cover up things, so I kinda figured you covered up his blood work to hide the poison in his system.
• [DICKIE] I did do that. I mean, I didn't know he was poisoned when I did it. I just knew there was other stuff in there he wouldn't want getting out…

IDK.
It seems ambiguous to me as to whether Dickie physically altered Ben’s blood sample, or if he just kept it out of the press. 
And the reveal that Ben’s “five whores” were really his sewing buddies confuses me even more about what Dickie really knew about Ben.

Especially since the "five whores" said Ben's sewing circle kept him off those nasty street drugs.  What was Dickie really covering up?

[Ohiopirate02]

14 minutes ago, Yeah No said:

I mentioned the all of them theory a few weeks back and still think it's a possibility.  There may be one murderer and several accessories to murder.  They may have all been working together or even separately and only one person was successful.  So all of our theories may be right to some degree or another and several people's hands are dirty in this.

I also get the feeling there is another crime happening that has yet to be exposed.  Season One had the murder of Tim as the overarching crime plus finding out about how Zoe died and Teddy Dimas's theft ring.  Season Two had the murder of Bunny plus we find out about the pervy architect who built all those tunnels plus the whole Charles's dad/Rose Cooper painting thing.  This season all we have after nine episodes is the death of Ben.  It's been too straightforward and I need a twist.  I still think Donna and Cliff are up to something else.  Nothing about Death Rattle makes sense from a business perspective.  The play as written was a stinker from the beginning.  Donna fires the first director and hires Oliver, a man who has not staged a successful play or musical in years. It seems like everyone on the cast knows the play is shit, and are only going through the motions to collect their paychecks.  Donna may threaten to pull the plug on the production after Ben dies, but it takes very little from Cliff for her to agree to continue.  There's something going on here.

On another note, I miss the podcast fans this season.  Where's Marv and the gang?  Are they still selling podcast merch?

[Affogato]

Sometimes 'seamstress' is a euphemism for prostitute, at least it is in Terry Pratchett books. I think that the reveal he was talking to a cookie, combined with the sewing buddies and hankies, reveals him as a sympathetic character. Up until now we have seen Ben as a jerk. I liked the way they did this. I also really appreciated Paul Rudd's acting opposite the cookie (and Mabel realizing it because of Oscar's interactions with his dip). It seems like these people need a support group, for people who actually love food.

I'm not sure what Donna being at the courtroom means, exactly, but I'm sure there are some reveals being held back for the last episode. 

6 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I also get the feeling there is another crime happening that has yet to be exposed.  Season One had the murder of Tim as the overarching crime plus finding out about how Zoe died and Teddy Dimas's theft ring.  Season Two had the murder of Bunny plus we find out about the pervy architect who built all those tunnels plus the whole Charles's dad/Rose Cooper painting thing.  This season all we have after nine episodes is the death of Ben.  It's been too straightforward and I need a twist.  I still think Donna and Cliff are up to something else.  Nothing about Death Rattle makes sense from a business perspective.  The play as written was a stinker from the beginning.  Donna fires the first director and hires Oliver, a man who has not staged a successful play or musical in years. It seems like everyone on the cast knows the play is shit, and are only going through the motions to collect their paychecks.  Donna may threaten to pull the plug on the production after Ben dies, but it takes very little from Cliff for her to agree to continue.  There's something going on here.

On another note, I miss the podcast fans this season.  Where's Marv and the gang?  Are they still selling podcast merch?

Well, apparently the musical version is a step up and it could be a success? They have implied this? But the story as we know it does sound pretty dumb. But, good or bad, there may be a faction that gets a pay off if it tanks? 

Where does Tobert fit into this?

14 minutes ago, Lugal said:

Especially since the "five whores" said Ben's sewing circle kept him off those nasty street drugs.  What was Dickie really covering up?

It is possible he also has a passion for hot dogs or pretzels, his 'street drugs'. Considering the cookies, this isn't too unreasonable a guess.

[Affogato]

19 minutes ago, Lugal said:

Especially since the "five whores" said Ben's sewing circle kept him off those nasty street drugs.  What was Dickie really covering up?

diabetes?

[meep.meep]

22 hours ago, peeayebee said:

 

I was thinking about this, too. I don't know if the talking-to-cookie theory would have occurred to me without reading about it here. So I was a bit sad to not be wowed by this reveal.

.......

I wonder if there was any significance to Charles mentioning that Joy's parents are still alive.

 

Watching the scene the first time, I thought Ben was talking to a plate of cookies.  It wasn't a big stretch.  They'd shown the scene at the rehearsal where he flipped out over cookies.

Joy's parents and childhood dog still being alive just means that they are incredibly old.  Especially the dog!

[Affogato]

Just now, meep.meep said:

Watching the scene the first time, I thought Ben was talking to a plate of cookies.  It wasn't a big stretch.  They'd shown the scene at the rehearsal where he flipped out over cookies.

Joy's parents and childhood dog still being alive just means that they are incredibly old.  Especially the dog!

Who is Jeff Bakula?  

The dog may be stuffed/preserved. This is, of course, creepy. 

[sistermagpie]

4 hours ago, peeayebee said:

 

Plus if it was tailored for Joy, no way would it have fit Mabel like that.

Had it been tailored? Maybe her mother sent it and it had just arrived so was tailored for her?

Scott Bakula's become a go-to joke--good for him! He also comes up in What We Do in the Shadows, iirc, though that may have just been because his name rhymes with Dracula.

[peeayebee]

30 minutes ago, meep.meep said:

Watching the scene the first time, I thought Ben was talking to a plate of cookies.  It wasn't a big stretch.  They'd shown the scene at the rehearsal where he flipped out over cookies.

When I first saw the scene, I thought he was talking to one of his many portraits, so I was stuck on that and didn't think 'cookies' until reading it here.

 

23 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

Had it been tailored? Maybe her mother sent it and it had just arrived so was tailored for her?

Yes, you're right. I just rewatched. Her mother sent it (her own wedding dress) so Joy could have it tailored for herself. I was obviously not paying attention.

[DoctorAtomic]

1 hour ago, Yeah No said:

I mentioned the all of them theory a few weeks back and still think it's a possibility.

We'll share the accolades in our victory. 

 

[shapeshifter]

-

4 hours ago, chaifan said:

I'm going to throw out a crazy idea for consideration...  What if the sewing ladies were involved somehow?  It seems random, and sort of 11th hour, but...

1. There was a lot of time spent on them not being at the theater.  And that they had front row seats. 

2. During the sitzprobe, when Charles was doing his patter song, as he got to the end "or you, or you, or you", he was pointing to the front row.

3. Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't there five "and you"'s at the end of the patter song?  One for each sewing lady.

4. Why introduce these characters in the 9th episode?  Just to show that Ben had a soft side and sewed his own hankies for the cast?  That seems a little odd to me.

And that's all I've got.  I have no idea as to motive or how they did it.  Or even if they meant to.  Just a wild idea that came to me last night.

But “That's not how it works. That's not how any of this works.” 😆

[KerleyQ]

6 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I can see a few purposes for his character. His camera ended up in Ben's dressing room recording key footage. He provided a love interest for Mabel just as Joy did for Charles and Loretta for Oliver. He was a temporary member of the podcast trio (along with Theo) that Mabel used a substitute for Charles and Oliver.

Plus, he served as the thing that the guys could be mad at Mabel about, when they were all mad at each other over various issues. If she hadn't been seeing him and involving him in the investigation, she pretty much would have been the innocent blameless one in their blow-up. 

[shapeshifter]

9 minutes ago, KerleyQ said:

6 hours ago, peeayebee said:

I can see a few purposes for his character. His camera ended up in Ben's dressing room recording key footage. He provided a love interest for Mabel just as Joy did for Charles and Loretta for Oliver. He was a temporary member of the podcast trio (along with Theo) that Mabel used a substitute for Charles and Oliver.

Expand  

Plus, he served as the thing that the guys could be mad at Mabel about, when they were all mad at each other over various issues. If she hadn't been seeing him and involving him in the investigation, she pretty much would have been the innocent blameless one in their blow-up

Heh.
When Jesse Williams was offered the role of Tobert in OMITB, I wonder if he was told he’d be the:
   “romantic interest for the female lead,”
or if it was just:
   “plot device.” 
😆😉
Not that he is off the suspect list yet!🕵🏼‍♀️

[buckboard]

Why did Joy's mother send the wedding dress to Charles's apartment?  Hasn't Joy told her the wedding is off?  Hmm...

[Snapdragon]

1 hour ago, buckboard said:

Why did Joy's mother send the wedding dress to Charles's apartment?  Hasn't Joy told her the wedding is off?  Hmm...

She'd probably already sent it before Joy told her they'd broken up.  Not sure what the timeline is but I'm guessing the entire season only covers a week or two.  

[Ohiopirate02]

1 minute ago, Snapdragon said:

She'd probably already sent it before Joy told her they'd broken up.  Not sure what the timeline is but I'm guessing the entire season only covers a week or two.  

In one of the earlier episodes, Mabel said she had 4 weeks to find a new place after her apartment sold.  Then we see the new owner had moved in, and I think that was before Oliver mentions opening night is in 2 weeks.  So, the season has covered at least 5 weeks if not more.  

[secnarf]

From the shredded review, opening night at the beginning of the season was mid-February. It looks like at least spring, maybe even summer outside. Plus they had to write a whole musical.

[Snazzy Daisy]

EASTER EGGS:

Opening Credit - Trio on the roof & trio in the window.

 

Father of the Bride - Mabel in a wedding dress with her 2 “dads”.

 

Three Amigos! - Ben’s sewing circle.

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Snazzy Daisy

[Quilt Fairy]

I don't think you can assume that Donna put the rat poison on the cookie.  All the other reenactments were based on the actual interviews and video footage.  Donna's poisoning of the cookie is, at this point, just a hypothesis of Mabel's.  It's based on the evidence, and it's logical, but it's still just a theory.  

[Yeah No]

2 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I don't think you can assume that Donna put the rat poison on the cookie.  All the other reenactments were based on the actual interviews and video footage.  Donna's poisoning of the cookie is, at this point, just a hypothesis of Mabel's.  It's based on the evidence, and it's logical, but it's still just a theory.  

True, I agree.  Admittedly, a lot of the stuff in the reenactments takes place when a person is alone so all of that is the stuff of hypothesis, including Ben writing "Fucking Pig" on the mirror, which is very logical but still just a theory.

I'd have to go back and look at it again but I wonder if there would have been an opportunity for someone else to get in there and put the poison on the cookie, or for it to have happened by accident.  Maybe her son did it.

[shapeshifter]

6 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

I don't think you can assume that Donna put the rat poison on the cookie.  All the other reenactments were based on the actual interviews and video footage.  Donna's poisoning of the cookie is, at this point, just a hypothesis of Mabel's.  It's based on the evidence, and it's logical, but it's still just a theory.  

4 hours ago, Yeah No said:

True, I agree.  Admittedly, a lot of the stuff in the reenactments takes place when a person is alone so all of that is the stuff of hypothesis, including Ben writing "Fucking Pig" on the mirror, which is very logical but still just a theory.

I'd have to go back and look at it again but I wonder if there would have been an opportunity for someone else to get in there and put the poison on the cookie, or for it to have happened by accident.  Maybe her son did it.

There seems to be a coalescing of a theme for this season of how we tend to make (mostly negative) assumptions about each other’s motives that are not true — which mirrors current societal trends.
Or is that just characteristic of murder mysteries in general?