S23.E02: Human Innovation

[Door County Cherry]

Quote

A tech CEO is killed.  Shaw and Riley untangle multiple leads to reveal a plot for retribution. 

 

[Xeliou66]

This sounds way better than last week. I hope the Shaw/Riley partnership continues to gel, and I hope we get more than 1 scene of Jack this week. 

[wknt3]

On 1/23/2024 at 5:33 PM, Door County Cherry said:

 A tech CEO is killed.  Shaw and Riley untangle multiple leads to reveal a plot for retribution. 

If this tech CEO is a stand in for Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg I hereby withdraw my objection to showing us the crime instead of a cold open with the body being discovered. Please go full SVU  with a 10 minute depiction of the crime set to music. And feel free to get very very graphic...

[edhopper]

No judge would ever throw out a confession because the suspect might have assumed something.  Police are allowed to lie to suspects.

[Door County Cherry]

4 minutes ago, edhopper said:

No judge would ever throw out a confession because the suspect might have assumed something.  Police are allowed to lie to suspects.

I think it was a flimsy toss too but this is a little different than lying to a suspect to trick them into believing they have more evidence than they do.  The lawyer's argument is that her client was addicted to Adderall and would have said anything when going through withdrawal to get back his access to the drug.  If you look at confessions that later were shown to be false confessions, a common circumstance tends to be fatigue or fear and the belief that confessing will bring an end to the uncomfortable situation.  

For this guy, it was the belief that confessing would get him back his access to the drug.  

Overall, I really liked this episode.  It had some ripped from the headlines stuff like the murder of the tech guy that was originally pinned on street crime but was an actual targeted attack, but it wasn't too on the nose.  It talked about philosophical issues with AI as well.

In fact, the only thing that would have made this episode better is if we didn't have the false confession and the prosecution was less certain.  

That said, I have a hard time believing the origin of that video wouldn't have been challenged in court as a chain of custody issue--especially since the guy accused of murdering the victim by the defense is the one who provided the video.  

[Xeliou66]

This was a gigantic improvement over the first episode, not perfect but good and compelling. 
AI is scary stuff IMO, and it was an interesting question as to whether the video was real or an incredible fake. I understood both Nolan’s side and Jack’s side, but I think Jack was right, their obligation was to the truth and the victim, sometimes I think Nolan thinks too much like a defense attorney still. It is an interesting change of pace from having a “do anything to win” prosecutor like Cutter was, but Nolan sometimes isn’t forceful enough. It isn’t his job to raise doubts about evidence, it’s the defenses job.

The investigation was really good - I’m liking the Shaw/Riley pairing, they clicked nicely in this episode, I liked how they got to the bottom of the case. Riley is a good addition IMO and I think him and Shaw have nice chemistry. The promo for next episode makes me nervous though, I hope they don’t throw Riley under the bus right as we are getting to know him.

Good twist that “Eva” wasn’t a woman but an AI program - didn’t see that coming. I also thought the business partner was the murderer when it was mentioned at the start he was blaming it on street crime, I thought he was going to be some big supervillain, and while he wasn’t likable I’m glad they went in a different direction.

The biggest nitpick is once again a judge predictably tossing out key evidence, I knew the confession was out immediately, even though the detectives followed procedure. It could’ve gone either way, at least I understood this ruling more than some other rulings on the revival, but it was predictable. Also wish they would end the unnecessary foot chases, and I wish the openings would be ordinary New Yorkers finding a crime scene.

Overall I liked this episode - it touched on some interesting stuff without being clunky or overboard, and the case was compelling and both the investigation and legal stuff was fairly well done - investigation remains stronger but the trial was pretty good this time. Nice to see L&O get back on track after last week’s clusterfuck with a solid outing.

[Raja]

I wasn't with this one and then came the hard Plan B. Lieutenant Dixon could have made a winking appearance 

[dubbel zout]

Once again, the prosecution gets sandbagged by some evidence they should have found themselves (the partner's emails about pushing the dead guy out of the business). I'm very tired of this happening so frequently.  It would be one thing if the defense sprung surprise witnesses or whatever, but it's always something related to a witness the police have talked to.

The order side of the show is still the weaker half by a mile. 

[blackwing]

I once remember reading a criticism of "House" that said almost every episode followed the same pattern.  Patient comes in and presents weird symptoms.  Doctor A immediately says "it's polychromal hypomitochondriosis".  Doctor B says "what, you're crazy, it's clearly speculoosia doxycorexpealidocious".  Heated arguments ensue, angst about being doubted, tests are done, lots of drama, oh what do you know it's hypomitochondriosis after all!  The patient is saved.  Huzzah!  But feelings got hurt, and they will remain hurt.

I'm starting to feel like in the recent revival seasons, Law and Order is becoming the same way.  Footchase, key evidence/confession getting thrown out in a preliminary hearing in chambers, Nolan having to work with what he has, Jack firmly indicating what Nolan has to do, last minute evidence popping up that someone on the police or lawyer side should have discovered or known about.

I think we talked about this last season, it seems like every time there is a discussion in chambers with the preliminary judge, the judge always sides with the defence.

So I think the show is suggesting that the guy made a false confession, the English partner killed the victim and set up this guy, including planting the gun in the dumpster behind the apartment and making the deepfake video?  In keeping with the ominous and sinister theme of "AI is evil".  Not sure if I believe that.  I tend to believe that the guy did kill Evan.  Didn't he already admit to going to the building and confronting Evan?  Or was all of the supposed confession made up because he was addicted to Adderall?  I get that the show has limited time, but it looked like he was barely in the room, to me fatigue/exhaustion shouldn't have been a factor.

I find it hard to believe that the defence didn't challenge the authenticity of the video more.  Especially since the shooter in the video is right handed.  There should have been testimony from competing experts about the authenticity of the video.  There should have been some discussion from some firearms expert about the likelihood of using your non-dominant hand to fire a gun.  But all that was cut in the interests of time I suppose.

I also was wondering why when the defence lawyer was making insinuations that the English guy had motive to kill his partner, that Price wasn't objecting on the grounds that the witness wasn't on trial.

 

 

 

[dubbel zout]

16 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Especially since the shooter in the video is right handed.

I'm a lefty, but I do a lot of things with my right hand. And as it happens, I would use my right hand to hold a gun. Handedness isn't slam-dunk evidence by a long shot.

But the idea that the defense wouldn't vehemently object to that video is dumb. Especially after getting the original confession tossed. 

[Raja]

16 minutes ago, dubbel zout said:

I'm a lefty, but I do a lot of things with my right hand. And as it happens, I would use my right hand to hold a gun. Handedness isn't slam-dunk evidence by a long shot.

But the idea that the defense wouldn't vehemently object to that video is dumb. Especially after getting the original confession tossed. 

Still we should be talking reasonable doubt. With the defense  attorney so unlikable I guess we are to believe that the jury ignored the Plan B that the rich guy did it.

What was the defendant doing testifying anyway? I  was sure that a confession door got reopened story.

[Ohiopirate02]

What bugs me about the video is the show already established that the wannabe rapper/drug dealer was at the scene when the victim was shot and that he stole the victim's wallet and watch.  The police know this, but the British partner maybe would not have known.  Why would the police not ask for the next ten minutes of footage?  That would establish whether or not it's a deep fake.  

[Raja]

5 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

What bugs me about the video is the show already established that the wannabe rapper/drug dealer was at the scene when the victim was shot and that he stole the victim's wallet and watch.  The police know this, but the British partner maybe would not have known.  Why would the police not ask for the next ten minutes of footage?  That would establish whether or not it's a deep fake.  

Because Jack didn't want to know and could play Sergeant Shultz. But that doesn't excuse them not letting us see the ambushed defense react. So to short hand the story the defendant did write with his left and shoot with his right. 

[blackwing]

31 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

What bugs me about the video is the show already established that the wannabe rapper/drug dealer was at the scene when the victim was shot and that he stole the victim's wallet and watch.  The police know this, but the British partner maybe would not have known.  Why would the police not ask for the next ten minutes of footage?  That would establish whether or not it's a deep fake.  

I think it's because Jack suspected the video was fake (and clearly, Nolan and Sam did too) and he didn't want to know the truth and get confirmation that it was fake.  The guy already confessed, Jack just wanted to ensure that the guy was convicted, no matter how they got there.

1 hour ago, Raja said:

What was the defendant doing testifying anyway? I  was sure that a confession door got reopened story.

That was ridiculous, I don't know why his attorney would have wanted him on the stand considering he had already confessed once.  I was waiting for him to slip up.  If he was truly innocent, she could have gotten other witnesses.  Video footage from his building showing when he returned.  Testimony from the building super stating that the gate to the dumpster is left open all the time.  Testimony from his doctor discussing Adderall addiction and how he was prone to making loud threats but incapable of carrying through with them.

[Ohiopirate02]

1 hour ago, Raja said:

Because Jack didn't want to know and could play Sergeant Shultz. But that doesn't excuse them not letting us see the ambushed defense react. So to short hand the story the defendant did write with his left and shoot with his right. 

 

1 hour ago, blackwing said:

I think it's because Jack suspected the video was fake (and clearly, Nolan and Sam did too) and he didn't want to know the truth and get confirmation that it was fake.  The guy already confessed, Jack just wanted to ensure that the guy was convicted, no matter how they got there.

I get the character motivations for not definitively proving the footage.  It works in universe, and for the story the show wants to tell.  I think what I am struggling with is the show choosing to leave it open ended for the viewers.  Better writers would be able to keep the ambiguity within the work while also letting the viewer know the truth.  Or tweak the script so that Red Herring Suspect #1 did not encounter the victim in view of that camera.  

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, blackwing said:

Especially since the shooter in the video is right handed.

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

I'm a lefty, but I do a lot of things with my right hand. And as it happens, I would use my right hand to hold a gun. Handedness isn't slam-dunk evidence by a long shot.

Thank you for bringing this up, @blackwing, and thank you, @dubbel zout, for giving a first-hand example of a left-hand dominant person using your right hand to hold a gun. A daughter and I are left-handed and use our right hands for various activities. There are studies and statistics about this that anyone can google. But the handedness issue was just dropped from the episode, when a throwaway line could have taken care of it.

As I've asked about similarly abandoned plot points on other episodes:
Is this being done to get viewers like us on various social media platforms to talk about the show?

 

[blackwing]

38 minutes ago, Ohiopirate02 said:

I get the character motivations for not definitively proving the footage.  It works in universe, and for the story the show wants to tell.  I think what I am struggling with is the show choosing to leave it open ended for the viewers.  Better writers would be able to keep the ambiguity within the work while also letting the viewer know the truth.  Or tweak the script so that Red Herring Suspect #1 did not encounter the victim in view of that camera.  

 

27 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Thank you for bringing this up, @blackwing, and thank you, @dubbel zout, for giving a first-hand example of a left-hand dominant person using your right hand to hold a gun. A daughter and I are left-handed and use our right hands for various activities. There are studies and statistics about this that anyone can google. But the handedness issue was just dropped from the episode, when a throwaway line could have taken care of it.

As I've asked about similarly abandoned plot points on other episodes:
Is this being done to get viewers like us on various social media platforms to talk about the show?

I agree.  I think the show does viewers a disservice by not letting us know what actually happened.  It wouldn't be so hard... all they needed to do was to have a scene at the end of English guy making eye contact with Defendant and giving him a knowing wink.  That would have been enough for us to be told that English guy set him up.

I find it hard to believe that there wasn't more said about the guy being left handed after he exclaimed on the stand that he is left handed.  We didn't get to hear the closing arguments, so maybe his attorney said something, but clearly it didn't make a difference.  If there was more time, maybe the attorney could have unexpectedly thrown a ball at his face, to see which hand he instinctively uses.

But I get that every person's situation is different, and some are more ambidextrous than others.  My father writes with his right hand, but does almost everything else left handed.  He has never said and for some reason, I've never asked, but I always assumed that he is actually left handed but the nuns made him write with his right hand and that's why this is so.

[Raja]

11 minutes ago, blackwing said:

 

But I get that every person's situation is different, and some are more ambidextrous than others.  My father writes with his right hand, but does almost everything else left handed.  He has never said and for some reason, I've never asked, but I always assumed that he is actually left handed but the nuns made him write with his right hand and that's why this is so.

It is likely  auntie Francis got me in kindergarten and made me write and use tools right handed. But then my left eye is strongly dominant so the only shooting I did right handed was the  Army's machine guns when I walked tracers onto the target.  The only defense was having the defendant yelling deep fake I'm left handed was poor story telling 

Edited January 26 by Raja

[dubbel zout]

My dad wrote so deliberately (the pressure of a pen would go through three or four sheets of paper) that we wondered if he'd originally been a lefty, but neither he nor my grandma could remember/confirm.

My elder brother is also a lefty, and when it was time for us to learn to write, my mom went in and told our teachers that she wanted to be sure we turned our paper in the correct direction. She didn't want any claw-handed writers. (Though claw hand mostly happens so we don't smear what we've just written.)

The point is that being left-handed in and of itself doesn't mean anything for what hand you use for a task.

[Theli11]

I think for at least the very last part of the episode that Nolan would've opened the door and the defense would've testified how the tape could've been a deepfake. I'm pretty sure they would have to present the tape to evidence and there's no way the defendant wouldn't want to check it's authenticity. It's up to the prosecutor to make sure that there is no reasonable doubt and I think the tape being deepfaked is a reasonable thing to think of considering that AI is involved in the prosecution. He should've been acquitted off of the fact that another viable suspect brought in the evidence indicting him. I would've liked Nolan a lot better if he tanked this one because of his morals. 

Way better episode than last week though. They gotta stop with these chase scenes, it should be like once every three episodes. 

Edited January 27 by Theli11

[stonehaven]

It was an okay episode. The problem with this revival is that none of the cases or scenes or arguments are that memorable. I spent all afternoon watching Season 3 of original Law and Order and found myself lost in great acting and great discussions of the essence of law and what is good and evil. I don't get that here.

I will say that I wasn't entirely  focused on last night's case because I KNEW the english guy from somewhere.  It was Ravi Kapoor who played Bug on Crossing Jordan and I wondered why he aged so fast since last I saw him.

[wknt3]

13 hours ago, blackwing said:

I once remember reading a criticism of "House" that said almost every episode followed the same pattern.  Patient comes in and presents weird symptoms.  Doctor A immediately says "it's polychromal hypomitochondriosis".  Doctor B says "what, you're crazy, it's clearly speculoosia doxycorexpealidocious".  Heated arguments ensue, angst about being doubted, tests are done, lots of drama, oh what do you know it's hypomitochondriosis after all!  The patient is saved.  Huzzah!  But feelings got hurt, and they will remain hurt.

I'm starting to feel like in the recent revival seasons, Law and Order is becoming the same way.  Footchase, key evidence/confession getting thrown out in a preliminary hearing in chambers, Nolan having to work with what he has, Jack firmly indicating what Nolan has to do, last minute evidence popping up that someone on the police or lawyer side should have discovered or known about.

I guess in this anology "random mugging/robbery" is lupus?

[watcher1006]

When the video evidence turned up so late in the episode my first thought was "the show is almost over, how are the attorneys going to deal with this?" As it turned out, they didn't show the defense making any effort to disqualify or discredit the evidence. There just isn't enough time on this show anymore. The Order side of the episode gets weaker writing than the investigative Law side but it also gets shortchanged on time. I guess we just have to assume the defense tried to challenge the video.

[cfinboston]

On 1/26/2024 at 10:36 AM, dubbel zout said:

I'm a lefty, but I do a lot of things with my right hand. And as it happens, I would use my right hand to hold a gun. Handedness isn't slam-dunk evidence by a long shot.

But the idea that the defense wouldn't vehemently object to that video is dumb. Especially after getting the original confession tossed. 

You're left handed but you shoot with your right hand? 

[Raja]

1 minute ago, cfinboston said:

You're left handed but you shoot with your right hand? 

Tom Cruise and the Rifleman Chuck Conners do onscreen. Would you do it instinctively, have eyesight issues like me or train to it because of your rifle like the British Army's standard rifle is the question 

[dubbel zout]

1 hour ago, cfinboston said:

You're left handed but you shoot with your right hand? 

I do a lot with my right hand: some sports, scissors, toothbrush, cutting and peeling in the kitchen...the list goes on. It's what feels comfortable. It's not that weird. Everyone has different degrees of ambidexterity. Perhaps lefties have more because it's a right-handed world, I don't know.

[Zaffy]

ok, was I the only one that every time they were  mentioning EVA I had the cute robot from Wall-e in mind?

It was better than last week but nothing good really.
I think the writers are quite confused (or bad) trying to combine everything and ending up with some shallow writing that at the end dares to "touch" nothing.
AI  costing jobs, technology manipulating evidence and a DA that doesn't care what is true or not as long they get a conviction (while talking about truth - oh the irony).
In other words... a MESS.
 

[Chyromaniac]

I agree that this was a better episode than the last one- at least it felt more focused.  I was also a little afraid that they would do something truly stupid, like have the defense claim that EVA was setting up Stafford- so by comparison, blaming the cutthroat co-owner was kind of a relief.

Not that there weren’t issues- as many people have mentioned, there just wasn’t enough time again to make the trial half make sense.  Big unanswered questions include:

1) was there any way to tell who’s gun it actually was? Any proof it was purchased by Stafford?

2) as has been discussed- could they not find evidence of Stafford doing other tasks right handed?  I’m also a lefty, but there’s some stuff you can’t avoid doing righty.

3) okay Defense attorney- can you provide anything to substantiate your claim that the partner had Marks killed?  Any proof that he planted the gun or cloned the keycard, let alone faked the video?

[Snazzy Daisy]

Before interrogating Ben Stafford, did the 2 detectives read him his rights?

Did the drug dealer (who stole Evan’s money) able to identify Stafford in a line up? His signature man-bun can easily be recognized.

I thought James Sawyer is gonna be the baddie. The actor was a rapist in East New York.

Psychedelic Doula??! Is this even a real job? Her JDs totally sound like word salad. 🤦🏻‍♀️

[Joimiaroxeu]

Going to an ATM at 2 a.m. to withdraw a visible stack of bills is probably not smart to do anywhere, especially Manhattan.

"G Ticket." Seriously?

Refusing--without your attorney present--to say where you were at a certain time is grounds to be taken into custody. Learn something new every day.

The lifestyle party looked lame. Why would they film it if it was supposed to be private and hush hush?

Oh no, Eva became sentient and killed Evan! Darned AI. 😉

EVA looked like a casino security room. Wonder if L&O borrowed that set from FBI? It looked similar but the set on FBI is usually brightly-lit.

I think back in the day the role of James Sawyer might've been played by Fisher Stevens. He had the "up to something he knows you won't understand" look down pat.

Edited January 28 by Joimiaroxeu

[Raja]

29 minutes ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Before interrogating Ben Stafford, did the 2 detectives read him his rights?

To save episode time for the defense go from plan A to plan B I guess we will just assume that they did Mirandized him before the interview . Since in the end the case the defense made  and show's first "twist" was the  state promising a drug addict relief if he told the police what they wanted to hear.

[Xeliou66]

8 minutes ago, Raja said:

To save episode time for the defense go from plan A to plan B I guess we will just assume that they did Mirandized him before the interview . Since in the end the case the defense made  and show's first "twist" was the  state promising a drug addict relief if he told the police what they wanted to hear.

Yes that’s what I assume as well, they read him his rights off screen.

As for some of the other questions, I don’t think the rap guy who stole the money got a decent enough look at the killer to identify him.

As for the filming the party, I figure some of the elites attending them probably like to share the videos amongst themselves, there’s always someone ready to video something now, they wouldn’t share it with the public but it wasn’t that big of a secret either.

I also thought Sawyer was the killer the minute Dixon said he was blaming the murder on street crime, I thought he was going to be some stereotypical rich big bad. I liked that the episode went in a different direction than that and made someone else the killer.

A couple of other points - this is another case where I would’ve loved to have heard closing arguments. I wish they would make time for those on occasion. Also I would like to see Dixon get a bit more to do than just ask for updates and mention the public and the bosses want answers.

I liked this episode - there were some issues on the legal side which is par for the course for the revival, but it was a good episode overall. 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, Snazzy Daisy said:

Before interrogating Ben Stafford, did the 2 detectives read him his rights?

1 hour ago, Raja said:

To save episode time for the defense go from plan A to plan B I guess we will just assume that they did Mirandized him before the interview

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yes that’s what I assume as well, they read him his rights off screen.

Actually:

• I was so angry. It just wasn't fair. …Next thing I knew... I followed him to the ATM, and I... I shot him.… I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to.
• ( knock at door ) Come in.
• Don't say another word. I'm Mr. Stafford's attorney. This interview is over.
• Ben Stafford, you are under arrest for the murder of Evan Marks. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions, do you understand?

I assumed Jack saw this pre-arrest interview, which is why, when discussing whether to use the new-found video tape of still-questionable provenance, he said "I know Stafford is guilty."

 

Edited January 29 by shapeshifter

[Raja]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

Ben Stafford, you are under arrest for the murder of Evan Marks. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions, do you understand?

That doesn't mean they just detained  him at the station and started talking without issuing the warning. After all they didn't allow him to deal with his stated medical condition. It is just SOP to reissue the warnings when making an arrest.

[Xeliou66]

6 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Actually:

• I was so angry. It just wasn't fair. …Next thing I knew... I followed him to the ATM, and I... I shot him.… I'm so sorry. I didn't mean to.
• ( knock at door ) Come in.
• Don't say another word. I'm Mr. Stafford's attorney. This interview is over.
• Ben Stafford, you are under arrest for the murder of Evan Marks. You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions, do you understand?

I assumed Jack saw this pre-arrest interview, which is why, when discussing whether to use the new-found video tape of still-questionable provenance, he said "I know Stafford is guilty."

 

I figured they read him his rights twice, first before the interview then after officially arresting him. 
And yeah Jack obviously knew about the confession.