S23.E10: Inconvenient Truth

[Xeliou66]

Here’s the discussion thread for tonight’s episode 

[shapeshifter]

From IMDb:

Quote

Shaw and Riley investigate the death of a prominent chef when he's stabbed in his own restaurant; Price has hesitations about prosecuting the defendant after new evidence comes to light.

 

[dttruman]

On 4/18/2024 at 6:01 PM, shapeshifter said:

  Quote

Shaw and Riley investigate the death of a prominent chef when he's stabbed in his own restaurant; Price has hesitations about prosecuting the defendant after new evidence comes to light.

Haven't we seen a scenario like this before, straight out of a Columbo episode and the ending was just is like the last 10 minutes of an Matlock trial.

Edited April 20 by dttruman

[Xeliou66]

Interesting episode - very interesting premise but the execution was flawed - I suspected the wife of being the killer from the minute she was shown, she just played too big of a role in her first scene and was shown for too long in court so I had a feeling she was involved. But the resolution of it seemed rushed - I would’ve liked more exploration of the wife’s whereabouts and why Price came to suspect her. 
But I was surprised the judge didn’t dismiss the case outright, it was a very flimsy case the DAs had and I had a hard time believing they would go ahead with it, especially given the circumstances. It was a nice change of pace that the judge didn’t toss out key evidence, but the eyewitness was horribly mistaken - how on earth did he mistake the killer for a man? I know eyewitnesses can be wrong but this guy had to be one of the worst witnesses ever. I didn’t think they had enough to convict all along given how shaky the ID was, so like I said I had a tough time swallowing that they would prosecute.     
I liked Baxter again, he’s settled into the role nicely now, I liked that we finally got some backstory on where he worked before, and I liked his scenes. 
Shaw/Riley were good as usual, I greatly enjoy that partnership, and the detective stuff remains good. It just felt like a stretch that they would take the case to trial on such circumstantial evidence, and especially how awful the witness was and the resolution seemed rushed. 

[Raja]

I can't be the only one spending the law portion waiting to find out which Manhattan SVU team screwed up.

[dubbel zout]

12 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

It just felt like a stretch that they would take the case to trial on such circumstantial evidence, and especially how awful the witness was and the resolution seemed rushed. 

Aren't most cases tried on this level of evidence? I do agree the witness was terrible, and I don't think the show quite dug into that enough, and the resolution was pretty bad. I knew the wife did it as soon as she got in Shaw's face at her apartment. And then we saw only the husband in the traffic photo.

Once again the order side of things was pretty sloppy.

[Raja]

The victim  spent 12 years in prison from a bad ID and here Shaw and Riley flirted with Fontana level moving the needle with the six pack photos when Wu said nothing about a bald guy.  All they had was he bought a jacket and that went to trial.

[Raja]

12 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Interesting episode - very interesting premise but the execution was flawed - I suspected the wife of being the killer from the minute she was shown, she just played too big of a role in her first scene and was shown for too long in court so I had a feeling she was involved. But the resolution of it seemed rushed - I would’ve liked more exploration of the wife’s whereabouts and why Price came to suspect her.

I am waiting for the jail tape to be excluded by the next judge becasue the DA's office told the husband that charges would be dropped

[MinorL]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

Aren't most cases tried on this level of evidence? I do agree the witness was terrible, and I don't think the show quite dug into that enough, and the resolution was pretty bad. I knew the wife did it as soon as she got in Shaw's face at her apartment. And then we saw only the husband in the traffic photo.

Once again the order side of things was pretty sloppy.

Yes, it’s pretty standard evidence, and eyewitness testimony is actually direct evidence, not circumstantial. But, I definitely agree that Price should have been much more skeptical of the eyewitness because of the fact he didn’t mention the defendant the night of the murder. 
 

I thought the pre-trial motion (trying to exclude the ID) was handled well. Price was exactly right that the jury is who should decide whether the ID is reliable. 

Edited April 19 by MinorL

[shapeshifter]

At the end of the episode, I asked my TV:
How high was he?!?

Throughout the episode, the friend-of-the-victim/waiter-witness acted consistently like he was hiding something.
Was that only supposed to be obvious to the audience and not to the detectives and prosecutors? 
I guess he just felt guilty for being too high to recognize the killer who was of another race, gender, and generation?

And Price just (almost) left it up to the jury??

 

The solve was way too rushed and told rather than shown. I had to look it up, because I blinked and missed it:

• [DA SPEECHIFYING TO THE CROWD OF REPORTERS] We have a recording of a phone call between Mr. and Mrs. Palmer where she confessed to killing Jordan Bryant.
• [(SCENE CHANGE) DETECTIVE] Amanda Palmer. You're under arrest.
• [DA] She was trying to protect her husband's misdeeds from becoming public, but Amanda Palmer has been apprehended by the detectives of the NYPD. We have charged her with second-degree murder. And I assure you, justice will be served.

That end sounded like the wrap-ups on the old 1950s Dragnet episodes, which always sounded like After School Special warnings.

Edited April 19 by shapeshifter
grammar

[blackwing]

Was the waiter really the only one who witnessed the murder?  I know it was said that there were no security cameras inside the restaurant, but what about CCTV cameras?  Witness said the killer jumped into a black BMW, are we supposed to assume he was wrong?  Because otherwise we have both the lawyer and his wife getting into separate black BMWs?  How can the witness be that high that he can't tell the difference between a man and a woman?

I was disgusted by the revelation that the lawyer took $9MM of the $10MM judgement.  He claimed his fee was 55%.  And then what?  He said he was allowed to bill for the paralegals and investigators.  That amounted to another $3.5MM?  I would have thought that his paralegals and whatever resources he needs to hire should be included in the 55%.  Clearly he knew it looked bad and clearly they knew the public would think it was wrong if they were trying to hide it from the public.

He won't get to be a judge now, and hopefully there is an investigation into the allocation/use of the $10 million.  I refuse to believe that the lawyer was innocent.  Surely he must have known about what his wife did.

14 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Interesting episode - very interesting premise but the execution was flawed - I suspected the wife of being the killer from the minute she was shown, she just played too big of a role in her first scene and was shown for too long in court so I had a feeling she was involved. But the resolution of it seemed rushed - I would’ve liked more exploration of the wife’s whereabouts and why Price came to suspect her. 
But I was surprised the judge didn’t dismiss the case outright, it was a very flimsy case the DAs had and I had a hard time believing they would go ahead with it, especially given the circumstances. It was a nice change of pace that the judge didn’t toss out key evidence, but the eyewitness was horribly mistaken - how on earth did he mistake the killer for a man? I know eyewitnesses can be wrong but this guy had to be one of the worst witnesses ever. I didn’t think they had enough to convict all along given how shaky the ID was, so like I said I had a tough time swallowing that they would prosecute.     

I agree that the evidence was flimsy and that there should have been more evidence acquired before going to trial.  How come they didn't canvass the CCTV cameras in the area looking for the black BMW?  They do in every other episode.  Any shots of Palmer or his wife wearing the green jacket?

2 hours ago, Raja said:

I am waiting for the jail tape to be excluded by the next judge becasue the DA's office told the husband that charges would be dropped

I am not so sure, I don't think inmates have an expectation of privacy for phone calls from the jail.  What I want to know is why they suspected the wife?  I thought she was shady as well.  Was this the first time she confessed to Palmer?  If he knew about it, I hope he gets charged with concealing a crime or obstruction or accessory after the fact.

[Raja]

1 minute ago, blackwing said:

 

I am not so sure, I don't think inmates have an expectation of privacy for phone calls from the jail.  What I want to know is why they suspected the wife?  I thought she was shady as well.  Was this the first time she confessed to Palmer?  If he knew about it, I hope he gets charged with concealing a crime or obstruction or accessory after the fact.

As the defense that is where we are dropping charges direct from the prosecutor comes in. The detainee can claim that he is not being held he has just not yet been processed out of the jail while giving his wife the good news. We have decades with New York County Supreme Court judges I think it could go either way.

[MinorL]

56 minutes ago, blackwing said:

I agree that the evidence was flimsy and that there should have been more evidence acquired before going to trial.  How come they didn't canvass the CCTV cameras in the area looking for the black BMW?  They do in every other episode.  Any shots of Palmer or his wife wearing the green jacket?

I think they did say they had footage of the BMW leaving the scene from a camera on another building. 

[blackwing]

2 hours ago, Raja said:

As the defense that is where we are dropping charges direct from the prosecutor comes in. The detainee can claim that he is not being held he has just not yet been processed out of the jail while giving his wife the good news. We have decades with New York County Supreme Court judges I think it could go either way.

The call was made using the jail's phone.  We see Yee listening to a recording and it's clearly marked as coming from the "Department of Corrections".  The guy is a defence attorney, surely he has been visiting jails and prisons hundreds of times.  He should be well aware that there is no expectation of privacy when using any phone in the jail.  It does seem convenient to the plot that he used the jail's phone considering he should have known that it's not private.  You would think that he would have used his lawyer's cell phone to talk to his wife.

1 hour ago, MinorL said:

I think they did say they had footage of the BMW leaving the scene from a camera on another building. 

Ah ok.  If that's the case, why couldn't they have followed the car all over the city, and surely there was at least one camera that got a view of who was inside.

I call BS that this traffic cam evidence conveniently appeared at the last minute (defence attorney claims it was the day before, but yet he still could have notified Price).  If there hadn't been this evidence, it seems likely that Palmer would have been convicted.

If he was aware that his wife was killing the victim, then surely he could have arranged to have been seen somewhere else at the time.  If he was unaware, then it seems convenient that he just happened to be driving around.  Didn't he say he was at some charity event?  Or was that someone else that said they were at a charity event?  If it was him, why wouldn't the police have corroborated that he was there, and wouldn't they have asked who he was there with?

Knowing that his wife wasn't there could have led to investigation of the wife a lot earlier.

[mjc570]

This episode made NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.  I won't even list all the obvious headscratchers -  such as the witness being shown a 6-pack of bald men when he never mentioned the shooter being bald.  Or the actual shooter being of a different gender, body shape, hair etc than the defendant.  I know it was to drive home the point about unreliability of witness testimony, but seriously?  For that matter, they could have delved into the problem of overly helpful witnesses but no.  Nor did it go into the issue about the costs/expenses associated with exoneration cases, and the ethical ramifications of that.

It was so obvious that the defendant was not the shooter that I assumed the point was that he had hired a hitman.  

[Raja]

How the wife got the drop on a veteran of prison fights, I can only ask what was in her background?

 

[Js Nana]

17 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I suspected the wife of being the killer from the minute she was shown

So, it was the wife who did it - when I watched her walk into the room while the detectives were questioning the judge, my first thought was the wife did it; unfortunately, I had to record this episode and the recording ended just before the final reveal, which happens frequently because the networks have begun having the ending of one show bleed into the lead into the next show, and when I tried to get that bit back by streaming L&O:SVU, that part wasn't included - anyone else having that kind of trouble with recording shows?

[blackwing]

43 minutes ago, mjc570 said:

This episode made NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.  I won't even list all the obvious headscratchers -  such as the witness being shown a 6-pack of bald men when he never mentioned the shooter being bald.  Or the actual shooter being of a different gender, body shape, hair etc than the defendant.  I know it was to drive home the point about unreliability of witness testimony, but seriously?  For that matter, they could have delved into the problem of overly helpful witnesses but no.  Nor did it go into the issue about the costs/expenses associated with exoneration cases, and the ethical ramifications of that.

It was so obvious that the defendant was not the shooter that I assumed the point was that he had hired a hitman.  

I agree, they spent so much time discussing the fact that Mr. Wu's eyewitness account was not reliable.  Why wasn't there more discussed about Palmer's motive?  He very clearly had a lot to lose if the victim came forward with his story about losing $9 million of a $10 million settlement to his lawyer.  His law practice would be discredited and his dream of being a judge would be done.

They should have looked more into this.  Why was it so inconceivable that he hired someone to do the killing?  I chalk up a lot of this to the fact that there isn't enough time in the episode, but Yee or somebody should have done a deep dive on his finances, seeing if he made any large cash withdrawals or wire transfers, checking his email to see if he contacted any hitmen, checking text messages, social media etc.  Then when nothing comes up, check the bank accounts of the firm, and maybe there are some unexplained expenses.

If nothing still is discovered, then the detectives should have been experienced enough to know that the wife was acting funny.  Look into her movements.  Also, Wu described an Islanders hat.  Was it the same one we saw on display in Palmer's house?  Wouldn't there be blood spatter on either the coat or the hat?  Test those.  So much that wasn't done.  If there isn't enough time in the episodes, then make each case last for two episodes.

Edited April 19 by blackwing

[Js Nana]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I guess he just felt guilty for being too high to recognize the killer who was of another race, gender, and generation?

But he knew the lawyer from having waited on him and his wife in the restaurant two or three times before - they were big tippers, which must have been a slap-in-the-face for the restaurant-owner/victim, as the lawyer had robbed him of over half of the award he had received for his wrongful conviction - I was hoping to see Mr. Shyster get his comeuppance for that one, with the prosecution digging into false billing practices, etc.

34 minutes ago, blackwing said:

He very clearly had a lot to lose if the victim came forward with his story about losing $9 million of a $10 million settlement to his lawyer.  His law practice would be discredited and his dream of being a judge would be done.

Exactly - no one would have wanted the stink from that getting on them.

[Irlandesa]

I actually loved this episode and think it's one of the best of the reboot.  That's a low bar but it dealth with a very involved investigation with a lot of suspects and then the trial part actually had some nuance to it.

On 4/19/2024 at 12:04 PM, blackwing said:

Was the waiter really the only one who witnessed the murder?  I know it was said that there were no security cameras inside the restaurant, but what about CCTV cameras?  Witness said the killer jumped into a black BMW, are we supposed to assume he was wrong?  Because otherwise we have both the lawyer and his wife getting into separate black BMWs?  How can the witness be that high that he can't tell the difference between a man and a woman?

He was high.  His adrenaline was going.  And the killer was wearing a puffy jacket and hat which likely covered identifying features which would give away the gender. 

I don't think the witness was wrong about the car.  They were careful to state that the defendant had two cars of the same mark.  I suspect the wife put on his clothes in an effort not to be identified and took one of their cars.  The husband was driving the other one at the time--and that's what was caught by the traffic cameras.

And they did look at CCTV footage.  They caught the car every now and then but since it was dark, they likely couldn't see in the windows.  They also never got a good look at the plates. 

As for him being in trouble for concealing the murder, he's not obligated to reveal what his wife told him in confidence.  It sounds like she made the mistake by confessing on the phone while he was in jail.  Maybe he didn't warn her because he didn't care if she got caught once she revealed it was her.

On 4/19/2024 at 11:41 AM, MinorL said:

Yes, it’s pretty standard evidence, and eyewitness testimony is actually direct evidence, not circumstantial. But, I definitely agree that Price should have been much more skeptical of the eyewitness because of the fact he didn’t mention the defendant the night of the murder. 

Yep.  This is what I liked about the case and the discussion between Baxter and Price.  Baxter pointed out that sometimes evidence isn't perfect, and you go to trial with what you have and leave it up to the jury.  Sometimes that doesn't work because a defense attorney is bad but this guy had a good one.  And ultimately, the traffic ticket was enough to convince Price that they had the wrong guy. 

But the witness discussion was interesting, too, because this is how poor identifications get made.  The waiter wanted to be helpful.  I don't even think he knew he was lying.  He had seen the guy he waited on and probably didn't really remember him that much and so, when the pictures were put in front of him, he did legitimately recognize him.  And since he probably couldn't immediately place him from the times he had served him, he assumed that the recognition was from the murder instead of the previous times he had seen him.

The only thing I would have liked is to see more of the cops going to reinvestigate Price's hunch. 

Edited April 26 by Irlandesa

[Js Nana]

36 minutes ago, blackwing said:

If there isn't enough time in the episodes, then make each case last for two episodes.

I kept looking for the "to be continued" notice.

[shapeshifter]

56 minutes ago, Raja said:

How the wife got the drop on a veteran of prison fights, I can only ask what was in her background?

I guess she took him by surprise since he knew her??🤷🏻‍♀️

 

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

But the witness discussion was interesting too because this is how poor identifications get made.  The waiter wanted to be helpful.  I don't even think he knew he was lying. 

And they kept re-questioning him. So he was probably just trying to get it "right" without admitting he was high and so not a great witness.

[Theli11]

This episode feels like it could’ve used a re-investigation and a showing of it. The detectives should’ve been shown testing the actual time and Nolan/Samantha should’ve been verifying the witness. After this, the detectives should’ve done a second investigation of the evidence or even interviewed the wife. (I will admit, did enjoy the final scene though). 2nd best episode of the season. 

[blondiek237]

4 hours ago, Js Nana said:

So, it was the wife who did it - when I watched her walk into the room while the detectives were questioning the judge, my first thought was the wife did it; unfortunately, I had to record this episode and the recording ended just before the final reveal, which happens frequently because the networks have begun having the ending of one show bleed into the lead into the next show, and when I tried to get that bit back by streaming L&O:SVU, that part wasn't included - anyone else having that kind of trouble with recording shows?

Have your dvr recording of the show plus a couple of minutes. On comcast you can choose to have it record over by 3 minutes

[TakomaSnark]

 

9 hours ago, mjc570 said:

This episode made NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.  I won't even list all the obvious headscratchers -  such as the witness being shown a 6-pack of bald men when he never mentioned the shooter being bald.  Or the actual shooter being of a different gender, body shape, hair etc than the defendant.  I know it was to drive home the point about unreliability of witness testimony, but seriously?  For that matter, they could have delved into the problem of overly helpful witnesses but no.  Nor did it go into the issue about the costs/expenses associated with exoneration cases, and the ethical ramifications of that.

It was so obvious that the defendant was not the shooter that I assumed the point was that he had hired a hitman.  

Add to that, the wife was trying to protect her husband's reputation/money/future judgeship, correct? 

So why on earth did she dress in her husband's conspicuous green jacket and Islanders hat, that would point to/be easily tied to her husband?

Seems like something you'd do if you wanted to frame him and ruin his life.

[Sake614]

I cry foul on the red light camera showing a photo of the driver. In NYC, speed and red light cameras are not moving violations precisely because the camera doesn’t record the driver, only the car and license plate from behind. A little reality please?
 

Cameras do not capture an image of the driver, only of the vehicle, which means that no points are received on a driver's license. The $50 violation is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, who is responsible for paying it.

[Raja]

5 hours ago, Sake614 said:

I cry foul on the red light camera showing a photo of the driver. In NYC, speed and red light cameras are not moving violations precisely because the camera doesn’t record the driver, only the car and license plate from behind. A little reality please?
 

Cameras do not capture an image of the driver, only of the vehicle, which means that no points are received on a driver's license. The $50 violation is issued to the registered owner of the vehicle, who is responsible for paying it.

In California they must identify the driver and we outnumber you. Joke 

Back to real life New York law in an ongoing high profile  case  folks told me that juries were identified in those first season cases. That seems to have changed since the 1990s.

 

Edited April 20 by Raja

[Sake614]

4 hours ago, Raja said:

In California they must identify the driver and we outnumber you. Joke 

Yes you do LOL! Arizona is the same and their fines are insanely expensive (as it should be, but I’ll take my $50 fine with no points!)

[paigow]

Anybody wishing to discredit eyewitness testimony should call Neil deGrasse Tyson as an expert witness...

 

[Joimiaroxeu]

It must have taken a lot of emotion as well as brute strength to stab such a big man in the chest and actually kill him.

Right away I wondered about someone associated with the woman the murder victim mistakenly went to prison for raping. You'd think that's one of the first places the detectives would've gone.

The law firm took 90% of the victim's exoneration money? How is that legal?

The suddden arrival of the defendant's speeding ticket was awfully convenient.

Yeah, the defendant's wife looked sus from the moment the detectives first interacted with her. She had access to his hats and may have had a matching puffer jacket. She was probably looking forward to having the social cachet enjoyed by the wife of a judge and decided to eliminate the one threat. But I wonder if her husband knew and thought he'd have an easier case to defend.

[shapeshifter]

11 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

She had access to his hats and may have had a matching puffer jacket.

A hat, a puffy jacket, and possibly 4" Doc Martens would explain the failure of the stoned eye witness to identify the killer as a woman.

[ML89]

I managed not to laugh when they were praising Price and Maroun in that press conference and I was really shocked when Nu DA was all "yeah, we got this guy" - bit much. I was happy that finally, they won a motion, only to have the judge then deny the rest of them.

But really, this lawyer who has gotten people exonerated makes a call that can be monitored with his wife confessing she did it? And how exactly did she do it anyway? That guy was really strong looking and had been in prison - I think someone even said that. I can buy her shooting him but stabbing someone? Okay.

Riley and Shaw didn't chase anyone and had to rely on some good old fashioned shoe leather detective work again. Also, Mike turned the music down a bit.

But I was watching one of the season 20 eps, where the whole case turns on the tax loophole for dying in 2010, and the snap to the scenes and dialogue is so much better. Cutter and Rubirosa would mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

 

[Theli11]

1 hour ago, ML89 said:

Cutter and Rubirosa would mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

I think Lupo and Falco could mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

[dubbel zout]

Alexandra Borgia could mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

[paigow]

On 4/23/2024 at 10:38 AM, dubbel zout said:

Alexandra Borgia could mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

On 4/22/2024 at 8:24 PM, Theli11 said:

I think Lupo and Falco could mop the floor with Price and Maroun.

This is turning into a Jeff Foxworthy bit...

If you studied in the prison law library, wrote your own appeals that almost beat  Ben Stone -  you might be a better attorney than Price or Maroun.

 

[Raja]

57 minutes ago, paigow said:

This is turning into a Jeff Foxworthy bit...

If you studied in the prison law library, wrote your own appeals that almost beat  Ben Stone -  you might be a better attorney than Price or Maroun.

 

If you get close to beating Ben Stone then you're no joke.

[Moose135]

On 4/20/2024 at 9:34 AM, Sake614 said:

In NYC, speed and red light cameras are not moving violations precisely because the camera doesn’t record the driver, only the car and license plate from behind.

I can verify this from personal experience. They got a great photo from behind of my car going through the light, and a clear image of the rear license plate, but nothing from the front. That part really bothered me in this episode.

Edited May 6 by Moose135

[Sake614]

10 hours ago, Moose135 said:

I can verify this from personal experience. They got a great photo from behind of my car going through the light, and a clear image of the rear license plate, but nothing from the front. That part really bothered me in this episode.

Yeah I’ve gotten more than I care to admit, and am eternally grateful that it isn’t a moving violation! 🫢

[Ohiopirate02]

11 hours ago, Moose135 said:

I can verify this from personal experience. They got a great photo from behind of my car going through the light, and a clear image of the rear license plate, but nothing from the front. That part really bothered me in this episode.

I was more bothered by the fact that the case went to trial before the defendant received that ticket in the mail.  

[mythoughtis]

On 4/21/2024 at 11:55 AM, Joimiaroxeu said:

The suddden arrival of the defendant's speeding ticket was awfully convenient.

 

On 5/6/2024 at 10:07 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

On 5/5/2024 at 10:47 PM, Moose135 said:

 

I was more bothered by the fact that the case went to trial before the defendant received that ticket in the mail.  

All these crime dramas make it seem that the trial happens within a week of the arrest.   The reality is that the trial happens months or years later.   Annoys me every time