S23.E11: Castle In The Sky

[blackwing]

On 5/6/2024 at 8:46 AM, Joimiaroxeu said:

My favorite comment from reddit:

Quote

They just have a very set formula that isn't working.

Dead rich person main characters know/recognize
First Suspect is a non-starter.
Second Suspect is a red herring.
Third Suspect is background person from the beginning of the episode.
CHASE DA SUSPECT!!!
Arrest suspect and have evidence for a solid conviction
Evidence is thrown out, miraculously, *every single fucking time*
Maroun sympathizes with the defendant and understands why they decided *murder* was good idea.
Price says they have a strong case without the dead to rights evidence.
Witness shenanigans
Judge seems biased to the defense 90% of the time
Prosecution somehow wins given the mountain they have to scale *every single time*

This show could easily be written by AI based on the formula.

So true, the original had a similar formula though, particularly the investigation.  Can always count on the first two suspects being innocent.  Then at 28 minutes past the hour, we go back to a seemingly innocent person and that person gets arrested.

In the revival/continuation, the Saint Maroun and the evidence getting thrown out has been ever present, and I agree that both are incredibly annoying.  It probably wouldn't be very interesting seeing cases that are slam dunks for the prosecution, which is why the evidence always gets thrown out.  But for once I'd like to hear Price comment and allude to the fact that they have tried many other cases resulting in easy wins.  Just so it doesn't look like they are incompetent and always struggling.  

The only thing I would add to the above listed formula is "Defence seems to be losing but then introduces some surprise evidence/witness during trial.  Price sputters that he wasn't informed about this, but judge allows the evidence anyways."

[Irlandesa]

56 minutes ago, blackwing said:

The attorney would have been present at this meeting.  She likely didn't understand sign language so she should have ensured that she had a translator/ASL-conversant person there to assist her.  And insisted that client and daughter not discuss until she secured this person.

I'm not sure why the lawyer would be at a meeting between her client and his daughter.  I don't think she'd have to be there if the court allowed for him to have visitation. 

[Ohiopirate02]

9 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I'm not sure why the lawyer would be at a meeting between her client and his daughter.  I don't think she'd have to be there if the court allowed for him to have visitation. 

We are spitballing here because the daughter would have had an adult with her when she saw her father between his arrest and the trial.  It really depends on when the dad and daughter had that conversation where he asked her to lie for him.  If it happened after he was arrested, then who was it that took her to see her dad?  The adults she was staying with all knew ASL, so did they allow them to converse without looking and the staff at Rikers did not put a guard who also knows ASL in the room with them?  Also, the daughter was a witness so the lawyer would have been prepping her for the stand even if we did not see it.  

[paigow]

On 5/8/2024 at 9:23 AM, Ohiopirate02 said:

the staff at Rikers did not put a guard who also knows ASL in the room with them?

That would be one of the many convenient L&O archetypes that John Mulaney described- 3:40 start

• The bartender who remembers everyone that walked in last Saturday night
• The judge who allows everything but warns McCoy not to overstep 

 

[shapeshifter]

36 minutes ago, paigow said:

That would be one of the many convenient L&O archetypes that John Mulaney described- 3:40 start

“Eh. Not for nuthin’,” but the whole bit still holds up. 
Thanks, @paigow!