S01.E11: Best Christmas Ever

[jjj]

The awful part about the case of the week was that the little girl was in a house with a stuffed giraffe for who knows how long, and the alleged victim said she told the Rapist that the child had died.  How long was that little girl (presumably locked) in a house with no one?  And that started even before the victim's arrest. 

 

Yes, Frank was very creepy with "Do you want me to take care of it?" (the SIL), and Anneliese said, no, she would take care of it.  I expected the chicken to be stuffed with Comet cleanser. 

[kikaha]

Asher should be careful throwing the sexual harassment accusation around because under most state laws, he raped Bonnie because she was drunk and legally she could not give consent.

 

 

Can you cite some legal authority on that?  From what I've seen online, a person can be drunk and still give legal consent.  It apparently depends on how drunk she/he is.  e.g. Law.com says, "What constitutes lack of consent usually includes saying "no" or being too drunk or drug-influenced for the woman to be able to either resist or consent, but a recent Pennsylvania case ruled that a woman must do more than say "no" on the bizarre theory that "no" does not always mean "don't," but a flirtatious come-on."

[wayne67]

Can you cite some legal authority on that?  From what I've seen online, a person can be drunk and still give legal consent.  It apparently depends on how drunk she/he is.  e.g. Law.com says, "What constitutes lack of consent usually includes saying "no" or being too drunk or drug-influenced for the woman to be able to either resist or consent, but a recent Pennsylvania case ruled that a woman must do more than say "no" on the bizarre theory that "no" does not always mean "don't," but a flirtatious come-on."

 

I'd like to know how drunk is too drunk to give consent because that sounds like a horrific minefield. It'd basically mean that you couldn't ever have drunk sex or sex with anyone without giving them a breathalyser test to make sure their consent wasn't influenced by alcohol.

 

Obviously black out drunk is a different story entirely but any drug including sugar, caffeine and nicotine has an effect on your brain as do tonnes of medications does that reduce ability to give consent?

 

I'm so glad I stopped clubbing.

 

I think the confusion is in part to that trope in tv shows and movies where a woman says she finds a man repugnant and then they start kissing or having sex appropos of nothing. A lot of stupid teenagers pick up their cues from fictions. It's scary...

Edited February 7, 2015 by wayne67

[darkestboy]

I loved this episode. Not the most festive of Christmas episodes but certainly enjoyable nonetheless.

I was hoping we'd see some of Connor's family so I was pleasantly surprised when we met his sister (who was brilliant) and nephews during the Christmas flashbacks this week.

The scenes with Connor and Oliver just continue to be brilliant. I like that Oliver isn't ready to get back with Connor but at the same time is still in love with him nonetheless. Both actors have terrific chemistry though.

Laurel's flashbacks were interesting. She intentionally antagonised her own family and during the present day she's still coming across as the most ruthless of the bunch, isn't she? A lot more interesting now than when she started out on the show.

Sort of glad that Michaela and Aidan broke up, though I assume at some point she'll probably get back with him. She was cracking up the most this week, along with Wes.

The nightmare stuff at least showed that Wes was affected by his part in Sam's murder and I'm starting to not mind him and Rebecca as a couple. I'm guessing the Rudy mentions will be more prominent down the line.

Sam's body was found pretty quickly, wasn't it?

Hannah is just great too. I like that Annalise can't fob her off and both Davis and Harden play off each other extremely well. It's nice the episode gave more insight into Nate's wife as well as the Frank/Asher friendship and Hannah getting to Bonnie as well.

Case of the week was genuinely interesting as well, one of the least predictable ones they've done so far, 9/10

[Haleth]

The scratches on Rebecca's bed (or was that Wes's?) are making me start to think maybe she did indeed kill Lila.  Can she be charged again if the original charges were dropped?

 

Michaela and Aiden need to get far, far away from each other.  They are better off breaking off the engagement. 

 

Laurel's eyebrows distract me whenever she's speaking.

 

I'm hoping everyone goes to jail except Asher and Oliver.  Next season can be about them solving crime and snarking to each other.  While wearing silly hats.

Edited February 7, 2015 by Haleth

[cooksdelight]

The scratches on Rebecca's bed (or was that Wes's?) are making me start to think maybe she did indeed kill Lila. Can she be charged again if the original charges were dropped?

It's Wes' room, Rudy's old room, where the scratches on the wall are. Rebecca wasn't found "not guilty" so no double jeopardy is attached. If new evidence surfaces, she can be charged again. I think.

[Haleth]

That's my understanding too, cooks, after watching decades of law shows.  I'd text my first year law student son to ask him but he probably won't be up until noon.

[truthaboutluv]

While I definitely think the former tenet will come into play on the show somehow, especially with the Christmas card sent to him suggesting his family or at least his grandmother has no clue he doesn't even live there anymore, I will say I think part of why Wes kept staring at the scratches so much was because of what he said to the other three, that he's scared he may be losing his mind. If I recall correctly, Rebecca said to him that the former tenet was a law student too who lost his mind and sort of alluded that that's what the scratches were about. So I think he's worried he's going to go mad just like former tenet Rudy. Except I'm strongly starting to suspect there was way more to Rudy's story and that's not what happened. 

[April Bloodgate]

"My suspicion is the family's money comes from drug trade."
"Meh, I hope not. Is it too much to ask that a wealthy Latino family on television come by their money through legal means?"

 

Thank you!

[truthaboutluv]

Honestly, the drug trade thing seemed incredibly random to me as nothing in the scene hinted at that and nothing we've seen or been told about Laurel to this point suggests that - well other than the fact that the family is Hispanic/Latino.

[cooksdelight]

I think it's the actor, Jose Zuniga, and the roles he's played in the past. Always crooked, always doing something against the law.

[ribboninthesky1]

I just assumed Laurel's family was old money.  But I also thought she was much more rude than warranted with her family, and I was rather glad her father dismissed her.  Perhaps if I'd seen more of her family dynamic before that scene, I would have been more proud of her.  As it stands, she came off more childish than empowered.

[helenamonster]

Can you cite some legal authority on that?  From what I've seen online, a person can be drunk and still give legal consent.  It apparently depends on how drunk she/he is.  e.g. Law.com says, "What constitutes lack of consent usually includes saying "no" or being too drunk or drug-influenced for the woman to be able to either resist or consent, but a recent Pennsylvania case ruled that a woman must do more than say "no" on the bizarre theory that "no" does not always mean "don't," but a flirtatious come-on."

 

I am ashamed of my home state. Jfc, what year is it? Do we need to do, like, a secret consent handshake? Why can't no just mean no?

[truthaboutluv]

I just assumed Laurel's family was old money.  But I also thought she was much more rude than warranted with her family, and I was rather glad her father dismissed her.  Perhaps if I'd seen more of her family dynamic before that scene, I would have been more proud of her.  As it stands, she came off more childish than empowered.

 

Agreed. That's exactly why I said in my previous post that I actually wasn't even sure what I was supposed to get from this scene - like being part of a murder and cover-up suddenly made her a bad-ass and no longer the shrinking violet? Well okay, great but that could have been achieved in another way because instead she just came across as kind of an asshole and childish pulling some whiny tantrum. And after all that, she was still boring.

[Happytobehere]

 

I see where Laurel got her stone cold demeanor from, the dinner scene was interesting but just still can't get into her character at all. I've seen the woman who portrayed Laurel's mom many times but her name is on the tip of my tongue.

The actresses name is Brynn Thayer. She used to be on One Life to Live.

[ShadowSixx]

^Thank you but it wasn't OLTL I seen her on as I didn't watch that soap, but I now remember her from being on Matlock as Matlock's daughter.

[Fable]

I liked 90% of this episode, but the thing that bothered me, is that Annilise completely dismissed her client as a loose cannon and deliberately tripped her up, when it was so obvious that woman needed psychiatric care, and yet in the first episode, she represented a calculated killer and got her exonerated even though she knew she was guilty as hell.  

[KaveDweller]

The awful part about the case of the week was that the little girl was in a house with a stuffed giraffe for who knows how long, and the alleged victim said she told the Rapist that the child had died.  How long was that little girl (presumably locked) in a house with no one?  And that started even before the victim's arrest

 

I thought of that too.  It sounded like she often left this poor girl alone in the cabin for days at a time.

 

Now, as awful as I thought that woman was, is it really okay for a lawyer to lie to their client about having a deal like that? And then passing off information from the client to the police? It seems like it is breaking privilege of something? I'm sure there's an exception when a child's life is in danger, but lying about the deal seems like crossing some kind of line.

[kikaha]

Now, as awful as I thought that woman was, is it really okay for a lawyer to lie to their client about having a deal like that? And then passing off information from the client to the police? It seems like it is breaking privilege of something? I'm sure there's an exception when a child's life is in danger, but lying about the deal seems like crossing some kind of line.

 

Even if it's illegal, it's Annalise's  word against the client's. 

[jjj]

I thought it was going to be that yes, she got a deal for her regarding the two other abducted women, but that she had NO deal regarding the kidnapping of the child.  Because it was kidnapping, and that is a whole different set of charges. 

[Blue Plastic]

I liked 90% of this episode, but the thing that bothered me, is that Annilise completely dismissed her client as a loose cannon and deliberately tripped her up, when it was so obvious that woman needed psychiatric care, and yet in the first episode, she represented a calculated killer and got her exonerated even though she knew she was guilty as hell.  

This bothered me too.  The woman was horrible and definitely deserved serious jail time, but she also had been seriously victimized herself as a youth and needed psychiatric care.  Also, somebody has to represent her.  All accused are entitled to legal representation, no matter how heinous the crime and whether they are actually guilty or not.  I thought it was kind of BS for Annalise and crew to suddenly start acting like they are only going to represent clients who are pure as the driven snow.  Especially considering what some of the characters are up to in their free time, but I digress.  Maybe I am being very idealistic.  IANAL or even a law student and I'm sure it would be difficult to represent someone you believed or were sure was guilty of a heinous crime.

 

Now, as awful as I thought that woman was, is it really okay for a lawyer to lie to their client about having a deal like that? And then passing off information from the client to the police? It seems like it is breaking privilege of something? I'm sure there's an exception when a child's life is in danger, but lying about the deal seems like crossing some kind of line.

Yeah, I wondered about this too.  I thought a lawyer had to demonstrate that they did the best possible job they could for their client, which this wasn't, but then I got that info from watching TV shows so it could be wrong.

 

I was surprised when Annalise got a relieved smile on her face when the cops found the little girl.  That's, like, the first time I've ever seen a primary character express a thought or emotion on this show and been sure that they meant it.

[cooksdelight]

Now, as awful as I thought that woman was, is it really okay for a lawyer to lie to their client about having a deal like that? And then passing off information from the client to the police? It seems like it is breaking privilege of something? I'm sure there's an exception when a child's life is in danger, but lying about the deal seems like crossing some kind of line.

Real world scenario, anything the woman said to Annalise would be inadmissible in court in a case against her. Which is why Annalise resigned as her attorney, someone else will have to start over from square one.

[shapeshifter]

Real world scenario, anything the woman said to Annalise would be inadmissible in court in a case against her. Which is why Annalise resigned as her attorney, someone else will have to start over from square one.

I don't understand what you mean with regards to why she resigned. As her attorney, Annalise is obligated to mount the best defense possible for her client, right? So are you saying that she couldn't do that anymore knowing about the kidnapping? If so, wouldn't any attorney have the same problem? Do lawyers get to choose to represent someone based upon personal biases? For instance, if a lawyer takes a case defending a drunk driver, and then finds out it was also a hit and run, can the lawyer drop the case because the lawyer had a family member killed by a hit and run driver? Or can the lawyer just drop the case because that wasn't the charge the lawyer had agreed to defend the client against? Argh. So confused. Good thing I'm not a lawyer!

[wayne67]

I don't understand what you mean with regards to why she resigned. As her attorney, Annalise is obligated to mount the best defense possible for her client, right? So are you saying that she couldn't do that anymore knowing about the kidnapping? If so, wouldn't any attorney have the same problem? Do lawyers get to choose to represent someone based upon personal biases? For instance, if a lawyer takes a case defending a drunk driver, and then finds out it was also a hit and run, can the lawyer drop the case because the lawyer had a family member killed by a hit and run driver? Or can the lawyer just drop the case because that wasn't the charge the lawyer had agreed to defend the client against? Argh. So confused. Good thing I'm not a lawyer!

I think Annalise would be obliged to follow through with a defense if she had actually taken the case.

 

For instance the client was still engaging a criminal act by keeping that child from her actual mother so Annalise had that as an out.

Also she had been told to secure a plea deal. She talked to the DA. However there was no jury involvement as of yet so it's not like Annalise dropping out would hurt her case unduly. While that woman may be entitled to legal representation, I'm not sure that obliges her to defend a walk in...

 

She wasn't assigned the case and unless she had signed a contract for extended litigation the client may not be able to afford her.

 

Of course I'm not a lawyer and this is based mostly on tv experience and a quick google search about reasons why a lawyer can quit on a case. The case I read about that was used as an example was the Defense of Marriage Act.

Can we post links ?

[GaiusB]

truthaboutluv, on 07 Feb 2015 - 8:41 PM, said:

Agreed. That's exactly why I said in my previous post that I actually wasn't even sure what I was supposed to get from this scene - like being part of a murder and cover-up suddenly made her a bad-ass and no longer the shrinking violet? Well okay, great but that could have been achieved in another way because instead she just came across as kind of an asshole and childish pulling some whiny tantrum. And after all that, she was still boring.

i thought purpose of this scene was to show, that despite her calm and collected behaviour, she is losing it as the other students. She could not handle her role in her family as well as she usually do. 

[jhlipton]

My only thought as Annalise was working her way through the hotel minibar was "Don't you know how much that's costing you?"

Annalise is a high-price lawyer and a professor at an Ivy League school who was married to another professor. I don't think she's hurting for money at this point.

 

Every recap I've read says the same thing. That nutty woman never mentioned the mob, did she? If so, it totally blew past me.

 

 It could be that an early draft sent to recappers had the mob connection and they (wisely) dropped by the shooting draft.

 

Asher should be careful throwing the sexual harassment accusation around because under most state laws, he raped Bonnie because she was drunk and legally she could not give consent.

I give Asher major props because he had qualms and Bonnie told him, in no uncertain terms, that she was in control of her facilities and wanted him to **** her. Granted at this point, it's "he said, she said", but we as an audience know that Asher did not take advantage of a drunk woman.

[JasmineFlower]

When was Laurel referred to as a wealthy before this episode? I remember Bonnie warning Frank about her, but that seemed more to do with warning Frank that his little pattern of seducing co-eds was not going to work out yet again and it was more about this girl with a bright future isn't going to slum with you. Not that this rich girl wasn't going to slum with you. I'd love to see where they specifically mention Laurel comes from money because it felt like a real change of pace for someone they had previously depicted as championing causes of those from more modest backgrounds or lesser means, something they did make clear.

[truthaboutluv]

I cannot remember the actual dialogue but all I remember is that both Frank and Bonnie made comments that alluded to her coming from money. It stood out to me because I too hadn't gotten that impression before they said it. Also, I wouldn't say Laurel was depicted as championing causes of those from more modest backgrounds and more that she just seemed a shrinking violet in the early episodes, someone who almost seemed to shrink into the background, afraid to speak up and be heard. And I will say that's the one thing the scene with her family did a good of job of showing why that is because it did seem like her parents weren't really interested in her life much beyond the superficial. 

[jjj]

Yes, and I remember comments in a episode thread here saying, "Oh, Laurel comes from a wealthy background," atfer an episode when that was mentioned.

[Mabinogia]

I forget the exact dialog, but the Frank/Bonnie scene was about Laurel being a rich girl. To me she's always come across as very privileged. Not just rich, but privileged, and quite possibly feeling guilty about it, hence her championing the less privileged. She's just got this ease of presence that someone like Michaela, who is trying to appear well off, lacks. Plus, those necklaces. She just dresses like 5th Ave. Not flashy, just really expensive. I was surprised, however, at how marginalized she is in her family. But it also makes sense.

 

I kinda really want to see just how screwed up Bonnie's family is to have made Bonnie, because that woman is really screwed up.

 

I actually liked how the Asher/Bonnie thing played out. It was all pretty realistic. No one was "perfect" they both screwed up a pretty screwed up situation.

[cooksdelight]

Seeing the family dynamics was the best part of the episode, for me. Seeing where they come from, their family members and how they fit in. I would like to see Michaela's family. And Bonnie's. Even Frank's, as I think he's maybe got a lot hidden.

[JasmineFlower]

I found the episode where Bonnie refers to her as a rich girl (Freakin Whack a Mole). I see why this didn't register much with me, I didn't associate that as any sort of confirmation. It was much more of Bonnie was assuming what Laurel is than knowing for sure. Someone who was going places who would hurt Frank in the end as it had clearly happened several times in the past. She was threatening Laurel and Laurel didn't defend herself well, but Bonnie really didn't give her the chance either.

 

Maybe it's also coming from where I do to how I view the people on here. As unrealistic as the setting on here is, how she dresses in class is not a sign of anything to me but is just accurate. I had classmates who dressed exactly like her, wore jewelry like that and they came from regular, ordinary backgrounds. They were literally wearing the clothes they used to wear to work. Same with someone saying she attended Brown and most people who do that are wealthy. Given the number of people I know from middle class backgrounds who attended ivy league universities, I can't buy that reasoning even remotely. I could go with an assumption that most aren't poor, but not that most are wealthy.

Edited February 8, 2015 by JasmineFlower

[Artsda]

I really liked the holiday flashbacks. Interesting Connor has the most normal holiday with family. 

 

Laurel's family life surprised me, rich family from West Palm Beach. Her manipulating to get herself sent back home was calculating and cold how pleased she was with herself. 

 

Michaela thinking her fiancee was sleeping with his coworker didn't seem like a big leap considering how they were acting in public. She's better off without him. 

[mikem]

When Sam's sister was going on about how Sam was talking about how excited he was by the Yale job and he couldn't have just murdered someone the day before and talked like that, I was expecting Annelise to say that Sam basically torpedoed the Yale job by blowing it off and coming back to Philadelphia, so he was lying to his sister about at least one thing without her noticing.

 

Michaela must have had the ring custom-made or either Aiden or his mother would have noticed a discrepancy.  Even though she paid cash, if the real ring shows up next to Sam's body, the jeweler might recognize it and give the police her description.

 

The COTW doesn't make sense if you think about it too much.  The client said the little girl was in a "cabin," implying that it was in an isolated area and probably some distance from her house.  But would the client be able to go there often enough to take care of a 4-year-old without the husband noticing?

[JenE4]

It's Wes' room, Rudy's old room, where the scratches on the wall are. Rebecca wasn't found "not guilty" so no double jeopardy is attached. If new evidence surfaces, she can be charged again. I think.

She wasn't found not guilty by a jury. The DA dropped the charges. I think that makes a difference, but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

[helenamonster]

Michaela must have had the ring custom-made or either Aiden or his mother would have noticed a discrepancy.  Even though she paid cash, if the real ring shows up next to Sam's body, the jeweler might recognize it and give the police her description.

 

I don't think the new ring is anything of value. I can't remember the exact comment she made about replacing it, but it seemed like she just happened to find a cheap knock-off that looked enough like the old one.

[cooksdelight]

I'm betting her ring is in one of those garbage bags of body parts. And the call will go to her fiancé, or Mommy Dearest, since it's probably registered.

[Ljohnson1987]

Marcia Gay Harden and Viola Davis are great together. I wish the season was longer. I can't believe that only two episodes are left. 

[JasmineFlower]

She wasn't found not guilty by a jury. The DA dropped the charges. I think that makes a difference, but I'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.

 

That's not how Double Jeopardy works. It typically applies after the defendant has been put in jeopardy of being convicted of the crime, so it attaches well before a jury's verdict. I honestly can't remember which stage Rebecca's trial was at when they got the charges dropped. Had they selected and empanelled a jury? Jeopardy almost always attaches then. I feel like there were at least preliminary witnesses, but I can't remember if her regular trial had begun and if witnesses were sworn in and questioned, that's another sign that jeopardy has attached. There's a few others too, but there's also plenty of exceptions that can be argued over if they wanted to. There's plenty of room for what they can do to suit the purposes of the show if they make Rebecca the killer. And she can still be tried for other offenses relating to the murder too.

 

Michaela's ring - Wouldn't her mother-in-law take one look and know that it was a fake? From what we saw from Lynn, I'd think so. I hope they at least make sure this was some high quality replica that she bought to cover losing her own and not the mere fake. And won't Aiden ask for it back?

Edited February 8, 2015 by JasmineFlower

[cooksdelight]

And won't Aiden ask for it back?

If he doesn't, Mommy most certainly will. I think that's the more likely scenario.

[KaveDweller]

Real world scenario, anything the woman said to Annalise would be inadmissible in court in a case against her. Which is why Annalise resigned as her attorney, someone else will have to start over from square one.

 

So, if a lawyer resigns privilege no longer applies? She certainly should have a right to resign and not defend the woman for kidnapping, but I thought she still would have to follow through on what was privileged when she was the lawyer.

 

And won't Aiden ask for it back?

 

Isn't the society rule that if she breaks it off the woman gives back the ring, but if the guy dumps her she gets to keep it?  I don't remember where I've heard that. I'm not sure who would want to keep the ring of a guy that dumped her, but it may stop Aiden from asking for it. I'm pretty sure it is in the bags with Sam's body parts too though, so Aiden's gonna be out of luck.

[wayne67]

Isn't the society rule that if she breaks it off the woman gives back the ring, but if the guy dumps her she gets to keep it?  I don't remember where I've heard that. I'm not sure who would want to keep the ring of a guy that dumped her, but it may stop Aiden from asking for it. I'm pretty sure it is in the bags with Sam's body parts too though, so Aiden's gonna be out of luck.

I heard that one from an episode of Veronica Mars where the rich guy tries to trick her into dumping him for an old bf so that he can get back the family heirloom ring without getting his hands dirty or something.

I think a diamond ring is supposed to be a consolation prize after being dumped or used to finance yourself until the next man or something. I don't know, wedding customs are weird to me.

[cooksdelight]

I keep thinking about that expensive wedding dress Michaela has hanging in her closet.

[April Bloodgate]

Isn't the society rule that if she breaks it off the woman gives back the ring, but if the guy dumps her she gets to keep it?  I don't remember where I've heard that. I'm not sure who would want to keep the ring of a guy that dumped her, but it may stop Aiden from asking for it. I'm pretty sure it is in the bags with Sam's body parts too though, so Aiden's gonna be out of luck.

I don't know about Pennsylvania, but that is actually the law in some states. In other states it is considered a gift and cannot be taken back, regardless of who ended the engagement.

[jjj]

She needs to be more desperate than ever to stay engaged, just to keep the false ring from being discovered.  It's not about the marriage, but about being found guilty of murder, or accessory to murder. 

[nutty1]

I found this on a relationship internet site….

 

The courts also have held in these states that the reasoning for no-fault divorces holds for no-fault broken engagements so an engagement ring should always be returned regardless of who decided to call off the engagement.

One of those states is Pennsylvania, not that the show would follow that or even know of it!

 

Pretty interesting laws from state to state. I found this interesting also…..

If an engagement ring is given on a special day such as a birthday, Valentine's Day, Christmas, etc., many courts will not require that the engagement ring be returned.

[Dowel Jones]

I think that Annalise would be in big trouble with the bar association, if nothing else, for her conduct here.  The defendant will likely be granted a PD for the rest of her case, and she will likely blurt out her entire story to the PD, who is then bound to report the misconduct to the bar association.  Or at least the PD should be.  Regardless of the provability of the accusation, the bar would investigate and it's quite possible that news of that would become public, leaving Annalise with a big huge scarlet letter.  Based on her previously evident no holds barred but always within the law courtroom behavior, I wonder if this is meant to show the start of a downhill slide for her, from crackerjack lawyer to "How to Get Away With Murder" suspect as the season goes on.

[KaveDweller]

The courts also have held in these states that the reasoning for no-fault divorces holds for no-fault broken engagements so an engagement ring should always be returned regardless of who decided to call off the engagement.

One of those states is Pennsylvania, not that the show would follow that or even know of it!

Pretty interesting laws from state to state. I found this interesting also…..

If an engagement ring is given on a special day such as a birthday, Valentine's Day, Christmas, etc., many courts will not require that the engagement ring be returned.

 

Right but Aiden lives in New York and I think that's where he proposed to Michaela, so maybe those laws would apply? I am probably over thinking this. I do think it's kind of sad that there's apparently been enough disputes about rings that states have laws about them.  It's not surprising though.

[jjj]

I think that the point of the diamond ring was not to test property law at the state level, but to be a plot device in the coming discovery of body parts. 

[rexytheking]

I think the biggest oddity here is Frank. He's too "cool" with everything. If I'm not mistaken, he's the only one that found out afterwards (except annalise) yet rather than doing something about it, only legitimate person who can't get framed for anything, he goes out of his way to become a murder accomplice. Frank and Annalise better have some HUGE backstory together or I just won't understand him. It actually invites the possibility of Annalise having killed people before and Frank helped her cover it up before. 

 

I'm pretty sure everyone expected Sam's body to be found. I'm also fairly certain that Michaela is going to be the one that everyone that doesn't matter pins it on. Most likely because of the ring. And knowing her, she'll probably sell out everyone else. 

 

Can't say I really understood the point of the side case. I mean yeah it shows how cruel annalise could be but given that this season has a time limit, I'd want them to further the plot...

 

Asher sounds like an elementary school kid that didn't get what he wanted... :D Oliver's slightly higher up and seems like a high schooler that just kissed for the first time :)

 

Obviously didn't expect Sam's sister(have no idea what her name is...) to believe anything that annalise said but that dinner scene was pretty nice. I was slightly disappointed that that was it from her...until I saw the trailer. This is going to be awesome.