S01.E12: She's A Murderer

[Haleth]

I don't know why Anna would throw Nate under the bus like that since they are each others' alibis.  She must be expecting that there isn't enough evidence (aside from the fingerprint) to indict him.  She herself said that Sam was already missing by the time she got home after being with Nate.

 

Things that don't make sense (snerk):

Scrubbing the floor without leaving any indication that the floor was scrubbed with soap and water.  (Even worse, bleach.)

Leaving the murder weapon at the scene of the crime.  Shouldn't Michaela (who took it from Asher) take it to her apartment?  (Of course then the scales under the couch would have raised questions.)

Carpet fibers on a burned body?  (Where is the carpet anyway?)

The fact that the body was found and identified so quickly.

The police got a search warrent on the basis of an alleged argument that occured 3 yrs ago.

 

So which piece of incriminating evidence will the police discover first?  The carpet, the ring, or the statue?

 

Did Rebecca kill Rudy as well as Lila?  There must be a connection.

[ribboninthesky1]

Bonnie stays because she idolizes Annalise, and the excitement/action/stimulation working with/alongside her brings.  Annalise's treatment of her has turned her into kind of an addict: the occasional praise more than makes up for the contempt.

 

I think Annalise keeps Bonnie because 1) she can 100% trust Bonnie; 2) Bonnie carries out Annalise's instructions; 3) she knows Bonnie will do anything for her.  Important qualities for someone who skirts and violates the law as often as Annalise does. 

 

Frank needs someone to direct him and his semi-sociopathic inclinations.  He needs to pull his illegal James Bond stunts, without going to jail.  Annalise is the perfect orchestrator for him. 

 

That's my take, anyway. 

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.  I disagree that Annalise trusts Bonnie 100% - otherwise, Bonnie would not have had to figure out what happened on her own, and would not have been sent in blind for that warrant hearing (or whatever that was).  I can see the Bonnie idolizing Annalise aspect, though.

 

I've not thought of Frank along the sociopathic spectrum, either.  I feel like the show changed his role.  At first, it appeared that he was a lawyer, then more like an investigator, and now more of a fixer.  But even in the latter, he's no different than the students.  Maybe better off, since he didn't break into someone's house in an attempt to steal information, physically assault, and ultimately kill someone.  

[Nanrad]

I'm not going to pretend to know anything about anything about the law, but how was a testimony from over three years ago that just proves that a fight got very heated, grounds to approve a warrant? Were there any other incidents that she referenced? Throwing a paperweight doesn't prove that someone is a violent killer. 

 

I don't understand why Bonnie was so incompetent in court either. Couldn't she have proved in court that Hannah had it out for Annalise since she arrived in town--you know, the stalking and whatnot? 

 

Although Annalise's actions were cold, Nate's insistence on staying around and putting up with her actions is what is continuing to his destruction. IF he doesn't fully know, he has a very big idea of what kind of person she is, but doesn't cut himself off from her completely. Perhaps they did agree to frame him together or she informed him, but his tarnished reputation is ultimately on him at this point. She used their affair to win in court, which got him in trouble; her associate got him fired (I believe), and now he is arrested for a murder he didn't commit. IF he had stayed away after the first incident--even the second, I could be sympathetic, now I'm just indifferent (though shocked that she did it to him).

 

As far as the whole mistress remark/complex goes, I understand Annalise's rationale. Despite how their relationship started, she wanted to believe it there was actual love there even though their actions hurt another person. They'd been together for what...20 years, I don't know, and there seems to have been good times, but Sam has cheated on her on two separate occasions, despite talking about how much he loved her. We know of two occasions, but there has to be more times than that. So, basically, as she said, all she was was a front for his bad behavior. Because either people knew about their affair, but that that it was true love since they stayed together so long OR they don't, but their longevity in others eyes as well as careers make them look like the idea couple. Then the sister comes in antagonizing, which she may have always done, and then talking about how Annalise has always pulled her brother down. Even if Annalise does have a complex about her former actions, she isn't wrong about Hannah's feelings about her. Also, she threw all of that blame off of her brother concerning THEIR affair. Sam was the married one who cheated with Annalise--he didn't have to leave his wife, but chose to. Then, supposedly Sam said he wanted to work on his marriage, which he had to know that Hannah didn't want to hear. But, she still blames Sam's actions all on Annalise all while knowing that Sam stayed cheating.

 

And, honestly, I'm so over the student overreacting. Like, come on, Annalise is going to be the main suspect for the murder--why would they suspect the student. Furthermore, wouldn't Annalise get in trouble for accessory after the fact? She saw the dead body, didn't call the police, told the student how to discard the body, got rid of/erase evidence, etc. It's not a matter of questioning if they are honestly law students, but rather do they have common sense or any self perseverance? This is not mentioning the OBVIOUS fact that they should've went to the police OR why they were listening to Wes about protecting/helping Rebecca.

 

And, while I'm on Rebecca, what is Wes' fascination with her? I don't even get the progression of their relationship or why he hasn't shown more doubt towards her? There is something more to her that hasn't been revealed. I'm also with Connor about them finding the body so quick. Perhaps they would've found it, but it seems as if they were helped along.  
 

[JAYJAY1979]

I'm wondering if Wes' hunt for the missing Rudy will be wrapped up by end of season, or if this is a hint of what to expect in season 2?

 

I do think Bonnie was caught off guard in court, but then she proved she has some abilities when she correctly guessed that the weights from the statue fell off due to it being the murder weapon and correctly guessing what happened.

[truthaboutluv]

I'm wondering if Wes' hunt for the missing Rudy will be wrapped up by end of season, or if this is a hint of what to expect in season 2?

 

 

It would seem ridiculous for them to not take it into Season 2, especially with some viewers already wondering how long they can drag out these storylines. My guess is Rudy will show up in the season finale, possibly Rebecca goes to see him or meet him, maybe there's even some romantic history and that's the cliffhanger, so we have to wait for the next season to get more background. 

[Blue Plastic]

Also - A second semester 1L at Middleton (aka Penn Law) who is fumbling for what the 5th amendment is, not a case, just what the hell it is, is ridiculous. I mean, they stretch everything on this show so that literally nothing is like the real thing, but I didn't even see the need for that here and just laughed out loud at how unnecessary that depiction was. Nerves are a fine excuse during Socratic, but not for something basic during the second semester for a school filled with smart students. She'd have gotten over her shyness first semester if she intended to actually survive and graduate.

Why do they keep showing her?  Maybe she killed Lila!  I'm only half kidding!  Whenever they show her I think to myself that law school would probably eat somebody like that alive, though.

[rubyred]

Annalise always seems to be 2 steps ahead of everyone; I thought she sent Bonnie because she knew she'd fumble under pressure. Then the search warrant is issued and the cops conveniently (for Annalise) find nothing, which bolsters her case. Plus she gets to show off her mad luminol-foiling skillz.

 

Nate didn't seem surprised, and I wasn't sure if it was because he knows how Annalise is or if they've discussed a longer game.

 

Cicely Tyson!

[KaveDweller]

My guess is Rudy will show up in the season finale, possibly Rebecca goes to see him or meet him, maybe there's even some romantic history and that's the cliffhanger, so we have to wait for the next season to get more background.

 

Maybe Rudy killed Lila.

[lion10]

Annalise has ice running through her veins, poor Nate (and anyone else that gets in her way).  Thinking down the line, she's going to lose a case at some point.  It'll be interesting to see what kind of case and lawyer she loses to.  Is everyone on this show supposed to be an asshole?  Because it's hard to root for anyone when all the interesting characters are despicable and the morally better characters are dull (looking at you Wes).  I was hoping HTGAWM would have a dynamic black male character but I see I'll have to continue my search.

[ribboninthesky1]

Annalise always seems to be 2 steps ahead of everyone; I thought she sent Bonnie because she knew she'd fumble under pressure. Then the search warrant is issued and the cops conveniently (for Annalise) find nothing, which bolsters her case. Plus she gets to show off her mad luminol-foiling skillz.

 

Ha!

 

I hadn't thought of the theory of Annalise purposely sending Bonnie to fumble. That's awfully risky, though - there was no guarantee the cops wouldn't find evidence.  She and Frank were holding their breaths during the search.  I thought she was genuinely hoping to get out of it, but had to send Bonnie because of the "conflict of interest."  To me, it would have made more sense to trust Bonnie with the truth so she wasn't flying blind.   

[rexytheking]

So a few things:

 

The episode was decent. I mean it was "good" but I feel that the past few episodes have been so good this one kind of pales in comparison. I was pretty sure that Annalise was going to pin it on someone else. I mean that's what you're supposed to do as a defense attorney. I just thought it would be bonnie. She had the most against her so it would be "killing two birds with one stone" kind of thing. Nate though...I mean it's just cruel. She's cost him his job, possibly his marriage, and now the rest of his life. 

 

I don't like Annalise's attitude against Bonnie. "Don't screw it up" was like a mild version of the bathroom scene. Regardless of her talents by comparison, she's still pretty smart. I somewhat expected bonnie to betray annalise and team up with Hannah. It still might happen though.

 

Frank is a terrible liar. If I was Bonnie, I probably would have figured it out just by being next to Frank all the time. That said Asher is doing just that, but he's just a moron. Gotta compliment him on the detective work though. Still don't know how a ring would have a finger print on it...If he was taking it off, it should have two at least right?

 

So Hannah has a nervous breakdown, shouts a bunch of baseless threats and still gets a search warrant to Annalise's place???

 

Also Wes's obsession with Rudy still doesn't make much sense. It annoys me when tv shows make EVERYONE somehow connected to one another. Next thing you know that room is cursed and everyone that lives there gets sent to jail for life...

Edited February 16, 2015 by rexytheking

[possibilities]

I used to think Bonnie was in the know all along, and that was why she sought out Asher (for the alibi), and that she deliberately tanked the warrant challenge for some reason. With this show, it's hard to tell when to be paranoid and when not to be.

[jhlipton]

a few exceptions that are not relevant here like suspecting someone's life is in danger...

 

Which is where we get the horrible bit common to cop shows where one says "I think I hear someone calling for help" when it's obvious he doesn't. I hate this trope, since it's so illegal. 

 

The thing with Nate feels like a red herring to me.  Before the ring reveal, Annalise was shown making a phone call to someone, saying something like, "I need you now."  I think that call was to Nate.

 

We were obviously meant to think it was to Nate, so we'd be surprised by Frank planting the fingerprint. 

 

Sam wasn't killed out of rage or revenge, he was killed to prevent him from killing someone else.  He was definitely trying to kill Rebecca

He didn't actively try to kill her until he'd been pushed over the railing. Doubtful that he was thinking very clearly by that point (or thinking at all, for that matter). 

 

I also thought the cops can see that you recently bleached an area, so even if it gets rid of the blood they know you are hiding something and will just work harder to find something concrete.

You don't use bleach to hide concrete, youse dump 'em in de East River. Fahgetaboutit!!!

 

ETA: speaking of the mob, I wonder if something got mixed up and this episode is why last weeks's was supposed to have mob involvement?

Edited February 16, 2015 by jhlipton

[WalrusGirl]

I also thought the cops can see that you recently bleached an area, so even if it gets rid of the blood they know you are hiding something and will just work harder to find something concrete.

From what I looked up, bleach can react to luminol (it's something about the speed of the reaction that differentiates it from blood), and the more common type of bleach doesn't hide blood from luminol but a different kind does.

Now, I am no legal expect in any way. But I think you can still call it self-defense even though they had broken into the house. Just because they broke into the house doesn't mean they then have to sit back and let Rebecca die.....death isn't an appropriate sentence for theft.

I think it would make things messy, and that is why they didn't just call the cops. There is a risk that they wouldn't be believed, but I think the consequences for that would be less than the whole burning of the body thing. And since Sam was dead, no one would have been able to prove they were committing a crime. They could just say they were there working or to talk to Annalise when Sam came in and attacked Rebecca.

I agree with you ethically (in terms of Sam's second/final attack on Rebecca, which he initiated and wasn't about stopping her or getting the flash drive back), but legally any death (even accidental) that occurs during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (including burglary) is considered felony murder, and it applies to every participant in the felony (so all of them but Asher). I'm not bothering to look up PA statute, but the ones talking about how screwed they were (prior to or during the coverup) referenced it, so I'm rolling with it being the case in their jurisdiction. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder_rule In reality, the first one (or two, if Michaela and Connor presented a united front and showed up together) would get a favorable deal to testify against Rebecca and Wes, though one would think Connor would be the best off because of the whole Michaela throwing him over the banister thing. It's sheer happenstance that Wes was the direct cause of Sam's death and not her. But I'm not sure even Connor would get total immunity unless they had NO evidence but his word (even after his word provided all kinds of probable cause to know exactly where to search).

So while, if someone turned and testified to everything, everyone is worse off than if they'd come clean (especially Connor), if no one turns the cover up gives them a good chance of there not being enough evidence to convict any of them. Other than Rebecca, they don't even have motive (beyond the actual self defense that would still fall under felony murder) like Annalise or Nate do. But I agree that they'd probably be MUCH better off having called the cops and claiming they were there working, he went nuts and attacked Rebecca, etc. Once Annalise stumbled into it and told Wes not to worry about being sorry, they could have had her support that version of events. But I guess they went for the total coverup gamble instead, which would have been more successful had they actually used an incinerator.

(How were they supposed to do that, by the way? Is there an incinerator you can dump your trash directly into at the dump or something?)

Edited February 16, 2015 by WalrusGirl

[Chicago Redshirt]

WalrusGirl, the only participant in the burglary who was actually on scene was Rebecca. Michaela came independently and had no idea Rebecca was going to be there at all, much less commit any sort of burglary. The rest of the Murder Four just showed up because Michaela called to say Sam was acting weird and Rebecca was in trouble. When on scene, they become aware that Rebecca had a flash drive that Sam was trying to get, but I don't know if any of them had knowledge that it contained data stolen from Sam's computer or what was on it. Even assuming that they expected that it contained stolen data, I think it's at best ambiguous if they were trying to help her steal it or just trying to calm Sam down and figure out what was going on. Wes says to the group to grab the flash drive IIRC, and someone does. Long story short, I don't know if you can pin felony-murder on the Murder Four because it's ambiguous if any of them agreed to participate in the underlying burglary.

Under felony-murder, Nate actually is guilty of murder (along with Rebecca) since he and Rebecca cooked up the "break into his house and steal laptop data" scheme. So it's ironic that Annalise has framed a guilty man.

 

I also find it interesting that Rebecca is acting all cheery and has no idea that she is on the hook for murder (or at least, is not acting like it).

[KaveDweller]

Other than Rebecca, they don't even have motive (beyond the actual self defense that would still fall under felony murder)

 

So, self-defense doesn't apply if you were committing a crime? I didn't know that, it seems unfair, but I guess it would depend on the circumstnaces.  In this case, I think only Rebecca was really the only one at fault legally.  She broke in and she ran upstairs and hid after Sam caught her.

 

So while, if someone turned and testified to everything, everyone is worse off than if they'd come clean (especially Connor), if no one turns the cover up gives them a good chance of there not being enough evidence to convict any of them.

 

I still say that with Sam dead they could deny they were committing a crime (those kids were in and out of the house all season).  Especially if he's under suspicion for murder and Annalise is backing them up.  But I think the reason Annalise instructed Wes how to get rid of the body was that she didn't want to be a suspect.  The cops could have thought the self-defense story is the students trying to protect Annalise, who actually killed him.   It wasn't total altruism on her part.

[April Bloodgate]

WalrusGirl, the only participant in the burglary who was actually on scene was Rebecca. Michaela came independently and had no idea Rebecca was going to be there at all, much less commit any sort of burglary. The rest of the Murder Four just showed up because Michaela called to say Sam was acting weird and Rebecca was in trouble. When on scene, they become aware that Rebecca had a flash drive that Sam was trying to get, but I don't know if any of them had knowledge that it contained data stolen from Sam's computer or what was on it. Even assuming that they expected that it contained stolen data, I think it's at best ambiguous if they were trying to help her steal it or just trying to calm Sam down and figure out what was going on. Wes says to the group to grab the flash drive IIRC, and someone does. Long story short, I don't know if you can pin felony-murder on the Murder Four because it's ambiguous if any of them agreed to participate in the underlying burglary.Under felony-murder, Nate actually is guilty of murder (along with Rebecca) since he and Rebecca cooked up the "break into his house and steal laptop data" scheme. So it's ironic that Annalise has framed a guilty man. I also find it interesting that Rebecca is acting all cheery and has no idea that she is on the hook for murder (or at least, is not acting like it).

Thank you. This has been bugging me the whole time. I agree that the 4 didn't know they were taking part in a burglary.

[WalrusGirl]

WalrusGirl, the only participant in the burglary who was actually on scene was Rebecca. Michaela came independently and had no idea Rebecca was going to be there at all, much less commit any sort of burglary. The rest of the Murder Four just showed up because Michaela called to say Sam was acting weird and Rebecca was in trouble. When on scene, they become aware that Rebecca had a flash drive that Sam was trying to get, but I don't know if any of them had knowledge that it contained data stolen from Sam's computer or what was on it. Even assuming that they expected that it contained stolen data, I think it's at best ambiguous if they were trying to help her steal it or just trying to calm Sam down and figure out what was going on. Wes says to the group to grab the flash drive IIRC, and someone does. Long story short, I don't know if you can pin felony-murder on the Murder Four because it's ambiguous if any of them agreed to participate in the underlying burglary.

Under felony-murder, Nate actually is guilty of murder (along with Rebecca) since he and Rebecca cooked up the "break into his house and steal laptop data" scheme. So it's ironic that Annalise has framed a guilty man.

You're right, I completely forgot that Michaela arrived separately (in timing and purpose) than Wes' group, and that Sam actually did let her in to look for that statue! I think my logic holds for Wes and the two he he dragged with him - he may not have known exactly what Rebecca was doing (I think? Haven't rewatched that ep), but as I recall he knew it wasn't anything good, the other two had a good idea and didn't bolt, they let themselves in for non-work purposes (not that that part would be proveable with how they were all regularly in and out, but for technical purposes and from the characters' perspective) - at this point it already qualifies as burglary - and once they participated in the flash drive game they were participants. In reality you'd get the less-involved to flip or on lesser charges/immunity, but I think you could arrest them all on felony murder. (Michaela was involved in either theft or robbery once she engaged in/didn't leave for the flash drive game - no guess as to which without rewatching; robbery is generally in the same category as burglary in terms of meeting the standard for felony murder, but theft may not since in her case it didn't follow unauthorized entry.)

Regardless, felony murder was the reason they cited on the show for not coming clean immediately, so they seemed to think it fit what happened, and it's not crazy wrong, so I buy into it being legit for show purposes. I'd forgotten just how bad poor Michaela's luck was.

I hadn't even connected that about Nate's co-conspiracy with Rebecca making him culpable as well! Awesome point. (Poor, poor Nate.) Does Annalise even know that Nate actually was involved? I sort of doubt she would have let Wes do much explaining, and I don't remember that he even knew about Nate and Rebecca's side-plan.

So, self-defense doesn't apply if you were committing a crime? I didn't know that, it seems unfair, but I guess it would depend on the circumstnaces.

For crimes that are inherently high-risk (burglary - unauthorized entry with the intent to commit a crime within, like theft, whether or not you manage to do so - and robbery are generally on the list, along with arson, assault, rape, kidnapping, carjacking...), it always depends on the exact circumstances and prosecutorial discretion, but don't really count on it. That doesn't mean a jury will convict, but depending on the crime it's indictable as such (at least in the US - I think the UK has ditched it).

I still say that with Sam dead they could deny they were committing a crime (those kids were in and out of the house all season). Especially if he's under suspicion for murder and Annalise is backing them up. But I think the reason Annalise instructed Wes how to get rid of the body was that she didn't want to be a suspect. ... It wasn't total altruism on her part.

Totally agreed on all counts. Wes showing back up solved her problem of what to do with the situation - I'd love to know what she was thinking and planning when she got back to an empty house and dead husband. That she didn't call 911 immediately means she was trying to figure out how the heck to deal with it. But they had no way to know she'd back them when they first took off, cleaned up (blowing their best time to call 911 and maybe look relatively innocent), and realized what they'd technically done to get good and freaked about the possible repercussions. Personally, I'd have gone with calling the cops! Edited February 17, 2015 by WalrusGirl

[helenamonster]

Actually, Sam didn't let Michaela into the house. Michaela let herself in, with the trophy already in tow (she'd stolen it from Asher). She came over to turn it in to get out of the exam, but Annalise wasn't home, so she'd said she'd just sit there and wait. Sam asked her repeatedly to leave, and she refused.

[Eolivet]

I found it interesting that they never actually showed the luminol finding nothing. They cut away, and then Laurel got the text message. I'm not putting it past the police to hide that they found bleach (as another poster said, they always did on CSI), but not blood -- in the hopes that Annalise would make a mistake. I won't be surprised that when we see Nate next week, he'll be confronted with the "bleach on the floor" evidence.

 

If I recall correctly, the police don't have to disclose everything they found to a defendant, and can even lie about it?

 

Viola Davis is just killing it (pun somewhat intended). I continue to appreciate Annalise and all her grey-hat morality. I also love how they're styling her in the second half of the season. Unintentional or not, they seem to have softened her with a more "youthful" hairstyle/wig. When Marcia Gay Harden was yelling at her, in that moment, she looked young and almost innocent (pun somewhat intended). Not sure if her new look was intentionally designed to go with the story, but I like the choice, especially post-murder.

[helenamonster]

Annalise is definitely calculating enough to wear a new wig that makes her look more innocent in the wake of her husband's disappearance/death.

[tennisgurl]

My favorite scene of this episode? Was actually when Annalise started going after the prosecutor, and basically pulled her last verbal punch, and the mob boss and the mob clan were all cheering and shooting. I thought they were going to break out into the wave or something! 

 

Team Murder will hopefully stop looking so dang guilty all the time now. I get that they can play this off like its just a stressful time, but they all look like they're teetering on the age of a major league breakdown. 

[morgankobi]

I must say that MGH in the casual black shirt at the police station while they brought (Poor!) Nate in was the best I've ever seen her look. She always seems to play the uptight professional, so that dressed-down look was great on her!

Edited February 19, 2015 by morgankobi

[Miles]

And I had been thinking it would have been far easier for Sam to be defended for killing Rebecca, an intruder in his own home, than for the K5 to be defended for killing a man defending his home and belongings.  Again, I think the guy was slime, but so are a lot of people walking around.

If all the information was known to the court, sure. However Annalise could have just called all the students back and laid out a simple plan: "You were here to prepare for Rebecca's case. You heard me and Sam arguing in the other room, which I'll tell the police was because I told him about the peternaty test. Suddenly it turned into things crashing, me screaming and suddenly being silent. You were afraid for me, so you rushed in and saw Sam strangeling me, and I'm going to need one of you get me matching marks btw. You tried to get him off, but there was no way. He was in a psychotic rage. So Wes hit him with the statue to get him to stop."

Or something along those lines. Maybe stay closer to the truth and say Rebecca told him about the peternaty test and that it would prove that he was the murderer for which he started to strangle her. I'm sure between the six of them they could figure something out in a few minutes.

Nobody could prove otherwise. They all would get off, completely without getting rid of a body. But I guess then we wouldn't have a show. :D

 

Did Rebecca kill Rudy as well as Lila? There must be a connection.

If she is the bad guy here, which is entirely possible, she probably got Rudy to kill Lila for her, just how she got Wes to kill Sam. Afterwards Rudy went a little insane and got out of dodge.

 

Under felony-murder, Nate actually is guilty of murder (along with Rebecca) since he and Rebecca cooked up the "break into his house and steal laptop data" scheme. So it's ironic that Annalise has framed a guilty man.

That's a good point. I had totally forgotten that he was the one who told Rebecca to do it.

But did he really tell Rebecca to break in? I thought he just told her to steal the data from his laptop while she was at the house preparing her defense. Would felony-murder apply here? What he was telling her to do wasn't even theft, as she wouldn't have deprived the owner of the data, just copied it (although that might be considered theft under US law, not quite sure, as I'm not american), but it certainly wasn't him telling her to burgle a house.

 

I think my logic holds for Wes and the two he he dragged with him - he may not have known exactly what Rebecca was doing (I think? Haven't rewatched that ep), but as I recall he knew it wasn't anything good, the other two had a good idea and didn't bolt, they let themselves in for non-work purposes (not that that part would be proveable with how they were all regularly in and out, but for technical purposes and from the characters' perspective) - at this point it already qualifies as burglary - and once they participated in the flash drive game they were participants. In reality you'd get the less-involved to flip or on lesser charges/immunity, but I think you could arrest them all on felony murder. (Michaela was involved in either theft or robbery once she engaged in/didn't leave for the flash drive game - no guess as to which without rewatching; robbery is generally in the same category as burglary in terms of meeting the standard for felony murder, but theft may not since in her case it didn't follow unauthorized entry.)

That Wes knew that Rebecca wasn't up to anything good doesn't matter though. The question is was he there to help or her commit the crime, to stop her or neither and I think it was neither. He just wanted to make sure she was save.

The other two certainly didn't want to help her commit a crime.

 

Regardless, felony murder was the reason they cited on the show for not coming clean immediately, so they seemed to think it fit what happened, and it's not crazy wrong, so I buy into it being legit for show purposes. I'd forgotten just how bad poor Michaela's luck was.

It isn't so much of a question if the show told us or if we as laypersons think it's plausible at first glance, it's if the best law students of their class would think it's plausible and I think by now we've figured out they wouldn't. Ofcourse we can and will overlook it, but it's still not realistic.

 

Totally agreed on all counts. Wes showing back up solved her problem of what to do with the situation - I'd love to know what she was thinking and planning when she got back to an empty house and dead husband. That she didn't call 911 immediately means she was trying to figure out how the heck to deal with it. But they had no way to know she'd back them when they first took off, cleaned up (blowing their best time to call 911 and maybe look relatively innocent), and realized what they'd technically done to get good and freaked about the possible repercussions. Personally, I'd have gone with calling the cops!

At that point they hadn't cleaned anything up yet and they really hadn't blown their time. I mean they couldn't have been gone for more than 10 minutes before Wes found Annalise at the house. How would the police have known when Sam died? Temperature gives you a rough estimation in the realm of hours when somebody died, not minutes. If anybody would even bother to test temp at that point. Edited February 20, 2015 by Miles

[helenamonster]

 If she is the bad guy here, which is entirely possible, she probably got Rudy to kill Lila for her, just how she got Wes to kill Sam. Afterwards Rudy went a little insane and got out of dodge. 

 

Ooh, I like this theory!

[Guest]

Sam wasn't killed out of rage or revenge, he was killed to prevent him from killing someone else.  He was definitely trying to kill Rebecca ...

I'm watching a year later than you guys but this is why I won't watch season 2.  The entire thing is built on one faulty premise after another, but the main premise-- that there WAS a murder, is false.  They killed him accidentally while trying to save Rebecca.  Even first year law students should know that's not murder, even with the preceding scenes.  

 

It's ludicrous that Annalise could scrub 100% of the blood out of wood, which is porous and is in planks.  

 

It's ludicrous that the news would identify Sam's body before next of kin had been notified.  

 

I do believe a bagged body in parts in a landfill would be found quickly, though.  At least out here they move the landfill crap around with tractors all the time.  Bags break and something like body parts would stick out like a sore ... arm.  

 

But mostly the show seems to treat the viewers as if we're too stupid to even pretend to make a decent story.  "Hey, the audience won't care about details like if it's a murder.  They'll be too mesmerized by the dramatic courtroom monologues and the sex montages set to music!"  It's like Shonda's formula.  

[secnarf]

I'm watching a year later than you guys but this is why I won't watch season 2.  The entire thing is built on one faulty premise after another, but the main premise-- that there WAS a murder, is false.  They killed him accidentally while trying to save Rebecca.  Even first year law students should know that's not murder, even with the preceding scenes.  

 

It's ludicrous that Annalise could scrub 100% of the blood out of wood, which is porous and is in planks.  

 

It's ludicrous that the news would identify Sam's body before next of kin had been notified.  

It's been discussed to death, but one could argue that it was actually murder because it happened while a crime was being committed (B&E/robbery by Rebecca). Sam was defending his house and he ended up dying. Whether or not it was in self-defense in the moment, legally that would be a pretty hard sell. As law students, they'd know the law isn't necessarily on their side, and I think one of them (Michaela maybe?) pointed that out.

 

I don't think Annalise scrubbed the blood out as much as soaked it with bleach, which would degrade any enzymes/proteins present and thus prevent it from reacting with luminol.

 

I thought Sam's identity was speculated/suggested in the media before the police formally ID'd him and notified Annalise, but that's a fairly minor point, imo.

[Guest]

Defending his house against law students who worked there?  I don't think that's a hard sell. Is a court going to think tiny Rebecca was there to kill Sam, in front of 3 law students, for no reason?  Or believe the 3 students plus her that what actually happened is what happened?  None of them had motive to murder Sam.  

[secnarf]

Defending his house against law students who worked there?  I don't think that's a hard sell. Is a court going to think tiny Rebecca was there to kill Sam, in front of 3 law students, for no reason?  Or believe the 3 students plus her that what actually happened is what happened?  None of them had motive to murder Sam.  

Against Rebecca, who came there to steal information from Sam's computer, who Sam explicitly told to leave because she wasn't welcome, and the law students who as far as Sam was concerned were helping her.

 

It's been explained by people who know far more about American law than I do, but the nutshell version as far as I understand is that it's not cut and dried one way or the other, but there's a fairly good chance that a court of law would find that Sam's death was actually murder, if they told the truth. I think it's rather questionable whether there would have been proof of the theft if the students didn't say so, but they were thinking along the lines of *this is murder because of the robbery and at the very least will ruin our careers even if we manage to stay out of jail*

[Guest]

I think 99.9% of US courts would laugh at even the idea that this was a murder.  Murder requires premeditation.

 

And the law students weren't committing robbery.  What ruins careers is covering up an accidental homicide. 

[pennben]

Murder does not require premeditation under "felony murder" acts.  The gist of which is, if a person is killed in the commission of a crime, one  does not have to be the person who actually killed the victim, so long as one was in on the original crime with the person who did the killing, whether the killing was accidental (even the person doing the crime had no premeditation) or otherwise. 

 

Anyway, there's a much fuller discussion and debate above if you are interested in the topic.

Edited March 1, 2016 by pennben

[Guest]

I'm still in the "not sold" camp, even reading the comments above.  Nowhere in the calculus of odds would it make sense for me to cover that up.  

 

But I haven't seen the last hours of the season so maybe they have some way of making it more believable in the end. 

[pennben]

Oh, lots aren't sold that they should have done what they did or could have been convicted, but is a legal theory under which it is possible (I think they are morons and immoral, and have bigger legal risk than if they'd just fessed up, but there'd be no show otherwise).  One must take a lot of things when watching this show....for me, the balance of 'this is just batshit crazy fun with Viola and other good acting' versus the 'nope, can't buy it' still tips far in favor of watching.  I know the balance is calibrated differently for others. It's all good.

Edited March 1, 2016 by pennben

[Guest]

I suppose I shouldn't bitch too much... I knew going in that Shonda shows aren't my thing.   I was hoping for a whodunnit but I find I don't care much who killed Lila because the writing is so loose it really could've been anyone.  Once they ask me to suspend disbelief a little too far, then it may as well be hobbits behind the murder.  

I think the law is meant to deter someone from say accompanying their buddy on an armed robbery of a liquor store, by making it so either party can be tried for murder if someone shoots the clerk.  I don't think it's meant to deter a law-abiding citizen from intervening when they find one person strangling another, just in case the dude dies and she was attempting to read his email.  Prosecutors, judges and juries consider the contexts.

 

Of course in the real world people don't generally die from one smack on the head with a skinny statue, either.  People on tv have eggshells for skulls.  Both that and 'normally smart' characters always wanting to hide bodies are just tv tropes that feel so overdone.  

[helenamonster]

It wasn't just one smack to the head though, it was three: hitting his head on the banister, then the floor, and finally with the trophy.

 

But yes, as has been discussed above, I believe that what happened to Sam could be tried under felony murder by a competent prosecutor. Rebecca was in his house to steal information from his computer, which is considered theft/robbery and a felony. The other four assisted in keeping the flash drive, which contained Sam's information, away from Sam and trying to get it out of the house. They were accomplices in a robbery that resulted in the homeowner's death. Plenty of people could spin that. Whether a jury would buy it depends on the competence of the defense but a murder conviction for all of them would not have been outside the realm of possibility, imo.

[Guest]

I think I need to reserve judgment til the end.  I feel punked that so far the "murder" (to me) would only be considered murder by a kangaroo court, but I'm assuming the "getting away with murder" is primarily going to be Annalise or someone else getting away with Lila's murder and Sam was just collateral damage. 

[secnarf]

I think I need to reserve judgment til the end.  I feel punked that so far the "murder" (to me) would only be considered murder by a kangaroo court, but I'm assuming the "getting away with murder" is primarily going to be Annalise or someone else getting away with Lila's murder and Sam was just collateral damage. 

FWIW, I believe the show's title refers to many things, far beyond just one murder - multiple murders, multiple definitions of what it means to "get away with murder" (legally and morally), the fact that Annalise is a defense attorney and they actively learn (at least in the first season) strategies to help clients be acquitted of murder charges.

It's not just about a single murder or single case.

And you might think that what you saw with Sam is not murder, but under American law there is a reasonable possibility that they could be charged with murder and also a possibility that they could be found guilty. Maybe it is likely and maybe it isn't, but it's possible and that's what they were thinking. It may not have been entirely rational, but they were freaking out and not thinking rationally. Imo, there are plenty of more unrealistic things on this show than that.

[Guest]

All the more reason not to watch season 2.  Shitty tv plus defensive discussion.  

 

A lot of reviewers thought the writing and the overall show were pretty disappointing, too.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/how-get-away-murder-tv-735817

[pennben]

Seriously, you should not watch the end of the season if you aren't happy with the show.  You also shouldn't watch Season 2 if you didn't like season one and don't want to watch any more. I didn't think that was in question as you stated you weren't going to watch.  I don't think anyone is telling you otherwise, nor asking you to change your mind about the show..

 

I think some here have challenged your legal conclusions (which speak to legalities outside just the show), but no one has challenged your right to your opinion as to what you think of the show. Lots of folks don't like the show and that's fine.

 

I, however, do. I'm happily watching season two and having a blast!  I'm not going to change your mind (I don't even care to try, as what you watch is up to you), you are not going to change my mind. You aren't going to watch anymore, I am.  So, we all get what we want.

 

Be well.

.

Edited March 3, 2016 by pennben