S01.E04: The Art of War

[clb1016]

8 hours ago, guilfoyleatpp said:

I'm a little confused about why Allison Crowe would make such a big show of her abilities to defend him and then cut and run at the first opportunity. Is she supposed to be impetuous? Is this just a plot device to push Naz into the "arms" of Chandra and/or Stone? Did she just give up after she couldn't get bail for him? None of her actions read to me like someone who plots their actions very well.

I don't quite get this either.  Obviously, taking this to trial and winning an acquittal would be a fantastic publicity coup for her.  Taking it to trial and losing, not so much.  Pleading out seems to have no advantage whatever.   Did she not know before she volunteered her services that the case against him was (seemingly) overwhelming?

[scrb]

If Stone was getting a lot of business, he wouldn't be available to take the case back.

[Bannon]

18 hours ago, scrb said:

Does it count as a win to get a plea deal?  Crowe is a camera whore so what is she going to do, write a book and do a book tour and go on TV talk shows to say she saved Khan's life because the odds were against acquittal?

Doesn't make sense.

Then again, it never made sense that a big time law firm would try a big case pro bono.

An attorney can get widely respected in the profession for being able to plea down an unwinnable murder case to manslaughter, 15 years, and a prominent lawyer for a prominent firm does well to do some high profile pro bono work, especially if they can cut the deal without investing a lot of time.

[Neurochick]

23 hours ago, The Hound Lives said:

I still don't get what Freddy wants? A tutor?

I think Freddy wants someone intelligent to talk to and most of the folks in jail aren't intelligent.  Charlene's Uncle was a fucking nutcase, who probably raped and killed his own niece.  Freddy sees that Naz is not only intelligent but not a nutcase.

Did Naz ever say Allison gave him drugs?  If he did, was he ever tested for whatever drug she gave him?  I mean she could have given him ketamine in which he probably couldn't have killed her because he'd have been passed out somewhere.

I find the police quite incompetent.  Was Allison independently wealthy enough to pay the bills and the taxes on that brownstone by herself?  If not, then how was she doing it?  Did they even consider that anybody else could be the killer?  I mean shit, how many millions did the city have to pay up to the young men falsely accused of raping the Central Park jogger?  I'm like, get this shit right this time folks.

What was with that woman in the front of the rehab, telling Stone to leave?  He was on a public street, he can stand there if he wants to, she was annoying.  If they want the rehab to be in a secluded place, then that's where it should be.  

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, clb1016 said:

I don't quite get this either.  Obviously, taking this to trial and winning an acquittal would be a fantastic publicity coup for her.  Taking it to trial and losing, not so much.  Pleading out seems to have no advantage whatever.   Did she not know before she volunteered her services that the case against him was (seemingly) overwhelming?

She took the case at the outset with the idea that she could be seen as the prominent attorney doing pro bono work who gets an unwinnable murder 1 case pled down to manslaughter, 15 years. A reputation as someone who can get good deals cut with politically powerful people (the prosecuting attorney alluded to her boss's boss) is a good thing to have. The fact that she thought she could get it done with minimum time invested was the icing on the cake.

[Bama]

Yeah - prior to the OJ Simpson case - that was Robert Shapiro's raison d'etre.  He was known amongst the Hollywood elite for getting the best plea deal money could buy when a wealthy/famous defendant was looking at serious consequences.

From what the show is telling us, everyone from Nancy Grace and the media, the police, other lawyers, other criminals, the general public already see the case as open and shut; Naz is guilty and dangerous.  To be the attorney who gets the DA to agree to manslaughter with a 15 year max sentence as opposed to what seems like a slam dunk guilty verdict for murder would be a testament to Crowe's negotiation skills.

"I got Nazir Kahn manslaughter and less than 15 years when he was 100% guilty of murder one.  If I can get the DA to give me that kind of deal on that case, I can do even better for you" - it's a pitch that could bring her serious future business.  Especially amongst rich, white collar New Yorkers who might find themselves in a legal pickle.

[Bannon]

This isn't a flawless show, but I like it quite a bit, and it is a huge improvement over the pretentious mindlessness of "True Detective".  

[Bannon]

To follow on, John Stone would not have been offered the deal that Crowe obtained, not because Stone is a bad lawyer, but because he has zero resources, and the DA prosecutor thinks she has nearly an airtight case. She thinks she'll just bury Stone. She might have been willing to go to 2nd degree, 25 to life, eventually, just to expedite things, but there is no way she would have offered Stone the Crowe deal. Crowe, on the other hand, might have gigantic resources, depending on what her firm is willing to do. She has the potential of making things very drawn out and resource consuming for the DA's office, even if the case is airtight, and there is always a risk that once things get drawn out enough, something screwy happens. Best to just giver her the manslaughter, 15 years, and be done with it.

I love how this apsect of the sausage-making that is the criminal justice system has been portrayed so far.  The challenge for the writers now is to have a believable, compelling, scenario where the lawyer with no resources, and a terrible skin disease, can make a difference.  

[Bannon]

24 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

I think Freddy wants someone intelligent to talk to and most of the folks in jail aren't intelligent.  Charlene's Uncle was a fucking nutcase, who probably raped and killed his own niece.  Freddy sees that Naz is not only intelligent but not a nutcase.

Did Naz ever say Allison gave him drugs?  If he did, was he ever tested for whatever drug she gave him?  I mean she could have given him ketamine in which he probably couldn't have killed her because he'd have been passed out somewhere.

I find the police quite incompetent.  Was Allison independently wealthy enough to pay the bills and the taxes on that brownstone by herself?  If not, then how was she doing it?  Did they even consider that anybody else could be the killer?  I mean shit, how many millions did the city have to pay up to the young men falsely accused of raping the Central Park jogger?  I'm like, get this shit right this time folks.

What was with that woman in the front of the rehab, telling Stone to leave?  He was on a public street, he can stand there if he wants to, she was annoying.  If they want the rehab to be in a secluded place, then that's where it should be.  

What the police mostly are, like a lot of people in a lot of professions, is intellectually lazy, when confronted with a set of circumstances which they think they've seen a thousand times. They adopt a narrative which fits with superficial "facts", and make little effort to undermine the narrative, absent being shocked out of complacency. It's how a crew piloting a 777 can crash land the plane on a perfect day for flying.  

One of John Stone's goals is to shock the lead detective out of his complacency.

[Noirprncess]

4 hours ago, clb1016 said:

Just to be clear, I have no desire to see John Turturro naked (with or without fake eczema).  It's the double standard that bothers me.  On network and basic cable, everyone is covered up.

That's changing though.  Side boob and naked buns are showing up on "edgy" basic cable and 10pm primetime network shows.

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

What was with that woman in the front of the rehab, telling Stone to leave?  He was on a public street, he can stand there if he wants to, she was annoying.  If they want the rehab to be in a secluded place, then that's where it should be.  

He was taking pictures.  She was either being protective of the patients, or protective of the clinic -- Andrea isn't much of a success story for them.

[formerlyfreedom]

2 hours ago, Neurochick said:

What was with that woman in the front of the rehab, telling Stone to leave?  

She was played by Aida Turturro, wasn't she? She's John's cousin, and she played James Gandolfini's sister in The Sopranos. I wonder if we'll see her again.

[kieyra]

20 hours ago, Mackey said:

Wasn't the DA  just telling Stone that what Crowe did was stinky? (Making fun of the previous legal help that Naz had) DA was expressing empathy?

I've been googling and googling and I can't find any description of the baby oil/hot water torture.  That seems odd. Or I'm a bad googler.

I actually did some related googling the week before, as I was curious how often this "prison justice" thing we hear about occurs. I knew of it with child molesters, but not rapists. Turns out the show got it right--I found a very interesting Reddit article where people who had done time discussed and confirmed much of it.

The interesting part was that a prison torture that was mentioned repeatedly was boiling water--available to those working the kitchens--and SUGAR. Which of course burns and sticks like napalm. 

When I saw the baby oil thing, I wondered if they'd toned the above method down a bit so Naz wouldn't end up seriously disfigured or in a burn unit.

Edited August 2, 2016 by kieyra

[LittleIggy]

Re: Freddie's motive: Freddie said that when he heard that a college boy (Naz) was going to be at Riker's, it was like a "Care package for his brain." He wants someone educated to talk with. 

If Stone isn't going to save the cat, please don't mention the poor animal again. And it's not ugly!

[The Hound Lives]

1 hour ago, kieyra said:

I actually did some related googling the week before, as I was curious how often this "prison justice" thing we hear about occurs. I knew of it with child molesters, but not rapists. Turns out the show got it right--I found a very interesting Reddit article where people who had done time discussed and confirmed much of it.

Child murderers/rapists/molesters. rapist and cop killers. They are all huge targets in jails/prisons and guards routinely look the other way. I may be a bad person for saying it but this brand of justice, dished out on those guilty, doesn't bother me in the least. 

Back to the show, kind of wondering why we haven't seen the stare-down friend since episode 1. The guy with the lingering stare at Naz/Andrea on that fateful night. Just more speculation of course but (hiding to be nice) 

Spoiler

the actor, Charlie Hudson, was in the pilot and will appear again in episode 6 and 8 according to IMDB. I think he will be the newest inmate at Rikers for something unrelated. But he knows something and I cannot wait! On another note, the "shelter volunteer", appears in episode 8 as well. So...kitty might be saved, along with Naz. Or...Stone is too late to save kitty and it becomes this painful metaphor about waiting to long to do something. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by The Hound Lives

[Adusk81]

I think the cat is an important part of what really happened. Andrea put the cat out because  Naz is allergic. He was still out when John let him in and he got all cuddly. He clearly was waiting to be let in, implying that there was no window for him to climb in. But then later, when John went back to the house to look around, the cat was back outside which is when he took him to the shelter. So, who let the cat out again? Cops I suppose but it seemed significant to me. Someone else was going into Andrea's house. John is going to realize this all of a sudden, probably when he calls the shelter to find out the cat has been put down or claimed by the owner, Andrea's killer. Ok that's a stretch but who knows. Of course the ultimate ending to this would be to find out Naz really did do it.

[cuphead]

Really enjoyed the episode.  Everything about this show is top notch, including how it depicts NY and the characters who live here.

Love that they showed the guy who fleeced Nas putting together a jigsaw puzzle of the Eiffel Tower, one of the items he bought at the commissary.  And Freddy/ Omar was fantastic in that boxing scene.  Liked how he didn't get one drop of blood on his white jogging pants.

I'm still trying to figure out Freddy's angle.  I don't think he wants anything sexual, but doubt he wants to help Nas just for stimulating conversation. Perhaps Nas's brain is what compels him to want to help, but a price will still need to be paid for any favor going forward.  Hopefully his motive will be revealed fully in the next episode. 

Also wondering if anyone at Rikers knows someone who is related to the case. Perhaps Bodie and his friend know Freddy, or some street gossip hits Rikers re: the real killer?

 

*eta: the whole cast is phenomenal but whoever plays the D.A. is spot on. Her diction, the way she looks and carries herself...very authentic. 

Edited August 2, 2016 by cuphead

[guilfoyleatpp]

Thanks to the PPs above who said that Crowe was trying to get more press for herself for her other case and always intended to push Naz into a plea. That makes sense.

Her volunteering for the case was so spur of the moment, and from the scene, based on her seeing it on TV, that you can see the machinations and the plan.

[Tara Ariano]

In case you missed it, here's the Previously.TV post on the episode!

Is The Night Of's Writing Too Dependent On The Goodwill Attached To Its Cast?

And other not-quite-burning questions from the most recent not-nearly-fast-moving-enough episode.

[iMonrey]

Quote

I'm impatient to get some closure on the identification of the murder weapon (I'm nearly positive that it wasn't the lime knife), answers to the question about the lack of blood on Naz's body and further investigation of the shady characters that Naz/Andrea encountered that night. Yes, I know that this show isn't a "murder mystery" but I would like less time spent on eczema and more time spent on the actual murder. And I don't know exactly how they will get there: will it happen in the trial? will something/someone cause Box to actually continue the investigation?

I'm with you on that. I feel like the show pulled a bait-and-switch on me since the pilot. The initial premise was so compelling but now the show has devolved into tedious character study.  Kind of like Lost. At this halfway point I sense we will get no actual answers to any of these questions.

This murder is apparently all over the news, even spawning revenge killings against the Muslim community. Nancy Grace is talking about it. But, who the hell was Andrea? Generally the Natalee Holloways of the world become such known commodities every little detail of their lives becomes public thanks to these kinds of cable shows. That's why "rich white girl missing/murdered" is always such a big story. But if Andrea was some kind of druggie ex-con with a rap sheet and stints in rehab the case wouldn't be getting this kind of media attention and Nasir guilt wouldn't be considered such a slam-dunk. 

The show seems more interested in the little quirks and intricacies of the characters' personalities than explaining what the hell happened. Using a murder like this as nothing more than a backdrop for character study irritates the hell out of me.

Quote

I think the cat is an important part of what really happened. Andrea put the cat out because  Naz is allergic. 

Nope. The cat is a metaphor for Nasir. It tells us that Stone cares. Even when he can't do anything to help, even when he's been fired from the case, he still cares and still keeps checking in to see how the downtrodden victim is doing. 

[SoCal Mema]

14 hours ago, kieyra said:

I actually did some related googling the week before, as I was curious how often this "prison justice" thing we hear about occurs. I knew of it with child molesters, but not rapists. Turns out the show got it right--I found a very interesting Reddit article where people who had done time discussed and confirmed much of it.

The interesting part was that a prison torture that was mentioned repeatedly was boiling water--available to those working the kitchens--and SUGAR. Which of course burns and sticks like napalm. 

When I saw the baby oil thing, I wondered if they'd toned the above method down a bit so Naz wouldn't end up seriously disfigured or in a burn unit.

Did you watch the reality series, "60 Days In"?  This stuff happens and is real.  They're also starting a new season this month. 

[Neurochick]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

This murder is apparently all over the news, even spawning revenge killings against the Muslim community. Nancy Grace is talking about it. But, who the hell was Andrea? Generally the Natalee Holloways of the world become such known commodities every little detail of their lives becomes public thanks to these kinds of cable shows. That's why "rich white girl missing/murdered" is always such a big story. But if Andrea was some kind of druggie ex-con with a rap sheet and stints in rehab the case wouldn't be getting this kind of media attention and Nasir guilt wouldn't be considered such a slam-dunk. 

I agree with this and that's my problem with the show too.  They are in NYC for crying out loud.  The tabloids would be all over Andrea's story.  There would have been press at the funeral,  reporters would be digging through her garbage; finding out what was on her Twitter/Facebook/Snapchat/Tumblr.  Someone would be trying to sell nude photos of her, people would start saying they slept with her, just to get on TV or something. 

[kieyra]

52 minutes ago, SoCal Mema said:

Did you watch the reality series, "60 Days In"?  This stuff happens and is real.  They're also starting a new season this month. 

No. I'm definitely a true crime junkie, but I can't take very much of the prison side of it. This show and OITNB are already pushing it for me. :) 

I will say that, Dahmer aside, I always thought the people who say things "well, he'll get what's coming to him in prison" were just engaging in wishful thinking for the most part, until I read that long Reddit thread. Meaning, I didn't realize how many people are legit *murdered* in prison. 

[Boilergal]

I thought Naz's non-reaction to seeing Charlene's picture was interesting - I think most people would at least gasp and be at least a little horrified  - he was just meh and laid back down like he'd seen it 100 times before, no reaction at all.

I also noticed the non-typical reaction in the pilot - after he had taken ecstasy, a shot of tequila and a bump of cocaine he did not appear to be messed up in the least - whereas Andrea was clearly showing it in the face.  Andrea seems to be the one with drug issues, and would have more tolerance for it but Naz appeared to have more of a tolerance.  

[Cyranetta]

18 hours ago, Noirprncess said:

That's changing though.  Side boob and naked buns are showing up on "edgy" basic cable and 10pm primetime network shows.

I didn't think the actress keeping her brassiere on was meant to accommodate the actress' need for modesty, but to underline that it was a quickie payment-for-services-rendered transaction.

[Ellaria]

2 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I'm with you on that. I feel like the show pulled a bait-and-switch on me since the pilot. The initial premise was so compelling but now the show has devolved into tedious character study.  Kind of like Lost. At this halfway point I sense we will get no actual answers to any of these questions...

...The show seems more interested in the little quirks and intricacies of the characters' personalities than explaining what the hell happened. Using a murder like this as nothing more than a backdrop for character study irritates the hell out of me.

Alternatively, I believe that we will get answers...some of them anyway. My general assumption is that Naz's case proceeds to trial and he will be found not guilty. Maybe he will be acquitted due to a technicality; there is still that issue with "chain of evidence" that we heard mention of early on. Maybe someone will do a bit more actual police work and discover that 2+2 does not necessarily equal 4, in this instance. Now, I'm not sure that we will conclusively learn "who done it."

However, I think that any of us could take our predictions and develop them into a believable scenario of how this story will play out.  We have very little information at this point other than what we learned/saw on the night of the murder and its immediate aftermath. And I'm not sure how it will develop. Does Stone assume the full time role of a private investigator? It sure seems as if he is headed in that direction - he discovered the victim's stay(s) in rehab, her crying friends at the funeral, the discussion between creepy stepdad and the mystery man.

The prison survival stuff is fine but - for me - it needs to be balanced better with the original hook of the story: the murder itself.

[AuntiePam]

1 minute ago, Cyranetta said:

I didn't think the actress keeping her brassiere on was meant to accommodate the actress' need for modesty, but to underline that it was a quickie payment-for-services-rendered transaction.

Did she keep her bra on?  It was off when she got out from under Stone and walked to the bathroom. 

Sex as payment, Stone wearing shorts and socks, that rumpled bed in a dark dingy room -- if there was an award for making sex look sleazy, that scene would win. 

[clb1016]

25 minutes ago, Boilergal said:

I thought Naz's non-reaction to seeing Charlene's picture was interesting - I think most people would at least gasp and be at least a little horrified  - he was just meh and laid back down like he'd seen it 100 times before, no reaction at all.

I also noticed the non-typical reaction in the pilot - after he had taken ecstasy, a shot of tequila and a bump of cocaine he did not appear to be messed up in the least - whereas Andrea was clearly showing it in the face.  Andrea seems to be the one with drug issues, and would have more tolerance for it but Naz appeared to have more of a tolerance.  

Naz absolutely had a reaction to the photo but he had to keep it hidden since he was clearly dealing with a sociopath.  What kind of person carries the crime scene photo of someone he loves?

I'll have to rewatch the 1st ep (actually, the whole series) at some point to see his reaction in the drug scene, but she may have taken drugs before she ever got in his cab.

Edited August 2, 2016 by clb1016

[Brooklynista]

Did we see anyone who looked like they wher from Andrea's side of the family at the plea hearing?

[Gobi]

1 minute ago, Brooklynista said:

Did we see anyone who looked like they wher from Andrea's side of the family at the plea hearing?

I'm pretty sure the stepdad was there.

[clb1016]

Yes, he was arguing with an as yet unidentified man.  Stone took a picture.

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

As a big Boardwalk Empire fan, I'm stoked to see Michael K. Williams & the actor who played Mickey Doyle in this. If Jack Huston could show up in the next few episodes, that'd be a bonus. 

 

I get why many people are annoyed by the time spent on the eczema stuff, but I'm not bothered by it at all. Not sure why I'm not.

Edited August 3, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[pasdetrois]

I'm lovin' this series. Turturro, Headly, Berlin...and the splendid Michael K. Williams.

[Princess Sparkle]

11 hours ago, clb1016 said:

Yes, he was arguing with an as yet unidentified man.  Stone took a picture.

I believe the argument took place at the funeral, not the plea hearing. Unless there was another argument I missed. 

[clb1016]

Oops! Misread the post.  Thought it was referring to the funeral, not the plea hearing.  My mistake.

[Drogo]

9 hours ago, MyPeopleAreNordic said:

Iget why many people are annoyed by the time spent on the eczema stuff, but I'm not bothered by it at all. Not sure why I'm not.

Neither am I.  I think if you've known someone who had a really obvious and cumbersome skin condition it makes a lot more sense.  Severe eczema (or lichen planus, or DH, etc.) absolutely turns someone's life upside down and affects them physically, mentally, emotionally, etc.  It makes them feel repellent and "less-than" and we know Stone doesn't need any help feeling like an unattractive failure. 

[justjen]

Re: Glenne Headly

Boyfriend: What is she from?
Me: That Lindsay Lohan movie.
Boyfriend: I've never seen a Lindsay Lohan movie.
Me: You really should; Mean Girls is great.
Boyfriend: I'm never watching a Lindsay Lohan movie.

And now I remember she was that one competent doctor in ER. Oops.

[Neurochick]

19 hours ago, Boilergal said:

I thought Naz's non-reaction to seeing Charlene's picture was interesting - I think most people would at least gasp and be at least a little horrified  - he was just meh and laid back down like he'd seen it 100 times before, no reaction at all.

I thought Naz did have a reaction, he looked at Charlene's uncle like, "I don't know how I should react to this nutcase showing me a picture of his niece's dead body."  Most people would gasp, but then again, most people wouldn't be in prison with a psychotic nutcase like Charlene's uncle.

Edited August 3, 2016 by Neurochick

[justjen]

I do hope the eczema stuff has a big pay off in the end though. I'm not sure what that could even possibly be, maybe it will be the first Skin Condition TO Win An Emmy.

[Milburn Stone]

Glenne Headly is so good in this, and in the last many years she's been given so few opportunities in TV and film to show how good she can be. (She's had roles, but they've been "nothing" characters; the last time I can remember a part that gave her something to play, it was Mortal Thoughts with Demi Moore in 1991.) I hope we haven't seen the last of her in this.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[bagatelle]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

Glenne Headly is so good in this, and in the last many years she's been given so few opportunities in TV and film to show how good she can be. (She's had roles, but they've been "nothing" characters; the last time I can remember a part that gave her something to play, it was Mortal Thoughts with Demi Moore in 1991.) I hope we haven't seen the last of her in this.

She is good. She's cold and completely uncaring, a huge contrast with Stone. Headly is very believable.

[kay1864]

On 8/1/2016 at 6:30 PM, Ellaria Sand said:

I would like less time spent on eczema and more time spent on the actual murder.

This.  It's The Night Of, not The Feet Of.

 

On 8/2/2016 at 0:51 AM, The Hound Lives said:

Back to the show, kind of wondering why we haven't seen the stare-down friend since episode 1. The guy with the lingering stare at Naz/Andrea on that fateful night. 

Wait, when was this in the episode?  One of the two guys making the Muslim remarks?

 

On 8/4/2016 at 7:43 AM, justjen said:

I do hope the eczema stuff has a big pay off in the end though. I'm not sure what that could even possibly be, maybe it will be the first Skin Condition TO Win An Emmy.

"I'm so honored to be included in this august group of players, Psoriasis, Rash, Zits--you guys were amazing.  And I couldn't have done it without everybody at the epidermis, thank you so so much!"

[Milburn Stone]

The feet stuff is gross, but I think it's necessary. Stone's Job-like suffering makes him all the more lonely a figure, all the more desperate for human connection. This show is so much more than a mystery in search of resolution. It's that, but more than that. It's a lens on the sadness and terror of life.

[The Hound Lives]

3 hours ago, kay1864 said:

Wait, when was this in the episode?  One of the two guys making the Muslim remarks?

Yes...the guys walking down the street as Andrea and Naz walked to her place. I don't think it is the last we have seen of him, especially since his friend (Trevor), when questioned by Box, said he was alone when he saw Naz/Andrea. 
This is what just drives me nuts. Nobody has asked Naz the details. Who he saw or encountered or Andrea's demeanor that night. Naz has no idea what significance any of this could play, he hasn't even questioned who else could've committed the crime. That is why I am hopeful that someone, maybe Chandra or Stone, will get every last bit of information out of him and dissect the details. Every moment is so crucial to trial, if we are going to get there.

On a speculation note,

Spoiler

I don't think Crowe quitting is the last we will see of her. Glenna Headley is supposed to be in more episodes. Thoughts are swirling that John takes the case, really digs and figures out so much more than expected. His pieces things together, finds the slam dunk to clear Naz and Allison swoops in at the 11th hour to take things back. Therefor, credit returns into her fold. That would be so friggin' bittersweet. Happy for Naz. Sad for John and the work and recognition he craved, gone in a flash. 

[Joimiaroxeu]

Ditto comments upthread, is/was that guy helping Naz a plant? I'm having a hard time understanding why he would risk his own safety to help Naz. Other than his being completely off his rocker, that is.

Um, re the scene with the hooker, is eczema contagious and if so, can it get in the lady parts?

Odd cameo by Fisher Stevens as the  pharmacist. Oy, he's not aging well.

[lazylou]

Like everyone else I am bewildered by Charlotte's Uncle and by Headly's character.  I am getting tired of the eczema... but on the other hand the view of the medical establishment is pretty interesting, though whether it equals or exceeds the dysfunction of the criminal justice system is another question.

What I like about the show is its revelations about the criminal justice system in the US... the cronyism between the precinct cops,  the judges, the prosecutors, and the John Stones of the world...  the difficulty of navigating the bureaucracy (the confiscation of the taxi cab and the brother's computer, the school principal and her 'hire a tutor') and the look at the overcrowded jail conditions and the corruption of the guards at Riker's...

The show is dark in every way imaginable. John Stone may not exactly be an anti-hero, but he is the opposite of the ordinary lawyer in a TV procedural.  Naz is like the ugly cat he can't abandon, and he and possibly Chandra are Naz's only hope.

I have not seen the British version, but presumably some things would have to change because of the differences in the two systems.  

Edited August 6, 2016 by lazylou
misspelling

[AuntiePam]

8 hours ago, lazylou said:

I have not seen the British version, but presumably some things would have to change because of the differences in the two systems.  

I just finished an interesting book about the history of the trial system in the US and western Europe.  At the time it was written (2003), there was no such thing as double jeopardy in Britain.  So if a jury finds you Not Guilty and some more evidence turns up a few years later, you can be retried for the same crime.  (!)  Another interesting difference is that in the US, a judge will instruct a jury that they shouldn't make any inferences from a defendant's refusal to testify -- that's not the case in the UK.  A jury is free to think that a silent defendant is hiding something.  In practice, US juries probably think the same thing, even though they're told not to.  

Back on topic:  joimiaroxeu, eczema isn't contagious.  I think John mentioned this to someone in an early episode.

[Gobi]

In Scotland, they have (or used to have) a verdict of "Not Proven". It meant: yeah we think you did it,  but there wasn't enough proof.

[Happytobehere]

On August 1, 2016 at 0:17 PM, izabella said:

Thank you, everyone, for explaining the files to me! 

Last note on the files, I laughed when Stone added an upcharge to the fee for getting the files - that guy charged him $350 and he told Chandra it would be $500 for him to hand them over.

But didn't the guy also take Stone's cellphone? So the $500 would cover the cost of the $350 plus a new phone.

[Bcharmer]

Stone got his phone back, with the photos of the files on it.