S01.E06: Samson and Delilah

[Neurochick]

9 minutes ago, Magic said:

Chandra is getting some pretty sloppy treatment, she looks pretty inept in many instances, which you wouldn't expect from someone hired by Allison.  And from one I can tell of all these famewhore lawyers, are they really going to give up on being in the limelight for a high profile case like this and put an ineffective lawyer in charge, when it is their firm that is going to get the bad PR? 

My impression of Allison is that she kind of gave the case to Chandra because Naz would not take the plea.  Allison didn't want to be on the wrong side of the cameras. 

[iMonrey]

Quote

Also if this trial is so big that Nancy Grace is covering it... why was Chandra worried about undertaker guy having her card. Obviously wouldn't be too hard to find her. Likely she would have been on TV one or two times if just leaving the courthouse.

I think the show made a mistake in portraying this crime as a major media event. There are too many missing pieces and too many late discoveries of evidence and clues for a case that's supposed to be such a big deal on TV. It makes me wonder if it was like that in the original BBC version, or if it's something the American producers decided to add to make it quintessentially more American. I think the lack of basic info would be more believable if we weren't constantly being shown pundits and newscasters talking about the case on TV in every episode.

I'm also bored with the journey of "jail hardens innocent youth" because it's a stale story I've seen over and over since it happened to Eleanor Parker in Caged back in 1950. There isn't anything new or fresh about this story. 

I also think "criminal justice system flawed - innocent people shafted" isn't particularly original or eye-opening either. There's already a glut of law and order stories on TV.

The thing that made the pilot so gripping was the linear, moment-by-moment unfolding of the events "the night of." Since then it's devolved into a mediocre rehash of too-familiar themes used as a backdrop for tedious character study.

The last 2 episodes are going to be make or break.

[ganesh]

I could buy a little that in the Trump-climate, a "foreign muslim" like Naz (which I know he's not, but outlets like Fox News would play that angle), might make the news in light of Trump wanting to 'extreme vet' people coming into the USA. I don't know how they could have predicted that when the show was being made. 

I don't know that this case would warrant ongoing national coverage though. If that were the case, then the news would be publishing all sorts of information about both Andrea and Naz, and the connection with the house would have come up a long time ago. Given our trash-whore kardashian tv mentality, someone would have been on tv peddling a story about either of them with some sordid story or another. 

[guilfoyleatpp]

Yes, to the ponderers of the Nancy Grace storyline.

She's a silver spoon born, Manhattanite, junkie who has been in rehab, paid for by her parents, living in a super sought after unconverted brownstone by herself. Anyone poking around could probably find out she rubbed elbows at one time or another with a glitterati or a hanger-on...if not at school or getting high, then in rehab perhaps. 

What part of those salacious details would not have made it into some tabloid somewhere?

Sure, Naz is the son of a struggling cab driver from Pakistan, but that only goes so far once there's no ties to anything more interesting.

I feel like this is a problem with the storyline also.

[Gobi]

Exactly. And the guy from the rehab center would have been more than happy to sell the records to a tabloid.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Drogo
Removed blank quote.

[BooBear]

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

It makes me wonder if it was like that in the original BBC version, or if it's something the American producers decided to add to make it quintessentially more American. I think the lack of basic info would be more believable if we weren't constantly being shown pundits and newscasters talking about the case on TV in every episode.

I have been giving the show a BIT of a slack because I suspect they are trying to shoe horn the BBC version and a lot of the issues are due to that.  First, I am a little dubious that Naz doesn't qualify for counsel. If he is a student he has no money. They cannot consider his parent's wealth. You might say well a Public Defender wouldn't do a good job but so far, not sure it would be any worse that what he has now.  I was confused by Allison dropping the case when he wouldn't plea. No high profile lawyer goes into one of these cases to "plea" -- they go into it to "win" the unwinnable and with their clout and money, they do, and that brings the big fish to their firms who can pay. So I never understood Allison bailing (that has to be an English thing). Not to mention that Chandra would stink up their firm rep (which was mentioned above).  Finally if you can show that your are unable to afford a needed expert you can ask the State to pay, and they do. Out of the defender funds. In fact they can also get investigators. 

On the prison side of it.. I can't believe that the first time Naz was burned his lawyer wouldn't have a hearing immediately to get him out on bail (there is GPS and electronic monitoring) and or moved to another facility. States do have agreements with places that are NOT prisons that can hold people. Medical facilities. 

I know the show seems to want to have a thesis that criminal justice is horrible but, not quite buying it because of all the legal errors and also Naz not exactly being too innocent anymore. I do wonder if it will turn out that he did do it because there have been many hints that he has a bit of a bad side and the fact that he is walking around with a shaved head, tattos everyplace, doing drugs and hitting on his lawyer.. makes me think he has a bite to him, even if later they suggest he was innocent.

[scrb]

When Stone surmised that the brownstone was worth $10 million, Frederick Eklund would have said it's way too much, hasn't been renovated, plus it's a crime scene.

Frederick would have told them to get rid of the deer head too.

Edited August 17, 2016 by scrb

[humbleopinion]

Freddy=Chalky=Michael K. Williams has a show on Viceland called Black Market.

Dude is booked solid.

[ganesh]

Let's not forget Omar. Get there early.

2 hours ago, BooBear said:

No high profile lawyer goes into one of these cases to "plea" -- they go into it to "win" the unwinnable and with their clout and money, they do, and that brings the big fish to their firms who can pay.

We really don't know anything about the lawyer. I guess one could argue getting the plea shows off how she can negotiate, but she still was negotiating a guilty plea and jail time. So I don't get how any big fish would be impressed by that. 

This goes back to my earlier musing. We shouldn't even really be seeing much of the lawyers, DA, cops, etc., and just view everything from Naz's pov and his family. They've shown just enough that we're pointing out obvious things that don't make sense. 

I think it's more of a story that Naz didn't do it though. He's actually innocent, will be found not guilty, no one will believe him, and his family is ruined. That's a good story for me. 

If he did do it, then eh. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[CouchTater]

Getting back to the scene with Naz watching the guy get a bj, Naz sure did linger a long time.  He seemed interested to me.  He had to be "scared away" by scary bj recipient's scary look.

Another new side to Prison Naz?

Edited August 17, 2016 by CouchTater

[Brooklynista]

1 minute ago, CouchTater said:

Getting back to the scene with Naz watching the guy get a bj, Naz sure did linger a long time.  He seemed interested to me.  He had to be "scared away" by scary bj recipient's scary look.

Another new side to Prison Naz?

Almost like he wanted to be next up?

[CouchTater]

1 minute ago, Brooklynista said:

Almost like he wanted to be next up?

Yup.  I wonder if he's one of those people who can morph into whatever the situation calls for:  good son, partier, prison tough, etc.  He seems pretty pliable. 

[Refresh]

19 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I think the show made a mistake in portraying this crime as a major media event. There are too many missing pieces and too many late discoveries of evidence and clues for a case that's supposed to be such a big deal on TV. It makes me wonder if it was like that in the original BBC version, or if it's something the American producers decided to add to make it quintessentially more American. I think the lack of basic info would be more believable if we weren't constantly being shown pundits and newscasters talking about the case on TV in every episode.

Yes to this. And then there are little details like if this was getting National media, there would be interest in having reporters in the courtroom. Now, the judge may have closed the courtroom to media, but then there would be media outside the building right? That happens. But there doesn't seem to be. It's a detail just to be a detail. Or it's to be expository - but that's clunky too.  I'm still hanging in with this show but I don't know.

It's reminding me of some recent films (Imitation Game is one example) that are a series of events rather than being a story. They look good, there is good acting, but they leave me kind of wanting.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Refresh
grammar, are/is

[Noirprncess]

I think the ENTIRE point of Allison treating Chandra like a glorified gofer was because didn't she believe in her ability to perform as a lawyer.  So once Naz chose to disregard her "instructions", she couldn't easily drop him as a client without looking like the asshole the audience knows she is, she did the next best thing, pawn him off on a inexperienced lawyer AND cut her budget/resources.  This effectively set up an overwhelmed lawyer trying to do everything on her own and perhaps missing major sections in her evidence gathering.

John Stone is working as the investigator here without the typical resources associated with a large boutique firm.  I can identify with them looking at many possibilities without considering the financial angle.  Mainly because it could be more conspiracy theory than plausible IF you just consider is a "rich" girl with a serous drug problem.  It's not much of a leap to consider them putting more energy into her potential drug (read criminal) friends as plausible suspects than other wealthy people killing for money.  

The police (and DA) sadly are doing what we've come to see play over and over again in real life.  They aren't looking for the truth, just someone that can fit the "circumstances" they build.  That's exactly why exhonorating evidence has been found in a number of cases within the police evidence itself in RL cases.  With the DA, they may select evidence that fits their "story" and leave the so called outliers alone.  

I do think Naz's dad likely selected a job away from his area in the hopes of avoiding people he knew.  

[BooBear]

2 hours ago, Noirprncess said:

I think the ENTIRE point of Allison treating Chandra like a glorified gofer was because didn't she believe in her ability to perform as a lawyer.  So once Naz chose to disregard her "instructions", she couldn't easily drop him as a client without looking like the asshole the audience knows she is, she did the next best thing, pawn him off on a inexperienced lawyer AND cut her budget/resources.  This effectively set up an overwhelmed lawyer trying to do everything on her own and perhaps missing major sections in her evidence gathering.

But the press / legal community will not see that. When Chandra loses and stinks up the place.. people will hear that Big Firm, Big FIrm and Big Firm.. represented Naz.  The loss will be a stain on the big firm. Why would any firm do that?  I see it as similar to OJ. The people that came into that case came in to win the unwinnable and quickly told Shapiro that a plea was not in the cards.   I don't even buy that the firm would give Chandra any money to hire Stone.  So they get the worst of all worlds... they pay money and get a bad loss.  If this was someone who had the money to sustain appeals for years.. (like OJ) maybe it would be worth it but they have no money.... what does the firm get?

And again, so clearly Naz would qualify for at least some resources on the state.

I do think that the prosecution does have an ethical obligation and maybe rules obligation to inform the defense of any exculpatory evidence they encounter. So I believe it is one of the reasons they tend not to look around at other possibilities. If they don't know about it, they aren't required to tell you about it. 

On the evidence we know about so far, I do think this case is winnable. For me it is the reasonable doubt that Naz had zero blood on him and it does appear there wasn't a trail of blood around the townhouse.  It is also lacking motive. All stone needs to do is present that evidence that step dad and Allison were fighting and well I wouldn't convict.

[clb1016]

33 minutes ago, BooBear said:

But the press / legal community will not see that. When Chandra loses and stinks up the place.. people will hear that Big Firm, Big FIrm and Big Firm.. represented Naz.  The loss will be a stain on the big firm. Why would any firm do that?  I see it as similar to OJ. The people that came into that case came in to win the unwinnable and quickly told Shapiro that a plea was not in the cards.   I don't even buy that the firm would give Chandra any money to hire Stone.  So they get the worst of all worlds... they pay money and get a bad loss.  If this was someone who had the money to sustain appeals for years.. (like OJ) maybe it would be worth it but they have no money.... what does the firm get?

I believe the firm is even called "Allison Crowe & Associates" so her name is all over this.  I agree with you that it never made sense for her to take the case and plead it out after just a couple of days, but someone else on this board argued that getting a 15 year sentence for what looks like a slam-dunk life imprisonment case would have been positive  publicity.

33 minutes ago, BooBear said:

I do think that the prosecution does have an ethical obligation and maybe rules obligation to inform the defense of any exculpatory evidence they encounter. So I believe it is one of the reasons they tend not to look around at other possibilities. If they don't know about it, they aren't required to tell you about it. 

Yes, they are legal required to turn over all evidence, exculpatory as well as inculpatory, as part of the discovery process so that the defense can prepare.  Convictions have been overturned because of prosecutors having withheld exculpatory evidence.

Edited August 17, 2016 by clb1016

[Gobi]

It did make sense for Crowe's firm to take this case and then plead it out. This looks like an unwinnable case for the defense, so the plea would have been seen as a win (and was by Stone, for example). Once Naz rejected the plea, she was stuck with the case. To get out would have  required a Motion to be Relieved as Counsel, and the reason "he wouldn't take the plea" isn't going to work. It also makes sense  to have Chandra try the case. It is quite common in law firms to pass off a loser trial onto a new associate. If Chandra loses, no one is surprised and she gets some valuable trial experience. If she wins, the firm gets to bask in the glory.

[clb1016]

Yes, it could ultimately work out to her benefit, but until the verdict comes in, wouldn't there be a lot of speculation and negative publicity attached to her walking away from the case and giving it to a junior associate?  Of course, this series can't seem to make up it's mind if this case is getting national media attention (Nancy Grace) or being completely ignored by the media (victim's financial status, drug use, love life).

[kieyra]

Hmm. Just noticed that the final episode is titled

Spoiler

"The Call of the Wild".

So I'm guessing we shouldn't hope too hard for subtlety. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by saoirse
Please spoiler tag future ep info

[numbnut]

22 hours ago, teddysmom said:

22 hours ago, A Boston Gal said:

Mickey with the stupid bowler hat and stupider laugh who wouldn't die no matter how much we all prayed for it? THAT Boardwalk Empire Mickey?

AND the author writing a book on the Underwoods and sleeping with Claire on House of Cards. 

Yep, that guy.  He's everywhere!!! 

Paul Sparks. He's also a skeevy boss in The Girlfriend Experience. He's great.

On 8/16/2016 at 6:17 AM, Happytobehere said:

As for Naz's attire and why Freddy failed to have him dress properly. Right after the scene with Chandra and Nazir's dad, we see that Feddy does in fact give Naz a new white shirt and tie. Naz returns them to Freddy because his mother is bringing him clothes.  Freddy tells Naz that his mother won't bring the right clothes, but Naz insists on going with what his mother will bring him.  Freddy them tells Naz that, "It's your funeral." So Freddy was on point and Naz was the screw-up in this matter.

Freddy's funeral line is not a good omen for Naz. It's like the mortuary guy's comment to Andrea. It would be depressing as hell if the show ended with the killer being found just as Naz is getting shanked.

Edited August 17, 2016 by numbnut

[Neurochick]

19 hours ago, iMonrey said:

I'm also bored with the journey of "jail hardens innocent youth" because it's a stale story I've seen over and over since it happened to Eleanor Parker in Caged back in 1950. There isn't anything new or fresh about this story. 

But not everybody has seen as much TV or as many movies as many of us here, to them this might be new. 

[Superpole2000]

On 8/15/2016 at 9:07 PM, kieyra said:

Did anyone ever question why he wasn't covered in blood, or check the bathroom?

I have been nodding my head while reading this thread, but this comment hit on the one thing that bugs me the most about this show. Why didn't Naz have more blood on him? Does everyone think Naz showered? Do they think Naz was able to slash someone and not get covered in blood? Can we hear just one character on the show talk about this? If we have time to document eczema and cat allergies then we have time to show what people think about the actual evidence...all of the evidence.

[ganesh]

3 hours ago, clb1016 said:

Yes, it could ultimately work out to her benefit, but until the verdict comes in, wouldn't there be a lot of speculation and negative publicity attached to her walking away from the case and giving it to a junior associate?  Of course, this series can't seem to make up it's mind if this case is getting national media attention (Nancy Grace) or being completely ignored by the media (victim's financial status, drug use, love life).

There's a problem there. If the case is on the news as it's been shown, then the high powered lawyer quitting would be a big story, and people in the news/social media would probably be thinking Naz did it, and it's unwinnable. Which would have made jury selection much more difficult, but they glossed over that. 

There's no real in between here. If this is a big murder case, then it's literally all over the place, and there's things we'd expect to see as a result. Look at something like Serial. 

Actually if Naz got convicted, doing a follow up from the point of view of a Serial-type podcast would be kind of interesting, since it seems like the glaringly obvious questions about the evidence aren't being addressed. 

I find Naz's seeming nonchalance about the literal fate of his life to be weird too. I'd be talking to the lawyers like everyday if I didn't do it. Like, he hasn't even said that was the knife they used to cut limes. Or that he wasn't covered in blood. I'd be talking nonstop from the start. Writing down whatever I remembered.

[Marianne]

On 8/15/2016 at 11:48 AM, AuntiePam said:

Is it clear that the stepdad inherits if Andrea dies?  If Andrea's mother left everything to Andrea, and nothing for the stepfather, then wouldn't the estate go to other relatives, not the stepdad? 

This aspect of the plot and dialogue bothered me.  The CPA implied that after the mother's death the stepfather was depending on Andrea to give him a share of the estate, and that when she didn't, he harbored a grudge.  In fact, wouldn't it be that either the mother left her husband a share of her estate, or, if he were disinherited, he had the legal right to a forced spousal share?  (I don't know if in New York it would be one-half--possibly one-third.)  The daughter's agreement or not would be irrelevant. The husband would take the share unless there had been a pre-nuptial agreement or perhaps if the daughter or some other heir showed that the husband had abandoned or abused or even killed the mom.  Anyway, he would have gotten something without him having to get Andrea to agree to it.  Then, the rest of the estate would pass under the mother's will to those beneficiaries (probably Andrea),  or if she had no will the rest would all go to Andrea.  Then when Andrea died, her estate would either pass under Andrea's will to whomever were her beneficiaries or to her intestate heirs, who would be blood relatives that don't include the stepfather.  So there!  Phew!  

But I guess the bottom line still could be that the stepfather was not at all satisfied with whatever he got and he harbored a murderous resentment against Andrea.  

[formerlyfreedom]

On 8/15/2016 at 7:30 AM, saoirse said:

Please remember to stick to episode discussion, and spoiler tag anything from previews or future episode descriptions. Thank you!

A second reminder. Any further posts that contain info from future episodes may be deleted and/or posters warned. Thank you.

[BooBear]

4 hours ago, Gobi said:

(and was by Stone, for example). Once Naz rejected the plea, she was stuck with the case.

I thought Stone was just saying that so Naz would take the plea because at that point it seemed like the best option for Naz.

Quote

There's a problem there. If the case is on the news as it's been shown, then the high powered lawyer quitting would be a big story, and people in the news/social media would probably be thinking Naz did it, and it's unwinnable. Which would have made jury selection much more difficult, but they glossed over that. 

Yes that was one reason Kardashian gave for why he couldn't leave the dream team.  It would have appeared very bad for OJ.

Quote

I find Naz's seeming nonchalance about the literal fate of his life to be weird too.

Another reason I am concerned they will have him be the killer. I would like to know what is with the flashbacks he keeps having that don't really help the audience see anything.  Though my experience is that often counsel do not keep their client apprised of what is happening and reject phone calls from the prison (they come up with a code)  so Naz may have no idea what is happening and not a lot of opportunity to vent.

[iMonrey]

Quote

And then there are little details like if this was getting National media, there would be interest in having reporters in the courtroom. 

Not only that, but tabloid journalists would be pulling everyone Naz ever knew in his life out of the woodwork to interview them. And that would include the basketball players he was tutoring who could verify he was invited to a party that night and that's where he was going. So - no premeditation. And a nice character reference for Naz to boot. 

[Superpole2000]

1 hour ago, ganesh said:

I find Naz's seeming nonchalance about the literal fate of his life to be weird too. I'd be talking to the lawyers like everyday if I didn't do it. Like, he hasn't even said that was the knife they used to cut limes. Or that he wasn't covered in blood. I'd be talking nonstop from the start. Writing down whatever I remembered.

And you probably wouldn't be tattooing sin and bad on your fingers! This guy is acting as if he has been convicted, and his trial has only just begun. You know what a jury isn't going to do? Acquit the guy who tattooed sin and bad on his fingers right after the crime was committed.

Of course, it is possible that Naz actually prefers his life in prison to the life he had outside of prison.

Edited August 17, 2016 by Superpole2000

[AuntiePam]

10 minutes ago, Superpole2000 said:

Of course, it is possible that Naz actually prefers his life in prison to the life he had outside of prison.

Looks like we're being led in that direction.  Freddy asked him about his life, if he was happy.  Naz is certainly getting more attention at Rikers than he did outside -- not all of it good -- but for some people, any attention is better than none.  In prison, he's special to someone, and he has some power, even if it's secondhand power.  His prison life is certainly more eventful than it was on the outside. 

[Haiti D]

I hope it's not the case that Nas is already becoming institutionalized after less than 6 months at Rikers.  That would be hard to swallow.  He was probably just a regular guy on the outside, but I hope he's smart enough to know that there is no future for him being locked away.    I

It would be important to know what Freddy's true motive is, and whether he thinks Nas will be let free.  If Freddy thinks Nas will be a lifer, does he want him to stay simply to be an intellectual companion?  If Freddy thinks Nas will be let go, will he be using Nas as an outside resource?

I foresee if the trial goes towards Nas' favor, Allison Crowe will swoop in and try to claim the victory.  

[ganesh]

36 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Not only that, but tabloid journalists would be pulling everyone Naz ever knew in his life out of the woodwork to interview them.

The kid who got pushed down the stairs would have sold that story to TMZ 4 months ago. 

38 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

And that would include the basketball players he was tutoring who could verify he was invited to a party that night and that's where he was going.

Wouldn't/shouldn't his story about going to the party be verified by someone anyway? The DA is all going, 'premeditation' like it's so obvious. That seems like it could easily be disproven. 

I didn't get the impression that Naz wasn't liking his "normal" life prior to the murder. His family life looked ok, and he was being invited to parties. I would have thought if there was underlying issues that it would have surfaced when he was getting drunk with Andrea. Typically, it's a fair tv-exposition tool. 

[lazylou]

On August 16, 2016 at 9:40 AM, A Boston Gal said:

You think he knows Naz is under Chalky White's protection?

Or is it Omar?

My big problem with the series (I am a big Richard Price fan) is that the story of the trial seems to be moving way too fast...surely months would go by between entering the plea and empaneling the jury, but both defense and prosecution seem to be moving as though only a few weeks are involved, while the scenes in Rikers suggest months have passed.  So the cab is impounded for months, the brother is suspended permanently from school, but the seemingly underemployed defense attorneys do almost nothing that entire time?

Also, I dislike all the scenes that are dropped.  How many bags of cocaine were there? (or was it heroin?)  What happened when Stone chased Dwayne Reed into wherever that was?   What was the favor mentioned on Facebook?  And I am sure there are others. 

[The Hound Lives]

1 hour ago, lazylou said:

 What was the favor mentioned on Facebook? 

I am interested in the answers to all the things left hanging, hope it comes full circle but this statement stands out. I mentioned it before and this just sort of brought it back that Naz 

Spoiler

deals in pills. Adderall to be exact. He's a "life saver", a "true friend". Of course, this could mean anything but I can't shake that on the outside he wasn't some total innocent. I don't think he was a bad kid by any means. Just got mixed up in shit he shouldn't had to fit in or felt he needed to, to financially help his family or himself. It just wouldn't be shocking. 

No matter if that is even close to what it means, I still don't think he is a killer. The lack of blood, the knife on the table...I just don't buy it. I am hoping that the flashbacks we are seeing, via Naz, don't end in the final episode where it comes to him that 

Spoiler

he did kill her. The pieces come together and we see it through his eyes. Right now, I really think he doesn't know. 

[Portia]

Hm, I just assumed that the jocks were grateful for the tutoring help Naz gave them. Their eligibility to play is no doubt linked to grades.

[ganesh]

Naz could have also been taking their tests for them and writing their papers and just putting their names on the assignments. That's not unheard of. One of the players was like, "why would I take my books home for the weekend?"

[lazylou]

My oldest son's best friend was hired as a math tutor for the university football team.  It was a job, he was paid for it, and though he did meet and got to know the players, some of whom later played for the NFL, I think he was seen strictly as hired staff.  I assumed Naz's job was of that nature, since he and his friend seemed surprised to be invited to a party by a team member.  Of course they may have thanked him on Facebook...very possible.

[The Hound Lives]

On 8/17/2016 at 6:22 PM, Portia said:

Hm, I just assumed that the jocks were grateful for the tutoring help Naz gave them. Their eligibility to play is no doubt linked to grades.

Certainly a possibility, though it seemed like a mixed bag of people thanking him (not just jock types). It seems like everything Box digs up paints Naz in a guiltier light. I would like for once, his investigation shows that Naz was/is a good kid. Maybe Box can interview someone Naz tutors and we can hear he was "so helpful" or "really nice", instead of the only people saying what a good kid he is, are his parents. There has to be a character witness or two, maybe a Professor or Employer, who can echo his parents sentiments that Naz is a good guy. The incident when in high school is horrifying but I don't think this means he is a killer. Excuses can be made but middle school to high school is an emotional mess for a lot of kids. Add into that, a Muslim in a pre-9/11 NYC. Doesn't mean what he did to his classmate was okay but I know (sure we all do) quite a few kids I went to school with who were in constant trouble, fighting and getting suspended that became well-adjusted, responsible adults. 
 
We are seeing a darkness emerge in Naz while in jail and while I do lay a lot of the blame for that on circumstances (and the will to survive), abandoning the scared as shit young man from episode one seems sudden. I have no doubt months have past but its as if his will to fight is gone and Rikers is his new reality and he doesn't see beyond it. 

Edited August 19, 2016 by The Hound Lives
Adding to my thought

[SharonH58]

I'm only here for the cat!  

[BetyBee]

I'm just not sure about the writing with this story.  It seems to me that now that the trial is going on, we should see Chandra & John meeting with Nas more. They certainly would advise him against the tattoos on his fingers!  John would have told Nasir's parents that he needs a white shirt.  And I can't believe they would have time to continue investigating while the trial is going on.  I would expect his lawyers to come up with alternate theories of the crime, but not to be out investigating them during the trial.  It just seems choppy.  They could certainly have cut the ridiculous/disgusting scene of cleaning the cat box on the kitchen counter, which no one in their right mind would ever do and focused more on the relationship between the lawyers and their client, imo.  

I'm glad John's eczema magically cleared up, but I suspect it will return just as quickly.  He's a bit of a sad sack.  

 

[ganesh]

22 hours ago, The Hound Lives said:

Maybe Box can interview someone Naz tutors and we can hear he was "so helpful" or "really nice", instead of the only people saying what a good kid he is, are his parents.

It seemed like there's other people to talk to from his Facebook. But who knows by this point.

What about Naz's boss? 

[Negritude]

On Monday, August 15, 2016 at 7:35 AM, preeya said:

As I've stated previously, I've been an eczema sufferer for most of my life (still are). Just wondering if a trip to Chinatown is in the offing. Anyone with real life knowledge, jump in here.

Same here...I'm in Sacramento and I am just about to ease on down the road to SF's Chinatown to get my own ancient Chinese remedy.

[Gobi]

They could have called this show "The Agony and the Eczema".

[preeya]

18 minutes ago, Gobi said:

They could have called this show "The Agony and the Eczema".

Yep, but I cannot fathom why an eczema condition became such a focal point of a crime show. I also cannot picture James Gandolfini playing Turturro's part.

[Gobi]

One of my fears is that the killer will be a member of Stone's eczema support  group. I really, really hope that doesn't  happen.  

[preeya]

4 hours ago, Gobi said:

One of my fears is that the killer will be a member of Stone's eczema support  group. I really, really hope that doesn't  happen.  

That would be one of the worst things that could happen. 

[kieyra]

John Stone and his eczema (and the cat) all turn out to exist only in Naz's mind.

[SuzWhat]

On 8/16/2016 at 11:35 AM, teddysmom said:

AND the author writing a book on the Underwoods and sleeping with Claire on House of Cards. 

Yep, that guy.  He's everywhere!!! 

He is also on The Girlfriend Experience.   Fine as frog's hair. 

[humbleopinion]

I will flip a table if the kitty shakes a snow globe with a Duane Reade store behind a NYC skyline is the last frame.

[candall]

On ‎8‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 9:35 AM, preeya said:

As I've stated previously, I've been an eczema sufferer for most of my life (still are). Just wondering if a trip to Chinatown is in the offing. Anyone with real life knowledge, jump in here.

Couldn't hurt to check it out--it's been around a few thousand years, plus it's just plain fascinating.  Sometimes you get a mysterious baggie full of mixed dried herbs for tea and sometimes you walk out with 1000 tiny black pills, like BB's, with instructions to swallow 35 of them in the morning and 22 at night.

 

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 2:18 AM, MyPeopleAreNordic said:

So....are we just to assume that Stone gave up while chasing Duane Reed at the end of the last episode and went home?

Ha!  I completely forgot about that.  Cliffhanger resolution fail.

 

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 8:53 AM, teddysmom said:

Agree in hindsight the cops/DA should have looked into the stepfather, but they had a guy who was there, partied and had sex with the vic, cuts on his hand, to them he's their guy.  

NYPD isn't Columbo, they get a suspect, the ADA says she can build the case on him on the evidence, they aren't going to snoop around looking for someone else. 

I don't think anyone has mentioned that the DA risks weakening their own case if they keep investigating.  They're required to turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense, so the policy is pretty much "quit while you're ahead."

 

On ‎8‎/‎16‎/‎2016 at 9:04 AM, kieyra said:

 I understand that the gov't side probably doesn't have the resources to chase other leads, because bureaucracy. 

In my 20's, I was a Public Defender in a medium-size city and the prosecutor had a budget many times the size of ours, not to mention the entire police force at their disposal.  My whole office had one overworked investigator (who was burned out and so not even that passionate about her job.)  Frustration flashback.

Naz's phone call to Chandra made me very uncomfortable.  I was working pre-cellphone era, but about the LAST thing I would have wanted was midnight calls from my incarcerated clients.  There was way too much casual "heeey, baby" crap in the first place.

************

Failing to "follow the money" until the last minute is such a huge goof it casts a pall on the writing for the whole plot.  And then there are sketchy bits like the finger tattoos (seriously?) and the jury seeing Naz half-dressed in the course of getting a clothing upgrade.  Stone thinks a non-white shirt is more damaging than a jury recognizing that their impression of the defendant is being manipulated?

Edited August 27, 2016 by candall

[candle96]

On August 16, 2016 at 7:22 AM, stagmania said:

That scene was just poorly staged. The contrivance is too much to begin with-it doesn't make much sense that Chandra, a lawyer at a fancy Manhattan firm, would live in Jackson Heights, nor that Naz's father would be delivering food for a restaurant in a neighborhood far from home. Put that on top of the astronomically low odds of him being her delivery guy even if the neighborhoods matched up, given just how many restaurants and residents there are in this city-I rolled my eyes. Then the way it played out was so confusing that a lot of people didn't even realize who he was or what Chandra was doing. This show doesn't do well with the details.

ITA.

Also, where did Naz's father get another car to be a delivery person? Wasn't the cab their only car? My other 2016 thought (I know this is takes place in 2014 but still), is that if they have another car, why isn't he doing Uber? Dumb thoughts, but when shows whiff on details like this, it drives me crazy.