S01.E06: Samson and Delilah

[Misstify]

On 8/17/2016 at 0:17 PM, Marianne said:

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.

Maybe.  But I think it was implied that the house was still in probate.  When Stone looked up the house's ownership, I thought it said Andrea's mother's name and "probate".  Meaning there is a court battle going on about the inheritance.  The remark by the financial advisor, "Andrea said no way", I took to mean Andrea is fighting her stepdad in probate court about the inheritance.  They didn't explain it well, for sure.  But if the house is still in probate, I don't think Andrea owns it or that it would pass on to her beneficiaries in the case of her death.  In fact, she can't make any changes to the house, or change the locks.  (Probably isn't supposed to be living there, either, but I don't know).  **Maybe they will explain this later.  I realize I'm the only person in the world who hasn't seen the whole show yet and am commenting to air.  I can't help it.

[Concerned citizen]

Stone and partner NEVER brainstorm the case!!! Y???? They act like they don't care about the blood on the outside back gate? IDK... I just think it's poorly written or we are supposed to assume they are terrible lawyers??

[Concerned citizen]

On 8/15/2016 at 5:31 PM, AuntiePam said:

I like the idea of a camera in the deer head, but even if there isn't, it seems like there should be more video surveillance in high-end neighborhoods like Andrea's. 

The pacing/structure of this series has been quite different from what we're accustomed to.  There have been so many quick shots, blended with long scenes that don't seem to mean much until later on.  I think when it's over, we'll be satisfied that we've seen something different, but worth our time.  But I hope there aren't a bunch of copycats, because it's discomfiting and jangly, not being able to figure out what's going on.  Not to mention watching the "experts" who don't seem to be doing a very good job. 

U agree with you but hear me out: the way we have to assume the lawyers on his behalf are just terrible in that they never brainstorm talk about reasonable doubt or the fact that he didn't do it really stinks it's poorly written I think. He never up to the sixth episode witch is where I am at, explains the roulette with the knife or the reason he came back n picked it up??! Ugh!! What a night are!! Please explain yourself sir!!