S01.E07: Ordinary Death

[Uncle JUICE]

At this point, we're now talking about a much better but not as great as it started out version of The Killing. This show is the classic example of less than the sum of its parts. Why exactly did Freddy have to kill that guy, because he was gay with the other guy? I missed something. 

[clb1016]

Petey's mother was Freddy's drug mule.  After Petey's suicide, she had no reason to visit Riker's (and deliver drugs) which cut off Freddy's supply.

Edited August 22, 2016 by clb1016

[Uncle JUICE]

That part I got, but why kill the other guy?

[guilfoyleatpp]

10 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

At this point, we're now talking about a much better but not as great as it started out version of The Killing. This show is the classic example of less than the sum of its parts. Why exactly did Freddy have to kill that guy, because he was gay with the other guy? I missed something. 

What clb1016 said. And the murdered guy cost Freddy money by sexually abusing one of his connections.

There are a lot of places this could go, but when Mr. Guilfoyle saw Detective Box and the inhaler he was very excited (he's been in and out and didn't see that scene in the first couple of episodes). 

"They have to throw all that evidence out immediately! He's as good as done."

I do think that none of these little mistakes are a smoking gun to acquittal, not if we're doing real life at least.  The kiss, the weird testimony about the knife, Chandra's somewhat ineptness...although those of us into crime drama might be very excited about such mistakes, I understand IRL that they're not given so much weight except under extraordinary circumstances or after years and years of appeal. 

[humbleopinion]

The guy who got his carotid artery opened while watching TV by Freddy  was forcing Petey to give him blow jobs and presumedly that is why Petey commited suicide.

Petey couldn't tell Freddy and Nas didn't tell Freddy so that was the only way Petey could escape having to service the guy.

Edited August 22, 2016 by humbleopinion
more info

[clb1016]

His abuse and victimization of Petey caused Petey to commit suicide.

[Uncle JUICE]

That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying. I guess I didn't pick up on the whole victimizing part, I thought they were both consenting. Granted I've been sort of in and out on the details of the prison adventures, because I think they have too much story to tell in not enough time there. 

[kieyra]

6 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

That part I got, but why kill the other guy?

I think other people have spelled out half of it, but the other half is that the kid was under Freddy's protection. The kid's (mom? wife?) was smuggling the stuff in to make sure he stayed protected. So not only did the rapist cut off Freddy's drug supply, he undermined his protection racket. That's why the rapist told Naz not to say anything when he first saw them together. 

[Neurochick]

I think this show is really about the people involved in the criminal justice system.  This isn't Law and Order (and it was funny that Stone was asked, 'is this for Law & Order?  As if Law & Order has become reality).  This is a system where people are tired and overworked.  The police didn't take Naz to the hospital; if they thought he was intoxicated, that's what they should have done.  No one has asked why there was no blood on Naz.  And finally, Box.  He removed a piece of evidence from the crime scene, a no no.  Box said he did it because Naz needed his inhaler, but removing it from the scene could change a picture of Naz, meaning if he could hardly breathe, how could he have stabbed the woman so vigorously.  All of these people are exhausted, and taking the path of least resistance; I mean Box just wants to retire, so maybe he missed stuff because he's just sick of the job.  It's like none of them are doing their best.

Stone, on the other hand, is plagued by eczema and allergies.  But despite that, he's out there trying to do his best. 

The reason the adderall was brought up, was to show the jury that Naz isn't some innocent, wide eyed, college kid, that he's a drug dealer who cheated a friend, and who is capable of violence.

I even understood the kiss; though it wasn't smart, I got it.  Everybody in this show is isolated from other people, in one way or another.  That's why Stone doesn't want to get rid of the cat, even though the cat makes him sick, he doesn't want to get rid of a living, breathing being.  Stone is divorced, his son acts like he doesn't want to be bothered with him (he's a teenager); Chandra broke up with her boyfriend, she's the low man on the totem pole in an upscale law firm; and Naz is isolated from his family, I mean his own mother is questioning his innocence.  That shocked me. 

[clb1016]

49 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Is the defense not allowed to question prosecution witnesses prior to the trial?   How does Chandra keep asking questions she doesn't know the answer to? Why didn't she or John go talk to the coach?  

More maddening to me is that the defense doesn't seem to have done any witness prep with their own client.  After they learned of the first school incident, why didn't they ask him if there was anything else in his background that could be used against him?  His physical appearance in court (clothing, haircut, tats) won't ingratiate him with the jury.  Their only contact with their client outside of the courtroom seems to consist of Chandra telling Naz "I believe in you" (and, of course, the makeup session).

[Uncle JUICE]

1 minute ago, Neurochick said:

 

The reason the adderall was brought up, was to show the jury that Naz isn't some innocent, wide eyed, college kid, that he's a drug dealer who cheated a friend, and who is capable of violence.

 

The defense has to put up more of a fight. Cross examine the kid and note that he's a drug USER, as much as Naz is a drug DEALER, and therefore his testimony may be questioned. Ask if he'd ever bought drugs from someone other than Naz, and if so, was the market value correct (undercutting the 'cheated' implication). To leave that witness uncrossed seems derelict to me. 

[Neurochick]

Interesting article. 

And another one.

I liked this quote from the second article:
 

Quote

 

The past of least resistance, it’s worth noting, doesn’t normally involve a trial, and this case never would have gotten to that point if not for Naz throwing a curveball at the last possible moment. We’ve seen enough of Box to recognize his doubts—if not necessarily of Naz’s guilt, then at least of the particularly monstrous light Weiss has sought to show him in—and “An Ordinary Death” ends with him once more looking uneasy at the end of his retirement party. If Naz had just taken that plea deal, Box would have put those doubts to rest a long time ago, but the whole point of a trial is to consider doubt, to determine whether there really is no plausible other way Andrea’s murder could have happened.

Box valued easy certainties during his investigation, and he repeatedly neglected to ask questions that could have undone those certainties. He didn’t push with an obviously shaky suspect and ask the questions that might have led him to Duane Reade. He managed to find all those eyewitnesses yet somehow missed the world’s creepiest mortician (which, my goodness, that’s saying something). And he automatically treated Andrea’s stepfather as someone to comfort, never once bothering to account for his whereabouts on the night in question—at least not as far as we’ve seen—nor doing the kind of digging that has Stone hanging around the gym all day. The way Box handled things was probably the right strategy, but it suddenly feels like there’s a real chance that the last case of his career is about to come undone. The fact that Naz’s actual guilt or innocence is pretty much irrelevant to that point underlines just why “An Ordinary Death” is such a powerful episode.

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Neurochick

[snarts]

It's almost better if he is guilty.  Can you imagine him trying to assimilate back into his world if acquitted?  The community is under attack, his parents are bankrupt, his mother doubts his innocence...and he is going to go back to college with his shaved head and prison tats?

This show, while not perfectly executed, has successfully highlighted how a kids's life can truly go off the rails in one night.

[kieyra]

2 minutes ago, snarts said:

It's almost better if he is guilty.  Can you imagine him trying to assimilate back into his world if acquitted?  The community is under attack, his parents are bankrupt, his mother doubts his innocence...and he is going to go back to college with his shaved head and prison tats?

This show, while not perfectly executed, has successfully highlighted how a kids's life can truly go off the rails in one night.

And he's now complicit in another murder, this one unquestionably so.

[Princess Sparkle]

1 hour ago, teddysmom said:

Is the defense not allowed to question prosecution witnesses prior to the trial?   How does Chandra keep asking questions she doesn't know the answer to? Why didn't she or John go talk to the coach?  

 

I actually don't think the defense can question a prosecution witness before trial.  They have to be notified of who the prosecution can potentially call, but they don't get an early crack at the witnesses.  However, to your point, that's why there's the old adage for lawyers of "Never ask a question you don't know the answer to", most famously (IMO) seen when Charles Darden asked OJ to try on the gloves in evidence, without being 100% sure that they would fit.  I get that they're trying to show Chandra is inexperienced, but I got that in the last episode.  At this point, it seems like she just doesn't learn from her mistakes.

30 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

More maddening to me is that the defense doesn't seem to have done any witness prep with their own client.  After they learned of the first school incident, why didn't they ask him if there was anything else in his background that could be used against him?  His physical appearance in court (clothing, haircut, tats) won't ingratiate him with the jury.  Their only contact with their client outside of the courtroom seems to consist of Chandra telling Naz "I believe in you" (and, of course, the makeup session).

Yes, MY GOD!  Forget Law and Order and The Practice; even the lawyers on Ally McBeal wouldn't be this short-sighted.  

Edited August 22, 2016 by Princess Sparkle

[scrb]

When the cat got out and laid down next to Stone who was sleeping, I thought he was going to wake up with his face looking like a pumpkin, wheezing to death.

[Neurochick]

8 minutes ago, Princess Sparkle said:

Yes, MY GOD!  Forget Law and Order and The Practice; even the lawyers on Ally McBeal wouldn't be this short-sighted.  

True, but I feel that this show is more realistic than the ones mentioned.  Also, we, the audience didn't now about the second kid Naz assaulted.  The coach didn't even mention that to Box.

I had issues with that coach.  I'd ask him how he, a black man, would have felt if a black kid was taunted in school and called the "n" word.  Would he be as upset as he seemed to have been with Naz.  I think his answer of kids in the school acting "patriotic" spoke volumes. 

[Dogberry]

A lot of people are dismayed by Naz's mother in this episode, but I'm wondering if anyone else had a different read on that scene where Chandra called her on that in the ladies' room.  There seemed to be a bit of menace to her during that "my child is a monster" conversation... the camera zoomed in uncomfortably close, and when Chandra drew near to her, I got the distinct impression that Naz's mother may have been fixing to smack her.  She may be finding Naz's guilt all too plausible because she believes Naz got his anger management issues from her.  We've seen a lot of conversations between Naz's father and other characters, and the father seems to be a very nice guy.  We haven't seen her talk much.  Seems like there could be a lot we don't know there.

[Ellaria]

53 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

And another one.

I liked this quote from the second article:
 

I also liked this article. It does a great job of touching on the issues that we are discussing here.

While I understand that this show is about the inequities of our criminal justice system, it is still a TV drama not a documentary and not Dateline. So, yes, corners will be cut and the participants in the system will focus on getting "an" answer but not necessarily the "right" answer or the "only" answer. However, some of the creative choices seem to have been made for the sake of intrigue and suspense rather than a strict narrative focus. For example, if the victim had 3 stab wounds instead of 22, it would still be a horrific crime but not as a horrific crime scene. Now, perhaps the amount of stab wounds and the sheer violence of the crime play into the identity of the killer. (I know nothing about the BBC show nor do I know any spoilers about his show.) If not, then perhaps that choice was a bit over the top because it is drawing focus more to the crime itself rather than the system.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Ellaria Sand

[kay1864]

56 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

 it was funny that Stone was asked, 'is this for Law & Order?  As if Law & Order has become reality). 

Who was the copy store guy?  He looked familiar.  I don't see his name on imdb.

[clb1016]

12 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

True, but I feel that this show is more realistic than the ones mentioned.  Also, we, the audience didn't now about the second kid Naz assaulted.  The coach didn't even mention that to Box.

I had issues with that coach.  I'd ask him how he, a black man, would have felt if a black kid was taunted in school and called the "n" word.  Would he be as upset as he seemed to have been with Naz.  I think his answer of kids in the school acting "patriotic" spoke volumes. 

Having had one incident of Naz's temper getting the better of him (even if for a good reason), his counsel should have investigated the possibility that there were other instances.  By not doing so, they left themselves open to being caught flatfooted in the courtroom.

I don't know how realistic this show actually is.  Half of the people on this board have been asking since the first episode about the (lack of) blood on Naz's clothing, Andrea's financial situation, and the broken lock on the basement entrance, all of which have only recently been discussed (or not at all, in the case of the blood) by characters on the show.

[MaggieG]

When Naz noticed the blood and was walking around the corner, my husband yelled "Let me guess. Petey?!" Poor Petey.

I'm glad I was not the only one screaming "Objection, relevance" at my screen. That was maddening.

Chandra. Girl. What are you doing? Maybe Naz the convict is attractive to her but that kiss was just dumb as hell.

Stone and the cat sleeping together was pretty adorable. I was annoyed at his bratty son.

I still feel so bad for Naz's parents. I get annoyed with so many things every episode that don't make sense, but his parents break my heart every week.

Also, I don't think anyone mentioned it yet but was Stone being followed after he left the copy place? The camera was filming him from across the street, he walked out the door and someone was half in frame wearing a dark jacket, then they passed in front of the frame. Looked like they were waiting for him to exit the store an then go after him. Duane Read? Step Dad? Creepy Mortician guy? OJ Simpson?

[kieyra]

1 minute ago, clb1016 said:

Having had one incident of Naz's temper getting the better of him (even if for a good reason), his counsel should have investigated the possibility that there were other instances.  By not doing so, they left themselves open to being caught flatfooted in the courtroom.

I don't know how realistic this show actually is.  Half of the people on this board have been asking since the first episode about the (lack of) blood on Naz's clothing, Andrea's financial situation, and the broken lock on the basement entrance, all of which have only recently been discussed (or not at all, in the case of the blood) by characters on the show.

I'm not even remotely involved in the legal or justice systems, but I'm a long-time true crime buff, including following some real-life murder trials. My objections to the way they're handling things like the blood evidence come from my interest in true crime, not my television-watching background.

I'm used to utterly implausible shows like The Killing that play merry hell with reality, but even those shows (in the post-CSI era) either use forensics very tightly, or not at all. Meaning, they don't set up these situations where the viewers spend weeks saying "Uh, why isn't anyone asking why he wasn't covered in blood?".

(In the case of Nordic Noir shows like The Killing, they create plenty of other WTF moments, don't get me wrong.)

[clb1016]

4 minutes ago, kieyra said:

I'm not even remotely involved in the legal or justice systems, but I'm a long-time true crime buff, including following some real-life murder trials. My objections to the way they're handling things like the blood evidence come from my interest in true crime, not my television-watching background.

I'm used to utterly implausible shows like The Killing that play merry hell with reality, but even those shows (in the post-CSI era) either use forensics very tightly, or not at all. Meaning, they don't set up these situations where the viewers spend weeks saying "Uh, why isn't anyone asking why he wasn't covered in blood?".

(In the case of Nordic Noir shows like The Killing, they create plenty of other WTF moments, don't get me wrong.)

I didn't express myself clearly.  I meant it more like I doubt this show is realistic.

And where to begin with the courtroom scenes.

[kieyra]

6 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I didn't express myself clearly.  I meant it more like I doubt this show is realistic.

And where to begin with the courtroom scenes.

Oh, sorry--FWIW I wasn't trying to authoritatively state how realistic it is, just giving some context to my specific objections. 

[clb1016]

3 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Oh, sorry--FWIW I wasn't trying to authoritatively state how realistic it is, just giving some context to my specific objections. 

I guess my objections are just rooted in the idea that I don't want to believe that the police and legal professionals are less observant, thoughtful and intelligent than the average TV chat board poster.

[islandgal140]

1 hour ago, Neurochick said:

I think this show is really about the people involved in the criminal justice system. 

Herein lies my problem. 7 episodes in and only one left and still trying to figure out what this show is about. Is it a crime drama? Is it a procedural drama? It is about the failings of the justice system? The corruption of a not so innocent young man on a slippery slope that is prone to criminality anyway? The disintegration of family and relationship based on the happenings of one night? The fallacy of innocent until proven guilty? Thing is whatever and whichever it is, hell it could be all, it is just not being done well IMHO. Not saying that this show needs to fit into a box but it just feels anemic all around. 

So are we not gonna talk about the murder at the top of the episode that Box likened to being exactly like the crime Naz is being tried for? So now we have a possible serial killer, but since it happened to the wrong kind of victim and in the wrong neighborhood no one will link the two and no one really gives a shit?!! Won't see Nancy Grace's angry mole face going on about this one.

I thought the show would pick up steam with the defense putting on its case but NOPE.  I will finish watching this series since I already devoted over 7 hours of my life to it but I can't heap the praise on it that all the critics have. Nope.

Is there a reason why Stone isn't more actively participating in court and cross examining witnesses?

The kiss between Naz and his attorney crossed into ABC Shonda Rhimes territory. 

Not so much that the prosecutor's voice is annoying, because it is, but to my ears she sounds like a drunk when she talks. I don't see how she has gotten that far with that speech pattern. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by islandgal140

[Marianne]

14 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

 I can't stand the marble-mouthed prosecutor. 

I generally hit the mute button when Helen Weiss is talking.  I'm not familiar with the actress, Jeannie Berlin, but apparently she's well-loved and has done great work.  Here, to me, she seems frail and stiff and a little sleepy.  Her face is unexpressive (compare her to the actress playing Naz's mom, who is stupendous IMO) and her voice is off-putting.   I keep wondering if she has a medical condition that contributes to these characteristics, in which case--shame on me for being such a critic.  Finally, I hated the way she leaned onto the witness box and hovered close to the defense pathologist when she questioned him.  I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be allowed and I found it creepy, although I guess that was probably a director's choice.

[AuntiePam]

Why didn't coach mention the second incident when Box (was it Box or Stone?) first talked to him?  For the show, obviously, a courtroom surprise.

Also, when coach said in that interview -- "he threw him down the stairs" -- I thought he meant someone threw Naz down the stairs, which might explain Naz having some anger in him. 

There's no excuse for Chandra asking coach about the soda can.  How many times have we heard it, in fiction and real life cases -- don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. 

If/when the blood question finally comes up, I don't know if I'll be relieved that they didn't totally ignore it or pissed off that they waited so long. 

Why didn't Petey swallow the drugs his mom brought in?  Why did it have to be Naz?  I can see him doing it once, to prove his loyalty, but why not Petey?  It's his mom, and it'd be weird that she visits Naz but not her own son.  And why didn't Petey tell Freddy that he was being forced into sex?  Surely he knew Freddy wanted him protected.

[Uncle JUICE]

42 minutes ago, kay1864 said:

Who was the copy store guy?  He looked familiar.  I don't see his name on imdb.

Stan Beamon's kid from The Americans. 

[AuntiePam]

5 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

Stan Beamon's kid from The Americans. 

Did anyone else expect him to see something that had been overlooked in the exhibits?  "Hey! What's this -- a suicide note?"

[Princess Sparkle]

10 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

Why didn't Petey swallow the drugs his mom brought in?  Why did it have to be Naz?  I can see him doing it once, to prove his loyalty, but why not Petey?  It's his mom, and it'd be weird that she visits Naz but not her own son.  

Freddy said in the last episode that he wasn't going to ask Petey to swallow the drugs, because of the method Petey's mom is using to bring them in; "You can't ask him to do that; that's some Oedipal shit." (I remember the line because it cracked me up).  

[BooBear]

20 minutes ago, Dogberry said:

A lot of people are dismayed by Naz's mother in this episode, but I'm wondering if anyone else had a different read on that scene where Chandra called her on that in the ladies' room.  There seemed to be a bit of menace to her during that "my child is a monster" conversation... the camera zoomed in uncomfortably close, and when Chandra drew near to her, I got the distinct impression that Naz's mother may have been fixing to smack her.  

Or because she is the killer !!!! (no please show).

I will let some of the legal / trial stuff go because I do agree that in New York and other over-crowded courts, horrible mistakes are made. But this show has BIG ones happening. The friend who brought drugs, beyond being irrelevant, I believe there is a rule of evidence against that, bringing in evidence of other criminal activity or bad acts to show you acted with your criminal nature in this circumstance.  Also when Helen goes "I am done" to the witness like she is going to go "oh snap" I was sure I was going to hear the court say something ... but... no.  Seems the Judge is asleep.  Some judges / courts do not like over zealous objections so I could see that here.  But no way Helen was having a conversation with the defendant's forensic guy for soooo long. 

I get the feeling that the show has like 4 main points they want to make about criminal justice in America. But they aren't really showing us these issues in the criminal justice system.  More like they are painting with broad strokes. I expect that on ABC... not HBO.  

[kay1864]

20 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

Stan Beamon's kid from The Americans. 

Yes!  Thanks!  

(for not figuring that out, I now have to turn in my The Americans Fan Club membership card...)

[stagmania]

37 minutes ago, AuntiePam said:

There's no excuse for Chandra asking coach about the soda can.  How many times have we heard it, in fiction and real life cases -- don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. 

That whole moment was so unforgivably clumsy. If Chandra hadn't been visibly stunned and stuttering for several prolonged moments, she could have breezed right past him saying "two" and the jury likely wouldn't have noticed. The prosecutor might have picked it up and drawn it out, but Chandra didn't need to do her job for her (and why would the prosecutor not already be aware that there was a second incident and have presented it as part of her case? Apparently she didn't bother with any witness prep either). Naz has a good case for ineffective counsel with how poorly Chandra is performing her job.

Edited August 22, 2016 by stagmania

[Neurochick]

57 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I guess my objections are just rooted in the idea that I don't want to believe that the police and legal professionals are less observant, thoughtful and intelligent than the average TV chat board poster.

But a lot of times they are.  So many are overworked, underpaid human beings and some of them are like Box, counting the days until he retires.  In one of the articles that I linked, one of the reasons Box might not have investigated as hard as, say Stone, is because Box thought that Naz, like so many before him, would take a plea.  Had Naz taken the plea, Box would have never given two thoughts about the case. 

What I've been reading here are comments like, "why didn't they notice_____" or "why didn't so and so do _____."  I agree, they should have done better; but I think that is the point of the show, sometimes people don't do better.  Detectives and judges and lawyer aren't like the ones on TV.

This case seems to be big in the NYC papers, but not national news.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Neurochick

[kieyra]

9 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

But a lot of times they are.  So many are overworked, underpaid human beings and some of them are like Box, counting the days until he retires.  In one of the articles that I linked, one of the reasons Box might not have investigated as hard as, say Stone, is because Box thought that Naz, like so many before him, would take a plea.  Had Naz taken the plea, Box would have never given two thoughts about the case. 

Yeah, but this show wants us to buy that every single person involved is overworked or underpaid or apathetic or incompetent, to the point of everyone on both sides overlooking basic things like the blood evidence or the stepfather. I'm sure plenty of cases in the real-world legal system have been this much of a clusterfuck, but I just don't see it happening on a case that is supposed to have made it to Nancy Grace-level public attention. 

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, it occurs to me that I'm re-stating the same point repeatedly in different ways. I'm not trying to shout anyone down. This show is just a conundrum. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by kieyra

[iMonrey]

Quote

There were at least three instances where "Objection, calls for speculation" or "Objection, speculation" would have been proper, mainly with the pathologist. 

"This cut is the result of the defendant's hand slipping down onto the blade." "OBJECTION - SPECULATION." Gee-sus. What kind of crap lawyer does Naz have that wouldn't have objected to that blatant speculation presented as fact? There was no way of knowing how exactly he got that cut on his hand.

Quote

Not saying that this show needs to fit into a box but it just feels anemic all around. 

Yeah. There's a lot going on but most of it feels half-assed. I'm withholding final judgment until I see the last episode but too many plot points have been fast-tracked, skipped over or dropped. And there are too many ham-fisted metaphors going on as well. The toy cat in the shop window was sort of the final straw for me. The show thinks it's more clever than it actually is.

[clb1016]

7 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Yeah, but this show wants us to buy that every single person involved is overworked or underpaid or apathetic or incompetent, to the point of everyone on both sides overlooking basic things like the blood evidence or the stepfather. I'm sure plenty of cases in the real-world legal system have been this much of a clusterfuck, but I just don't see it happening on a case that is supposed to have made it to Nancy Grace-level public attention. 

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, it occurs to me that I'm re-stating the same point repeatedly in different ways. I'm not trying to shout anyone down. This show is just a conundrum. 

^^^This x 1000.  Ineffective defense lawyers? sure.  Incompetent prosecutors? fine.  Unconcerned cops?  ok.  But all on the same case?  Nope, sorry.

[teddysmom]

Quote

 Ineffective defense lawyers? sure.  Incompetent prosecutors? fine.  Unconcerned cops?  ok.  But all on the same case?  Nope, sorry.

You must not have seen "Making a Murderer". 

[patty1h]

While the Chandra was questioning the witness who had taken pictures at Andrea's home (sorry, don't remember names), he made a pointed remark that you couldn't see a kitchen in a photo because there was no kitchen.   Why was that significant?  

[Uncle JUICE]

Quote

patty1h

1 MINUTE AGO

While the Chandra was questioning the witness who had taken pictures at Andrea's home (sorry, don't remember names), he made a pointed remark that you couldn't see a kitchen in a photo because there was no kitchen.   Why was that significant?  

It implies that you could come in from the basement (where the lock was broken), come up the stairs to where the victim was murdered, do the murder, and exit along the same path, without ever knowing anyone was passed out in the kitchen at the table. Though Chandra could have simply made this point by saying "based on your photographs, is it fair to say that you believe it would be possible, easy, even, to traverse this path, murder the victim, and leave via the same path, without ever seeing if someone was in the kitchen, if the lights were out and it was quiet?" To which the answer is "Yes, it's very possible, in fact that's why I included that picture in my files."

Edited August 22, 2016 by Uncle JUICE

[Neurochick]

9 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

^^^This x 1000.  Ineffective defense lawyers? sure.  Incompetent prosecutors? fine.  Unconcerned cops?  ok.  But all on the same case?  Nope, sorry.

Maybe people don't want to believe this happens, but it does.  If it didn't, the "Innocence Project" wouldn't exist. 

[clb1016]

10 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You must not have seen "Making a Murderer". 

Correct; I did not.

[Jodithgrace]

The smug forensics guy didn't mean that there was literally no kitchen. He said, "kitchen? What kitchen?" meaning that as far as an intruder was concerned, there was no kitchen, since it couldn't be seen.

[Uncle JUICE]

Just now, clb1016 said:

Correct; I did not.

But in fairness, this is NYC, not someplace in rural middle America where they don't deal with capital crimes on a regular basis. The level of familiarity here has to be taken into account. 

[patty1h]

Thanks, Uncle Juice.  I thought the guy was implying that the house didn't have a kitchen, playing into the rumor that NYers eat out all the time so there was no designated kitchen in Andrea's home.  That made no sense since Naz was shown waking up with an open refrigerator behind him, which to me, means 'kitchen'.

[clb1016]

3 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

Maybe people don't want to believe this happens, but it does.  If it didn't, the "Innocence Project" wouldn't exist. 

I understand that people have been wrongly convicted, but is it always (or even usually) because of incompetence on the part of all parties involved?

[SoCal Mema]

2 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

Maybe people don't want to believe this happens, but it does.  If it didn't, the "Innocence Project" wouldn't exist. 

THIS as said up thread.  I don't know what this show is other than showing us a more closely aligned picture of our criminal justice system and trials.  Some not understanding why the Adderall testimony was relevant - it might not have been, but I have to tell you that's real life trial stuff.  And people get convicted because of it (just go listen to podcasts - Actual Innocence and Undisclosed Season 2).  It doesn't have to go from point A to point B.  Sometimes prosecutors don't even prove facts, but mention them as if they are facts in closing.  Trials rarely go the route of Law & Order, etc.  I think we've been spoiled to crime procedurals and want closure and answers.  I just don't think this was the intended purpose of the show.  And it frustrates everyone watching.  I don't expect to get full closure by the final episode.  If we do, great.  I'm definitely trying to manage my expectations - the show has made me uncomfortable, which again, is how it's actually happening out in the real world.

[Ellaria]

33 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

What I've been reading here are comments like, "why didn't they notice_____" or "why didn't so and so do _____."  I agree, they should have done better; but I think that is the point of the show, sometimes people don't do better.  Detectives and judges and lawyer aren't like the ones on TV.

If we have to spend this much time debating the point of the show, then some of the intent is being lost. And we can agree that people should do better but that they don't. The depiction of a less violent, less bloody crime scene would skip over some of "why didn't they notice that Naz wasn't covered in blood" questions. Creative choices were made that are diverting viewers' attention from the system itself and towards the crime.

28 minutes ago, kieyra said:

Yeah, but this show wants us to buy that every single person involved is overworked or underpaid or apathetic or incompetent, to the point of everyone on both sides overlooking basic things like the blood evidence or the stepfather. I'm sure plenty of cases in the real-world legal system have been this much of a clusterfuck, but I just don't see it happening on a case that is supposed to have made it to Nancy Grace-level public attention. 

EDITED TO ADD: Sorry, it occurs to me that I'm re-stating the same point repeatedly in different ways. I'm not trying to shout anyone down. This show is just a conundrum. 

Agree...and I, too, don't want to be perceived as shouting my opinions at others. This forum has actually been a great place to discuss this show. At this point, I suspect that the showrunners wanted to have it all: the suspense of a murder mystery and the resulting dialogue about "who done it" AND the sobering look at our justice system. At some point, these objectives may conflict or mess with expectations.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Ellaria Sand