S01.E07: Ordinary Death

[The Hound Lives]

1 minute ago, Jodithgrace said:

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.

I loved the smug FG because, yeah he is a "known" name in the field, but he is right on the damn money! Everything he told from the stand is true. We know it because we saw it. He could've been coached, like the prosecutors ME, but he appeared to go over that place with a fine tooth comb. He noticed things that the police OBVIOUSLY didn't even look into (broken gate, unlocked windows, missing knife). Yeah, he was a cocky bastard but he knew exactly what he was talking about. 

 

28 minutes ago, kieyra said:

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. 

Ha...no worries about that. I repeat my thoughts a million different ways, always hoping that one of them makes sense! :) 

Mom, Dad and Bro need to move to Michigan. Dearborn or Hamtramack have huge Muslim/Middle Eastern populations and it's far enough away from the media frenzy of NYC. 
I run scenarios in my head constantly and have speculated the end a zillion times. Here is another crack-theory because I am so perplexed as to where they are going...

Spoiler

Naz is released only be to killed by his baby brother for dishonoring their family. Yeah...crack is wack. I just feel Naz won't make it out of this alive. Someone is going to die. I think Stone is safe...maybe Box. I just don't know. 

[clb1016]

5 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

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. 

I think this is really my problem with the show.  Nothing about it reflects life in NYC in 2016.  The case is covered by Nancy Grace, there are retaliatory attacks on Muslim cabdrivers but the gallery at the trial is half empty?  None of the tabloids have looked into her social media?  No stories about her drug use, rehab stints, possibly shady characters she might have known including her stepfather?  Someone on an earlier thread pointed out that most likely someone in her rehab grow would have sold a story to one of the tabloids by now.

[Uncle JUICE]

7 minutes ago, patty1h said:

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'.

The open refrigerator begs the question "wouldn't the prospective second assailant have noticed the light in the kitchen on?", except that detail is lost, because presumably Naz closed the refrigerator befor ehe left (but for some reason took the knife). 

[Ellaria]

29 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You must not have seen "Making a Murderer". 

Unlike "Making of a Murderer," this show is not a documentary or a presentation of a true-crime story. This is a dramatization and along with that comes homeless kitties, eczema support groups, etc...elements designed to set a mood and establish characterization. Of course, we know that inequities in the justice system happen in real life. And judging by the show's arc so far, we will not see everything tied-up in a neat little bow. However, saying its about the "system" doesn't completely avoid the need to present some of the system in a way that viewers can relate to it.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Ellaria Sand

[kieyra]

12 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I think this is really my problem with the show.  Nothing about it reflects life in NYC in 2016.  The case is covered by Nancy Grace, there are retaliatory attacks on Muslim cabdrivers but the gallery at the trial is half empty?  None of the tabloids have looked into her social media?  No stories about her drug use, rehab stints, possibly shady characters she might have known including her stepfather?  Someone on an earlier thread pointed out that most likely someone in her rehab grow would have sold a story to one of the tabloids by now.

Yes, this is the thing that makes it impossible to pretend the case is a parallel to Steven Avery or Adnan Syed. Yes, everyone knows about those cases now, but at the time of their trials they were not making national media coverage.

Nancy Grace coverage = you have thousands of people on sites like Websleuths (and normal social media) shouting that the suspect should have been covered in blood. And you have a full courtroom. 

Never mind the fact that no high-powered defense attorney would have dumped a case that was getting regular Nancy Grace coverage.

(Hmm, was the Nancy Grace/tabloid stuff their one huge misstep that makes the whole thing unforgivably silly?)

[stagmania]

34 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You must not have seen "Making a Murderer". 

Making a Murderer featured a case in a small rural town with impoverished suspects that flew mostly under the radar while it was happening. It's not really fair to compare that to a NYC case with a rich female victim that is supposedly garnering national attention. The show itself stated in an early episode that the police would need to take care to handle this case properly because it was sure to make a splash. No one is trying to say that great miscarriages of justice don't happen or that cops and lawyers can't be criminally inept. It's just that it doesn't fit with this particular story or the way the characters were presented to us from the start.

12 minutes ago, clb1016 said:

I think this is really my problem with the show.  Nothing about it reflects life in NYC in 2016.  The case is covered by Nancy Grace, there are retaliatory attacks on Muslim cabdrivers but the gallery at the trial is half empty?  None of the tabloids have looked into her social media?  No stories about her drug use, rehab stints, possibly shady characters she might have known including her stepfather?  Someone on an earlier thread pointed out that most likely someone in her rehab grow would have sold a story to one of the tabloids by now.

Yes, this. I think the show actually unintentionally underlined the contradiction in what they're telling and showing us with that silly OJ Simpson trial quote. It just reminded me that this case is supposed to be a big deal, yet none of the markers of that kind of media hoopla are present in the story. 

[Neurochick]

21 minutes ago, SoCal Mema said:

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.

THIS.  The show is supposed to make you feel uncomfortable.  IRL, many times there is no closure, or answers.  In trials each side tells a story and the jury decides which story makes the most sense to them.   The Central Park Five's situation was an example of a gross miscarriage of justice by all involved, from the police to the DA's to the press who ran with this nonsense.  I remember the headline "Wilding" which the press thought was some bizarre new word that young black teenage boys were using or some dumb shit like that.  Turns out they were singing Tone Loc's "Wild Thing," but the reporters, who were supposed to be pretty savvy didn't even know that. 

What I do have a problem with is the press coverage or the lack of it.  I would think this case would garner more attention, since Nancy Grace is talking about and people seem to be targeting Muslims because of this case. 

The most frightening thing this series is showing is how the criminal justice system can turn someone fairly normal into an animal, when they haven't been proven guilty yet.  It's showing that with the right witnesses, I can make anybody look unstable, look like a criminal. 

[stagmania]

2 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

The most frightening thing this series is showing is how the criminal justice system can turn someone fairly normal into an animal, when they haven't been proven guilty yet.  It's showing that with the right witnesses, I can make anybody look unstable, look like a criminal. 

I actually think the show has stepped all over this theme with all these out of the blue reveals about Nasir's criminal past, and his lack of affect and unwillingness to help himself in this situation. Before we knew he had a violent history, I thought this was exactly the point of what they were trying to do with his story. Now I really have no idea.

[Uncle JUICE]

12 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

ow the criminal justice system can turn someone fairly normal into an animal, when they haven't been proven guilty yet.  It's showing that with the right witnesses, I can make anybody look unstable, look like a criminal. 

Yeah, but with a decent attorney / legal defense, you only need to establish reasonable doubt. Which gets easier when, say, the chain of evidence is inexplicably broken by a veteran police officer prior to the defendant retaining counsel. 

[SoCal Mema]

12 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

Yeah, but with a decent attorney / legal defense, you only need to establish reasonable doubt. Which gets easier when, say, the chain of evidence is inexplicably broken by a veteran police officer prior to the defendant retaining counsel. 

I hear you and I think this probably works some of the time.  In some of the true podcasts that I have listened to where attorneys and Innocence Project people have discussed in detail - you can establish reasonable doubt but it still goes awry.  It's no longer become the "norm" that the defense has to establish reasonable doubt.  The defense has to actively prove innocence or find other suspects.  In many of the cases I have followed or listened to, I find jurors aren't that savvy to navigate connecting what one witness says when pitted against another (often times a juror post trial will say, "well, I just didn't believe him/her", "he/she seemed more credible", even when it's just hearsay or their opinion, not based on actual facts. I've served on several juries and have been mortified at how they came away from the same panel as me with a totally different take on the actual facts/evidence.  I concur that Box breaking the chain of evidence was a no-brainer.  That also happened in the OJ trial, but it was not what I think got his actual trial results (it was the stupid glove, which we now know from the documentary on 30 for 30 that he went off his meds to cause his hand to swell).  Anyway...this might be slightly off topic from discussing this show. 

[Tara Ariano]

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

Red Between The Lines On The Night Of

A symbology of inconvenient truths as the defense mounts its case.

[Gobi]

Some random things that bothered me about the show.

Naz tattoes Sin and Bad on his fingers. Never mind that the correct spelling, I believe, should be Sindbad (correct me if I'm wrong), but Sinbad is a figure from Arabic folklore. Naz is a Pakistani. It's like having a Russian tattoo Robin Hood on his fingers. 

Andrea is stabbed 22 times, and is found lying on her stomach. All the wounds seem to be in her back. Yet she has one defensive wound on the palm of her hand, according to the prosecution! No one finds that the least bit odd?

No defense attorney would ever mention OJ during a trial. Why would they mention someone who many feel got away with murder?

The defense pathologist is portrayed as a seasoned pro. Surely he would know that he praised the prosecutor's expert at a dinner, and would be careful to couch his testimony in a way that would disagree with him without his prior comments returning to bite him in the ass.

By the way, the prosecutor should have been objecting left and right, too, not just Chandra.

The show jumped the shark for me when Chandra kissed Naz. A hug I could see, but that kiss was ridiculous.

I agree with those that feel the show tried to do too much in too short a time. Nor did wasting all that time on the went nowhere eczema subplot do the show any favors.

[ganesh]

4 hours ago, teddysmom said:

Exactly. How is selling your Adderall to your friends make you a murderer?  Irrelevant. 

I'd even say pushing a kid down the stairs in elementary school just days after 9/11 isn't relevant too. His arrest record as an adult or any disciplinary actions at college would be relevant, but there aren't any. 

4 hours ago, kieyra said:

We haven't seen her talk much.  Seems like there could be a lot we don't know there.

I don't get why the show doesn't just actually show that then. We should know a lot more about the family than we do.

Quote

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.

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. 

The problem for me is that the oversights (no blood on Naz, not even wondering why a 20 something druggie lives in a giant house) are so egregious that it strains credulity that an experienced detective for 33 years just doesn't have the muscle memory from "300 cases" to just naturally know something isn't adding up. He basically said so in the pilot episode. What really bothered me is that Box didn't inherently know that something was off. If the show just showed the viewers that, and showed that Box was just over it all and went with the easy case, then that's speaks more to the point of what I think the show is trying to do. 

Quote

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.

That's why I suggested to leave the legal stuff on the periphery and focus on the family. Or flesh it out for 13 episodes if you want to cover all of these facets. 

[kieyra]

I've mentioned before that I don't think that this show is meant as a parallel to Serial/MaM/etc, and was in fact in development before that particular type of media phenomenon went viral.

If it was, I think they'd try to give us a little more insight into Naz as a person instead of only revealing his character through his prison choices and prosecution dirt.

For the 'innocence project' stuff, Rectify is a much more interesting show. 

[SoCal Mema]

I have a feeling that this show is going to have an ambiguous ending. Just to illustrate that in this situation no one wins- Andrea doesn't get justice- Naz and his family are destroyed by the justice system. The cat is confined to a guest room by his allergic owner.

I'm starting to see the parallel between Naz and the cat. Without John's help the cat would have gotten euthanized. With his help the cat isn't free but alive.

Edited August 22, 2016 by SoCal Mema

[themadman]

So Chandra is a crap lawyer. 
This show has gone from something with potential to absolutely trashy snoozefest. I'm glad it's ending next week. Feels like something that should have been wrapped up in 4 episodes, not 8. 
Every time I hear that DA speak, I get freaking annoyed.

[kieyra]

3 minutes ago, themadman said:

So Chandra is a crap lawyer. 
This show has gone from something with potential to absolutely trashy snoozefest. I'm glad it's ending next week. Feels like something that should have been wrapped up in 4 episodes, not 8. 
Every time I hear that DA speak, I get freaking annoyed.

To be fair, I think if it was actively trashy we'd be having more fun with it. =D

[Ellaria]

7 minutes ago, SoCal Mema said:

I have a feeling that this show is going to have an ambiguous ending. Just to illustrate that in this situation no one wins- Andrea doesn't get justice- Naz and his family are destroyed by the justice system. The cat is confined to a guest room my his allergic owner.

I'm starting to see the parallel between Naz and the cat. Without John' help the cat would have gotten euthanized. With his help the cat isn't free but alive.

I'm sure that you are correct about the ambiguous end...and that's fine with me. IMO, Naz will be found not guilty because Chandra/Stone will present just enough contradictory information - or stumble into oversights like the chain of custody issue - to create reasonable doubt. Quite obviously, his life and the lives of his family are changed forever. I am hoping that Andrea's true killer is revealed to the viewers but I doubt that her murder will be solved within the the show. I know that we are getting an extended finale but it does not seem like adequate time to actually solve her murder.

[CatWarmer]

So what we're all saying is that Chandra, Box, the judge, the high powered defense attorney who quit the case, the prosecutor, and possibly even Naz and the witnesses are all acting contrary to realistic/desired norms for their positions.

The sweet kitty, otoh, is being absolutely true to catness.  Not one misstep.  I started laughing when she pawed the door open and and of course she ended up on next to Stone on the bed.  And she's got him talking to her; which is definitely a true cat talent.

[lucindabelle]

My cat opens doors just like that! I loved that she was clearly a bit depressed but began putting when Stone petted her. And hat she trotted down the hall at a good clip. It was love at first sight for her!

[ShannaB]

I do like this series but I do not find it as riveting as I did because of some of the plot holes, the biggest one being the 'blood' evidence.  Nas should have been covered with the victim's blood and if Nas cut his hand while stabbing the victim, then some of his blood should have been at the murder scene (bedroom).  I don't get the defense not investigating this especially with Stone involved.

If you don't have money for a good defense team, then you really don't get a good defense.  This case seemed like a 'slam dunk' to all attorneys and law enforcement officers alike.  It's almost as if Nas has a court appointed attorney who ONLY makes money by getting cases to do plea deals and move on to the next case.  If a case goes to trial, it is short and sweet unless there is good publicity to be had.  The best defense attorneys I have ever seen in my State could have been Emmy Award winning actors on their own show....seriously.  But they only get involved if there is money or if it is high profile.

I need Stone to have his time in the Courtroom.  I need him to shine and I will be sorely disappointed if this doesn't happen.

As far as Box is concerned, I can't help but think he has a reputation for a savvy and good detective but he is 'broken' and depressed and just let this case slide to get rid of it since he is retiring.  I do hope he comes back in some fashion.  Maybe he tampered with the evidence on purpose to leave an opening for the defense.  I would like to see some satisfying conclusion with his involvement in this case.

Anyone else think that Stone may be independently wealthy after his meeting with Andrea's financial advisor?  I wouldn't be surprised in the least.

I simply adored Katz and would have swooned if I was on the jury.

Team Cat here.  It would be lovely if Stone could keep the cat (antihistamines) but maybe Chandra or even Box could be the new owner.  Just keep the sweet feline alive for the Finale!

Edited August 22, 2016 by ShannaB
addition

[iMonrey]

Quote

The case is covered by Nancy Grace, there are retaliatory attacks on Muslim cabdrivers but the gallery at the trial is half empty?  None of the tabloids have looked into her social media?  No stories about her drug use, rehab stints, possibly shady characters she might have known including her stepfather?  Someone on an earlier thread pointed out that most likely someone in her rehab grow would have sold a story to one of the tabloids by now.

I meant to point that out too. Wouldn't there have been discussions about whether or not cameras could be allowed in the courtroom? Wouldn't both the defense and the prosecution have agonized over that and whether it would work in their favor or against them? Why isn't there a media frenzy parked right outside the courthouse steps?

Quote

(Hmm, was the Nancy Grace/tabloid stuff their one huge misstep that makes the whole thing unforgivably silly?)

Yes, I posited that a few episodes back. I think it was a huge mistake to portray this case as a big media event with repercussions that are now making tabloid headlines.  The egregious lack of investigation is at odds with that narrative.

Quote

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

Those cases do not become well-known until after the person is convicted. This case is being presented as a public spectacle somewhere near the level of the OJ Simpson murder trial. It's been all over TV even before the trial started. And we're not even talking about little missteps here like bad counselling - we're talking about some really obvious things like blood evidence and witnesses not being interviewed in a case where seemingly everyone who ever knew the victim would be coming out of the woodwork to be interviewed on TV or trying to get their stories sold to the media. 

Now, if this show really wanted to be a story about the flawed criminal justice system, then all of this media coverage should be exposing just how unjust that system is. That's should be the prevailing conversation - not whether or not Naz is guilty or whether Muslims should be deported or whatever the media sensation is supposed to be about. Nancy Grace et. al. should be saying "Wow can you believe the cops missed this? Didn't talk to this person? Didn't ask this question?" 

Either that or the victim should have been someone who was far less sketchy, with a wholesome nuclear family-life and nothing out of the ordinary.

Edited August 22, 2016 by iMonrey

[Superpole2000]

1 hour ago, Ellaria Sand said:

IMO, Naz will be found not guilty because Chandra/Stone will present just enough contradictory information - or stumble into oversights like the chain of custody issue - to create reasonable doubt.

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would. Even if I thought someone else could have been involved with the killing, I still would have a hard time acquitting Nas, when he was definitely at the scene in a house he had never been to before, had scratches on his back, had his skin underneath the victim's fingernails, had at least some of the victim's blood on him, was seen picking up the victim earlier that night in a car he had stolen, has a confirmed history of outbursts, has sold drugs, and was found by police in an intoxicated state and later discovered to have had a bloody knife tucked away in his jacket.

I would need to hear more from Katz and a really compelling argument from the defense about how the evidence didn't fit with the prosecution's story. The Katz part was good, but not good enough.

23 minutes ago, ShannaB said:

I do like this series but I do not find it as riveting as I did because of some of the plot holes, the biggest one being the 'blood' evidence.  Nas should have been covered with the victim's blood and if Nas cut his hand while stabbing the victim, then some of his blood should have been at the murder scene (bedroom).  I don't get the defense not investigating this especially with Stone involved.

Exactly. I would need that. Even then, it would have to be hammered home flawlessly. The asthma part wasn't particularly compelling because someone with asthma can still do some physical things. If anything, as a juror, I would be thinking, "Oh, that's his inhaler...see, he was definitely in that bedroom that night."

The police removing the inhaler from the crime scene would raise an eyebrow, but Box saying that they had already photographed that evidence would leave me thinking, "Oh, no big deal then."

[islandgal140]

I can't believe that I remember this but the inhaler wasn't the only break in the chain of evidence and perhaps not even the most egregious. In fact, when I first saw it, I thought, boop! that is the way Naz is gonna get off.  I can't even remember what the item(s) was but it was the 2nd or 3rd episodes and the coroners brought a bag of evidence to the police station and handed it to the sergeant at the desk who reprimanded them for breaking the chain by doing so.  

[bagatelle]

4 hours ago, Marianne said:

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.

I'm the exact opposite.  I find Jeannie Berlin fabulous in the role and quite terrifying. It's that steely gaze and authoritative voice, I think.

The actress playing Naz's mom isn't even acting, to my eyes.  She's just there. I wonder if we're supposed to think she's on some kind of antidepressant for stress and anxiety. The father non-acts in the same manner. No range of emotion in the face.

[Knuckles]

Belatedly, I want to put in a word for the deer's head at Andrea's brownstone. It has been shown in closeup several times...but has anyone, including Dr. Katz, actually looked to see if it has a nanny cam or similar installed inside? If it does, than stepdad knows when Andrea has an overnight guest, and since they were doing shots and drugs in the living area in full view of the deer's head, he would know they were loaded.  And since they have established that Andrea has had a couple of trips into rehab...he might have been counting on that.

That said, I am also confused by the estate lawyer, who is so eager to help Stone. Is his personal dislike of the stepdad enough to cause him to scarf up credit reports on the stepdad; is that motive enough? Doesn't it put his guardianship of the estate in question?

Naz did not just "help" Freddy, he actively conspired with him to commit murder one...whether he had anything to do with Andrea's murder is one thing, but now he deserves to be sitting in Rikers. 

And please do not forget the younger brother...we have an idea about the parents, but I hope the show revisits the brother before it ends.

[Ellaria]

50 minutes ago, Superpole2000 said:

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would. Even if I thought someone else could have been involved with the killing, I still would have a hard time acquitting Nas, when he was definitely at the scene in a house he had never been to before, had scratches on his back, had his skin underneath the victim's fingernails, had at least some of the victim's blood on him, was seen picking up the victim earlier that night in a car he had stolen, has a confirmed history of outbursts, has sold drugs, and was found by police in an intoxicated state and later discovered to have had a bloody knife tucked away in his jacket.

If I was on the jury, I would be waiting until the defense rested...which they haven't yet. That's why I stated in my post that I think that the defense is going to come up with "something" that will cause just enough reasonable doubt. And I have no idea of what this "something" could be. 

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, iMonrey said:

Why isn't there a media frenzy parked right outside the courthouse steps?

Even if the actual detectives and DA aren't doing their legally mandated jobs, I would have thought that an outlet like buzzfeed or the like would have done a piece on Andrea or the case in general that would have gone through social media and maybe they'd stumble across it. I could buy that those sources might be following the case over national news. 

1 hour ago, Superpole2000 said:

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would.

I do think the removal of the inhaler was a good argument, and they could lean on that to induce enough doubt for me. The fact that Naz sold some pills to college students at exam times wouldn't really factor into anything for me. I'd also be having a difficult time going from two admittedly violent incidents in school, nothing since, and then total premeditated murder now. Sure, people snap but I don't know. I'd be asking if there were any current behavior issues.

There better be massive deer head drama next week. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by ganesh

[SoCal Mema]

7 minutes ago, ganesh said:

There better be massive deer head drama next week. 

 

AMEN.  There have been too many anvils for this throughout the episodes.

[clb1016]

I don't get how Naz's actions can be interpreted by Weiss as premeditated murder.  I understand that throwing 2 guys out of his cab before letting Andrea could indicate that he was specifically looking for a woman, but how does one get from there to the idea that he intended to kill her all along?  Or am I misreading this? 

[iggysaurus]

Even the cat isn't particularly realistic, to me. ;)  I have 4 cats, and if any one of them was put into a room with the door shut and then left alone, they would be meowing and scratching constantly at the door to try to get out.  Cats like small spaces, but they dislike being confined against their will. I have a closet that I generally keep closed and don't let the cats in, and the first thing they do when I open that door is rush in there. But if I close it while they're in there, they immediately scratch to get out.  Each time I've gotten a new kitty, I've tried to confine it to the bathroom for 2 weeks like all the advice says to do, and end up letting it out into the rest of the apartment much earlier because the cat goes crazy being shut in that little room. Doesn't matter that they technically have everything they need in there -- they want to be with me and explore the rest of their new house. So, the way Stone's cat never makes a peep and seems relatively content with being locked up in a room by itself just doesn't ring true to me as a lifelong cat owner (#crazycatlady). :)

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, Superpole2000 said:

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would. Even if I thought someone else could have been involved with the killing, I still would have a hard time acquitting Nas, when he was definitely at the scene in a house he had never been to before, had scratches on his back, had his skin underneath the victim's fingernails, had at least some of the victim's blood on him, was seen picking up the victim earlier that night in a car he had stolen, has a confirmed history of outbursts, has sold drugs, and was found by police in an intoxicated state and later discovered to have had a bloody knife tucked away in his jacket.

 

But no scratches anywhere else.  As a juror, I might argue that there should have been scratches on his face and arms, and more than one cut on his hand.  Another juror would then argue that maybe he killed her with one stab -- possibly in the back -- or she was passed out -- so she didn't have an opportunity to fight. 

The stuff brought up by Dr. Katz might give me enough ammunition to argue for reasonable doubt.  Naz's prior violent acts were nothing like what happened with Andrea.  Show me violence against a woman, or unprovoked violence. 

[BooBear]

1 hour ago, Superpole2000 said:

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would.

I would. Reasonable doubt for me is that he didn't have any blood on him. If indeed he killed her naked and then took a shower, why the long trail of disastrous mistakes that would suggest he was running away n a panic. Forgetting the keys and running the light.  Then most annoyingly: why? Where is the evidence that Naz has any capacity to stab a woman 22 times?  Again I would like to know what Naz planned to do in the future but to world this was a good kid without a criminal record.  There was no particular stress or in his life at the moment.  Add in the broken basement door and all that we don't know about the victim... for me there is a "reasonable doubt."

I also don't understand Helen's argument that Naz had premeditation by allowing Andrea to stay in his car. Yes premeditation to get laid. He went out that night dressed up to a party. Not with leather gloves, a mask, rope and duct tape or any evidence that he intended to kill anyone.  He also went all around New York and got himself on some cameras and was seen with many people. Not really what you would try to do if you wanted to go on a killing spree.

[SoCal Mema]

https://theringer.com/the-night-of-episode-7-recap-97a697cd5d5#.61h4p9n0m

An excellent article on episode 7.

[Jodithgrace]

Re: Checkov's deer head

At this point, I'm afraid that any introduction of the much speculated upon deer head nanny cam would be too deus ex machina for me. It's too late. Somebody rushing in last minute with  "wait..we have the whole thing on tape!" would be a terrible ending. If they had even mentioned the deer head at any time during the proceeding episodes, they could justify it. But only we, the audience, have even noticed it.  

I'm afraid that this case is going to have to rise and fall on the investigation by and competence of the lawyers. So, I hope Naz enjoys his new convict identity. I don't see it changing any time soon.

[Gobi]

4 minutes ago, Jodithgrace said:

Re: Checkov's deer head

At this point, I'm afraid that any introduction of the much speculated upon deer head nanny cam would be too deus ex machina for me. It's too late. Somebody rushing in last minute with  "wait..we have the whole thing on tape!" would be a terrible ending. If they had even mentioned the deer head at any time during the proceeding episodes, they could justify it. But only we, the audience, have even noticed it.  

I'm afraid that this case is going to have to rise and fall on the investigation by and competence of the lawyers. So, I hope Naz enjoys his new convict identity. I don't see it changing any time soon.

Don't take the effing deer head away from me, it's all I have to cling to!

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, clb1016 said:

I don't get how Naz's actions can be interpreted by Weiss as premeditated murder.  

I said the same thing, but I've been behind on the threads until this episode. If he was fixing to kill her it seems like he went a long long long way around; buying her beer, going to the beach, on the chance she might invite him to her place. 

#DeerHead #NeverForget

[numbnut]

12 hours ago, BetyBee said:

I think back to when Stone said Box was a "subtle beast" and I thought they were telling us he was a good detective, but what they've shown us is quite the opposite. So is he a crappy cop and he actually knows it and  that is why he looked so miserable at his retirement party, sitting with his golf clubs that he probably gave to the bartender before he went home? 

I don't think Box was always a crappy cop. He just got lazy as he neared retirement. And he knows it. The reveal a woman's similar murder would have been an awesome cliffhanger for the end of an episode, but I guess they chose to open with it so it can bookend the last scene with Box feeling guilty.

Quote

Chandra kissing Naz is bizarre.  The way Naz kept flashing back to "the night of" made me think he might be imagining that he was kissing her.  It's almost worse that it's real.  What a creeper to be thinking of that night when kissing Chandra.  I even wondered if Chandra kissed him, knowing the camera was on them, in order to provide him an out if the case goes bad, even though she would be sacrificing her career.  She has compromised herself as his defense attorney.  How can she adequately represent him if they have a romantic relationship?  If Stone finds out, he would not hesitate to use that information to at least get a new trial.  

As Chandra leaned in for the kiss (which you could see coming because they were sitting so close together) I kept saying "WTF? WTF? WTF?" Not enough foreshadowing IMO, and it's too stupid in these circumstances, even for a newbie like Chandra. Overall, I liked this ep more than the last two, with Chandra making some progress in the courtroom.

Edited August 22, 2016 by numbnut
That cat is adorable.

[stagmania]

51 minutes ago, BooBear said:

I would. Reasonable doubt for me is that he didn't have any blood on him. If indeed he killed her naked and then took a shower, why the long trail of disastrous mistakes that would suggest he was running away n a panic. Forgetting the keys and running the light.  Then most annoyingly: why? Where is the evidence that Naz has any capacity to stab a woman 22 times?  Again I would like to know what Naz planned to do in the future but to world this was a good kid without a criminal record.  There was no particular stress or in his life at the moment.  Add in the broken basement door and all that we don't know about the victim... for me there is a "reasonable doubt."

But you only know most of those things as an omniscient audience viewer. We have seen nothing to indicate that the jury knows Naz had no blood on him, or even that the defense framed the chain of events to show that he was confused and panicked. As for Naz's capacity for violence, we saw the prosecution try to establish random violence as a pattern in his life, and his attorney utterly fail to discredit those claims on cross. Given what we've seen, the jury doesn't appear to have enough to go on to establish reasonable doubt, and I'm not willing to assume that stuff was presented to them off camera when the editing suggested we were seeing all the "big" moments of the trial.

[kieyra]

Guys, never mind the deer head; I said this last night but I'm really worried about the cat. You can't even call her a metaphor; she's practically a direct proxy for Naz. 

[AuntiePam]

1 hour ago, SoCal Mema said:

https://theringer.com/the-night-of-episode-7-recap-97a697cd5d5#.61h4p9n0m

An excellent article on episode 7.

Thanks for sharing.  If I'm understanding this correctly, this writer seems to be saying that the show's focus is the change in Naz, because of Rikers.  On that level, it's working.  I had forgotten all the little things that Naz encountered at his arraignment and when he first got to Rikers.  Maybe his descent wasn't unrealistically quick. 

And from the article, it sounds like the real Rikers is actually worse than what we've seen.

The writer agrees that the cat will be the answer, the thing that breaks the case.

[Hootis]

I am so disappointed in this show.

• The blood bath that Naz would've taken in a violent stabbing like that - one of the very first things I assumed the defense would catch.  Show ignores it.
• Naz is actually a decent kid who made a bad mistake in....NOPE!  He's a complete idiot, through and through.
• Finally, Jack the plea bargain king gets to stand in front of a jury and do his stuff....DENIED!  He sits silently while doe-eyed Chandra bores us to death.
• And then....the kiss.  GIVE ME A BREAK, WILLYA?

Turturro is just fantastic, but he's buried in eczema and allergies and cat.  Show went to shit.  Is the BBC series Criminal Justice Season One any better?  It won some awards.

[benteen]

I thought the episode was great.  Loved the scene with Weiss and Katz and thought the scene with Chandra and Box at the end was strong.

I don't know what the hell was up with the Chandra and Naz kiss.  I can understand Naz's attraction but Chandra?  Granted, I've read about cases where women become attracted to men in jail for some reason but I don't get Chandra's attraction to Naz.

Also kind of annoyed that Chandra constantly seems surprised by everything that's happening.

On the subject of how it's going to play out. in the finale..I'll post this in spoilers just in case...

Spoiler

I definitely think it was the step-father.  I noticed during the second episode that he has bruises on in his chest (he was wearing his shirt open).

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

On August 22, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Uncle JUICE said:

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. 

Until this episode, I thought they were both possibly consenting as well.

Edited August 24, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[kieyra]

4 minutes ago, MyPeopleAreNordic said:

Until this episode, I thought it they were both possibly consenting as well.

It's in the kid's eyes, in every scene he was in until he died. The actor did a good job with it, but maybe it was a little too subtle since he was usually onscreen with larger-than-life scary characters (and increasingly scary Naz). I think if people rewatch they'll probably see it the second time around. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by kieyra

[iMonrey]

Quote

At this point, I'm afraid that any introduction of the much speculated upon deer head nanny cam would be too deus ex machina for me. It's too late. Somebody rushing in last minute with  "wait..we have the whole thing on tape!" would be a terrible ending.

Agreed. I'm afraid folks waiting for certain things to mean something are going to be just as disappointed as all those Lost fans who were so sure the numbers meant something. Sometimes a deer head is just a deer head. It's not necessarily a red herring so much as an "artistic choice" to focus on it because the director felt like there was some sort of amazing symbolism there.

Like I said upthread, this show isn't nearly as clever as it seems to think it is. I get that the cat is a metaphor for Naz. I get it. They don't have to hit me over the head with it.

Quote

If you were on this jury, would you vote not guilty? I don't think I would.

I have the same problem with that speculation that I do with all the media coverage this trial is apparently getting: there is too much missing information. As a jury member I'd want to hear more about the victim. Who the hell is she? We're talking about the brutal murder of someone, stabbed 22 times with a knife. No prosecution worth its salt wouldn't paint a dramatic picture of the victim's innocence and life cut so tragically short. That's the whole case: you have to want retribution and justice for the victim. So far - as far as we've seen - the jury has no idea who this chick was. Why should they even care if she was murdered?

[DrivingSideways]

I'm not a huge fan of crime shows, police procedurals, or anything like that... so I'm missing a lot of the very good points you guys bring up.  None of it is distracting for me, and the show is so well acted and paced that I'm able to let a lot of that stuff go.  I love Jeannie Berlin in this, and her voice is magic.  I can see how it would be polarizing though.  I was glad to see Chandra be a badass lawyer in this episode, but even I was wondering when someone was going to yell OBJECTION, on both sides.  However, her kiss with Naz... that came out of nowhere for me and was a giant misstep.

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

56 minutes ago, kieyra said:

It's in the kid's eyes, in every scene he was in until he died. The actor did a good job with it, but maybe it was a little too subtle since he was usually onscreen with larger-than-life scary characters (and increasingly scary Naz). I think if people rewatch they'll probably see it the second time around. 

I just thought he was always high. But yeah, now that I know for sure what was going on, I can see it. 

 

Another thing that's bothering me about this....this is going to sound like a huge generalization BUT....

I have spent some time with Pakistani friends & their families and my understanding is that Pakistanis and Indians - particularly Hindu Indians as opposed to Muslim Indians - generally don't like each other very much due to the long-standing violence and tensions between the two countries (and two religious groups) due in part to questions of who would rule India after independence from Britian, the partition at independence, and continuing tensions over Kashmir. Last episode when Chandra was in the bar with Stone and he said something like he didn't think she drank, Chandra said "that's Muslims." That made me think that she's either Hindu/from a Hindu family (although it's possible I guess she's another religion or converted or no religion, etc). Naz said something about Chandra not knowing what it was like for him after 9/11, which made me think he knows she's isn't Muslim. Chandra corrected him, which made think that Chandra had experienced similar things because other Americans thought she "looked" like she could be Mulsim, so they treated her badly as well- it made me think of the Sikhs who were targeted in the U.S. because some dumb American assumed they were Muslim (not that being Muslim would be a reason to attack them, but many Americans who don't know a lot about cultural geography often think in simplistic terms - Hispanics  = Mexican; brown skin & from the Middle East or South Central Asia =  Muslim, etc).

I just don't buy that most Pakistanis of Naz's parents' generation would like Chandra so very much (as Naz's mom did when she met her) because of the geopolitical history between India and Pakistan since she's Indian and probably not a Muslim Indian. I guess I suppose it's possible that Chandra and Naz's generation may not care & may develop a romance (even if the plot/character development didn't seem to make sense as it is shown here....that kids came out of nowhere to me, at least on Chandra's part), but I think Naz's parents probably wouldn't have been as excited about Chandra as they initially were. It would have made more sense to me for the writers to just have written Chandra as a secular Pakistani Muslim (who happens to drink as many "cultural Muslims"/secular Muslims I know do) or as a secular Indian Muslim rather than a non-Muslim Indian. 

I don't mean to offend anyone with this post and realize this is a broad generalization. It just hasn't rang true with my experiences with Pakistani friends' parents/families and what I know about geopolitics of the region.

Edited August 23, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic

[Dogberry]

And while we're speaking of anvils, let's not forget the eczema.  There wasn't even any eczema in this episode, and we're still.  Getting.  Close-ups.  Of.  Stone's.  Shoes.

 

Forget the deer head.  I'm beginning to think the eczema committed the murder.

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

I'm going with Chandra is definitely supposed to be a Hindu Indian (or at least from a Hindu Indian family) - I just looked up the name Chandra, and it's the name of the Hindu moon deity. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandra 

Edited August 23, 2016 by MyPeopleAreNordic