S01.E08: The Call of the Wild

[Noirprncess]

I don't think it was character assassination with Chandra.  She proved to be a bit of doormat early on when she allowed Allison to use her as a way to appeal to potential clients (the Khans) even though they weren't ethnically from the same background.  When she pointed this out to Allison, her reaction was "eh, close enough."  How many of you would allow someone to use (or put down) your ethnicity like that in the workplace?  She's only proved that she was nice but kind of doormat-y all the along.  The fact that she entertained a late night phone call during booty-call hour from Naz suggested that she KNEW what he was after even if he didn't actually come out and say it.  Had she rebuffed his "probe" early on, I doubt it would have escalated the way it did.  

Naz was fortunate that Freddy forwarded that video kiss as a way to discredit the lawyer and try to push for a mistrial.  Makes me wonder if he wasn't the engineer for both incidents involving Chandra since Naz figured out there was a connection and just pushed to see how far she was willing to go for it.  But more importantly, knowing that it was caught on tape in jail that could be used in the future.

I do think that Helen's uninspired and unenthusiastic presentation of her closing had a lot to do with that conversation with Box.  She knew that she potentially set up at least grounds for consideration of an appeal by ignoring another suspect who had quite a bit of connection and motive to kill Andrea although she thought she had more with Naz.  

Box, unfortunately, that was a lot of work way too late in the process.  I guess his conscience got him but why take the path of least resistance knowing it was a shaky case?

[MrWhyt]

57 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I'm not sure how he destroyed his family for a crime he likely didn't commit. This was the flaw in the show for not focusing on the family. 

they're selling their house to pay the bills, the mother lost her job and had to scrounge for a new one, the father is working extra jobs, his mother thinks he is a killer.

[Irlandesa]

26 minutes ago, numbnut said:

I was so worried that Freddy was going to cut Naz's jugular with that razor after seeing whatever was on that tape. What did he see? I don't think it was the kiss. If it was Chandra passing drugs to Naz, did I miss the payoff for Freddy's discovery?

I think Freddy already knew what would be on the tape.  They have all day to talk. I assume Naz told him that he kissed his lawyer and that she brought in the drugs for him.  Freddy would want to know where the supply came from.

[jbrecken]

All these connections to other shows and the one we should have paid attention to was that there were 2 guys from Royal Pains.

[Noirprncess]

57 minutes ago, ganesh said:

I'm not sure how he destroyed his family for a crime he likely didn't commit. This was the flaw in the show for not focusing on the family. 

 

I don't understand why they wouldn't have just done that from the beginning because it's their literal job. In the first episode, Box said, "what am I missing?" Well, you're 30+ on the force, I would assume you wouldn't overlook obvious discrepancies and actually work. 

I honestly and sincerely don't know what the story was they wanted to tell. The story to me was the family and Naz and Freddy. When Naz was released it looked like his brother had issues. For like 3 seconds. 

I have no idea what her motivation was either. 

I'm just not seeing how Naz transitioned to tatted up crack smoking ex con. The show should have focused more on that. The courtroom was largely wasteful for me. I'm glad the cat is ok.

Naz just got so apathetic so fast. I just don't get it.

Naz, when the show started seemed naive.  BUT, over the course of the show we learned:

1)  He had a bit of temper which he kept well hidden most times except when pushed to his limits.

2)  There was a riff between him and his mother.  While it wasn't clear why, she obviously made known her feelings of distrust to Naz (remember early on he said only his father believed him).  Evidently this incident came after other smaller incidents in school.

3)  He was a bit of a rebel with no way to show it except outside of his house.

4)  His transition to jail was very quick because he was familiar with drug use and selling drugs (and the types of people involved in drug use).  His comfort was proof that he had some familiarity with it and perhaps didn't see the dangers in using or "passing" it on for others to use.

5)  He was used to being picked on or bully simply because he was Pakistani (unfortunately too many here in the US don't understand the differences and lump all under the pejorative slur "towelhead").  He disliked this type of reaction to the point of feeling and showing anger.

I've always thought he felt more comfortable in jail than he did in his own traditional home with his family because he felt freer to pursue things that interested him.  Especially because it was clear that his parents babied him to degree....at 23.  Remember in the beginning he sort of let it slip that to his parents that he wanted to go to a party.  They vetoed it like you would expect parents to for a teenager - not some 23-year old grown man.  

I've had friends who lived in traditional families not unlike the Khans.  The pressure the kids have to conform to their traditional family morals/standards (especially if they've lived all of their formative years in the US) tend to run smack against the more typical American thinking on family participation, dating, social norms, etc.  The families tend to get far more invested in every aspect of the child's life especially when it comes to social interactions such as who they are friends who, who they date, etc.   While some cling to the traditional route based on the family culture, just as many fight against it desiring to live the "American" way.  I think everything about Naz was about him being right in the middle of that internal/external fight.

So, his transition in jail was about his figuring out what he wanted to do and be.  Unfortunately the one habit he picked up from Freddy was same habit that becomes the monkey on so many people's back - long term drug addiction.  He went from a casual user (before jail) to hardcore in jail.  

[Superpole2000]

I didn't buy Box working during his retirement and then giving in so quickly to the prosecutor's decision. The eczema and cat stuff was funny/cute at times, but I really think this limited series spent too much time trying to be funny/cute with those topics. Chandra was never going to be a good lawyer, so perhaps this is a good thing for her.

All in all, it was a good show, and this finale did it justice. I still think there was a great show lurking in there somewhere, but we didn't see it.

[miss carousel]

Freddy was kind of like a cat wasn't he? A cat playing with a mouse? But in the end he did the right thing for whatever reason. Maybe he was innocent once to.

I found the Chandra storyline believable. People do crazy self destructive things. She was in over her head in a high stress situation with someone's life on the line, emotions are running high, he's attractive and working her, she's vulnerable. I don't think she liked being a lawyer either. But she's probably got a boatload of student loans.

 Elaine May Jr taking off her high heels and walking out of the courtroom in her Tieks, priceless. I think she was relieved.  

I think a more downbeat ending would have been cynical and predictable. It was messy ending in some ways but life can be messy.

That cat ain't going nowhere, he's made himself at home. The cat and Roberta Flack! Hand me a tissue damn it.

[Rancide]

On 8/28/2016 at 9:01 PM, Irlandesa said:

I do wonder what the obligation would be here, though.  Would discovery apply after both teams have rested?  Weiss was right, they did have more on Naz. 

Yes, the prosecutor absolutely had an ethical obligation to turn over the information Box discovered to the defense.  Prosecutors MUST turn over ALL information that may suggest an individual is innocent, and information that the victim had been seen arguing with someone else that night and that that person had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from her would qualify.  

While I generally enjoyed the series, it fell flat for me as a legal drama.  The failure to disclose was only a small part of it.  

The scene at the end with the prosecutor suggesting that she and Box "go get" the real killer was laughable.  Short of finding a videotape of the killing, how are you ever going to convict someone after you very publicly tried someone else for the same crime (and lost)?  Especially when the primary evidence you're using to convict is evidence that was already known to you at the time you were very publicly trying to convict someone else?  The defense attorney would have a field day.  I think the show went too far in an effort to try to incorporate some threads of "hope" into the conclusion.  In the real world, no one is going to jail for this murder at this point.

The show could have done without the Chandra character entirely.  I don't see Stone smuggling heroin into the jail, but it wouldn't have been out of character for him to waive his usual fee for one of his regulars who was on his way back in in return for his making sure Naz got what he needed to avoid being dopesick at trial.

Edited August 31, 2016 by Rancide

[Bannon]

Folks, there are many, many, people in prison cells in this country who had trials where prosecutors deliberately did not turn over exculpatory evidence for the defense to examine. It is probably the most common form of prosecutorial misconduct, and far too few prosecutors are punished for engaging in it. A ethical crminal justice system would indict a prosecutor, nearly unfailingly, for obstruction of justice for such misbehavior, but it rarely happens, even when such obstruction results in an innocent citizen being given a death sentence. This was a very believable aspect of the show, except for the prosecutor having pangs of guilt, and not retrying the case.

The writers simply didn't do a good job illuminating Chandra's motivation. I think it would have better to ignore the sexual angle, and just write Chandra as very, very. Inexperienced, but ultra ambitious and careerist. If, due to her inexperience, she thought her client had to take the stand, she might have also thought she couldn't do it with the client going through withdrawal, I could buy the drug smuggling. The problem is that smuggling drugs into prison is a felony, and the judge would not allow Chandra to move over to 2nd chair, if Chandra was shown to have committed a felony. They really just needed to think this through better.

This wasn't a perfect show, but it had some very strong elements, which I enjoyed.

[WaltersHair]

I'm not as disappointed in this series as Real Detective Season 2, but it's close. So many wrong turns and boneheaded decisions from people who definitely knew better.

Chandra wasn't just a bad lawyer, she was a bad character. Maybe a different actress would have given her life. Kissing Naz, buying and passing drugs and putting him on the witness stand? What I know about law could fit on the head of a pin and I know that's just ridiculously stupid.

I don't have any sympathy for Naz. None. He was dead behind the eyes for about 80% of the series and was arrogant in front of the jury. He is also an accessory to murder, and that was when he lost me for good. He didn't just assimilate into prison, he fully embraced it.

John T was fabulous as Stone, but I did wonder almost every episode what James Gandolfini would have done with the part. That tired trench coat would have fit him perfectly.

I love the character and the actor who played Box. Same for the DA.

We still know absolutely nothing about the victim. Maybe that was deliberate, but not believable in the context of a murder trial.

As someone said up thread, this was a good series with a great series hiding somewhere in the shadows.

[BooBear]

6 hours ago, nb360 said:

I thought this ending was near perfect. We saw Naz freed -- but still wrestling with his new self that develop while he was at Rikers. Stone went back to his "regular" legal jobs (I would have liked to have seen some reconciliation w/ his son). And we got the sense that the real killer would be brought to justice. Plus -- Stone kept the cat!

I thought this was a perfect ending and it might have redeemed the series. First I loved the "super sad" ASPCA commercial -- that actually made me laugh.  Perfect end to the kind but beleaguered John Stone. This show I think could follow him to his next case.  I liked that Naz is free but it is left up to us to imagine if he gets his life back on track and learns anything or wallows in pity and slides into strife.   I also like that the damage done in prison was self inflicted. He didn't need to take drugs.

John Stones' closing was amazing. That is how you do it my friends. But I think the hung jury, while not exciting, is likely the most likely outcome. Loved that the State declined to prosecute. I also love that the mistrial attempt failed. So new york. They do messy justice there. For a moment I thought Allison was going to be understanding about the kiss but then when she told Chandra to clean out her desk,  I was thrilled. That is exactly how it would be.

It was interesting that Freddy did seem to really like Naz and seemed to want him as a friend because he saw that he was innocent. I kept wondering if he was going to kiss him when he was doing the drugs.

Dt. Box. A little frustrating that no one else seemed to follow the video tape. That seemed like a no brainier.  I was also annoyed that Box gave the suspect all that information without an arrest warrant in his pocket. If I were financial planner guy I would have been on the next flight to some non-extradition country.  Definitely would have when Naz got off.

And Chandra? Should not be a lawyer. What kind of thinking skills were involved in her decision to smuggle drugs into Naz. They didn't touch on it but she could very well be arrested for that. When she was pulling a drug filled baggie out of her... she should have just packed it up then.

Edited August 29, 2016 by BooBear

[snarts]

4 hours ago, Bannon said:

The writers simply didn't do a good job illuminating Chandra's motivation. I think it would have better to ignore the sexual angle, and just write Chandra as very, very. Inexperienced, but ultra ambitious and careerist. If, due to her inexperience, she thought her client had to take the stand, she might have also thought she couldn't do it with the client going through withdrawal, I could buy the drug smuggling. The problem is that smuggling drugs into prison is a felony, and the judge would not allow Chandra to move over to 2nd chair, if Chandra was shown to have committed a felony. They really just needed to think this through better.

Quote

And Chandra? Should not be a lawyer. What kind of thinking skills were involved in her decision to smuggle drugs into Naz. They didn't touch on it but she could very well be arrested for that. When she was pulling a drug filled baggie out of her... she should have just packed it up then.

Agree with both,.  If the video was the kiss, wouldn't they they review the tapes from all of her other visits and see the drug smuggling?  If it included the smuggling, she'd have been charged.  Made no sense.

Finally, if she was so inexplicably drawn to Naz, where was she after the trial?  

[Gobi]

Did anyone  else have a sense of foreshadowing when Naz was leaving Rikers and the guard greeting the new inmates said "I see some familiar faces here."?

[kieyra]

I think I missed something with the surveillance videos. 

In retrospect, Naz says "I got you" to Chandra when she's pulling out the drugs because he already knows that guard is in Freddy's pocket. So later we see a guard give Freddy the DVD of the drug smuggling meet. So (now I realize) presumably that one is now destroyed.

But they cut almost immediately to Stone receiving an identical DVD which only showed the kiss. Since they'd established Freddy could control the surveillance DVDs, I thought he was the one who got the kiss video to Stone. So I believed Box when he denied having gotten that DVD to Stone. Did I miss a scene that clearly indicates (or implies) it WAS Box, other than Stone assuming it was?

[Gobi]

Just now, kieyra said:

I think I missed something with the surveillance videos. 

In retrospect, Naz says "I got you" to Chandra when she's pulling out the drugs because he already knows that guard is in Freddy's pocket. So later we see a guard give Freddy the DVD of the drug smuggling meet. So (now I realize) presumably that one is now destroyed.

But they cut almost immediately to Stone receiving an identical DVD which only showed the kiss. Since they'd established Freddy could control the surveillance DVDs, I thought he was the one who got the kiss video to Stone. So I believed Box when he denied having gotten that DVD to Stone. Did I miss a scene that clearly indicates (or implies) it WAS Box, other than Stone assuming it was?

I think it was only Freddy. He wanted to help Naz, and passing on the video of the drug exchange would only have hurt him.

[stagmania]

I think the guard showed Freddy the kiss, not the drug smuggling-we saw that it was the same disc that he then passed to Stone. I agree that the way it all played out was confusing, though. Pretty much everything involving Chandra in the last two episodes was sloppy and poorly drawn.

[Neurochick]

9 hours ago, kieyra said:

But why didn't he recognize Box? Or was it Stone who went to talk to him? 

Stone went to talk to him.  He was the one seen arguing with step-dad.  Stone went to talk to him and he gave him the information about Andrea's account, off the record. 

[benteen]

Quote

Chandra kissing him and bringing him drugs felt kind of sudden.  People do stupid things for prisoners but with all the time they had, I wish they had spent more time developing his relationship with her and less time with Freddy (as much as I enjoy MKW.) It would have been different had she been around from the beginning and saw the innocent lamb he was when he came in like Stone did but she wasn't.  I felt the connection between Stone and Naz but not between Naz and Chandra.

Summed it up perfectly.  They never explained any of this.  All of a sudden she's attracted to Naz and then she's smuggling drugs.  If they had explained it more, I could have bought this.  But not with what they showed us.  I don't think it was the actress, who I liked.  It was the writing in this cae.

When Naz made the long walk to freedom, I kept expecting him to be stopped and arrested for his role in that jailhouse killing.

The guard probably got rid of the drug-smuggling video to protect Freddy.

On the subject of why I think Naz destroyed his family even if he was innocent of the crime...it was still his actions that led him to be in a situation where he got arrested.  He stole his father's car, he took drugs, he ran from the scene of a crime...these were all choices he made that led to him being in the situation that he was in and that had devastating effects for his family.

[Neurochick]

I do think a lot of this was realistic, human beings aren't predictable and the older I get, the less I really know about people. 

I don't think Chandra should have become a lawyer; perhaps it was what she was expected to become, but really had no love for it herself.

As for Naz becoming an addict; I once met a woman who had a Masters degree, a good job and an apartment; she went to a party one night and met a man she was interested in, he gave her crack to smoke, she smoked it and a two months later lost everything she'd worked for.  When I saw her she was a cracked out prostitute, but you could hear the education in her voice.  It was sad and it taught me something about human beings, that we're not like robots, we're unpredictable.

I was once on a civil case where the judge must have thought the whole thing was bullshit because every chance he got for a holiday, he'd take; and every Friday he'd end court at noon because he swam every Friday and recess was 2 hours every day so this judge and his bailiff could sit and watch soap operas, and the case, which should have lasted two weeks lasted nearly two months.

My point is, anything is possible when you're dealing with human beings. 

As for Freddy, what did he get out of everything?  A temporary relief from boredom.

And the case didn't really end in a mistrial, the prosecution decided not to try Naz again.

Quote

Freddy was kind of like a cat wasn't he? A cat playing with a mouse? But in the end he did the right thing for whatever reason. Maybe he was innocent once to.

I wondered if maybe Freddy was innocent when he was sent to Rikers, but the place destroyed him. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Neurochick

[Drogo]

I enjoyed Chandra's character.  I thought she was a great parallel to Naz being "a good young person" who made one mistake after another, and whose life was irrevocably wrecked by the night of and its ricochet into the future.  The actress played it well during the smuggle, she was nervous and scared but also pretty turned on at the idea of breaking the rules (as Naz was the night of when he was taking drugs and playing knife games.)  Naz and Chandra are both have their freedom, but neither will ever really feel free again. 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Drogo

[paigow]

5 minutes ago, Neurochick said:

 When I saw her she was a cracked out prostitute, but you could hear the education in her voice...

2 minutes ago, Drogo said:

Naz and Chandra are both have their freedom, but neither will ever really feel free again. 

Chandra will be the "most smartest" crack whore / mule working for Freddy...

[Janc]

3 hours ago, Gobi said:

I think it was only Freddy. He wanted to help Naz, and passing on the video of the drug exchange would only have hurt him.

But why did the guard give the DVD to Freddy - how would/did Freddy get the DVD smuggled out to Stone? It'd be easier for Freddy to tell the guard to get the DVD to Stone.  

The opening scene of the stabbed hooker... I think we're supposed to tie that murder to the financial guy as well: multiple stabbings like Andrea had, and he had already been arrested for beating up hookers? 

Edited August 29, 2016 by Janc

[preeya]

 

Best. Show. Ever.

The show was very good, but "best ever" is a bit of a stretch.

[Drogo]

9 minutes ago, preeya said:

The show was very good, but "best ever" is a bit of a stretch.

That's what makes horse races. 

This was definitely my favorite one-season series and I would absolutely watch another season of it with brand new characters. 

 

41 minutes ago, Janc said:

how would/did Freddy get the DVD smuggled out to Stone?

Maybe through his Happy Meal connection.  One guard might live closer to Stone than the other.

[Primetimer]

As Naz's story ends (and begins, in its way), aå crime show that understood what we need from crime shows gave us just enough.

View the full article

[Rancide]

6 hours ago, Bannon said:

Folks, there are many, many, people in prison cells in this country who had trials where prosecutors deliberately did not turn over exculpatory evidence for the defense to examine. It is probably the most common form of prosecutorial misconduct, and far too few prosecutors are punished for engaging in it.

I agree that Brady* violations are rampant, though I'd like to think it's usually a function of tunnel vision and a failure of imagination rather than a deliberate, outright decision not to follow the rules, as it would have to be in this case.  I think what usually happens is that prosecutors and police, who are only human after all, decide they have "the guy" and get so invested in the fact that they have the right guy that they just fail to notice and/or cannot conceive how [x] piece of evidence might actually point in a different direction.  Brady is hard.  It basically requires you to put yourself in the position of the defense attorney and think "could I use this evidence in my client's favor?"  Not everyone is good at doing that.  

In this case, however, the prosecutor obviously knew the evidence she didn't turn over pointed to someone else because we saw her discussing it with the police officer.  Her failure to hand it over would be cause for losing her license.  

I third or fourth whomever said that this was a good show with a great show lurking somewhere beneath.  The legal stuff was just too sloppy for me.

*"Brady" is the case that says prosecutors have to turn over potentially exculpatory evidence.

[islandgal140]

Well, if this show was about the struggle of eczema with a small side of the importance of shelter adoption than it would have been a home run, but since it wasn't ..... 

I feel Naz's family got the shortest end of the stick story-telling wise. Yes, I realize they are losing their home, lost their job and have become neighborhood pariahs but it all felt very writing 101 (which I don't expect from HBO) and cursory, at BEST. Did Naz's brother have more than 3 lines? Do we know what his struggles are after the night of? But yet I had to hear and see the cab tribunal converge what? about 3 times to discuss the cab?

Freddy was just the biggest enigma of the whole series. That final little speech he gave Naz about being his own special unicorn sounded like a creepy old dude feeling blessed over having popped some virgin's cherry. 

What happens to an innocent while awaiting trial in Rikers might have very well been the meat and potatoes of this story but I just wasn't engrossed by it. 

9 hours ago, nb360 said:

I felt the trial stuff was "off" in the seventh episode as well. There were no objections yelled, from either side, at statements that any decent lawyer would object to. 

What does it say when the most correct, memorable and effective objection was by a witness, creepy funeral director, who pronounced hearsay wrong?

[clb1016]

I guess this series was supposed to be another “Oz” about the soul killing effects of the American penal system rather than a straight whodunnit, but TPTB really mishandled the criminal case aspects.

Some things I can’t let go of yet:

I know the prosecution believed that they had an unshakable case, but shouldn’t they be prepared for the defense to present alternate theories since that’s the defense’s job?  And wouldn’t the prep for such attacks on the prosecution’s case involve investigating any possible alternate theories that the defense might present?  How about looking at her fellow drug users, dealers and whoever left mementoes at the makeshift memorial outside her house?  How about an explanation for why there was no blood on Naz just in case the defense brought up a fact that’s been obvious since the first episode?

Forget the kiss (and the drug-smuggling? Oy!) Chandra should be disbarred for being the worst lawyer in the world.  She puts her client on the stand without any prep?  Did it not occur to her that, if nothing else, the prosecution was sure to ask “why did you take the knife”?

People walk in and out of courtrooms all the time.  Everything does not come grinding to a halt while the prosecution, defense counsel, defendant and everyone else in the gallery turns around to see who is leaving.

The case got so much publicity that reporters were stationed outside Naz’s house and people threw rocks through the windows but there were never reporters outside the courthouse asking questions of the attorneys?  And after a hung jury and the prosecutor’s deciding not to retry the case, this is not a major news story?  The defendant, his family, lawyers, are not appearing on all the morning news shows?  The prosecutor isn’t facing a ton of questions as to why she’s not going to retry?

Terrific performances from almost everyone (I give the actress who played Chandra a pass because the character was so poorly written) but this show was a major disappointment to me.

I’ve really enjoyed reading this board.  So many smart people with so many insightful comments.

[Anna525]

2 hours ago, Gobi said:

Did anyone  else have a sense of foreshadowing when Naz was leaving Rikers and the guard greeting the new inmates said "I see some familiar faces here."?

Absolutely. Naz is now a drug addict and he won't care if he goes back to Riker's because he has protection. 

I almost thought for a second there that the DA will still give a strong final argument despite the information Box gave her, and that Naz will be found guilty - you know, the way this show was really more about the flawed justice system more than NCIS. 

[Drogo]

I like to imagine that after the closing credits, it's just 15-20 years of this:

[kieyra]

Randomly, but I just followed a three-month murder trial with two co-defendants, wherein one of them DID choose to take the stand in their own defense. (It didn't work, but it was still fascinating. He tried the 'I don't remember' tactic for a lot of things.)

Good article about the guy who was probably the 'ringleader':

http://www.cbc.ca/interactives/longform/news/wayward-son-dellen-millard-tim-bosma-trial

And a write-up of his henchman testifying on his own behalf:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/clean-cut-and-unshackled-co-accused-mark-smich-takes-the-stand-at-the-tim-bosma-trial

[Neurochick]

2 hours ago, benteen said:

When Naz made the long walk to freedom, I kept expecting him to be stopped and arrested for his role in that jailhouse killing.

I did too, until I realized that we, the audience and Freddy are the only ones who know about Naz's role in that killing.  

[Knuckles]

Could not figure out how the writers were going to end the trial...they seemed to have hit a wall...but a hung jury, and a prosecutor who declined to refile the case...exactly the right murky but believable ending. Kudos to Price and Zallian. 

I did like that the stepfather was not the perp...and the questions raised here last week about the enthusiasm the financial advisor had about helping Stone were answered. 

Freddy remains something of an enigma. 

i liked Berlin as the prosecutor...as someone who has been on juries in NYC, she struck me as believable and experienced, letting Chandra's parade of witnesses go largely un questioned...a smart tactic. 

But Chandra had to be the dumbest, or more kindly, the most naive lawyer ever. There was nothing to be gained putting Naz on the stand, with his blank jail house eyes, and prison tats. And it opened him up to a devastating cross examination. The whole run, not caring that Allison used her as ethnic bait to Naz's family, her failure to fully examine the video tapes, the stupid kiss, and finally buying drugs and smuggling them into Rikers...losing her job was the least of it...she could have been headed for a jail cell herself.

As for Naz, he and Freddy conspired to commit murder one when they killed Victor, and I have no doubt that he will be back inside Rikers or the like sooner or later. The questions that prey on his mind about Andrea and her murder will not disappear, except in a drug haze, and finding the cash to keep that going will keep him in the line of fire.

[ganesh]

Quote

Perhaps upon rewatch it will be clearer

I'll never know. A show shouldn't expect me to rewatch to get it. 

Quote

they're selling their house to pay the bills, the mother lost her job and had to scrounge for a new one, the father is working extra jobs, his mother thinks he is a killer.

Aside from taking the cab to go to a party, which isn't a capital offense, I'm just not seeing how any of that is Naz' fault. He should have called 911, but again, panicking isn't a crime either. 

[Neurochick]

35 minutes ago, Drogo said:

I like to imagine that after the closing credits, it's just 15-20 years of this:

I LOVE that picture.  That cat looked like he/she really liked JT.  I wonder how many cats they used for that show.

IRL most people who watch this show really like it, but don't dissect it the way we do here.  

[Joimiaroxeu]

Are there really that many security cameras in NYC? This show made it seem like there are cameras literally everywhere, on everyone, 24/7. Maybe in London, but not New York.

Deadlocked jury seemed like a bit of a cop out to me. Whatever, now Naz is a drug addict with prison tats and his family's lives will never be the same. Plus he's seen horrific things in Rikers that he can never unsee. He made several poor decisions but none of them (prior to his stay in Rikers) seemed deserving of having multiple lives ruined. Cautionary tale, indeed.

I was so happy to see the kitty was back!

[paigow]

I remember Law & Order mothership episode where the jury was hung and similarly refused to continue. Ben Stone wanted to retry but Adam refused.

17 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Deadlocked jury seemed like a bit of a cop out to me.

[preeya]

I thought the hung jury was a good ending. However, can a jury tell a judge they cannot continue and literally quit? I always was under the impression that was a call the judge makes after he sends them back for further deliberation.

Kudos to those who speculated on the CPA as the perp.

Emmys for Turturro and The Cat.

Edited August 29, 2016 by preeya

[MyPeopleAreNordic]

10 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I think Freddy already knew what would be on the tape.  They have all day to talk. I assume Naz told him that he kissed his lawyer and that she brought in the drugs for him.  Freddy would want to know where the supply came from.

I kind of wonder if Freddy didn't suggest that Naz come on to Chandra and try to kiss her, knowing it would be taped and they could try to use it for grounds for mistrial if needed. 

[TaraS1]

10 hours ago, numbnut said:

They used the piano music from "The Door in the Floor," an awesome movie that indicates but doesn't show the sad ending in the book.  Based on that I'm guessing Naz won't fare well. But yay for the adorable cat! That last shot put a big smile on my face.

Just had to chime in and say I love "The Door In the Floor" - both book and movie!  So painfully good.

I was very happy about the cat, too.  I'm not an animal person, but those two adorable outcasts needed each other.

[Kenz]

2 hours ago, clb1016 said:

 

The case got so much publicity that reporters were stationed outside Naz’s house and people threw rocks through the windows but there were never reporters outside the courthouse asking questions of the attorneys?  And after a hung jury and the prosecutor’s deciding not to retry the case, this is not a major news story?  The defendant, his family, lawyers, are not appearing on all the morning news shows?  The prosecutor isn’t facing a ton of questions as to why she’s not going to retry?

The courtroom scenes really irritated me too. The courtroom was so dingy and dark, and maybe half of the seats in the gallery were filled. If this is such a big case, where are the spectators and reporters?  And as others have mentioned, where were the objections from the prosecutor or defense for blatantly objectionable questions? That was ridiculous.

Maybe someone can help me with this question. Was there a videotape of the financial advisor throwing something in a garbage bag? Where was that video taken, close to Andrea's place? Why did cameras not record anyone coming and going outside of her brownstone? I thought I saw a video of the neighbor on the street, so why wouldn't there have been video of the financial advisor entering the place, or did he creep in through the broken gate? It seems like he would have left bloody footprints inside the house somewhere too, since there was so much blood. Do you think there would be enough evidence to put him on trial? I want justice for Andrea!

Edited August 29, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[iMonrey]

I'm satisfied with the way it ended, even if it sort of has "Season 2" written all over it. There was enough closure for me. The show never really lived up to its potential IMO so the last episode was sort of make or break. 

It struck me as odd how the judge, who has been largely silent up until this episode, suddenly became so chatty and hostile. He'd been sort of a background character until now so the effort to flesh him out here and make him part of the story seemed like an afterthought. 

I'm not sure that I buy the jury would be tied 6-6, but I did think the defense did a pretty fair job of raising reasonable doubt. Duane Reade, the limo driver, and the stepfather were all sketchy as hell. If I were on the jury I think I would have voted for acquittal even if I suspected Naz was guilty just because of the reasonable doubt.

I finally understood (I think) what the point of Stone's eczema was WRT to this story - the parallel between him and Naz. Both are pariahs, albeit for different reasons, that nobody wants to associate with or even look at. 

And as glad as I was about the cat being saved, the heavy-handedness of that particular metaphor was pretty annoying. We get it, show. The cat is Naz! Stone loses hope in Naz's case, he takes the cat back to the shelter. He gets Naz freed, he goes and gets the cat back. He can't save Naz/ the cat; he can save Naz/the cat. A subtle as a ton of bricks. 

I think a second season might actually be warranted, although I foresee no good outcome for Naz.

[AuntiePam]

What would Helen have done if the jury had come back with a verdict of Guilty?  It's First Degree Murder, so she couldn't have recommended a light sentence to salve her conscience.  

Initially I didn't like Chandra putting Naz on the stand, and it appeared that she coached him in how to answer her questions, but she wasn't smart enough to think of the questions Helen would ask, and help him with those answers.

I thought his flat, unruffled, matter of fact, emotionless demeanor was what swayed those six NG jurors -- it would have swayed me.  He either had to be telling the truth or he had to be a total psychopath.  And there was pain in his eyes, when Helen asked why he didn't call 911, that Andrea might have been saved, and then she quoted the Prophet. 

The other thing about Naz that I liked -- and the jury had to see it -- was Naz whispering "thank you" to Stone when it was over.  I think it showed empathy on Naz's part, and appreciation for what Stone said -- someone's finally sticking up for Naz.

And I like that  both Freddy and Stone saw Naz's innocence -- that more than anything convinced me that Naz really didn't do it.

[Neurochick]

1 hour ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Are there really that many security cameras in NYC? This show made it seem like there are cameras literally everywhere, on everyone, 24/7. Maybe in London, but not New York.

Sometimes it seems that way.    When Bloomberg was mayor, he said he wanted NYC to have as many cameras as London, and in Manhattan there are a LOT of cameras.

I liked the subtleness of the cat being saved.  We never see Stone save the cat, but that camera lingering on the hallway and then, there's the cat.  It did bring a smile to my face because I didn't really think Stone would come back for it.

Quote

I finally understood (I think) what the point of Stone's eczema was WRT to this story - the parallel between him and Naz. Both are pariahs, albeit for different reasons, that nobody wants to associate with or even look at. 

Yes, people have a problem dealing with people and situations that make them uncomfortable.  Interesting that someone makes me feel uncomfortable, yet I push my shit on them.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Neurochick

[Anna525]

In the NY Daily News' recap of The Night Of, there is a very nice analogy of Stone and the cat: 

"The feline, all along has served as a metaphor for Naz. The lawyer, against all odds, saved the cat in spite of his allergies. He took the creature in, even though he had no idea how to care for it, illustrated by his interactions with the animal. Naz, like the cat, was a victim in the grand scheme of Andrea's murder."

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/night-finale-recap-article-1.2765858

[stagmania]

2 hours ago, clb1016 said:

Forget the kiss (and the drug-smuggling? Oy!) Chandra should be disbarred for being the worst lawyer in the world.  She puts her client on the stand without any prep?  Did it not occur to her that, if nothing else, the prosecution was sure to ask “why did you take the knife”?

I'm not even a lawyer, and I know you never put the defendant on the stand unless there's something absolutely vital you need to get in evidence that can't come from any other source. You certainly don't put them up just to act as their own character witness, especially if the best they can do is say they can't remember anything but feel in their heart that they must be innocent. That's 101 level stuff, and it makes no sense that Chandra wouldn't know that this was a terrible idea. On top of that, the whole exchange about the knife was just bizarre. Was I supposed to think that Naz didn't remember that he took the knife from the crime scene? Having the knife in his pocket is the entire reason he got caught!

On another note: the critical response to the finale (and the show as a whole) has been pretty mixed, with some loving it and some more focused on its flaws, but this review from Matt Zoller Seitz at Vulture sums up my feelings perfectly.

[mirrorrim]

13 hours ago, nb360 said:

I felt the trial stuff was "off" in the seventh episode as well. There were no objections yelled, from either side, at statements that any decent lawyer would object to. 

This is a major reason why I'm so thoroughly disappointed in this show. I've enjoyed lots of shows that have courtroom storylines and because of the context of the show, I can overlook silly stuff that they play up for drama. BUT from the pilot of this show, they portrayed the context of this show as serious. A real-life look at how this story would play out. So, I took the show seriously...until it devolved into a giant mess. The only thing I liked is that the cat lived, Stone had an amazing closing argument, and while I think it wasn't portrayed well and there really should have been a discussion on how long Naz was in Rikers, I do think him ending up as a depressed drug addict after this whole ordeal is realistic.

My father is a retired police officer and district attorney investigator so I checked with him on his thoughts on the trial (he would have played a version of Box if he was in this show). His biggest problem with the trial was the lawyers breaking some very common (you can't sit and ask questions; you sure as hell don't touch evidence without it being in a bag, speaking of: you especially don't put the unboxed murder weapon down right on the desk) and big deal rules (approaching the witness stand without permission, and then STANDING THERE leaning on the rail FOR THE ENTIRE QUESTIONING in order to intimidate the witness). Let's not forget the complete lack of discussion on blood evidence, which would play a gigantic role in any real trial. Or the lawyers telling stories to witnesses without asking a question. Or the defense lawyer not prepping her witnesses. Or the prosecutor, in talking with the autopsy tech and the knife expert and them both responding with "what do you want me to say?" which, I'm sure happens rarely in real life and this was played for drama, but is still a very serious illegal and criminal act and would not be played off so lightly.

He did say that asking leading questions is ok if it's the lawyer's witness, and the cross-examiner is not allowed to do the same, only when questioning their own witness.

Also couldn't stand Chandra and her weird decisions that were made for drama, plus the 11th hour discovery of who did it. I was disappointed that it wasn't someone from the first or second episode, because I (falsely) believed this show would give us all the clues in the beginning, so we could have fun trying to figure out who did it along with the characters. It feels cheap to throw in the answer at the end.

Edited August 29, 2016 by mirrorrim

[Princess Sparkle]

53 minutes ago, preeya said:

I thought the hung jury was a good ending. However, can a jury tell a judge they cannot continue and literally quit? I always was under the impression that was a call the judge makes after he sends them back for further deliberation.

 

I believe the judge can send them back to try and see if the dissenting jurors will reconsider, but yes, I think juries are the ones who make the call on whether or not they can come to a unanimous verdict.  

[Milburn Stone]

3 minutes ago, Princess Sparkle said:

I believe the judge can send them back to try and see if the dissenting jurors will reconsider, but yes, I think juries are the ones who make the call on whether or not they can come to a unanimous verdict.  

I'd like a lawyer to weigh in on this. My understanding is that it is up to the judge, and that he has the right to say, "I don't care how hopeless you think it will be to come to an agreement, I'm sending you back to the jury room until you do." Now, yes, a judge can decide that a situation really is hopeless, and that sending the jury back won't do any good, and that the state's interests are best served by declaring a hung jury--which is what this judge did--but that is his call. No?

[Princess Sparkle]

I think we are pretty much saying the same thing - yes, the judge can send them back once or twice (usually no more than that) to try and get them to agree, and the judge is the one that ultimately declares the mistrial when they've determined that the jury is indeed deadlocked.  But the way the judge usually gets to that conclusion is by asking the jury whether or not they can come to a unanimous verdict, and then it the jurors (or, jury foreperson I suppose) that says no they cannot and sometimes, no they will not.