S01.E08: The Call of the Wild

[Uncle JUICE]

Are we sure that there was none of her blood on him? Because I can't believe even the show with this shoddy of a courtroom dynamic would have let that stay OUT of closing arguments. 

[Milburn Stone]

49 minutes ago, stagmania said:

I think the message was pretty explicitly and elegantly laid out in Stone's closing argument. We'll just have to agree to disagree on how well the rest of the show supported it.

Maybe it's semantics. The show definitely had a point of view. That's the term I'd prefer over "message." And I agree that Stone's closing argument was superbly written and delivered. But we do disagree about whether that point of view was consistent. I think the show managed itself, its tonality, and its point of view beautifully.

[ganesh]

1 hour ago, Uncle JUICE said:

Are we sure that there was none of her blood on him? Because I can't believe even the show with this shoddy of a courtroom dynamic would have let that stay OUT of closing arguments. 

When Naz woke up in the house after the murder, there was no blood on him. After he was arrested, and was stripped down to get hosed off, the only thing they showed were scratches on his back. I'm fairly sure Box saw all of this. That's why everyone was asking about it here since the 1st episode. 

I never entertained that he might have done it because of that. There was so much blood in the bedroom, if he did it, he would have had something on him. They really should have just had her stabbed 4 or 5 times if they wanted us to think he might have done it. Everyone on the show kept talking about the OVERWHELMING evidence against Naz. Besides, "it didn't look good," there really wasn't much of anything. If there was, then the DA wouldn't be arguing about stuff from his past that weren't really relevant. Especially once it was established that he took K.

Either make the murder where we don't know if Naz did it, or show us that there's no way he did it, but that he might get convicted anyway because he had a bad lawyer, cops didn't care, etc. I think they wanted it to play both ways and fell flat. 

Edited August 31, 2016 by ganesh

[Uncle JUICE]

It's an easy problem to solve, too" put some of her blood on him and have his story be "When I saw her in that condition, I tried to revive her, to see if she was still alive, that's why I have her blood here or there." Or anything!

ETA now that I think of it, there's no way he had any blood evident on his person. The two arresting officers would have asked a lot of questions if he had. So fucking dumb. 

"Forensic analyst witness, can you tell me how much blood the victim lost while being stabbed 22 times, and bleeding to death? Or approximate how much blood one would have to lose in order to lose consciousness and eventually die?"

(Answer "A NUMBER OF LITERS").

"Is it reasonable, then, to imagine this number of liters of blood to be present in the room, and have NONE of it stick to the crime's perpetrator? I mean, if I stabbed something 22 times, it looks like this and takes this long {mime 22 stabs as fast as you can)."

(Answer "Perhaps the defendant showered or cleaned up as he could have been naked when he killed her"). 

"So then your theory is that the defendant was cogent enough to take a shower and wash his hair, eliminate ALL blood evidence but not clean under his fingernails where we find her skin cells, which could have been there due to sexual intercourse, as she has no defensive wounds and is on her back as we find her, and only THEN, in the shower, he begins to panic and decides his best course of action is to leave the scene otherwise entirely intact...but he's still not cogent enough to take his jacket? Or dispose of the murder weapon?"

("I can't say what he would or wouldn't do, all I can say is there's no blood on him")

No further questions. (Mic drop)

Edited August 31, 2016 by Uncle JUICE

[preeya]

How Accurate Was The Night Of?

Two Legal Experts Explain

Read it here

[khyber]

Why all the close ups of the deer head on the wall if it meant nothing?

[Uncle JUICE]

4 minutes ago, khyber said:

Why all the close ups of the deer head on the wall if it meant nothing?

Because art. Stuff like that bugs me, it's like reading some freshman college poetry. Get over yourself.

[Superpole2000]

29 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

ETA now that I think of it, there's no way he had any blood evident on his person. The two arresting officers would have asked a lot of questions if he had. So fucking dumb. 

There was some blood on him. The victim's hand was bleeding thanks to that pre-sex knife game. I don't recall them saying how much blood, though, and obviously we didn't see this investigated in great detail. I was stunned that neither the prosecution nor defense mentioned blood in their closings.

They did make a point of saying that Nas' skin was found under the victim's fingernails, but we know that happened from the sex scratches on Nas' back.

[Uncle JUICE]

And there is zero way to argue that scratches on his back would be the singular place he'd have defensive wounds. 

[clb1016]

39 minutes ago, Uncle JUICE said:

It's an easy problem to solve, too" put some of her blood on him and have his story be "When I saw her in that condition, I tried to revive her, to see if she was still alive, that's why I have her blood here or there." Or anything!

ETA now that I think of it, there's no way he had any blood evident on his person. The two arresting officers would have asked a lot of questions if he had. So fucking dumb. 

"Forensic analyst witness, can you tell me how much blood the victim lost while being stabbed 22 times, and bleeding to death? Or approximate how much blood one would have to lose in order to lose consciousness and eventually die?"

(Answer "A NUMBER OF LITERS").

"Is it reasonable, then, to imagine this number of liters of blood to be present in the room, and have NONE of it stick to the crime's perpetrator? I mean, if I stabbed something 22 times, it looks like this and takes this long {mime 22 stabs as fast as you can)."

(Answer "Perhaps the defendant showered or cleaned up as he could have been naked when he killed her"). 

"So then your theory is that the defendant was cogent enough to take a shower and wash his hair, eliminate ALL blood evidence but not clean under his fingernails where we find her skin cells, which could have been there due to sexual intercourse, as she has no defensive wounds and is on her back as we find her, and only THEN, in the shower, he begins to panic and decides his best course of action is to leave the scene otherwise entirely intact...but he's still not cogent enough to take his jacket? Or dispose of the murder weapon?"

("I can't say what he would or wouldn't do, all I can say is there's no blood on him")

No further questions. (Mic drop)

Despite all the things I liked about this series, the two problems I just can't get past are (1) the blood spatter never being mentioned (even though the blood-spattered lamp was apparently in the courtroom as an exhibit), and (2) the lack of investigation by the defense before the start of the trial.  Stone seemingly took his first good look at the crime scene photos while he was in the copy shop.  

[Uncle JUICE]

11 minutes ago, Superpole2000 said:

There was some blood on him. The victim's hand was bleeding thanks to that pre-sex knife game. I don't recall them saying how much blood, though, and obviously we didn't see this investigated in great detail. I was stunned that neither the prosecution nor defense mentioned blood in their closings.

They did make a point of saying that Nas' skin was found under the victim's fingernails, but we know that happened from the sex scratches on Nas' back.

What I'm saying is that if he'd stabbed her 22 times, he'd have had a fuckload of blood on him, enough that the cops would have said something like "Why is your shirt covered in blood, are you bleeding sir?" (Not my blood) "(Guns drawn) Step out of the car and put your hands behind your head." As that didn't happen, it wouldn't be enough blood to convict anyway. 

[ganesh]

57 minutes ago, preeya said:

How Accurate Was The Night Of?

Two Legal Experts Explain

The experts basically torpedoed the DA's case basically saying what we've been saying all along. Ha ha ha ha. 

Quote

It seems like such an open and shut case, but the room looks like a Jackson Pollock painting it's got so much blood everywhere. And he's got no blood on him, and the inhaler has no blood. I thought those were very, very glaring reasonable doubt pieces of evidence that should have been hammered by the defense.

Edited August 31, 2016 by ganesh

[iMonrey]

Quote

For what it's worth, I've been filling the summer TV slump with the first season of American Crime (the Felicity Huffman one) on Netflix. I was shocked when I just googled to verify the name and discovered it's a network show. Seems really well done so far. If you're looking for more "crime" fix I can recommend it, and it's filling in a lot of the beats that seemed to be missing in The Night Of. Also has Timothy Hutton and W. Earl Brown (the latter of which is probably why I assumed it was a cable show). 

There I must disagree. I found American Crime to be horrendously pretentious and self important, from the camera work to the gimmicky poetry and dance recitals. I much preferred the straight forward storytelling of "The Night Of." One of the things that impressed me so much with the pilot was the linear manner in which the story unfolded without the use of flashbacks or any other gimmicks. I was also much more satisfied with the way this series ended. American Crime left me wondering exactly which crime the story was supposed to be about.

[kieyra]

7 hours ago, EyesGlazed said:

Did anyone notice that on cross, Naz says that after he woke up in the kitchen, he walked to Andrea's bedroom "to get dressed".  Then the camera switches to Stone's face.  Then back to Naz.  Naz was already dressed when he woke up in the kitchen.  Was this supposed to cast more doubt on whether Naz was remembering correctly/telling the truth?

When Naz wakes up in the kitchen, he's wearing a t-shirt and underwear. He does actually go up the bedroom and start getting fully dressed.

(Source: watched the pilot repeatedly.)

[violetr]

I watch a lot of dark stuff. I love horror movies, I love thrillers, I love whodunits. But that doesn't mean they don't get to me sometimes. As an animal lover, one of my biggest complaints about horror films is that writers/directors often kill off animals as a cheap way to upset the audience and show us how high the stakes are - how evil the villains are. So yeah, I was really, really touched to see the kitty at the end. Like, crying-my-face-off-for-the-next-hour touched. I feel like it was earned, and I don't feel like it was cheap. A bit heavy in terms of the symbolism? Sure, I'll give you that. But John Turturro really sold his character to me. I believed everything he did, including all the back and forth with the cat. 

For many of us 2016 has been a crap year, and every once in a while I like my dark matter to have a small ray of hope. Kudos to a wonderful, flawed, thought-provoking, well-acted series. 

[LakeGal]

One scene that bothered me.  Why was Stone sitting on the wood partition on the bench?  When he was sitting outside the courtroom he was sitting right on the wood partition on the bench.  That had to be uncomfortable. 

[paigow]

2 hours ago, LakeGal said:

One scene that bothered me.  Why was Stone sitting on the wood partition on the bench?  When he was sitting outside the courtroom he was sitting right on the wood partition on the bench.  That had to be uncomfortable. 

Scratching eczema?

[candall]

On ‎8‎/‎31‎/‎2016 at 11:35 AM, khyber said:

Why all the close ups of the deer head on the wall if it meant nothing?

Well, let's see how far we can get with deer as metaphor.

--They die when they walk into range of the hunter--wrong place, wrong time can prove fatal.

--They're only in that place because of sexual urges.  [Deer season is during rutting, so they can't resist the impulse to run around instead of being quiet and safe, which is how they normally behave.] 

--They pose no threat to hunters, so there's zero balance of power within the system.

--In my state, 800k deer are "harvested" annually, but only a few of the largest end up on Nancy Grace, I mean, mounted as trophies.

--Umm . . . you aren't allowed to bring down a deer unless you have a license? 

Too much?  Too far?

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

Honestly, I really only thought the deer head--and the way they zoomed in on the eyeball, and lingered so long I thought there might be a nanny cam in there--was about eyes that can no longer see what's right in front of them.

Edited September 2, 2016 by candall

[Valmarmar]

On 8/28/2016 at 10:01 PM, Neurochick said:

You were not.  I was watching the ending and I thought, why is the camera just focusing on that, and then the final scene, and the music was perfect.  I LOVE that song.

My favorite song, NEUROCHICK !!!!! So appropriate for that last scene.  I cheered at that, and for Turturro's performance.

Edited September 2, 2016 by Valmarmar
Hit button before finishing !!

[Chicago Redshirt]

Late to the party, but some thoughts I wanted to share:

For what it's worth, the Khans potentially have a pretty big civil suit on their hands. The failure to pursue those various leads, the failure to disclose the existence of the financial planner as suspect, the fact that Papa Khan had to sell his part of a medallion worth $250k for $75k, and Mama Khan lost her job, that Naz went from an up-and-coming college student to a drug addict because he was falsely accused, all could mean a suit worth millions. And this time, they should have a lot of quality lawyers beating on their doors, not a hack like Stone or a noob like Chandra.Re: Chandra, people have made terrible decisions out of love, lust, laziness, etc. Kissing a client is dumb, of course. Particularly when the client may be a murderer. Smuggling drugs, beyond dumb. But I wouldn't bet the farm that no lawyer has ever tried to do it. It would have been nice if there had been more space for Chandra to have developed as a character.

On courtroom stuff: I am an attorney, albeit not in the criminal justice side of things, and I generally give shows a lot of latitude. Generally, lawyers are not going to be as snarky or informal as they are on TV, and of course, things are going to be drawn out more. So for instance with the jury deadlock, no judge is going to ask about the numerical division. In fact, in the instructions for federal trials I've done or watched, the judge explicitly says that the jury is not to inform about any numerical division. Judges often give what's called the "dynamite charge" to deadlock jurors to remind them of their obligation to deliberate. If you are curious about it, you can read more about it here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_v._United_States_(1896)

On the decision to not retry: Yeah in real life, the front-line prosecutor would never be able to snap-call or fold on the spot. There would have to be running the decision up the chain. And any real-life judge would not request a retrial the next week. They would have to have respect for the running the decision up the chain. Plus that decision would probably require ordering court transcripts, which take time. You would want the transcripts to better prepare witnesses and prepare to impeach hostile witnesses. Plus trying to get all the witnesses back isn't something that's likely to be feasible in a week. But for drama purposes shortcutting so we have a quasi-happy ending is to be expected.

Quote

"The hung jury was a little strange to me because the defense put together such an awful case.  Hell.  Even Naz got on the stand and couldn't swear by his innocence."

Other than the decision to put Naz on, and Naz freezing, the defense did a pretty good job. They had an expert who pointed out that anyone could have entered the brownstone, that a knife from the set was missing, and that the state's forensic expert generally sucked. (It would have been nice if they'd have pointed out that Naz would have been drenched in blood spatter if he was the killer, but eh.) They identified 3 potential suspects with the ability to have killed Andrea. They generally told the better story -- or at least so it seemed to me. 

Quote

"Really nice how Box decided at the last minute to actually do his job. 

I really can't say what this show is about. Upon reflection of the show, I just can't buy that Naz criminaled up so fast in jail. He's got a neck tattoo now? It's like irrelevant to him. I can't imagine being so blase about your literal life. We never saw anything in the series to indicate this seemingly fatalistic streak in Naz that was also seemingly instantaneous. I wish that was addressed more."

Box was working hard throughout. (Discounting the notion that they only checked the victim's phone records during the trial.)I don't think it's so instantaneous...like others said, this was supposed to happen over the course of a year or so. Being in jail for that sort of length of time, faced with the doubt about your own innocence, the estrangement from your family, the suffering of your family because of you, the feeling of being discriminated against because of your religion, getting your ass kicked or threatened by other inmates, and the very real possibility of being imprisoned for life all are going to have some effect.
"

Quote

 

"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?"

 

Considering we're in a universe where they haven't reviewed the phone records of the victims, it seems unlikely that they would spend that much effort seeing what Chandra was up to. Also, no one would  jump to the conclusion that because she kissed Naz she'd smuggle drugs for him. 

My read: She was into him when she thought he was a good Muslim boy who was the victim of injustice. When he blew his testimony, it occurred to her for the first time that he might actually have done it. And there went her attraction to him. Of course, it could be that she is still into him, but either a) decide him to give the space called for or b) is going to see him in S2.

Quote

"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?"

It's not unheard of for the press to be hot and heavy covering a case and then disappear, particularly if there's not a conviction. But of course, who's to say that the mistrial wasn't a major news story within the world of the show? We didn't see any scenes to say conclusively one way or another.

Quote

"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."

Hypothetically she could have said, "Gee, judge we have this newly discovered evidence that Financial Planner may have been involved. Please vacate the conviction in the interest of justice."

Quote

"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."

A defendant has an absolute right to testify in his own defense, no matter how much his lawyer might tell him that's a bad idea.

I don't think it would be inherently a bad idea to have Naz testify. He's generally smart, likeable, and he could give off that aura of innocence that Stone and Freddy (and I think to some extent Box) first sensed. And there are some things that he could have explained himself that wouldn't get as good an explanation otherwise -- why he did all the crazy things (sorry, no matter how smoking hot someone might be, I would have been out of there after mumblety-peg.), why he took the knife, why he broke back in, why he didn't call 911, etc. The problem is, of course, execution. Regardless of whether they were going to have Naz testify, they knew they had to have a story to tell from the get go and as far as we saw, the defense didn't flesh out the story about what he was supposedly doing. 

It probably would have worked out better writing-wise if they had it that Naz was insisting that he wanted to testify over both Stone's and Chandra's objections, dropped the Chandra mule plot and then because of his addiction blew things on his own. But they wanted to contrive a situation where Stone needed to be forced to be the closer...oh well. 

Quote

"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."

At some point you likely would get to have the unboxed evidence to show and possibly even have the jury handle.

There was at least some discussion about blood evidence -- just not to the extent that it would be in a real trial.

I'm pretty sure there are witnesses who get frustrated and say all sorts of things.

In real life, both sides will use leading questions. You are not supposed to with your own witnesses except for basic questions about your witness's background and the like. You are supposed to do leading questions on cross-examination. 

Quote

"And in Chandra's defense she was 90% a good lawyer.  Her arguments were good and she helped sway 6 jurors into doubting the Prosecution."

Or she helped sway up to 6 jurors into siding with the prosecution. Or all 12 were with the prosecution for most of the trial and 6 were swayed by Box's closing. We don't know.

Quote

"One more thing, Chandra's boss, what a nasty witch.  She could have said, "and clean our your desk" not "and clean out your FUCKING desk."  That showed me how low class the woman was; that she projects this air of class and respectability, that she put herself above Stone, "I'm a real lawyer" she told Naz's family.  But in the end, she cursed at Chandra like some no class, uneducated hood rat."

People curse when they get angry. And Allison had every reason to be angry at Chandra, who was a major embarassment to her and the firm.

Quote

"First, Naz didn't destroy his parent's lives.  That's the point of the show.  What happened to him could have happened to anybody."

Not quite anybody. First, the person would have to be horny/naive enough to let Andrea wrap them around their finger, from taking various drugs to playing mumbletypeg to having sex with her despite the crazy. Then the person would have to not call 911 when awaking. Then the person would have to take the potential murder weapon and other things from the scene of the crime. It also helps if the person isn't white or Christian. 

Edited September 2, 2016 by Drogo
Quote formatting.

[Gobi]

How could the Khans sue civilly? Naz wasn't found innocent, after all; nor has the financial planner been found guilty - he hasn't even been charged. Would Naz want to risk having a civil trial where what he did in Rikers could come out?

[Drogo]

14 hours ago, candall said:

Well, let's see how far we can get with deer as metaphor.

--They die when they walk into range of the hunter--wrong place, wrong time can prove fatal.

--They're only in that place because of sexual urges.  [Deer season is during rutting, so they can't resist the impulse to run around instead of being quiet and safe, which is how they normally behave.] 

--They pose no threat to hunters, so there's zero balance of power within the system.

--In my state, 800k deer are "harvested" annually, but only a few of the largest end up on Nancy Grace, I mean, mounted as trophies.

--Umm . . . you aren't allowed to bring down a deer unless you have a license? 

Too much?  Too far?

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

Honestly, I really only thought the deer head--and the way they zoomed in on the eyeball, and lingered so long I thought there might be a nanny cam in there--was about eyes that can no longer see what's right in front of them.

My best guess about the the lingering taxidermy shots is a callback to The Hartford's recognizable logo - to subtly indicate that her financial planner was involved. 

      

[Chicago Redshirt]

3 hours ago, Gobi said:

How could the Khans sue civilly? Naz wasn't found innocent, after all; nor has the financial planner been found guilty - he hasn't even been charged. Would Naz want to risk having a civil trial where what he did in Rikers could come out?

A complete acquittal isn't a necessary precursor for filing a civil lawsuit. All one has to do is convince a jury that is more likely than not that various of his rights were violated. Or that he is a sympathetic figure who deserves compensation.

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 8/30/2016 at 10:07 PM, FozzyBear said:

I thought she was trying to illustrate that Nas wasn't just a collage kid who shared a few pills with a friend during finals. He was a drug dealer. She was trying to show he was just as much of a drug dealer as someone like Freddie and capable of the same reckless behavior as any other criminal. It was to anweser the whole "why would a nice kid commit such a randomly violent crime". Because he wasn't a nice kid. He was a violent drug dealer.

I'm not saying I agree with the logic, but I think that was the point.

I agree. Naz's story was "I'm just a random college kid and sheltered Muslim kid who gets randomly gets this party girl into my life, who then gets me drugs and plays a crazy knife game. I had sex for the second time in my life, then passed out. I woke up to find her dead and panicked. I did a bunch of stupid things like fail to call 911 and take evidence from the crime scene, but I'm really innocent."

The prosecution was attacking that story by showing that he was familiar with drug sales, thus presumably use.

The prosecution was wanting to tell the story "Naz was a predator who chose to take Andrea around because she was a pretty. vulnerable girl who he decided to kill. He took a bunch of drugs. He was the only person with Andrea that night. He decided to kill her because she spurned him, because he's a predator, or some other reason. He realized how guilty he looked. so he took as much incriminating evidence as he could from the scene - the murder weapon, the drugs he'd taken, his clothes. He didn't call 911 because he didn't want to be caught. He was luckily caught for a traffic violation within minutes of his attempt to flee the scene. He suspiciously asked of Andrea "Is she dead?" when he knew she was dead. When he was caught with the murder weapon on him, he tried to escape the cops like a guilty person would. He shows zero remorse for his role in this."

We the viewers know that Andrea brought the drugs into this. The jury doesn't.   

[iMonrey]

Quote

How could the Khans sue civilly? Naz wasn't found innocent, after all; nor has the financial planner been found guilty - he hasn't even been charged. Would Naz want to risk having a civil trial where what he did in Rikers could come out?

I don't think the Khan family has a very strong case for wrongful arrest. At the outset the evidence against Naz was pretty strong. I think it's pretty rare to get a judgment against a police department and/or attorney general's office unless willful negligence or misconduct can be demonstrated.

On the other hand, given the way this case was portrayed as a big media sensation, the Khans should be able to make Big Bucks selling their story and doing all kinds of paid interviews.

Quote

Honestly, I really only thought the deer head--and the way they zoomed in on the eyeball, and lingered so long I thought there might be a nanny cam in there

The rampant speculation that the deer's head had any significance speaks to the fact that this show wasn't nearly as clever as it set itself up to be. It was a slick enough production that people thought things like that must mean something. But in the end there were lots of things that didn't add up, and lots of dropped plot points. The writing wasn't really all that tight. The show "looked" better than it really was. And in the end, the only thing the deer's head "meant" was that the director thought it was cool looking. Period. That we want to assign some deep meaning to it shows a desire to make the show smarter than it really was.

[Drogo]

Deer are naturally gentle harmless creatures but they move quickly, change directions with ease, and trust their instincts to get out of tricky situations.  Sort of like our friend Naz.

[Uncle JUICE]

26 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

. It was a slick enough production that people thought things like that must mean something. But in the end there were lots of things that didn't add up, and lots of dropped plot points. The writing wasn't really all that tight. The show "looked" better than it really was. And in the end, the only thing the deer's head "meant" was that the director thought it was cool looking. Period. That we want to assign some deep meaning to it shows a desire to make the show smarter than it really was.

I sort of agree, but I wouldn't put as "mean something" as much as I would "say something different about some aspect of this experience." The criminal justice system is flawed? Twenty shows or movies demonstrated that already. The prison system and Riker's is a problem for the presumption of innocence? Ok, but that's not fleshed out enough in the consequence stage so it seems cursory at best. Lawyers and cops are not always the paragons of justice they need to be? See my point about the justice system. I just expected more of a fresh take than I did any overarching meaning.

[Gobi]

4 hours ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

A complete acquittal isn't a necessary precursor for filing a civil lawsuit. All one has to do is convince a jury that is more likely than not that various of his rights were violated. Or that he is a sympathetic figure who deserves compensation.

Conversely, the State would only have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Naz did it for the civil case to be dismissed. A sympathetic figure, who may be a murderer, deserves compensation? A civil jury would be more likely to dismiss the case, thinking Naz should be happy he wasn't convicted.

If I had been on the jury, based on the evidence in the trial, I would have  voted guilty. Not murder necessarily, but some degree of manslaughter.

First, we have  to ignore the blood spray, because the show did; deliberately  in my opinion, because the writers couldn't figure out a way around it. In the show's universe, blood splatters everywhere except on the killer or clothes lying next to the bed.

Usually, the biggest hurdle for the prosecution is placing  the defendant at the scene of the crime. No problem here, Naz testified that he was there (at the plea hearing), and there was copious DNA evidence, as well.

Then he's stopped near the scene of the crime, with a knife that fits the wounds and has the victim's blood on it. 

The defense? "I passed out and didn't do it."

Plus:

Dwayne. He was there that night, and has an MO that matches the crime. Except that his MO includes robbing elderly men and single women living alone. I'm supposed to believe that he went back to a brownstone where he knew there were two people in their 20's? And if they put up a fight, they would give him time to look for a knife? 

Creepy hearse driver encounters them at a gas station. I'm supposed to think that he followed her home because she wouldn't lower her window to talk to him, waited a while and then got in somehow and stabbed Andrea 22 times?

Evil Stepdad had a motive. Except that the prosecution never has to prove a motive, and juries are instructed to that effect by the Judge. It's nice to show a motive if you're the prosecution, not necessary. And motive doesn't establish guilt. Where's any evidence he was there that night?

And am I supposed to think that all three of them broke in and stabbed her? Or that it was one of them, never mind who, and he was lucky enough to break in while Naz was passed out? Oh, and the real murder weapon was taken from the scene by the killer.

The financial planner was never mentioned in the trial. The State didn't even have any evidence about him in its file; the evidence was obtained, illegally, by a retired cop.

I'm not even sure the evidence about the financial planner was exculpatory. It certainly makes him a suspect, but it doesn't exonerate Naz or alter the evidence against Naz. 

[meep.meep]

On 8/30/2016 at 1:42 PM, stagmania said:

I tend to be the exact opposite of some here-when a show is obviously high quality, I hold it to a higher standard, not a lower one. This show had all the makings of top tier television, completely stacked with amazing writers, directors, producers and actors, and yet the creators failed to bother with nailing down the basics of storytelling. Consistent characterization, pacing and temporal logic, cohesive plotting, following the rules of the established universe (i.e. maintaining some level of credible realism re: court procedure)-they played fast and loose with all of it, and it was a major distraction for me. I'm happy to engage with lofty themes and an ambitious message, but if you don't have the fundamentals in place, your high-minded ideas and emotional overtures are not going to land for me. I'll be too busy scratching my head at the eight nonsensical things that just happened to get swept away.

I tend to hold to a higher standard, but I recognize when a show is going in a different direction than what I expected.  I liked this and think that it did hold up.  There were definitely problems with how the crime was policed and how Naz was prosecuted, but overall, this held up and wasn't excessively long.

I've become increasingly jaded by things being hyped as the greatest show ever, and then it turns out, they're just middling.  And being a British production doesn't mean that it's better.   London Spy?  Dancing on the Edge?  Just incoherent messes.  This was much better.

[lazylou]

On August 29, 2016 at 1:14 PM, watch2much said:

I agree with most of the comments here about the story being less than it could have been.  I like the idea of limited series but this one probably could have been a bit longer.  It seemed rushed and thus character development and motivation suffered.  However, I enjoyed it and chose to look past it's flaws. Stone's closing statement was great. I had been ambivalent about Naz at that point but Stone made me remember his innocence at the start.  And, I, too, cheered at the end for the cat.  I think he realized that his condition would wax and wane whether the cat was there or not. 

Yes, I thought the series was a little too limited.  The eczema seemed overdone to me...probably because so many other elements seemed either rushed or inadequately developed.  On the whole, I liked this very dark look at our "justice" system.  

[numbnut]

On 8/29/2016 at 0:14 PM, watch2much said:

I agree with most of the comments here about the story being less than it could have been.  I like the idea of limited series but this one probably could have been a bit longer.  It seemed rushed and thus character development and motivation suffered.  However, I enjoyed it and chose to look past it's flaws.

ITA. It's surprising that the writing was lacking given the credentials of Zaillian and Price (that sounds like a law firm, heh). Zaillian mentioned in an interview that he and Price knew nothing about writing a courtroom drama, and it showed. Price is known for crime dramas and the show is an adaptation, so why was the chain of evidence stuff so sloppy? Z&P also dropped the ball with Chandra, but they're not exactly known as Hollywood's go-to guys for great women characters. (There's a funny blurb on Vulture about how Chandra's less-than-smart decisions almost made Jessica Chastain throw her laptop across the room.) Overall, I really enjoyed the series despite the writing. The acting, cinematography and direction were all great and well worth watching again.

[represent]

Quote

rice is known for crime dramas and the show is an adaptation, so why was the chain of evidence stuff so sloppy?

But wasn't that the point?

To show how sloppy, and careless the criminal justice system is on every level?

That's basically what Michael K Williams, the actor who played Freddie said in an interview.  One of the people interviewing him said that they weren't happy with the ending because they didn't find out definitively who the murderer was.  Michael went on to explain that the writers goal overall was to show how fucked up the system was, that there was a crime within a crime, that the second crime was the criminal justice system itself. 

I think having Naz's lawyer, the female (I can't remember her name), behave the way she did was just another example of another player in the system, not serving justice with the integrity that it should be served.  I do wish they had more time to explain just WTF was going on with her, her background. Why the hell would she throw her career away? Shit, all that damn work that goes into law school, then trying to pass the damn bar exam.  The NYS bar exam at that? You're going to throw that away?

I use to live in NYC and I sat on a jury, my dad use to get  called to sit on the grand jury all the time.  And yes, they are sloppy and the lighting in those courtrooms is dark and dreary. Even the damn hallways are dark and if it weren't so stressful and depressing depending on the case, the lighting would put you to sleep.

Edited September 4, 2016 by represent

[ganesh]

2 hours ago, represent said:

To show how sloppy, and careless the criminal justice system is on every level?

When your prime suspect of murdering someone by stabbing them 22 times is not covered in blood when the police pick him up though. It's not a sloppy picture, it's a glaring plot hole. Also if you need to explain the show after the show was on? Show the show that you want to show. I don't think the show showed what they wanted to show. If an actor feels compelled to explain? No. Even Omar. 

[numbnut]

2 hours ago, represent said:

Quote

so why was the chain of evidence stuff so sloppy?

But wasn't that the point?

To show how sloppy, and careless the criminal justice system is on every level?

I was referring to basic legality errors, like the lawyers ignoring the lack of blood on Naz's person (that's impossible to miss); the judge allowing stuff that would be inadmissible (e.g Naz's incidents at school when he was a kid; the marriage issues of the creepy funeral guy, etc.); Helen not sharing Box's new evidence with the defense; her instant decision to not retry the case without going through the proper channels, etc. 

Edited September 4, 2016 by numbnut

[AuntiePam]

On 9/2/2016 at 2:36 AM, Chicago Redshirt said:

Late to the party, but some thoughts I wanted to share:

For what it's worth, the Khans potentially have a pretty big civil suit on their hands. The failure to pursue those various leads, the failure to disclose the existence of the financial planner as suspect, the fact that Papa Khan had to sell his part of a medallion worth $250k for $75k, and Mama Khan lost her job, that Naz went from an up-and-coming college student to a drug addict because he was falsely accused, all could mean a suit worth millions.

 

I'm not a lawyer and you are, so your suggestion is probably a good one, but isn't there such a thing as prosecutor immunity?  If prosecutors could be sued whenever they screw up or get lazy, they'd be reluctant to prosecute anything but an open and shut case, with nuns as witnesses, and video.  Or they'd have to show that evidence was faked, or some other kind of prosecutor misconduct.

[Milburn Stone]

5 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm not a lawyer and you are, so your suggestion is probably a good one, but isn't there such a thing as prosecutor immunity?  If prosecutors could be sued whenever they screw up or get lazy, they'd be reluctant to prosecute anything but an open and shut case, with nuns as witnesses, and video.  Or they'd have to show that evidence was faked, or some other kind of prosecutor misconduct.

Also not a lawyer, but that won't stop me. :) I believe you're right that Helen Weiss can't be sued as an individual. But the State of New York can be sued.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[formerlyfreedom]

6 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm not a lawyer and you are, so your suggestion is probably a good one, but isn't there such a thing as prosecutor immunity?  If prosecutors could be sued whenever they screw up or get lazy, they'd be reluctant to prosecute anything but an open and shut case, with nuns as witnesses, and video.  Or they'd have to show that evidence was faked, or some other kind of prosecutor misconduct.

 

1 hour ago, Milburn Stone said:

Also not a lawyer, but that won't stop me. :) I believe you're right that Helen Weiss can't be sued as an individual. But the State of New York can be sued.

Yeah, I think what the original poster was talking about was a case against the jurisdiction - the law enforcement agency (the city, mostly likely?) and possibly the state (as the prosecutor would have been representing the state, I think?)

[Chicago Redshirt]

On 9/2/2016 at 0:37 PM, Gobi said:

Conversely, the State would only have to show by a preponderance of the evidence that Naz did it for the civil case to be dismissed. A sympathetic figure, who may be a murderer, deserves compensation? A civil jury would be more likely to dismiss the case, thinking Naz should be happy he wasn't convicted.

If I had been on the jury, based on the evidence in the trial, I would have  voted guilty. Not murder necessarily, but some degree of manslaughter.

First, we have  to ignore the blood spray, because the show did; deliberately  in my opinion, because the writers couldn't figure out a way around it. In the show's universe, blood splatters everywhere except on the killer or clothes lying next to the bed.

Usually, the biggest hurdle for the prosecution is placing  the defendant at the scene of the crime. No problem here, Naz testified that he was there (at the plea hearing), and there was copious DNA evidence, as well.

Then he's stopped near the scene of the crime, with a knife that fits the wounds and has the victim's blood on it. 

The defense? "I passed out and didn't do it."

Plus:

Dwayne. He was there that night, and has an MO that matches the crime. Except that his MO includes robbing elderly men and single women living alone. I'm supposed to believe that he went back to a brownstone where he knew there were two people in their 20's? And if they put up a fight, they would give him time to look for a knife? 

Creepy hearse driver encounters them at a gas station. I'm supposed to think that he followed her home because she wouldn't lower her window to talk to him, waited a while and then got in somehow and stabbed Andrea 22 times?

Evil Stepdad had a motive. Except that the prosecution never has to prove a motive, and juries are instructed to that effect by the Judge. It's nice to show a motive if you're the prosecution, not necessary. And motive doesn't establish guilt. Where's any evidence he was there that night?

And am I supposed to think that all three of them broke in and stabbed her? Or that it was one of them, never mind who, and he was lucky enough to break in while Naz was passed out? Oh, and the real murder weapon was taken from the scene by the killer.

The financial planner was never mentioned in the trial. The State didn't even have any evidence about him in its file; the evidence was obtained, illegally, by a retired cop.

I'm not even sure the evidence about the financial planner was exculpatory. It certainly makes him a suspect, but it doesn't exonerate Naz or alter the evidence against Naz. 

In a civil trial, the defendants don't have the burden of proof. The plaintiff does. And it's true that a civil jury might find that it was not more likely that Naz was innocent and falsely arrested/maliciously prosecuted.

But in reality, the defendants would likely settle a case like this. There is too much risk in taking it to trial, not just of an adverse verdict but also for attorneys' fees. 

They could hope that the jury sees that there's probable cause. But do you want to risk potentially millions on what a jury might believe or disbelieve?

5 hours ago, AuntiePam said:

I'm not a lawyer and you are, so your suggestion is probably a good one, but isn't there such a thing as prosecutor immunity?  If prosecutors could be sued whenever they screw up or get lazy, they'd be reluctant to prosecute anything but an open and shut case, with nuns as witnesses, and video.  Or they'd have to show that evidence was faked, or some other kind of prosecutor misconduct.

Prosecutors have immunity for basically all the stuff that they do that can be considered "prosecutorial." When they act as investigators, they can be sued.

The defendants in this case would be Box, maybe some of his fellow detectives/cops and the City of New York, rather than the prosecutor lady and/or the State of New York. 

[Gobi]

I know the defendant does not have  the burden of proof in a civil trial. My point was all that they have to do is convince the jury, through their defense, that Naz more likely than not was the killer for the  jury to dismiss the case.  Based on what we saw in the  trial, not what we know from extraneous material, I can't see a law firm risking that in a case where half the jury in the criminal trial was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that Naz did it.

[numbnut]

Sorry if this was answered in another thread, but did we ever find out who was following Naz's dad and taking pictures?

[Gobi]

10 minutes ago, numbnut said:

Sorry if this was answered in another thread, but did we ever find out who was following Naz's dad and taking pictures?

Now that you mention it, I don't think we ever did. Plus, wasn't someone following Stone when he visited his son at the school playground?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Gobi
Add sentence.

[Chicago Redshirt]

The defense in a civil trial doesn't even have to show that Naz was more likely than not the killer. They only would have to show that it is was reasonable for them to believe that he was the killer and prosecute him accordingly. 

However, there would be a fair amount of sympathy for Naz. It's indisputable that they never looked at any other suspect than Naz. And there is the fact that they are now looking to prosecute someone in the financial planner that has a stronger motive, where there was available evidence pointing to him all along. 

It would be fairly risky for the defense to take this case to trial.

[Gobi]

16 minutes ago, Chicago Redshirt said:

The defense in a civil trial doesn't even have to show that Naz was more likely than not the killer. They only would have to show that it is was reasonable for them to believe that he was the killer and prosecute him accordingly. 

However, there would be a fair amount of sympathy for Naz. It's indisputable that they never looked at any other suspect than Naz. And there is the fact that they are now looking to prosecute someone in the financial planner that has a stronger motive, where there was available evidence pointing to him all along. 

It would be fairly risky for the defense to take this case to trial.

It would make for an interesting second season - the civil trial going on at the same time as the trial against the financial planner. A tatted up, drugged up Naz in one, the smug prostitute beating financial planner in the other.  I'm not convinced these writers could pull it off, though.

[Milburn Stone]

49 minutes ago, Gobi said:

Now that you mention it, I don't think we ever did. Plus, wasn't someone following Stone when he visited his son at the school playground?

I assumed the guy following Stone was sleazy stepdad. (Due to his later threat about knowing all about Stone's wife and kid.)

[Gobi]

1 minute ago, Milburn Stone said:

I assumed the guy following Stone was sleazy stepdad. (Due to his later threat about knowing all about Stone's wife and kid.)

That makes sense.

[auntiemel]

I called the Financial Planner as the killer as soon as I realized it was Paulo Costanzo. My reasoning was that there was no way that he would take another "New York Financial/Accounting Guy" role so soon after having spent 8 seasons playing Evan R Lawson, CFO of HankMed unless there was some kind of payoff that ensured the role was very, very different.

After that, I got a little dark amusement from imagining that this whole thing was just the Darkest Timeline (tm Community) of what happened to Evan if Hank had declined to go to the Hamptons in the pilot of Royal Pains.

Try it. It actually puts kind of an interesting spin on it. :)

Edited September 5, 2016 by auntiemel

[Milburn Stone]

4 hours ago, auntiemel said:

I called the Financial Planner as the killer as soon as I realized it was Paulo Costanzo. My reasoning was that there was no way that he would take another "New York Financial/Accounting Guy" role so soon after having spent 8 seasons playing Evan R Lawson, CFO of HankMed unless there was some kind of payoff that ensured the role was very, very different.

That was shrewd thinking. But on the other hand, Kevin Dunn showed up for like 3 seconds in Episode One and was never heard from again! And Ben Shenkman of Angels in America had a total of about 23 words as "Anonymous Desk Sergeant."

[candle96]

I just want to say thank you for the commenters in this forum for keeping it real with this show. I was disappointed in it, particularly after hearing from lots of people, including TV critics I usually agree with, that it was just the GREATEST thing.

Meh, color me underwhelmed. I think part of the problem is that it was such a head scratching mystery as to who would violently murder someone coincidentally on the same night as when Nas was there, that I just wanted to find out the answers. And perhaps I've been spoiled by the CSI-type shows (which I don't even like), but it drove me utterly batty that no one ever questioned why Nas didn't have any blood on him, when the murder scene was so covered in it. A total fail on the the part of the writers.

After being scarred by watching a few episodes of Oz, I don't ever really want to watch prison drama shows, so I was annoyed the show went down that road.  Freddy, the all-powerful and benevolent crime lord (sort of), seemed like a stretch to me. Sort of like a stripper with a heart of gold - just too much of cliche for me to buy it.

I would've much preferred a series that focused on the crime and its investigation, as well as the ramifications for the family, and just skip most of the prison stuff. Given how much stuff was packed into the last episode, it seems some of the prison drama could've been cut in favor of focusing on the defense actually investigating the murder, along with Box questioning his investigation earlier. It actually would've been kind of interesting if we didn't see much of Nas in prison, and he just showed up to meet with his lawyers with a black eye or shaved head. We'd just speculate as to what was happening to this poor kid in Rikers.

 I won't even get into the actual real investigating happening during the trial. That seems to happen all too frequently on tv shows (looking at you, Good Wife), and it doesn't seem very realistic.

I called the financial planner as the killer the second I saw him at the funeral. You don't put a recognizable actor in such a small role unless he has some bigger part. 

I thought the acting was good, and it kept me watching because I wanted to see how it all ended. I just felt like a lot was wasted on things I ultimately didn't care about too much. Perhaps I went in looking for a different show than was intended.

Edited September 10, 2016 by candle96

[Milburn Stone]

1 hour ago, candle96 said:

Meh, color me underwhelmed. I think part of the problem is that it was such a head scratching mystery as to who would violently murder someone coincidentally on the same night as when Nas was there...

Obviously not taking issue with your right to be underwhelmed, but the murder wasn't a coincidence. Andrea was going to be murdered that night, whether Naz was there or not. The financial guy was already following her. The financial guy had a stroke of good fortune that Naz was there asleep in the house (and Naz had a stroke of bad fortune that he was), but that was a matter of luck, not coincidence. It just so happened that Naz's story was the one we were following. On another night, Andrea might have been entertaining another young man whose bad luck it would have been to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Edited September 10, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[candle96]

46 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Obviously not taking issue with your right to be underwhelmed, but the murder wasn't a coincidence. Andrea was going to be murdered that night, whether Naz was there or not. The financial guy was already following her. The financial guy had a stroke of good fortune that Naz was there asleep in the house (and Naz had a stroke of bad fortune that he was), but that was a matter of luck, not coincidence. It just so happened that Naz's story was the one we were following. On another night, Andrea might have been entertaining another young man whose bad luck it would have been to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Ah, good point. I guess I didn't think he knew that Nas was there, since they made such a big point of not being able to see the kitchen from the entrance and up the stairs. 

Of course, I didn't know about the financial planner following her at the beginning of the show, so I assumed it was just really bad luck on Nas' part throughout.