S01.E03: Unambiguous

[MyAimIsTrue]

Quote

 

Bull and his team tackle jury bias against their client, a woman on trial for the murder of a star athlete she very publicly accused of assaulting her. Also, the case brings Benny face-to-face with his former flame, Amanda, a fellow attorney he hasn’t seen since their breakup

[shapeshifter]

According to TVDB, the title of the episode is "Unambiguous" (although I don't see how that fits either) and the description is:

Quote

Bull and his team tackle jury bias against their client, a woman on trial for the murder of a star athlete she very publicly accused of assaulting her. Also, the case brings Benny face-to-face with his former flame, Amanda, a fellow attorney he hasn’t seen since their breakup

It was an okay episode. I learned how to deal with a panic attack, which this episode might induce in the viewer.

Killing off the blogger seemed unnecessary to the plot. They could've just had her threatened or something.

[Netfoot]

How uncharacteristic -- they didn't identify the real killer!  

Or did they?  While I was asleep?

[thewhiteowl]

They did, it was one of his team mates. Really good episode. Client wasn't wealthy but was innocent.  I am really enjoying this show. 

[Lostinthehouse]

So this is it every week?  Pick a jury who sympathizes or empathizes with the defendant, and defendant is "not guilty"?  Blah!

[JackONeill]

How's Bull going to make money if he keeps taking pro bono cases? 

And does Bull and his team have ANY weaknesses?

Edited October 12, 2016 by JackONeill
spelling is important

[shrewd.buddha]

So, what is the point of this series? Is it that you need a crack team of investigators and psychologists to *sway* (manipulate) a jury into deciding that a defendant, who is not guilty, is not guilty? 
If so, then it is a shame there are no more CSI shows on anymore, because those guys could prove the guilty were guilty and the innocent were innocent before there was a need for a trial.  That would have saved a lot of time and money. 

[thewhiteowl]

Sure, if the evidence actually mattered. Juries are always manipulated. It is the way of the system. A better lawyer will win over evidence every time. CSI rarely showed a trial. 

[Primetimer]

Bull untangles a murder at the heart of a phenomenally popular podcast, letting the show depict the media as inaccurately as it depicts the legal profession.

View the full article

[Ellee]

This was the first time I watched.

Question.  Does that 'counting numbers out of order' really work for panic attacks?   Have never heard that before. 

[Ms Blue Jay]

Can someone do me a favour and go over that method again?  Counting numbers out of order?  How do you decide what order?  LOL.  Sorry I missed that.

[wales260]

Seeing that most of the time, jury consultants are used for civil trials (e.g., Apple suing Samsung for $1 billion for patent infringement), I can't wait for them to (a) take a case where one side isn't railroaded before they come in as white knights (does Bull have a spider sense for IP infringement as well?) and (b) the judge grants a JML because lack of sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's ruling.

[Showthyme]

I don't suffer from panic attacks so I don't know about counting numbers out of order. However, from personal experience, I have found that I can bring myself out of an emotional meltdown by doing something intellectual, like counting by 5s, etc.

[Ohmo]

I have had panic attacks.  In college many years ago, I had one that was so bad that I bolted out of a night class like a bat out of hell.  I've never heard of the numbers technique before this episode, but it seems like it would be plausible.  Getting your mind to stop trying to tell you you're about to die (because you're absolutely sure that is about to happen) is hard to do.  Focusing on something numeric makes sense to me.  I may try it if/when I need it.

This episode was better for me.  I like Benny (because he's played by Freddy.)  Bull's still a bit too all-knowing and all-able for me.  He needs to fail, be wrong, and be less smug.  Confidence is fine, but smug is not.

I thought they said the killer was Mike's coach.  He was afraid that Ellen or Mike would somehow expose the PED use on the team.

Edited October 13, 2016 by Ohmo

[Betweenthisandthat]

I've been enjoying these episodes.  I like the last two a lot because they focus more on other characters, specifically Benny.  I'd like to see the rest of the characters get fleshed out more as well.  

I have no problems with the whole mock jury and the other technology.  Or the premise of the show itself.  I like that they try to analyze of what makes people biased about things and how that can affect the judicial system.  That's part of the reason why there's all this talk about reforming the system and systemic bias. Everyone is biased, and I assume lawyers, the media, everything we consume, is meant to capitalize on these biases.  I see Bull and his team as trying in their own way to address what are real problems in how we judge and are taught to judge people.  

I'm also okay with them winning.  I assume things might get more complicated later on, but NCIS and other procedurals solve their cases every week.  They usual get the bad guy if not in one episode than at some point.  In this show, they might always exonerate the innocent, with an exception or two.  I like to see a team work well and competently, so I don't need to see them taken down a peg or two.  

What I would like to see is more personal stories, because I assume that's when Jason gets to be a much messier character.  I can see him being exceptional in his job, but I wouldn't be surprised if his personal life is much more complicated.  He's divorced.  There's some kind of dark childhood that has been referenced at least twice, and the pilot basically said that his obsession with understanding people is based on some kind of deep need or trauma.  That's what I'd like to slowly learn more about.  Who is this guy?  Why is he doing what he's doing? Why has he decided to surround himself with these people on his team?  

[MyAimIsTrue]

After two episodes I'm done with the show.  I couldn't bring myself to watch this episode.

[kaygeeret]

I am so gob smacked at what a completely awful show this is and yet, apparently it is a hit!

I do like the cast, but OMG, what a waste of everything else.

The concept is stupid and the writing doesn't help.

Sigh!

I'll stick to The Good Place.

[MyAimIsTrue]

23 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

According to TVDB, the title of the episode is "Unambiguous" (although I don't see how that fits either) and the description is:

I got the original title for this thread from TVDB so either they messed up or they've tuned out like I have.  Title fixed and episode description added.

[sinkwriter]

I'm not ready to write off the show, but I would like to see more character development beyond the very brief snippet we got (Bull alluding to a dark and difficult time in his life when he felt helpless, maybe during his childhood?). Everyone's super good at their jobs; to counter that a bit, I'd like to see some flaws, some cracks in the exterior, something human and personal. Otherwise it will feel too formulaic. I don't mind some formula (otherwise I probably wouldn't still be watching NCIS), but along with that formula needs to be something more, something that pulls me in and makes me root for these characters -- not just the victim of the week or person on trial, but Bull himself and everyone on the team. If he's Mr. Got-An-Answer-For-Everything, that's not real.

Side note: what was with Bull handing each team member an apple? Was he just being nice? Did it have a deeper meaning? 

I'll admit, a part of me wanted him to surprise me and hand one person something completely different because they don't like apples or they prefer a muffin or a banana, or something really unexpected.

[MortysCleaningLady]

I'm still enjoying the program, but I think it's about time to lose a case and figure out where they went wrong with their mock-jury.

[twoods]

On 10/13/2016 at 1:44 PM, MortysCleaningLady said:

I'm still enjoying the program, but I think it's about time to lose a case and figure out where they went wrong with their mock-jury.

Yes! Or someone who hires them who is guilty, but has deep pockets to pay for whatever they do. 

[mtlchick]

Hudson University: simply the worst college on TV.  I was expecting to cross into law and order territory. 

The show isn't horrible, but they need to get a loss soon...winning every case doesn't make it interesting on a limiting premise. Or begin to varying the type of cases more. Right now it's on my DVR and watch on weekends list.

[chitowngirl]

On October 12, 2016 at 0:00 PM, Ellee said:

Question.  Does that 'counting numbers out of order' really work for panic attacks?   Have never heard that before

Anything that will get the brain to "ground" will work. Naming 5 things you can see, 4 things you can touch, 3 things you can hear, 2 things you can smell and 1 thing you can taste works too.

[sinkwriter]

Quote

Yes! Or someone who hires them who is guilty, but has deep pockets to pay for whatever they do. 

I think the only issue with the "guilty but has deep pockets to hire Bull and his team" idea is that it writes the show into a corner. It seems like Bull and his team aren't hurting for money - they have all that fancy equipment and it must be very expensive to pay all of them for their work - so if someone who is guilty tries to hire them, it shouldn't matter how much money the guilty party has to buy Bull's services because Bull has the right to pick and choose his clients and I can't see him agreeing to help a guilty party, no matter how much money they have. He's supposed to have integrity. If he doesn't, then why would we root for him? Plus, he's not a lawyer who could be assigned to a case by a judge -- his skills are outside the bounds of court and lawyers; his skills are an extra bonus to help a case. If a judge assigned him to help one side, that would seem like preferential treatment. 

Of course, there could be the twist that a guilty party with deep pockets hires Bull and his team, but Bull and his team don't know ahead of time that the client is guilty. And that is something that could be interesting to see happen to Bull, because his hard work would have just helped a criminal go free and that would be horrifying. But since the premise of this show is based on Bull's intuition and smarts about seeing beyond the usual and catching even the smallest of details, I can't see the writers being able to do that to him more than once or twice before it starts to demean his abilities and make him seem like he's gullible or maybe he doesn't have the skills we thought he had, which is in stark contrast to what they're trying to present about him.

So... while I am so glad to see Michael Weatherly on my screen, I'm definitely seeing some issues with this premise and whether or not it might be sustainable.

[Ellee]

On 10/15/2016 at 11:01 PM, chitowngirl said:

Anything that will get the brain to "ground" will work. Naming 5 things you can see, 4 things you can touch, 3 things you can hear, 2 things you can smell and 1 thing you can taste works too.

Thank you for this.  I'll try it.  It's much better than 'take two of these a day and it won't be a problem.'

[Jobiska]

Here's what I don't get about the mirror juries.  Okay, I can get that a retired senior citizen would be happy to have the pay Bull and his gang are offering to sit on the mock jury.  I can also get that even someone in a high-powered job can sometimes not wiggle out of jury duty, such as the young Asian American man who "works on Wall Street."  But what person who "works on Wall Street" would be able to drop their job for the amount of time the trial takes to be on the mock jury?  Or do they do this in their off hours?  They're already spending loads of money--can't imagine they have enough to compensate someone who makes loads on their real job enough to take the time off.

[Guest]

I really liked this episode, mainly because it took pot shots at Serial season 1.  I loved Serial season 1 as entertainment but it was pretty shoddy 'journalism'.  That the podcasters could present cherry picked details of a cold case and get the convicted murderer re-tried is pretty crazy.  

On the silly side, I laughed at the idea that the mirror jury listened to the podcast on a lunch break.  First, Serial was like 12 hours long.  Second, they go to all the expense of assembling and paying these people and they don't make sure they didn't break the rules right on their premises?  

But I still think this is a fun show.  Weatherly is cute and watchable, Rodriguez is always entertaining, and the psychology stuff is interesting.