S02.E13: Kill Shot

[MyAimIsTrue]

A widow hires Bull to help represent her when the police decide that she is the most likely suspect in orchestrating her wealthy husband’s death, making it look like a home invasion gone wrong.

[Bobbin]

The jury would have convicted her simply because "everyone knows" she's guilty. Just like Chris Chambers must have stolen the milk money, because he's "always guilty" of something. Lt. Louis Provenza: "It's always the spouse." Did anyone consider the defense that there wasn't a shred of physical evidence connecting her to the crime, or that she ultimately did have a valid alibi, meeting with her divorce lawyer?

[JackONeill]

I guess in many trials there are things that “come out.” But it sure seems like with this show there are a whole lot of sudden surprises. Mother and daughter were supposed to be at dinner, but weren’t. The gambling. The divorce and meeting with a divorce attorney, who her current attorney had set up. The life insurance policy.  The seemingly easily-found money trail to the hit man.

Do the police or attorney investigators deliberately NOT ask any questions or investigate before getting to trial?

Maybe they think it makes the trial more interesting that way. Oh, gee—a surprise!

[Netfoot]

13 minutes ago, JackONeill said:

The seemingly easily-found money trail to the hit man.

On the boogey-man Dark Web, no less.

[dttruman]

31 minutes ago, JackONeill said:

Do the police or attorney investigators deliberately NOT ask any questions or investigate before getting to trial?

Maybe they think it makes the trial more interesting that way. Oh, gee—a surprise!

The writers really demean the police and the D.A. consistently on this show when there is a criminal trial. They water it down so much, they show you only point of view of their clients. I thought the author should have been brought up on charges for concealing evidence. Bottom line, it should have been a mistrial.

Why was the media so prevalent when she was arrested, but at the trial the only one there was that author. I thought there would have been a ton of press bombarding her and her attorney with questions when they were walking out of the court room after opening statements.

I thought the next episode was going to be a civil case where Chunk sues his law professor for prejudicial misconduct. Frankly, I agree with this law professor. Because after watching most of the "Bull" episodes, this show is all about trying to manipulating a jury by hook or crook.

[JudgeyMcJudgyPants]

Holy crap, what an awful plot!  First of all, this case would never have gone to trial.  They had zero physical evidence against the wife.  And if their theory was that she hired a hit man, they would have to prove via a paper trail that she paid one.  Inevitably, unless their tech people or morons (which I’m not above thinking that this show would write the police this way), they would have found out it was the husband who orchestrated the whole thing.

Two things could have made the episode better.  Either the husband hired someone to kill the wife and got killed as a case of mistaken identity or the daughter was behind the whole thing.

I didn’t find anything about the wife that unlikeable to believe that the country would automatically assume she had killed her husband.  

The book writer was a useless character who was written to be useful.

Why the hell did the jury act all shocked when the detective was testifying and the lawyer asked him if the wife and daughter lied and he said yes? The defense lawyer guy already said that they lied.  This wasn’t some groundbreaking news.

Last thought-holy shit was that detective totally biased.  His testimony should have been stricken.

i realize this show is not Law & Order but you’ve got to do more to this show than just count on NCIS fans carrying a torch for Michael Weatherly for viewers.  It really is terribly written and none of the supporting players are very interesting.

Hmmm let’s see.  Next week FBI comes in and someone commits a federal crime.  My bet is that it’s the computer hacker who regularly breaks the law gathering private information.  Since that would makes sense from a legal standpoint, it’s probably going to be something completely different.

[Netfoot]

22 minutes ago, JudgeyMcJudgyPants said:

or the daughter was behind the whole thing.

I thought so early on.  I figured nobody could be so completely gormless in real life, so it must be an act!

[Bobbin]

10 minutes ago, JudgeyMcJudgyPants said:

Last thought-holy shit was that detective totally biased.  His testimony should have been stricken.

"I arrested her because my gut said she was guilty." Well, that's good enough for me! String her up! The defense attorney should have blasted the detective's statement on rebuttal and established up front that there was zero physical evidence connecting the wife to the murder. Of course, the attorney was no Perry Mason (and the writer is no Erle Stanley Gardner).

It's unfair and biased to accuse jury consultants of manipulating a jury. Attorneys on both sides do that all the time. An attorney told our college class that the rule in trying cases is, if you have a solid case, let an experienced, reputable judge decide, as judges can be counted on to rule on the facts alone; otherwise, go for a jury trial, as juries can always be influenced. This case is a prime example, with the D.A. pushing for a guilty verdict without presenting any evidence simply because the accused looks guilty "and everybody knows it." The defense is allowed to push back.

[LuvMyShows]

My biggest problem was the very first scene, when the lawyer was in the house the morning after the murder.  The only way to compel someone to "come to the station" is to arrest them, and because there had been zero investigation up to that point, then there is no way on earth that the police had any grounds the next morning to arrest her...and the lawyer DAMN SURE would have known that.  

[Dowel Jones]

I am convinced that the reason the police get so many confessions in real life is that people watch stuff like this and think that it's normal procedure.

[Netfoot]

55 minutes ago, LuvMyShows said:

The only way to compel someone to "come to the station" is to arrest them...

It's like when the cops say "Don't leave town!"  As far as I know, unless you are under arrest, you are free to go... anywhere.

[Sarah 103]

On January 24, 2018 at 9:12 AM, dttruman said:

I thought the next episode was going to be a civil case where Chunk sues his law professor for prejudicial misconduct. 

I can understand Chunk getting low grades based on the work he submits, like if his writing isn't up to par, he isn't using the proper format, he isn't using the right terminology, and stuff like that. Giving Chunk low grades because the professor doesn't like his day job seems wrong. 

Edited January 28, 2018 by Sarah 103

[Dowel Jones]

Now that I have finally watched the show (because the comments are often more logical and deserve to be first), I had this thought.  Assuming the hitman is really a hitman, I don't think he would be easily located, even on the dark web.  If and when they run him down, easy alibi: "Lexington paid me to provide him with some stock market information.  I wasn't anywhere near that house.  Prove otherwise." Now the DA has a difficult case, and the insurance may indeed have to pay out. 

Does the defense have an obligation to provide exculpatory information about their client to the prosecution?  It would seem obvious to do so, but if the attorney and/or client is seeking to publicly embarrass the DA, they could do so in court.

Poor Bull.  And TAC.  Reamed out of a fee, again.

Not being familiar with the geography of NYC, is Greenwich Village not considered by the locals to be part of NYC, even though it is within the greater city?  That came to mind when the attorney asked the daughter if she was in fact in New York, with the reply being "No, I lied.  I was in Greenwich."

[CKTV123]

10 hours ago, Dowel Jones said:

Not being familiar with the geography of NYC, is Greenwich Village not considered by the locals to be part of NYC, even though it is within the greater city?  That came to mind when the attorney asked the daughter if she was in fact in New York, with the reply being "No, I lied.  I was in Greenwich."

She meant Greenwich, Connecticut where the family lived. 

This whole episode reeked from the opening scene. Not one shred of evidence pointing to the widow, maybe an hour or two of "investigating" the crime scene, but the cops and the DA were determined to convict her anyway, first in the court of public opinion then in an actual courtroom. In real life she'd probably have grounds to sue them for malicious prosecution and go right back to a nice cushy life. I sure as hell would. 

[NeverLate]

Lamest episode to date, nuff said.

[Sake614]

On 1/24/2018 at 1:55 PM, Sarah 103 said:

Giving Chunk low grades because the professor doesn't like his day job seems wrong. 

Agreed. I had a TV production professor who first refused to let me do the show I wanted because he didn’t like the subject and then gave me a C for the same reason. It was a purely personal view and had nothing to do with the quality of my work. He even admitted it. So unfortunately it really does happen.

[JessDVD]

I feel like hiring a hit man to kill one's own self could majorly backfire. For starters, one would not act all surprised when one is confronted with one's hit man, and rather, one's sense of self preservation might kick in. Also, if that guy thought things through enough to hire a freaking hit man, he might have looked for one that covered his tracks better.

I'm glad that I most likely don't live in a universe where I can be freaking tried for murder based on a detective's "hunch". You investigate based on a hunch. You go to trial with some actual evidence.

The whole premise of the widow being a forking bench and the jury thusly hating her would have been more effective if she'd actually been portrayed as a jerk. As it was, I more felt sorry for her that she was married to the gambling idiot. I felt half a feel for her when she was testifying about how her husband seemed to love her more when it was forbidden.

[Netfoot]

9 hours ago, JessDVD said:

I'm glad that I most likely don't live in a universe where I can be freaking tried for murder based on a detective's "hunch". You investigate based on a hunch. You go to trial with some actual evidence.

Why did the DA ever agree to take the case to court?

[webruce]

It seems here that the cases come to trial with in weeks of happening. But in real life it can take at least months. This would give the investigators time to hopefully find out this hidden information.  It seemed that between mother Rebecca, daughter Olivia, and lawyer Henry Wakefield the alibi of being to dinner in the city wasn't to well practiced. Bull saw through it quickly.

The Detective Marshall Gates "hunch", like listed above would have worked if they knew of the insurance policy and that Rebecca Lexington was actually an annoying person.  Or if he knew about the Divorce lawyer visit. Hunches were used in the earlier years by detectives who had many years of experience, and "had seen this before". Today, evidence wins out.  Hasn't he watched CSI or Law and Order?  I at first thought when killer Donald Graham had broken into the house, and Jeremy Lexington almost tried to stop him with whatever he said that either his wife was set up to be murdered and she wasn't home, or Jeremy set up for it to look like a robbery or something and he would get hurt or wounded trying to stop it. But then Graham shooting him to death "killed" that idea. Jeremy being in debt for gambling would have fit into that and he could have tried to have gotten an insurance company pay off.  I do like it that ASA Theresa Jordan will be going after the killer. I was surprised that Jeremy had himself murdered so the family could have money. I part way through thought the daughter might be behind it.

I Do think that Professor Jameson is wrong for his grading of Chuck's work. So you don't like his job, just tell him and let his work in your class tell if he is good or not. Good luck, Chuck!

I did think that author Kendall Taylor would have been more of a pain or help to Bull. The idea can be good, but they didn't use it enough here.

[Sarah 103]

On February 7, 2018 at 12:28 PM, webruce said:

I did think that author Kendall Taylor would have been more of a pain or help to Bull. The idea can be good, but they didn't use it enough here.

I wonder if they were just introducing her and will her use again later. She could help or hinder and they may play it differently in later episodes. This to me seemed like they wanted to introduce the character, but they really couldn't figure out quite what to do with her. 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Sarah 103

[lh25]

On 1/23/2018 at 9:07 PM, Bobbin said:

Did anyone consider the defense that there wasn't a shred of physical evidence connecting her to the crime, or that she ultimately did have a valid alibi, meeting with her divorce lawyer?

I had huge problems with this plot.  They all acted like she must have done the shooting herself.  That her having an good alibi would clear her.  When she could have hired a hitman herself.