S03.E06: Fool Me Twice

[thewhiteowl]

Bull and the team must help when Marissa's husband is charged with involuntary manslaughter.

[Ellee]

It seems to me that the ‘formula’ used for these shows is to rush through every storyline.  

I think I’d review that. 

I watch because I like the TAC team. 

[NaughtyKitty]

I was a little bored and I didn't know that she was married already.  Didn't she just get screwed over by that one guy?  She moves fast

[preeya]

This one was so obvious. If it wasn't the husband, there was only one other person (head chef) that could have done it.

Weatherly/writers need to come up with something different, other than the current "always the same" scenarios (i.e incident, strategy, jury, the Perry Mason twist, another win for TAC).

Edited October 30, 2018 by preeya

[HurricaneVal]

Once again, whoever does the casting for this show is brilliant.  The actor cast as the chef could step onto the set of <i>Top Chef</i> and completely blend in.  In fact, he looked a great deal like one of the Voltaggio brothers from that franchise.  He had the obsessively driven look and body language down pat. 

Aaaaaand....  Now that I think about it, I could see the younger, slightly less talented, slightly more hot-headed, and way more neurotically ambitious Voltaggio brother doing something like that in order to get an edge on his brother.  Only with less dire consequences...

[JackONeill]

Unfortunately, the jury selection process — which I thought this show was built around — has become but a shadow. A little Bull psychology, and a few questions from Benny (as formulated by Bull), and bingo we have a jury. 

As far as the team, it seems as though Danny does the heavy lifting. She investigates, and usually solves, the case.

Generally speaking, I know what the green/red thing is all about, but that’s one thing I think takes up too much time. They’re constantly cutting back and forth between TAC and the courtroom. The trials are not that complicated (not as presented here.) I think I know when “we’re losing the jury.”

[Kleav]

7 hours ago, HurricaneVal said:

whoever does the casting for this show is brilliant. 

Funny, I thought he was the worst actor I've seen in a long time. Maybe he is a Top Chef contestant.

[HurricaneVal]

4 hours ago, Kleav said:

Funny, I thought he was the worst actor I've seen in a long time. Maybe he is a Top Chef contestant.

Ha!  I was actually only complimenting the casting based on the actor's appearance and demeanor.  I totally agree on the acting skills.  Hmmmm...

[JessDVD]

Slightly stunned that they didn't make Mr. Marisa the perp AND that the two of them are still together at the end.

Shouldn't, I don't know, the NYPD or the FDNY or *any* investigator other than the defendant's jury consulting firm have been in there and then looking at who stood to gain from the restaurant burning to a crisp? And did they ever resolve if the guy from the FDA or whatever it was, did or did not evaluate the grease build-up correctly?

I can understand Mr. Marisa being a little hurt at Marisa's telling the not-kiss story to Bull, but all she had to say and be justified (IMO) was something like, "I didn't want to believe you did it, but in my line of work, I see many people who don't want to believe their loved one is guilty and yet they are. Between the money owed to investors, the grease build-up and chemicals storage, and then you not waking me up on the same night of the fire, there was enough that I was concerned. And I'm really REALLY glad that there was no reason to be concerned." And then he would apologize for the circumstances that led her to that point and they would kiss and move on through the rain happily. They played it more like, she's hesitant to trust people because of her past, which is definitely fair, but as the Russians and Ronald Reagan say, "trust, but verify". Actually, maybe Marisa should have just said that.

[LuvMyShows]

6 hours ago, JessDVD said:

I can understand Mr. Marisa being a little hurt at Marisa's telling the not-kiss story to Bull, but all she had to say and be justified (IMO) was something like, "I didn't want to believe you did it, but in my line of work, I see many people who don't want to believe their loved one is guilty and yet they are. Between the money owed to investors, the grease build-up and chemicals storage, and then you not waking me up on the same night of the fire, there was enough that I was concerned. And I'm really REALLY glad that there was no reason to be concerned." And then he would apologize for the circumstances that led her to that point and they would kiss and move on through the rain happily. They played it more like, she's hesitant to trust people because of her past, which is definitely fair, but as the Russians and Ronald Reagan say, "trust, but verify". Actually, maybe Marisa should have just said that.

I was SO angry at how she was in the position of begging him for patience or whatever, while she learns a different way of thinking about him.  Please.  He is the one who cheated and brought the distrust and suspicion upon himself, and even in show time, I don't think it's been a year since they've been remarried.  They didn't do much get-reacquainted-and-work-through-our-problems dating before that.  This isn't a situation where she needs to be apologetic for anything regarding how she views him after such a short time for him to regain her trust.

[Litnit]

Quote

21 hours ago, LuvMyShows said:

I was SO angry at how she was in the position of begging him for patience or whatever, while she learns a different way of thinking about him.  Please.  He is the one who cheated and brought the distrust and suspicion upon himself, and even in show time, I don't think it's been a year since they've been remarried.  They didn't do much get-reacquainted-and-work-through-our-problems dating before that.  This isn't a situation where she needs to be apologetic for anything regarding how she views him after such a short time for him to regain her trust.

 

Absolutely. Dude, it didn't look good. There was a whole lot of circumstantial evidence piling up. Add in her history and the job they do, it shouldn't be a surprise to him that she's giving her boss the heads up about something. Didn't she also indicate she was just hearing about him being on the brink of financial ruin? That's not exactly adding to a solid foundation of trust.

[hoopznyo]

Wasn't there an earlier episode (previous season) where the team remarked on Marissa wearing green a whole lot and Bull remarked that it was her ex's favorite color? If Bull knows that, wouldn't he also know the reason why their marriage broke up in the first place? And I think that was pre-Kyle (if that was his name) too. This episode was confusing/annoying/amusing depending on your thoughts about continuity.

[mythoughtis]

Why shouldn’t Marisa be wary? They were divorced once - for cause. She was burned by Kyle.  She seems to be rather unsure of herself in any/all of her personal life. 

All the evidence seemed to point to him. Marissa knows what reasonable doubt is and isn’t. She also knows that even people we know well do things we don’t believe them capable of. So why shouldn’t she be wary? 

As to her telling the team about the kiss- They need to know the truth.  Normally  the prosecution would call a spouse to the stand and ask what time the other one got home since the fire occurred at the time it did. They would also ask if not waking you up was normal.  

ETA - let me add. I do not like Marissa’s husband. I do not believe the writers expect him to stay long.  

Edited November 3, 2018 by mythoughtis

[dcubed]

22 hours ago, mythoughtis said:

As to her telling the team about the kiss- They need to know the truth.  Normally  the prosecution would call a spouse to the stand and ask what time the other one got home since the fire occurred at the time it did. They would also ask if not waking you up was normal.  

No, they couldn’t.  Anything she would have to say would fall under spousal privilege.  They cannot compel her to testify or incriminate her husband, nor can they fault her in closing arguments for not testifying (similar to faulting a defendant for not testifying).