It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a
well-written episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
Sam Waterston gets sent out on a bad note. Really, the episode doesn't feature him adequately. At some point, he simply takes over the case
from Price and gets a courtroom scene.
The episode was allegedly written to write out McCoy. Instead, it's
like the script were already written, then Price's dialogue was
assigned to McCoy, with the ending tacked on of McCoy on location
walking by the side of the famous buidlings in the criminal courts
complex.
Watching with my mother, she snarked that you should demonstrate that
you are still capable of practicing criminal law by running up those
steps.
Some time back, I wrote about re-watching "The Working Stiff"
5/12/1992, one of the few episodes featuring Adam Schiff (Steve
Hill). Schiff was integral to the episode and drove the plot. No,
they didn't just swap him out for State (Michael Moriarity) in court.
It's actually among the best episodes of the whole series, and made
the view wish that Hill had been used like that in many other
episodes.
Waterston deserved an episode like that, but since the show resumed,
he's gotten next to nothing.
The plot was fairly meaningless, nothing original. Hey! The prime
suspect is God from Supernatural! He might have smited the writers,
but no, they went another way. He's some wealthy dude. They went out
of their way to say 13th wealthiest (in America, I guess) but failed
to explain why the hell he was so wealthy. They could have just made
him successful; it would have made no difference.
The part that was intended to be interesting (which is why it put "The Working Stiff" in mind as that involved Schiff's ally, the former
governor, covering up wrongdoing) was that the mayor's son was his
best friend and and may have had evidence with regard to a rape in
the back story. The mayor's son DID NOT want to be humiliated in
public as he had cheated on is wife at the time; this is what the
mayor tried to cover up. I thought they were going to do something
with the wealthy guy contributing campaign monies all those years as
paying extortion, but they did nothing with it.
Why had the murder victim (and rape victim in the back story)
confronted him at all very early that morning, given that she was
supposedly afraid of him? She told him she was going to file a police
report. If there was some throwaway dialogue to that effect, I missed
it.
I don't think the food cart vendor was set up as the patsy, but it was
hard to tell.
I don't recall Riley and Shaw saying anything particularly memorable,
even to piss off viewers, and Dixon (Camryn Manheim ever more wasted
in this role) has been reduced to the Whitey character.
Waterston's final closing argument in court: McCoy said nothing
whatsoever about the crime. What kind of crap was that? After he wins,
he tells Price that he'd already resigned (even though he was ALREADY
running for re-election) in lieu of finishing his term, in order to
spare... Price from the mayor's wrath? Huh? No one cared about Price.
Interim? That lets us know that Tony Goldwyn has been hired as a gap
filler, like Diane Wiest.
McCoy's opponent (who I guess is now unopposed) wasn't named.
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
Sam Waterston gets sent out on a bad note. Really, the episode doesn't feature him adequately. At some point, he simply takes over the case
from Price and gets a courtroom scene.
The episode was allegedly written to write out McCoy. Instead, it's like
the script were already written, then Price's dialogue was assigned to
McCoy, with the ending tacked on of McCoy on location walking by the
side of the famous buidlings in the criminal courts complex.
Watching with my mother, she snarked that you should demonstrate that
you are still capable of practicing criminal law by running up those steps.
Some time back, I wrote about re-watching "The Working Stiff" 5/12/1992,
one of the few episodes featuring Adam Schiff (Steve Hill). Schiff was integral to the episode and drove the plot. No, they didn't just swap
him out for State (Michael Moriarity) in court. It's actually among the
best episodes of the whole series, and made the view wish that Hill had
been used like that in many other episodes.
Waterston deserved an episode like that, but since the show resumed,
he's gotten next to nothing.
The plot was fairly meaningless, nothing original. Hey! The prime
suspect is God from Supernatural! He might have smited the writers, but
no, they went another way. He's some wealthy dude. They went out of
their way to say 13th wealthiest (in America, I guess) but failed to
explain why the hell he was so wealthy. They could have just made him successful; it would have made no difference.
The part that was intended to be interesting (which is why it put "The Working Stiff" in mind as that involved Schiff's ally, the former
governor, covering up wrongdoing) was that the mayor's son was his best friend and and may have had evidence with regard to a rape in the back
story. The mayor's son DID NOT want to be humiliated in public as he had cheated on is wife at the time; this is what the mayor tried to cover
up. I thought they were going to do something with the wealthy guy contributing campaign monies all those years as paying extortion, but
they did nothing with it.
Why had the murder victim (and rape victim in the back story) confronted
him at all very early that morning, given that she was supposedly afraid
of him? She told him she was going to file a police report. If there was
some throwaway dialogue to that effect, I missed it.
I don't think the food cart vendor was set up as the patsy, but it was
hard to tell.
I don't recall Riley and Shaw saying anything particularly memorable,
even to piss off viewers, and Dixon (Camryn Manheim ever more wasted in
this role) has been reduced to the Whitey character.
Waterston's final closing argument in court: McCoy said nothing
whatsoever about the crime. What kind of crap was that? After he wins,
he tells Price that he'd already resigned (even though he was ALREADY
running for re-election) in lieu of finishing his term, in order to
spare... Price from the mayor's wrath? Huh? No one cared about Price.
Interim? That lets us know that Tony Goldwyn has been hired as a gap
filler, like Diane Wiest.
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>:
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written
episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be stupider >> than the one before it.
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided to
arrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor than >> they did against Chuck. They were both in the vicinity of the victim when she
was killed-- i.e., they were in the largest city park in the nation-- and
they
both had a history of sexual assault. Except they actually had *more*
evidence
against the hotdog vendor because he was actually convicted of sexual
assault.
Chuck was only accused of it, and then only privately to a psychiatrist. Yet >> they proceed to arrest Chuck and that's the sum total of their case at that >> point: he was in the same huge park as the victim and there was an unproven >> accusation against him in therapy. If I'm a juror and that's all the
prosecution presents me as evidence, I think I can see a big honkin'
reasonable doubt looming immediately.
The psychiatrist committed a massive professional ethical violation by telling anything to the cops, right? I thought the only breach of confidentiality allowed (short of a court order) was to stop a crime
about to happen.
Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>:
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written >>episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be stupider >than the one before it.
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided to >arrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor than >they did against Chuck. They were both in the vicinity of the victim when she >was killed-- i.e., they were in the largest city park in the nation-- and they >both had a history of sexual assault. Except they actually had *more* evidence >against the hotdog vendor because he was actually convicted of sexual assault. >Chuck was only accused of it, and then only privately to a psychiatrist. Yet >they proceed to arrest Chuck and that's the sum total of their case at that >point: he was in the same huge park as the victim and there was an unproven >accusation against him in therapy. If I'm a juror and that's all the >prosecution presents me as evidence, I think I can see a big honkin' >reasonable doubt looming immediately.
Now we the audience know Chuck did it because he confessed to it in a proffer >but the prosecution can't use that in court.
The only other evidence they come up with a text message from a guy to the >victim who was on the same company retreat when the assault happened that >asks, "You left early. Are you okay?" And everyone's treating that like it's >some smoking gun. It could literally mean anything. Its evidentiary value is >minimal at best. Oh, and it was sent from the NY mayor's son who was cheating >on his wife at the retreat so if he testifies about it, his marriage is >probably over.
This big bit of nothing that they think is so important is immediately >countered by the loss of the psychiatrist when she decides that after telling >the cops everything the victim disclosed in therapy, she now has an ethical >obligation not to repeat it in court where it can actually do some good. She >asserts therapist/patient privilege. Price just shrugs his shoulders in >frustration, when what he should have done is subpoenaed her to testify to >what she told the cops. Her conversations with the victim may be privileged >but her conversations with the cops absolutely are not. And if she doesn't >want to cooperate, let her sit in a cell until she does.
Then there's the whole subplot about the mayor inviting Price to a sitdown >where he makes it clear that if Price forces his son to testify that he'll >withdraw his support from McCoy in the upcoming election and throw it to his >opponent with the clear caveat that the moment the opponent wins, his first >directive will be to fire Price.
McCoy decides his only option to save Price without folding for the mayor is >to kick Price and Maroun off the case and take over himself. That way he'll be >the one calling the mayor's son to testify and Price's job will be safe. >Except that's not how it would work. The mayor would still see Price (and >probably Maroun, too) as part of the team that defied him and blew up his >kid's marriage. The fact that McCoy's name was technically the one on the >subpoena would be irrelevant.
Then after the case is over, McCoy tells Price he tendered his resignation so >that the governor could appoint a fair D.A. and save Price's job before the >mayor could come after him, but that's not how it works. That's not how any of >it works. Yes, the governor would appoint a replacement for McCoy but that >person would only serve out the end of McCoy's term. There would still be an >election and the mayor would still back whoever would agree to fire Price. >Nothing McCoy did would have shielded Price from any retribution.
We end with McCoy standing in front of the courthouse looking at it >nostalgically before walking off into the night.
Sam Waterston gets sent out on a bad note. Really, the episode doesn't >>feature him adequately. At some point, he simply takes over the case
from Price and gets a courtroom scene.
The episode was allegedly written to write out McCoy. Instead, it's like >>the script were already written, then Price's dialogue was assigned to >>McCoy, with the ending tacked on of McCoy on location walking by the
side of the famous buidlings in the criminal courts complex.
Watching with my mother, she snarked that you should demonstrate that
you are still capable of practicing criminal law by running up those steps.
Some time back, I wrote about re-watching "The Working Stiff" 5/12/1992, >>one of the few episodes featuring Adam Schiff (Steve Hill). Schiff was >>integral to the episode and drove the plot. No, they didn't just swap
him out for State (Michael Moriarity) in court. It's actually among the >>best episodes of the whole series, and made the view wish that Hill had >>been used like that in many other episodes.
Waterston deserved an episode like that, but since the show resumed,
he's gotten next to nothing.
The plot was fairly meaningless, nothing original. Hey! The prime
suspect is God from Supernatural! He might have smited the writers, but
no, they went another way.
He's some wealthy dude. They went out of
their way to say 13th wealthiest (in America, I guess) but failed to >>explain why the hell he was so wealthy. They could have just made him >>successful; it would have made no difference.
The part that was intended to be interesting (which is why it put "The >>Working Stiff" in mind as that involved Schiff's ally, the former
governor, covering up wrongdoing) was that the mayor's son was his best >>friend and and may have had evidence with regard to a rape in the back >>story. The mayor's son DID NOT want to be humiliated in public as he had >>cheated on is wife at the time; this is what the mayor tried to cover
up. I thought they were going to do something with the wealthy guy >>contributing campaign monies all those years as paying extortion, but
they did nothing with it.
Why had the murder victim (and rape victim in the back story) confronted >>him at all very early that morning, given that she was supposedly afraid
of him? She told him she was going to file a police report. If there was >>some throwaway dialogue to that effect, I missed it.
I don't think the food cart vendor was set up as the patsy, but it was
hard to tell.
I don't recall Riley and Shaw saying anything particularly memorable,
even to piss off viewers, and Dixon (Camryn Manheim ever more wasted in >>this role) has been reduced to the Whitey character.
She had one memorable moment after Riley deduced the ballcap a witness saw the >suspect wearing had a P on it and probably meant Princeton, she walked into >the squad room with a file folder and announced it contained every Princeton >alumni who lives in a 5-block radius of the crime scene?
Excuse me? What the what? How the hell would they go about compiling that kind >of info? It's not like we're all required to report or college affiliations to >the police for them to put into their database on us. And it's not like they >even could have called up Princeton to get it. The college would likely not >cooperate with the cops without legal process and even if they did, colleges >don't keep track of where you live unless you donate money to them. I'd be >very surprised if University of Texas knows I live in California, let alone my >exact address here.
My only conclusion is that Dixon must have phoned down to Miami and run the >parameters through Horatio Caine's Orwellian computer that knows everything >about everyone and can spit out only the relevant results with only two >keystrokes and a mouse click. Or maybe she knows Deus ex Penelope over at the >FBI and her do the search.
Waterston's final closing argument in court: McCoy said nothing
whatsoever about the crime. What kind of crap was that? After he wins,
he tells Price that he'd already resigned (even though he was ALREADY >>running for re-election) in lieu of finishing his term, in order to >>spare... Price from the mayor's wrath? Huh? No one cared about Price.
Interim? That lets us know that Tony Goldwyn has been hired as a gap >>filler, like Diane Wiest.
Unless Goldwyn is the opponent and we're just going to skip ahead in time to >after the election.
On Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>wrote:
than the one before it.It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written
episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be stupider
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided toarrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor
Now we the audience know Chuck did it because he confessed to it in a profferbut the prosecution can't use that in court.
The only other evidence they come up with a text message from a guy to thevictim who was on the same company retreat when the assault happened that
This big bit of nothing that they think is so important is immediatelycountered by the loss of the psychiatrist when she decides that after
Then there's the whole subplot about the mayor inviting Price to a sitdownwhere he makes it clear that if Price forces his son to testify that he'll withdraw his support from McCoy in the upcoming election and throw it to
McCoy decides his only option to save Price without folding for the mayor isto kick Price and Maroun off the case and take over himself. That way he'll
Then after the case is over, McCoy tells Price he tendered his resignation sothat the governor could appoint a fair D.A. and save Price's job before the mayor could come after him, but that's not how it works. That's not how any
We end with McCoy standing in front of the courthouse looking at itnostalgically before walking off into the night.
Sam Waterston gets sent out on a bad note. Really, the episode doesn't
feature him adequately. At some point, he simply takes over the case
from Price and gets a courtroom scene.
The episode was allegedly written to write out McCoy. Instead, it's like
the script were already written, then Price's dialogue was assigned to
McCoy, with the ending tacked on of McCoy on location walking by the
side of the famous buidlings in the criminal courts complex.
Watching with my mother, she snarked that you should demonstrate that
you are still capable of practicing criminal law by running up those steps. >>
Some time back, I wrote about re-watching "The Working Stiff" 5/12/1992,
one of the few episodes featuring Adam Schiff (Steve Hill). Schiff was
integral to the episode and drove the plot. No, they didn't just swap
him out for State (Michael Moriarity) in court. It's actually among the
best episodes of the whole series, and made the view wish that Hill had
been used like that in many other episodes.
Waterston deserved an episode like that, but since the show resumed,
he's gotten next to nothing.
The plot was fairly meaningless, nothing original. Hey! The prime
suspect is God from Supernatural! He might have smited the writers, but
no, they went another way. He's some wealthy dude. They went out of
their way to say 13th wealthiest (in America, I guess) but failed to
explain why the hell he was so wealthy. They could have just made him
successful; it would have made no difference.
The part that was intended to be interesting (which is why it put "The
Working Stiff" in mind as that involved Schiff's ally, the former
governor, covering up wrongdoing) was that the mayor's son was his best
friend and and may have had evidence with regard to a rape in the back
story. The mayor's son DID NOT want to be humiliated in public as he had
cheated on is wife at the time; this is what the mayor tried to cover
up. I thought they were going to do something with the wealthy guy
contributing campaign monies all those years as paying extortion, but
they did nothing with it.
Why had the murder victim (and rape victim in the back story) confronted
him at all very early that morning, given that she was supposedly afraid
of him? She told him she was going to file a police report. If there was
some throwaway dialogue to that effect, I missed it.
I don't think the food cart vendor was set up as the patsy, but it was
hard to tell.
suspect wearing had a P on it and probably meant Princeton, she walked into
I don't recall Riley and Shaw saying anything particularly memorable,
even to piss off viewers, and Dixon (Camryn Manheim ever more wasted in
this role) has been reduced to the Whitey character.
She had one memorable moment after Riley deduced the ballcap a witness saw the
Excuse me? What the what? How the hell would they go about compiling that kindof info? It's not like we're all required to report or college affiliations
My only conclusion is that Dixon must have phoned down to Miami and run theparameters through Horatio Caine's Orwellian computer that knows everything about everyone and can spit out only the relevant results with only two keystrokes and a mouse click. Or maybe she knows Deus ex Penelope over at
after the election.Waterston's final closing argument in court: McCoy said nothing
whatsoever about the crime. What kind of crap was that? After he wins,
he tells Price that he'd already resigned (even though he was ALREADY
running for re-election) in lieu of finishing his term, in order to
spare... Price from the mayor's wrath? Huh? No one cared about Price.
Interim? That lets us know that Tony Goldwyn has been hired as a gap
filler, like Diane Wiest.
Unless Goldwyn is the opponent and we're just going to skip ahead in time to
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>wrote:
And he seems to be cheating pretty openly on his wife, given that just
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written >>> episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be
stupider than the one before it.
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided to
arrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor than >> they did against Chuck. They were both in the vicinity of the victim when
she was killed-- i.e., they were in the largest city park in the nation--
and they both had a history of sexual assault. Except they actually had
*more* evidence against the hotdog vendor because he was actually convicted >> of sexual assault. Chuck was only accused of it, and then only privately to >> a psychiatrist. Yet they proceed to arrest Chuck and that's the sum total of >> their case at that point: he was in the same huge park as the victim and
there was an unproven accusation against him in therapy. If I'm a juror and >> that's all the prosecution presents me as evidence, I think I can see a big >> honkin' reasonable doubt looming immediately.
Now we the audience know Chuck did it because he confessed to it in a
proffer but the prosecution can't use that in court.
The only other evidence they come up with is a text message from a guy to >> the victim who was on the same company retreat when the assault happened
that asks, "You left early. Are you okay?" And everyone's treating that like >> it's some smoking gun. It could literally mean anything. Its evidentiary
value is minimal at best. Oh, and it was sent from the NY mayor's son who
was cheating on his wife at the retreat so if he testifies about it, his
marriage is probably over.
being on the company retreat was evidence enough. I didn’t get that at all. If he’s legitimately at the company retreat, then why does asking a coworker why she left early point towards infidelity?
Also, wasn’t she having an affair with the billionaire anyway?
This big bit of nothing that they think is so important is immediatelyThat’s what Abby Carmichael would do!
countered by the loss of the psychiatrist when she decides that after
telling the cops everything the victim disclosed in therapy, she now has an >> ethical obligation not to repeat it in court where it can actually do some >> good. She asserts therapist/patient privilege. Price just shrugs his
shoulders in frustration, when what he should have done is subpoenaed her to >> testify to what she told the cops. Her conversations with the victim may be >> privileged but her conversations with the cops absolutely are not. And if
she doesn't want to cooperate, let her sit in a cell until she does.
McCoy decides his only option to save Price without folding for the mayor >> is to kick Price and Maroun off the case and take over himself. That wayPrice is not only toast after the next election, price is toast, the
he'll be the one calling the mayor's son to testify and Price's job will be >> safe. Except that's not how it would work. The mayor would still see Price >> (and probably Maroun, too) as part of the team that defied him and blew up >> his kid's marriage. The fact that McCoy's name was technically the one on
the subpoena would be irrelevant.
instant McCoy resigns, and before the new guy takes his place.
Then after the case is over, McCoy tells Price he tendered his resignation >> so that the governor could appoint a fair D.A. and save Price's job before >> the mayor could come after him, but that's not how it works. That's not how >> any of it works. Yes, the governor would appoint a replacement for McCoy but >> that person would only serve out the end of McCoy's term. There would still >> be an election and the mayor would still back whoever would agree to fire
Price. Nothing McCoy did would have shielded Price from any retribution.
Prosecuting, the mayor would be the way to get the mayor to shut the hell
up.
On Feb 25, 2024 at 6:36:12 PM PST, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> >> wrote:And he seems to be cheating pretty openly on his wife, given that just
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written >>>> episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be
stupider than the one before it.
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided to >>> arrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor than
they did against Chuck. They were both in the vicinity of the victim when >>> she was killed-- i.e., they were in the largest city park in the nation-- >>> and they both had a history of sexual assault. Except they actually had
*more* evidence against the hotdog vendor because he was actually convicted >>> of sexual assault. Chuck was only accused of it, and then only privately to >>> a psychiatrist. Yet they proceed to arrest Chuck and that's the sum total of
their case at that point: he was in the same huge park as the victim and >>> there was an unproven accusation against him in therapy. If I'm a juror and >>> that's all the prosecution presents me as evidence, I think I can see a big >>> honkin' reasonable doubt looming immediately.
Now we the audience know Chuck did it because he confessed to it in a
proffer but the prosecution can't use that in court.
The only other evidence they come up with is a text message from a guy to >>> the victim who was on the same company retreat when the assault happened >>> that asks, "You left early. Are you okay?" And everyone's treating that like
it's some smoking gun. It could literally mean anything. Its evidentiary >>> value is minimal at best. Oh, and it was sent from the NY mayor's son who >>> was cheating on his wife at the retreat so if he testifies about it, his >>> marriage is probably over.
being on the company retreat was evidence enough. I didn’t get that at all.
If he’s legitimately at the company retreat, then why does asking a
coworker why she left early point towards infidelity?
It wouldn't. But the defense would bring up the affair to attack his credibility. E.g.: "If you'll lie to your wife, how can we trust you to tell the truth here?"
Also, wasn’t she having an affair with the billionaire anyway?
The victim was, yes. The mayor's son was there with a different woman who was not his wife.
This big bit of nothing that they think is so important is immediately >>> countered by the loss of the psychiatrist when she decides that afterThat’s what Abby Carmichael would do!
telling the cops everything the victim disclosed in therapy, she now has an >>> ethical obligation not to repeat it in court where it can actually do some >>> good. She asserts therapist/patient privilege. Price just shrugs his
shoulders in frustration, when what he should have done is subpoenaed her to
testify to what she told the cops. Her conversations with the victim may be >>> privileged but her conversations with the cops absolutely are not. And if >>> she doesn't want to cooperate, let her sit in a cell until she does.
Best prosecutor evah!
McCoy decides his only option to save Price without folding for the mayor >>> is to kick Price and Maroun off the case and take over himself. That way >>> he'll be the one calling the mayor's son to testify and Price's job will be >>> safe. Except that's not how it would work. The mayor would still see Price >>> (and probably Maroun, too) as part of the team that defied him and blew up >>> his kid's marriage. The fact that McCoy's name was technically the one on >>> the subpoena would be irrelevant.Price is not only toast after the next election, price is toast, the
instant McCoy resigns, and before the new guy takes his place.
Yeah, none of this makes any sense.
Then after the case is over, McCoy tells Price he tendered his resignation
so that the governor could appoint a fair D.A. and save Price's job before >>> the mayor could come after him, but that's not how it works. That's not how >>> any of it works. Yes, the governor would appoint a replacement for McCoy but
that person would only serve out the end of McCoy's term. There would still >>> be an election and the mayor would still back whoever would agree to fire >>> Price. Nothing McCoy did would have shielded Price from any retribution.
Prosecuting, the mayor would be the way to get the mayor to shut the hell
up.
Yeah, threaten to bring obstruction charges against him.
ultimately prove it, he'd know the media scandal would be enough to derail his
administration and he'd likely just sulk and forget about it.
On Feb 25, 2024 at 6:36:12 PM PST, "anim8rfsk" <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:credibility. E.g.: "If you'll lie to your wife, how can we trust you to
BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
On Feb 25, 2024 at 12:12:22 PM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>wrote:
stupider than the one before it.
It's already spoiled on Subject if you were anticipating a well-written >>>> episode. If you were, what are you smoking?
REPOST from What Did You Watch? Thread:
Every week I'm amazed that the latest episode somehow manages to be
arrest him for murder. They had more evidence against the hotdog vendor than >> they did against Chuck. They were both in the vicinity of the victim when
First, they had no evidence against the billionaire when they decided to
she was killed-- i.e., they were in the largest city park in the nation--
and they both had a history of sexual assault. Except they actually had
*more* evidence against the hotdog vendor because he was actually convicted >> of sexual assault. Chuck was only accused of it, and then only privately to >> a psychiatrist. Yet they proceed to arrest Chuck and that's the sum total of >> their case at that point: he was in the same huge park as the victim and
there was an unproven accusation against him in therapy. If I'm a juror and >> that's all the prosecution presents me as evidence, I think I can see a big >> honkin' reasonable doubt looming immediately.
proffer but the prosecution can't use that in court.
Now we the audience know Chuck did it because he confessed to it in a
that asks, "You left early. Are you okay?" And everyone's treating that like >> it's some smoking gun. It could literally mean anything. Its evidentiary
The only other evidence they come up with is a text message from a guy to >> the victim who was on the same company retreat when the assault happened
value is minimal at best. Oh, and it was sent from the NY mayor's son who
was cheating on his wife at the retreat so if he testifies about it, his
marriage is probably over.
And he seems to be cheating pretty openly on his wife, given that just
being on the company retreat was evidence enough. I didn’t get that at all.
If he’s legitimately at the company retreat, then why does asking a
coworker why she left early point towards infidelity?
It wouldn't. But the defense would bring up the affair to attack his
not his wife.Also, wasn’t she having an affair with the billionaire anyway?
The victim was, yes. The mayor's son was there with a different woman who was
ultimately prove it, he'd know the media scandal would be enough to derailThis big bit of nothing that they think is so important is immediatelycountered by the loss of the psychiatrist when she decides that after
telling the cops everything the victim disclosed in therapy, she now has an >> ethical obligation not to repeat it in court where it can actually do some >> good. She asserts therapist/patient privilege. Price just shrugs his
shoulders in frustration, when what he should have done is subpoenaed her to >> testify to what she told the cops. Her conversations with the victim may be >> privileged but her conversations with the cops absolutely are not. And if
she doesn't want to cooperate, let her sit in a cell until she does.
That’s what Abby Carmichael would do!
Best prosecutor evah!
McCoy decides his only option to save Price without folding for the mayor >> is to kick Price and Maroun off the case and take over himself. That wayhe'll be the one calling the mayor's son to testify and Price's job will be >> safe. Except that's not how it would work. The mayor would still see Price >> (and probably Maroun, too) as part of the team that defied him and blew up >> his kid's marriage. The fact that McCoy's name was technically the one on
the subpoena would be irrelevant.
Price is not only toast after the next election, price is toast, the
instant McCoy resigns, and before the new guy takes his place.
Yeah, none of this makes any sense.
Then after the case is over, McCoy tells Price he tendered his resignation >> so that the governor could appoint a fair D.A. and save Price's job before >> the mayor could come after him, but that's not how it works. That's not how >> any of it works. Yes, the governor would appoint a replacement for McCoy but >> that person would only serve out the end of McCoy's term. There would still >> be an election and the mayor would still back whoever would agree to firePrice. Nothing McCoy did would have shielded Price from any retribution.
Prosecuting, the mayor would be the way to get the mayor to shut the hell
up.
Yeah, threaten to bring obstruction charges against him. Even if you can't
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 60:37:12 |
| Calls: | 6,712 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,355,759 |