Jerad describes the two killings he felt more justified about (his fathers and mothers). He doesn’t mention his sister at all until Philip asks him.
Jerad is not describing the order of death, he’s explaining his rationale for the killings.
To be honest, his sister was likely to get hysterical as soon as the father died (Jerad’s explanation as to why he killed her, it would draw attention). She wasn’t going to stand around, wait for her mother to get killed as well, and then get hysterical.
If it made character and motivation sense, I am less bothered by logistical details such as what body was on top, although I would prefer it for all that stuff to be perfect and logical in retrospect.
I don’t hugely care what the showrunners say in interviews, because that doesn’t show up on screen.
Not significant that the mother watched Jared kill her husband and daughter, and just apparently waited passively for her turn to get popped in the forehead?
ETA: My post was in response to **Fornicator **(in what was at the time the last comment ITT) saying “I have to say, this is not significant.” That has subsequently been edited out. Just wanted to clarify…
Feller, let it go 
I may be misunderstanding you in thinking you misunderstood me, but another clarification: when I asked “You are still okay with how it was portrayed by the showrunners?” I *meant *on screen, not in interviews.
But his mother did stand around, waited for his hysterical sister to get killed (meaning this wasn’t all done in a quick flurry–it takes time to be “hysterical” as opposed to just reflexively screaming in response to a shocking event), then got popped. Oh wait, she “tried to grab me”. This was only after his sister got hysterical and got shot?
For those wanting the expositional dialogue to judge for themselves:
*Something else no one heard, apparently.
Nice theory, but it also does not square with Jared’s dying infodump. Right at the start of it, he expositioned:
“You said my parents loved me. They didn’t love me. My whole life was a lie.”
BTW, when rewatching to get that dialogue, I noticed for the first time that Jared didn’t even have his gun hidden–it was just stuck right in his waistband, with the grip on the outside of his jacket (though on the opposite side of his body, at that point, from where Larrick was standing). Once again, we can fanwank that he had previously used some of his gun-hiding ninja abilities to move it there from wherever it was better hidden; but they sure left an awful lot for us to have to imagine having happened offscreen. Heck, they could have just skipped the whole scene of Jared shooting Larrick and cut to Philip and Elizabeth telling Claudia all about it later! LOL
You can let it go if you like, but if it’s all the same to you, or even if it isn’t, I’ll continue to discuss what I like as long as it falls within forum rules. Kthxbye.
Hombre homage?
Did I unintentionally channel a movie? [Googles] Ahhh…that sounds pretty cool, I’m gonna hafta watch that. Thanks!
Paul Newman vs. Richard Boone. Well worth your time.
I’m rewatching the season with my son, and just watched “Arpanet”. I don’t understand why in the world Nina would admit that she knew Stan killed Vlad (and by implication, that he lied to her when she asked him about it), and give him a hostile look like that. And I further don’t understand why in the recaps and discussions about that episode, no one else seems to find that very strange.
Can you remind us of the context?
The polygraph examiner was asking her various questions, some of which she answered truthfully (like “did you betray your country?”) and others untruthfully (like “does the Rezidentura know you are working with the FBI?”). One of the questions was “Do you know who killed Vladimir [whateverhisfullnamewas]?” Nina jerked her head over toward Stan and pointedly said “Yes”.
My interpretation is that Nina knew exactly what she was doing in a passive-aggressive way. I think her passing the lie detector signaled to Stan that she loves him and is loyal to him despite knowing he killed Vlad. This made him feel worse about what the FBI was doing to her.
It should have been a red flag about where her loyalties actually were, but we all know Stan is not the brightest bulb when it comes to Nina.
IIRC the next question after “Do you know who killed Vlad?” was “Do you know why?” and she said “Yes”.
I suspect the reason she answered that truthfully is that it would confuse the reading and provide context for her discomfort. Remember she has been promoted since last season (and has her own office now) and it stands to reason that she has learnt who the Sovs think killed Vlad.
It would make them think that she had was pissed off at Stan rather than lying.
Yeah, which is even weirder. Why wouldn’t they follow up on that? And if they did, what would she say? Because someone killed his partner, so Vlad was randomly chosen for revenge?
That’s a really good theory, especially the part about her being promoted and that she perhaps would have been expected to learn what the Soviets think (although the whole thing where Gaad is getting in trouble with oversight committees seems to indicate that he never gave up Stan and that it was not known which of Gaad’s agents killed Vlad).
And it still leaves other questions unanswered. Why, Stan might wonder, was she so lovey-dovey with Stan while knowing this? Earlier she had confronted him about it and looked in his eyes and implored him to tell her if he knew anything about it. He said he did not and she acted like she accepted that. This still seems to me like it would raise a lot of red flags with him, or at least that she would have reason to worry it might.
And it’s really weird that they did not have some kind of follow-up scene about this. Once they were alone, they should have had the two of them together, and Stan saying “Look Nina, about Vlad…” at which point she would cut him off and say something reassuring, although I’m drawing a blank as to what she could say.
I dunno. Maybe her confusion and less than honest answers might have been convincing. Someone with a rock solid result can raise eyebrows for being too perfect. OTH, if an individual is hesitant and suspicious, that might make them seem more convincing, especially if said moods are easily explained…and the US side has every reason to think, “she is acting this way because she suspects Vlad was killed by Stan, but is not sure” as opposed to “she has been turned”.
At the end of the day, all a polygraph does is show data which must be interpreted by humans.
I know you all have moved on, but I just watched the season disk so, three points:
I would bet that Nina will be back next season. What’s-his face gave her the envelope of cash and the disguised advice to run for it. Some how she will create or take advantage of a disruption and slip away from her guards, probably at the airport.
Does anyone else find Fred(?I’m really bad at names, sorry) being able to carry out his mission? I mean, he gets shot, runs out with security in hot pursuit, somehow manages to change his shoes and put the magic ones into that bag, makes a stop at the correct dumpster, gets out of the car, opens the dumpster, gets back in the car, drives another five blocks or whatever it was, gets into the right telephone box, and still finds the slip of paper with the correct number to call? All of that, especially the shoe changing, seems too much for me to believe.
How was Stan’s copying of the computer program supposed to work? The thing on his belly was, what? A motion picture camera? But he wasn’t in front of the screen when the program started scrolling, and surely it would have raised suspicion if he’d remained there, watching incomprehensible to him code scroll along all the way to the end with the other guy watching. So…at best he got a section of the code???
Hope someone is still following this thread. 
Merry Christmas.
Just saw in TV Guide that Ninais indeed back.
For anyone who wants to know.
The season 3 premiere is Jan. 28, 2015 - 20 days to go.
Can you feel the excrement?
I can. I’m so excited!