Far more likely in the real world, the defense would privately present their evidence to the prosecution, and the prosecution would move to excuse the jury before a verdict could be rendered, along with a motion to postpone another trial. Naz would waive his right to a speedy trial in the hope that new evidence would exonerate him in full. That would allow law enforcement to further investigate and determine if they had incorrectly charged Naz.
If yes, the prosecutor would move to dismiss the charges against Naz and refile against their new defendant. If no, the prosecutor would have preserved her right to commence a second trial against Naz without concern over double jeopardy.
I don’t think anyone was *actually *suggesting the two murders were related. It was just an offhand comment that the murder of a wealthy white woman on the Upper West Side immediately brings all the media, and a similar murder of a Black woman way uptown gets no notice beyond a couple cops.
She doesn’t need to explain her drinking any more than I do. I interpreted that line as nothing more than her telling the lawyer (and reminding us viewers) that she isn’t muslim.
I never said she had to explain her drinking. I said it seemed like she was, which doesn’t imply that she had to. Many people do this. It wasn’t a judgment about her, just my interpretation of her response.
Stone doesn’t have to explain the state of his feet, either – but he does, almost constantly. Same dealio.
She said it in response to his question: “Do you drink?”
That entire exchange seemed to be about the fact that muslims don’t drink, both his question and her response. At least that’s how I read it. Sort of similar to asking if she eats bacon. “I eat everything” would be a normal response, and would not be her defensively explaining her eating. If that makes sense.
Yeah, because Stone did more than ask if she drank, he said something like “of course you don’t” (implying he thought she was muslim) to which she replied something like “That’s muslims, and I’m not. I drink whatever I want”.
It does make sense, but you’re confusing 2 different scenes. Stone asked, “Do you drink?” and she replied, “I’m not Muslim, I drink everything.” I wasn’t talking about that scene. If that had been the only reference to her alcohol consumption, no biggie. But it wasn’t.
If you read my post that you quoted, you’ll see I was referring to the scene that presumably occurred shortly after the first one, where the two of them are in a bar discussing the finer points of jury selection. She quickly drinks two drinks and tries to order a third, at which point Stone gestures to the bartender to cut her off.
After she drinks the first drink and orders the second one, Stone asks if she is listening to him, glances at her glass and gives her a questioning look, obviously wondering about the quick consumption. She comprehends his interest/concern in her alcohol consumption and spontaneously volunteers the comment, “I broke up with my boyfriend,” by way of explanation. It’s in that scene that I questioned the truth of her explanation. It seemed to me more as if she concocted a hasty, convenient explanation about the boyfriend than that the statement was true. It might be true or it might not. Just my thoughts.
Sure the comment about the break-up with her boyfriend is true. We have no reason to believe it’s not. We can presume that the break up was due to her deep involvement in the case taking her away from him.
It’s on again just now, and something else that I didn’t catch: Naz has a prescription for the Adderall that he was selling. Selling them isn’t legal, but did everybody else on his team miss this? Stone was hacked that Naz kept the speed secret, Naz barely nodded when confronted with the “let’s say it was just Adderall, all college kids use it”. The DA pounced on the tox discrepancies, but it was legal for Naz to have Adderall in his system. She had his insurance bill during testimony, she knew it was legal, too.
But Naz never volunteers that he had a friggen prescription?
Ah, yeah, not sure what happened there. Maybe my brain short-circuited?
I quoted like two lines of your post, then proceeded to reply to something entirely different, apparently not being able to comprehend two lousy lines. heh.
As for the boyfriend line, meh, I didn’t read anything into it. I took her word for it.
Rikers Island is the lockup for New York City. He isn’t in actual prison with convicted criminals. They’re all there waiting their day in court. Now, some of them may have convictions and serving state time while waiting in Rikers for their day in court or for a spot in the state system to open up.
Remember, Freddie saying that he had someone killed, so that he would be moved from the State Prison, to Rikers to await trial, so he could be closer to his baby and baby momma.
The DA knew when she looked at the knife during closing arguments. All the stuff Box told her got her thinking, but the question nobody ever asked about the knife did it.
I think the burning question for me was whether he’d go back and get the cat…
But otherwise- a bittersweet ending. Sorry for Ms. Kipur though she was an idiot for sabotaging what should have been her first home run. Also, it seems Naz’s life was over the moment he came under Freddy’s “protection” whether he was convicted or not.
Why, if the knife had been stabbed to the hilt 25 times or whatever, did it have only a couple of blood stains on it?
She’s staring at the blade, explaining to the jury how the knife had been stabbed into the girl so many times, and you can see the look on her face that that blade is way too clean to have been used in that murder.
