Ahh another stable case nothing particularly special just good procedural television. Except in another ACAB scenario we have a super "guilty" party saying things that are true but made to seem wrong by association.
The plot situation is simple, in a football city a star player has been killed by apparent witchcraft, he is survived by his two parents and a younger brother. Jane sneaks away to talk to the younger brother. The father suddenly realizes "hey this dude has been in the bathroom for 5 times longer than a normal person and starts looking for him. He tracks Jane down talking with his son and he yells at him.
You can't talk to my son without my permission
Jane snarkily replies back
Okay? That's weird and possessive but sure can I talk to your son please?
Here's the thing. He's right. The kid is a minor and you're interviewing him as a member of the police. You CAN'T legally talk to him without parental permission. That's not possessive it's the law but this is one scene of 100 that make this sort of behaviour seem creepy. It's effective writing they no doubt got from their police consultant. Oh we knew he was guilty when he told he he couldn't talk to his son without permission. It stuck us as controlling. This is the exact sort of scene that gets played out in every cop show and it makes people think oh I won't tell the police not to talk to my child because I don't want to seem controlling and weird.
The other scene is when they pull someone to the station to ask him questions and he says
I don't have to tell you anything
We'll get into spoiler territory to explain the situation. The father has just been arrested throwing away the murder weapon in the weakest case of mentalism I've ever seen. After all the guilty party (the father) know the witch didn't kill his son so why would he be so worried about the witch showing the police where the murder weapon is. It makes no sense you have to go full voodoo here and make him believe and they've failed to do that. But anyway they're asking him about the weapon. Why were you burying it and he notes... he doesn't have to tell them anything. that's true. That's his legal right. It doesn't benefit him to say ANYTHING. He should be sitting there waiting on his lawyer you don't have to be a law student to know he should have said nothing. That's what the courts are for. Tell your story then. Say nothing. Technically his story is that the son hit him first and he defended himself. It's a weird flex but it's possible he could have gotten off with that. I could see the right jury seeing defense as justification.
Review by wolfkinBlockedParent2019-12-28T15:33:15Z
Ahh another stable case nothing particularly special just good procedural television. Except in another ACAB scenario we have a super "guilty" party saying things that are true but made to seem wrong by association.
The plot situation is simple, in a football city a star player has been killed by apparent witchcraft, he is survived by his two parents and a younger brother. Jane sneaks away to talk to the younger brother. The father suddenly realizes "hey this dude has been in the bathroom for 5 times longer than a normal person and starts looking for him. He tracks Jane down talking with his son and he yells at him.
You can't talk to my son without my permission
Jane snarkily replies back
Okay? That's weird and possessive but sure can I talk to your son please?
Here's the thing. He's right. The kid is a minor and you're interviewing him as a member of the police. You CAN'T legally talk to him without parental permission. That's not possessive it's the law but this is one scene of 100 that make this sort of behaviour seem creepy. It's effective writing they no doubt got from their police consultant. Oh we knew he was guilty when he told he he couldn't talk to his son without permission. It stuck us as controlling. This is the exact sort of scene that gets played out in every cop show and it makes people think oh I won't tell the police not to talk to my child because I don't want to seem controlling and weird.
The other scene is when they pull someone to the station to ask him questions and he says
I don't have to tell you anything
We'll get into spoiler territory to explain the situation. The father has just been arrested throwing away the murder weapon in the weakest case of mentalism I've ever seen. After all the guilty party (the father) know the witch didn't kill his son so why would he be so worried about the witch showing the police where the murder weapon is. It makes no sense you have to go full voodoo here and make him believe and they've failed to do that. But anyway they're asking him about the weapon. Why were you burying it and he notes... he doesn't have to tell them anything. that's true. That's his legal right. It doesn't benefit him to say ANYTHING. He should be sitting there waiting on his lawyer you don't have to be a law student to know he should have said nothing. That's what the courts are for. Tell your story then. Say nothing. Technically his story is that the son hit him first and he defended himself. It's a weird flex but it's possible he could have gotten off with that. I could see the right jury seeing defense as justification.