Great episode, but the trial sucked. From Kate being on pre-arraignment release when a prosecutor wants her incarcerated to the sucky deal to stay "in the state". This was a lame way of freeing the fast forward Kate so she is not in jail and not running.

Jack testified as a defense witness before mom (their main witness) testifies. Crap.

There have to be a hundred lawyers who are fans who just threw up their hands and said "ok, to hell with research and detail. Lets just do a soap opera trial and hope it all works out all right and people are please."

Crap.

Lame prosecutor too. Any girl with balls would have just tried the case and lost (ha) and blamed it on the mom.

And was that red that Kate was wearing for jail duds?

Cmon. Hire a consultant for scenes like this.

(But the rest was great!!!)

I agree, not that the rest was great because I hated the whole episode but I agree the trial was the most unrealistic thing I've ever seen. She's committed many many crimes and yet suddenly she can get off because one person calls her a hero after a plane crash? Is that how our justice system works? But then every character on this show seems to be suffering from memory loss so I guess it's not surprising the judge and jury did too.

Yeah, I don't know crap about law, and even I noticed that the trial was very silly. I mean, c'mon, ALL those charges and their entire trial rested on Diane's testimony???

Err.. okay.

The jury never got to do anything, but smile. And the comment that the jury would give her her sentence. Not in the US they don't.

But hey, don't get to frustrated with the rest. Finally the writer are wrapping some stuff up for us. Now we are moving towards something rather than just drifting in the tide of season three. I was much more frustrated last year with all the caged up crap. At least I feel movement towards some goal is happening.

Jack testified as a defense witness before mom (their main witness) testifies. Crap.

There have to be a hundred lawyers who are fans who just threw up their hands and said "ok, to hell with research and detail. Lets just do a soap opera trial and hope it all works out all right and people are please." I don't claim to be a legal expert but in many legal cases the attorneys keep their biggest card for the end or atleast later stages so that they can have maximum impact. And secondly this is a tv show not law school.


Lame prosecutor too. Any girl with balls would have just tried the case and lost (ha) and blamed it on the mom.Then that is not a fault of the show. She was clearly going to lose with having absolutely no witness to prove their case, I'm sure she was a little conservative and did not want such a high profile defeat on her record (who would?).


And was that red that Kate was wearing for jail duds? Prisoners usually wear that color in prison.
100%
Yeah, I don't know crap about law, and even I noticed that the trial was very silly. I mean, c'mon, ALL those charges and their entire trial rested on Diane's testimony???

Err.. okay.

Ofcourse, the lawyer mentioned the reason she was being tried was because she confessed to her mom. Other then her mom they have absolutely no way of proving the rest of the charges as they were all related to her father's murder.

Is it possible that a lot of the "real" evidence was destroyed when everyone thought Kate was dead? I was wondering, though, if the statute of limitations would have been up on some of those charges (not the murder, but some of the others)?

There is no way that Jack could testify for the defense before Kate's mom testifies for the prosecution. It's not the way trials work. Prosecution goes first and then the defense.

The fact that Jack even testified is idiotic. He was a character witness. If anything he would have testified during sentencing not during the trial. His testimony had absolutley nothing to do with the case.

This doesn't have to be law school, but anyone who has watched one episode of Law and Order knows how this works.

I can think of about a hundred material witnesses to deeds she comitted including the bank robbery, her ex husband, the car crash, sawyers old flame, the list goes on

Is it possible that a lot of the "real" evidence was destroyed when everyone thought Kate was dead? I was wondering, though, if the statute of limitations would have been up on some of those charges (not the murder, but some of the others)?

Good point. But how long are we talking? Even the shortest SLs are years long and they've been on the island for 90 days. And don't have a clue (at least I don't) of the off island time lapse.

I don't claim to be a legal expert but in many legal cases the attorneys keep their biggest card for the end or atleast later stages so that they can have maximum impact. And secondly this is a tv show not law school.



Attorneys may save the best of their own witnesses for last, but in the American legal system, the prosecution presents its entire case and only then does the defense start calling witnesses.

This was like a baseball game in which they didn't wait till one side took its at bats until there were three outs but instead had one batter from the home team go to the plate, then one from the visitors, then another from the home team, etc. I doubt that if such a ridiculous mistake were made in that case that you would say it was just a television show so we shouldn't notice.

I agree with the thread title--worst dramatization of a legal proceeding ever.

Cardie

Yeah, naive or not, I'm with Jynes; maybe there was no good evidence whatsoever and it all hinged on her mothers testimony? Surely this sort of thing has happened before.

As for the other charges...bank robbery for one (surveillance tapes), I'm with the OP there. Would she get some time?

This doesn't have to be law school, but anyone who has watched one episode of Law and Order knows how this works.

Zackly. This was insulting. (And I'm a big fan)

There is no way that Jack could testify for the defense before Kate's mom testifies for the prosecution. It's not the way trials work. Prosecution goes first and then the defense.

The fact that Jack even testified is idiotic. He was a character witness. If anything he would have testified during sentencing not during the trial. His testimony had absolutley nothing to do with the case.

This doesn't have to be law school, but anyone who has watched one episode of Law and Order knows how this works.

The prosecution does not have to bring its biggest witness out right out of the gate, they could have started with some other piece of evidence, waited for the trial to go on and see what the defence does and then drop their ace towards the end to seal the deal.

The prosecution does not have to bring its biggest witness out right out of the gate, they could have started with some other piece of evidence, waited for the trial to go on and see what the defence does and then drop their ace towards the end to seal the deal.

No, they can't. Jack could not be called to the stand until the prosecution had rested its case, and if they rested, they could not then call Kate's Mom. Trials simply don't work that way.

Cardie

OJ, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, I'm not saying Kate's trial wasn't a work of fiction but stranger trials with more damming evidence against the accused have happened in real life, with a Not Gulity or Mistrial outcome. We were led to believe in this epi that Kate was Widely famous and considered a hero. I wonder if most of the evidence against her wasn' t burnt up with her Dad? Maybe the confession to her Mother was the prosicutions only real evidence? Stranger things in real life have happened.

I wasn't so much bothered by what was procedurally wrong with the trial (I don't really watch TV crime shows) but the fact that it seemed so--anticlimactic. What I had read about the filming of the street scene as Kate was being led into the courtroom had made it sound so exciting. This is one of the key fulcrum points of the greatest show in TV history. We've all imagined it so many times. So much is riding on it. It just didn't have the emotional impact I thought it would. I feel kind of let down.

Yeah, naive or not, I'm with Jynes; maybe there was no good evidence whatsoever and it all hinged on her mothers testimony? Surely this sort of thing has happened before.

Your not naive. Don't do that to yourself. You have an idea. But they'd (the prosecutor) would never, never let them talk before she testified. I don't care if they are mom and daughter or not. At that point everyone is entrenched and committed. That's the reality of it.

These trials don't happen in days, but months. Kate's lawyer wheeled he in for a meeting. Did they know this was arranged?
100%
In all honesty I have always thought Kate had a legit defense and that her running was foolish. Sure, she may never have understood this, but federal marshalls following her seemed a bit much. She never was the worst of the worst to me. A crime, yes. But small time murder is it.

That's cold, isn't it?

Your not naive. Don't do that to yourself. You have an idea. But they'd (the prosecutor) would never, never let them talk before she testified. I don't care if they are mom and daughter or not. At that point everyone is entrenched and committed. That's the reality of it.

These trials don't happen in days, but months. Kate's lawyer wheeled he in for a meeting. Did they know this was arranged?

Well, if it's right out of order, then that's too bad, and I suppose somewhat sloppy. But I can look past that. :)

As for the other stuff....Im really with Abbybaby who said:

J, Robert Blake, Phil Spector, I'm not saying Kate's trial wasn't a work of fiction but stranger trials with more damming evidence against the accused have happened in real life, with a Not Gulity or Mistrial outcome. We were led to believe in this epi that Kate was Widely famous and considered a hero. I wonder if most of the evidence against her wasn' t burnt up with her Dad? Maybe the confession to her Mother was the prosicutions only real evidence? Stranger things in real life have happened.

Considering we don't know much else about the case, and considering Kate's case is clearly a case of 'celebrity justice' stranger things have indeed happened. There were probably many more witnesses, but they 'cut to the chase' and gave us what mattered: in the end she got off cuz of a lack of real evidence (main testimony lost) and her appeal as a pop cuture phenomenon and a downright hero. I can totally buy this.

But back to the sloppy order of the trial; its too bad its backwards. I do prefer realism and attention to detail, generally speaking.

JS
100%
Your not naive. Don't do that to yourself. You have an idea. But they'd (the prosecutor) would never, never let them talk before she testified. I don't care if they are mom and daughter or not. At that point everyone is entrenched and committed. That's the reality of it.

These trials don't happen in days, but months. Kate's lawyer wheeled he in for a meeting. Did they know this was arranged?
100%
In all honesty I have always thought Kate had a legit defense and that her running was foolish. Sure, she may never have understood this, but federal marshalls following her seemed a bit much. She never was the worst of the worst to me. A crime, yes. But small time murder is it.

That's cold, isn't it?

Nah, I know what you mean. She could always say she didn't know quite why she was running, she was scared, or some such. Her crime was an understandable one, in a way (given the abusive husband fact), and I guess, naively once again, that it's not unreasonable to assume that that jury might have been hung (?). Kate almost comes across as a hero in two regards there.

I'm just glad Kate is not in prison.

This is one of the key fulcrum points of the greatest show in TV history. We've all imagined it so many times. So much is riding on it. It just didn't have the emotional impact I thought it would. I feel kind of let down.

I guess that's what happens when you read about it before hand. ;) Let this be a lesson, kids. Spoilers are evil. Pure evil. :rolleyes:

I cringed at the judge's decision to allow Jack to answer, "Do you love her?"
:rotflmao2:

I know this isn't a courtroom drama show, but that trial was pretty hard to watch, even for a Lost fan well used to retaining a high level of suspension of disbelief.

And I agree with most of you -- very anticlimactic, overall.

>>>> ...worst dramatization of a legal proceeding ever.

Just trying out a theory... What if what we saw, *was* a dramatization???

Hm, well I was thinking that Kate was going to get off because of the people behind the O6 conspiracy. Is there a chance someone WAS still pulling the strings? Like with Diane maybe?

ETA: I should say that the court room stuff didn't bother me much. I never watch crime shows so I didn't know there were errors.

ETA: I should say that the court room stuff didn't bother me much. I never watch crime shows so I didn't know there were errors.

Same here.

What is with all the fussing?!

A boxing ref is a judge on TV but this was the most unrealistic. They were on an island where there's a smoke monster, they don't look disgusting after all this time on the island, Hurley isn't losing weight, a plane split in mid air and had so many survivors but the court room scene was unrealistics, clearly we aren't watching the show for realism.

If you want a realistic court case maybe they should have dragged this out to 4 or 5 flashbacks so we could experience the entire booooooooring case. Why not show the sentencing, the jury selection, the whole nine. If its not exactly courtroom perfect so what just entertain me (which it done)

PS There have been alot worst, trust me I watch a lot of tv heck look at my user name and lighten up it TV.

The only way they could have convincingly got her off of the charges against her was to have Ben, Kaiser Soze style, get the charges dropped by wielding political influence. This would have put her in league with and beholden to Ben ala Sayid. This would have made for a better story as well. But they went for that abortion of a trial instead. I guess the writers were anticipating an upcoming strike and checked out early.

Do I understand from everyone's reactions that none of you have ever served on a criminal jury? There were many comments about watching TV crime shows... are you saying in Civics class that your teacher didn't drag you down to the court room and watch a trial from 9-3 one day? And that you never served on a criminal jury? My wife served on a murder trial. I served on drug trials. I mean, you know, I get called every 5 years, I've served before.

Same here.

What is with all the fussing?!

Because it's completely ridiculous that a cold blooded killer like Kate would get 10 years probation?

Because the "trial" was so riddled with so many factual inaccuracies it was comical?

Look, I could maybe go along with the fact that the jury might find her not guilty or something because they are somehow mesmerized by her celebrity. Maybe. But this was not the case. The DA offered her probation for in what many states is a death penalty crime. The murder/arson charge was not the only charge against her. They also had the bank robbery and Tom's death was her fault as well. She could and probably should face at worst manslaughter charges for his death. Kate's mother's testimony has nothing to do with either of those two cases.

I'm not asking for super-realistic things from this show, but this was just plain crap. This wasn't some time loop wormhole thing they got the science wrong in where only like 1% of the audience is going to notice. This was such a horrible job of writing that it completely ruined the episode.

Do I understand from everyone's reactions that none of you have ever served on a criminal jury? There were many comments about watching TV crime shows... are you saying in Civics class that your teacher didn't drag you down to the court room and watch a trial from 9-3 one day? And that you never served on a criminal jury? My wife served on a murder trial. I served on drug trials. I mean, you know, I get called every 5 years, I've served before.

I don't get it. You wife served drugs during a murder trial?

i was also expecting someone to pull a shady deal to get kate out of the situation (maybe the people behind the cover-up? hello??) the flash-forwards were very underwhelming and did not deliver the emotional impact i was expecting.

Do I understand from everyone's reactions that none of you have ever served on a criminal jury? There were many comments about watching TV crime shows... are you saying in Civics class that your teacher didn't drag you down to the court room and watch a trial from 9-3 one day? And that you never served on a criminal jury? My wife served on a murder trial. I served on drug trials. I mean, you know, I get called every 5 years, I've served before.

I've been on several juries and it's scary that people on them can't be convinced to adhere to the law. Their attitudes are like those in this thread--and it's not a tv show.

In my last case, the defendant was probably guilty, but the prosecution botched the case and in no way proved guilt based upon evidence. There was this blowhard guy who said that we all "knew" she was guilty so who cared about little technicalities? One other woman and I patiently explained legal procedure, the presumption of innocence, the fact that the burden of proof was not with the defendant (whose alibi was admittedly a mess)--and he had the gall to say that we should just pretend we weren't so smart and decide the case like regular people!

We ended up with a mistrial, because after that I was never going to go his way nor he mine.

Cardie

I cringed at the judge's decision to allow Jack to answer, "Do you love her?"
:rotflmao2:

I know this isn't a courtroom drama show, but that trial was pretty hard to watch, even for a Lost fan well used to retaining a high level of suspension of disbelief.

And I agree with most of you -- very anticlimactic, overall.

I guess you didn't get to watch any of the Anna Nicole.... Hearings???? I watched all of them (and yes, I am upset that I can't ever get that time in my life back!) Kate's "Trial" was EXTREMELY believable compared to that Mess. :eek2: :biggrin: I guess we all have suspend disbelief , even in courtroom reality. And yes I know most of that case took place in the Bahama's, But remember before Anna died the United States Supreme Court Agreed with her and gave her a huge amount of money (From her dead huspand's estate) Of course this was appealed, and now that money may go to her Daughter....
well, you get my piont. :biggrin:

There is no way that Jack could testify for the defense before Kate's mom testifies for the prosecution. It's not the way trials work. Prosecution goes first and then the defense.

That bugged me too, but it was the only way to tell the story in the way the writers felt it needed to be told, so I am comfortable giving them creative license there. Don't even get me started on the portrayal of computers, networks, or hackers in television and movies. There hasn't been an accurate portrayal of either that I've seen except for War Games (with the caveat that his modem communications were far too fast for 300 baud) and the part in Matrix Revolutions where Trinity runs nmap (a popular open source network and port scanner). That's it. Everything else is utterly crap. With my wife, who is a midwife, it's everything involving birth on TV. It's all portrayed poorly and almost alway completely incorrectly.

The fact that Jack even testified is idiotic. He was a character witness. If anything he would have testified during sentencing not during the trial. His testimony had absolutley nothing to do with the case.

IANAL, but I've spent enough time on jury duty to have seen a character witness or three during the actual trial proceedings.

This doesn't have to be law school, but anyone who has watched one episode of Law and Order knows how this works.

Your quote is ultimately why it was a bad idea to take such liberal creative license with a court scene, because if it's one thing a TV audience probably has a decent understanding of, it's the way a court works because of the plethora of legal shows on TV.

Seriously, my only disappointment with the court case is that Abaddon or Ben were (apparently) not pulling the strings. I'll hold out hope that they really were but we just don't know it yet.

I will wait patiently for the next mobisode ("Missing Piece") that shows Kate's attorney handing over a briefcase of cash to the DA and judge. :) And yes, LL, it may come from Ben or Abaddon (not spoiler info, just speculation).

I don't pretend to have any LOST secrets, but I don't think we have enough info yet to really know (for sure) what's going on.

I agree with this thread - the trial was simply a horrible piece of plotline and writing. It would have been more interesting if a mysterious power broker behind the scenes had pulled some strings to get her off.

I guess TPTB prepared us in a way for this, though, with the opening scene of this season - a televised LA car chase, while Jack was pouring some OJ. :rolleyes:
It does pay to be a celebrity.

It think it was all a fix. Just a set-up to lead to that meeting between Kate and her mother, who tried to make a deal to see Aaron.

Same here.

What is with all the fussing?!

It's a Kate episode. One of them airs and all the usual suspects go on the attack. Just look at past Kate episodes. You'll see all the same people fussing =]

Not that anyone complaining about the trial stuff is "going on the attack" - because I agree with you to a point. It was very much a fake fabricated trial scene, which happens a lot on this show.

She was tried for murder in a federal court. Robbing a bank, alright. But murder?

Oh well, I enjoyed the episode regardless.

The trial was a joke. That was a STATE judge. Federal prosecutors are not called district attorneys. They are U.S. Attorneys. There are no sherrifs in federal court, and the charges brought against her were state court charges. But, California wouldn't have jurisdiction to try the crimes committed in other states. But, the judge remanded her into FEDERAL custody.

As others have said, defense witnesses don't testify before the prosecution rests. Although, a couple people have incorrectly said that character witnesses only testify during sentencing. That's not true. A character witness can testify that the person is of good character or has a good reputation in the community. But, again, that would occur after the prosecution rests.

They should hire a consultant. (Heck, hire me.)

For a show where producers have caught heck for korean language resumes, you'd think they'd pay a little more attention to detail. Disappointing this time.

Great episode, but the trial sucked.
Only if you assume it was a sincere trial rather than a kangaroo court as I do.

From Kate being on pre-arraignment release when a prosecutor wants her incarcerated to the sucky deal to stay "in the state". This was a lame way of freeing the fast forward Kate so she is not in jail and not running.
But they could just as easily have had her in jail. No, there must have been something very special about the DA's desire for 10 whole years of in-state probation. She knew something. So did the judge. The trial was just for show.

Jack testified as a defense witness before mom (their main witness) testifies. Crap.

There have to be a hundred lawyers who are fans who just threw up their hands and said "ok, to hell with research and detail. Lets just do a soap opera trial and hope it all works out all right and people are please."

Crap.

Lame prosecutor too. Any girl with balls would have just tried the case and lost (ha) and blamed it on the mom.

And was that red that Kate was wearing for jail duds?

Cmon. Hire a consultant for scenes like this.
No, hire a better audience. When you see stuff like this, like the "continuity errors", those are clues.

Robert

This reminds me of the "we put a pacemaker inside you" story line with Ben and Sawyer. All the nurses and med students were all huffed up and PO'ed that Ben's description of how a pacemaker works was completely wrong (and it was). My mom even made a snide remark about it.

The show isn't accurate. You are going to be very disappointed at how unrealistic it is once it hits a realm that you know something about (like the physics of time-travel). It's nothing to be upset about. Just wait until next week.

We have all been burned on the inaccuracies. It's really nothing new and it's hardly shocking that the producers continue to do it because *ALL TV SHOWS DO*.

Just my two cents. It happens.

I agree horrible trial, and furthermore wouldn't the mom's statements she had to have made before hand been presented before the court if she was to sick, they would have been presented if she died.

I agree horrible trial, and furthermore wouldn't the mom's statements she had to have made before hand been presented before the court if she was to sick, they would have been presented if she died.

Actually, if she didn't submit a written statement, then not necessarily. When witnesses die (or get murdered), they don't use their testimony. This is why they hire federal agents to protect federal witnesses in large trials. Otherwise, their statements to the police beforehand would be evidence enough.

This reminds me of the "we put a pacemaker inside you" story line with Ben and Sawyer. All the nurses and med students were all huffed up and PO'ed that Ben's description of how a pacemaker works was completely wrong (and it was). My mom even made a snide remark about it.

The show isn't accurate. You are going to be very disappointed at how unrealistic it is once it hits a realm that you know something about (like the physics of time-travel). It's nothing to be upset about. Just wait until next week.

We have all been burned on the inaccuracies. It's really nothing new and it's hardly shocking that the producers continue to do it because *ALL TV SHOWS DO*.

Just my two cents. It happens.


The inaccuracy of the trial was just the tip of the iceberg for me.

The trial was a joke. That was a STATE judge. Federal prosecutors are not called district attorneys. They are U.S. Attorneys. There are no sherrifs in federal court, and the charges brought against her were state court charges. But, California wouldn't have jurisdiction to try the crimes committed in other states. But, the judge remanded her into FEDERAL custody.

As others have said, defense witnesses don't testify before the prosecution rests. Although, a couple people have incorrectly said that character witnesses only testify during sentencing. That's not true. A character witness can testify that the person is of good character or has a good reputation in the community. But, again, that would occur after the prosecution rests.

They should hire a consultant. (Heck, hire me.)

For a show where producers have caught heck for korean language resumes, you'd think they'd pay a little more attention to detail. Disappointing this time.
I love this show and am more than willing to squint a little if they've fudged something up, but this was just egregiously, in-your-face bad, and the whole FF was hung on it. Quite apart from all the criticisms already named, the whole idiocy with jurisdiction was insulting bad. The murder and insurance scam took place in Iowa, the bank robbery was in New Mexico, and the fraud was in Florida. So by all means, let's try the whole lot in one proceeding, and that, presumably in L.A.

It would be one thing if the errors were subtle and only lawyers noticed them. These were so flagrant, it's like they didn't even bother to try... and I found that insulting.

Ive never been to any kind of trial, so I will just take your word for it: it was very inaccurate. But does it really matter...? I didn't care for the judge, all I cared for is what Jack and Kate's mother and Kate had to say.

Dude... it was just BAD. Laughably bad. To the point where I kept hearing the theme of "One Life To Live" when Diane was rolled in bad.

I've had weeks of foreknowledge about this so I'm just going to shrug it off as stupid and move on. I'm used to it because Kate episodes are full of idiotic contrivances (robbing a bank for a toy plane anyone?) so I just roll with it. But I'm never going to pretend it wasn't ridiculous.

This reminds me of the "we put a pacemaker inside you" story line with Ben and Sawyer. All the nurses and med students were all huffed up and PO'ed that Ben's description of how a pacemaker works was completely wrong (and it was). My mom even made a snide remark about it.

The show isn't accurate.
It's accurate. Remember how the supposed implant turned out to be a sham. What appear to be inaccuracies are clues. The trial was fake too.

Maybe her lawyers moved the trial. They could have made a case that Kate wouldn't get a fair trial in ______________ because of her notoriety.

I agree, the whole Kate crime thing is definitely fuzzy. But I don't know why everyone is insisting that the jurisdiction is so screwed up because she had a friggin Federal Marshall chasing her. Why on earth would that be the case if she has committed crimes in three different states?

The federal marshall came first, so thats where the questions should start. Then the details of the crimes emerged, which didnt match up with the level of authority chasing her (first inaccuracy - and that was started in the first and second seasons). Now she's being tried in LA by, from what other people in this thread have said, a state judge.

None of that makes sense, not just the details of tonights episode.
100%
It's accurate. Remember how the supposed implant turned out to be a sham. What appear to be inaccuracies are clues. The trial was fake too.

No, I realize that overall, the wrong information played no part because it was a setup. But no, Ben's description of how a pacemaker works was completely inaccurate. Nothing accurate about it. it just turned out to be a con and Ben's details didn't matter.

This trial was really bad. They needed Kate to get off and she did, but they could have made it so much better if they had someone pulling strings.

And inconsistencies are not always clues. Everyone was so crazy about the Swan's set differences until the producers said it was all a mistake, that they had issues with props. They make mistakes, and this one was a really bad one.

I'm not even an American and I know the prosecution presents its entire case first before the defense gets to call someone. Not to mention that for her to be charged with fraud and all the other crimes that had nothing to do with Diane and Kate's dad, they had to have some evidence, so the prosecutor could still get her for those crimes.

It would have been more satisfying if they had either one of these scenarios:

a) There's a mistrial because someone in that jury buys her sob story and they have a hung jury
b) The people asking them to lie got to someone on the jury and gets her a mistrial
c) They acknowledged that they didn't have any solid evidence on the other crimes and just charged her with the murder (then the fact that Diane's testimony was the only thing they had would have been more acceptable)
d) They showed someone behind the scenes manipulating the trial, the evidence or the witnesses

I hate it when good shows like Lost do something like this. It's easy enough to do the research to get it right. It's sad that they didn't.

Like Barrister, law is my field. I've worked many criminal trials in California, so of course, I noticed there were a few glaring errors in this scene. However, I felt they worked for the sake of the overall story and I can easily overlook them.

Also, some of the things that people think are errors are not as unrealistic as you might think. Really crazy stuff sometimes goes on in court rooms, especially in California. As someone pointed out, just think OJ and Phil Spector. When a jury idolizes a defendant, there's no explaining the amount of hard evidence they will overlook to render an acquital.

Of course, they did error by filming this trial in a California state courtroom (notice the California penal code books behind the judge), calling the prosecutor a district attorney instead of a U.S. attorney, and having a bailiff instead of a federal marshall as the court officer. Letting Jack testify before the prosecution witnesses was also an obvious mistake.

But these are small issues, in my opinion. Most people won't even catch it, since there was so much more important stuff going on in the episode. For instace, at the point in the episode where Jack testified, it wasn't even clear the prosecution's case wasn't over, and I was so captivated by the lies he was spewing from the stand, I'm not sure I would have thought of that anyway.

What people seem to have found the most unrealistic is the fact that she got off with probation only, and in fact this is the easiest part for me to believe.

The murder charge fell apart completely without Dianne to testify. She was the only real evidence they had. A charge of bank robbery always carries jail time, but as I recall she didn't steal any money from that bank and no such charge was read at her arraignment. The lesser remaining charges could also hinge on testimony from witnesses who are now gone (The Marshall, Tom, etc.).

I could also completely buy that Dharma, Oceanic, or Ben exerted some influence and caused witnesses or evidence to disappear. In fact, because the prosecutor insisted on a stipulation that Kate would not leave the state for 10 years, I strongly suspect that Dharma, Oceanic, or Ben had a hand in making sure Kate got a good plea deal.

And trust me, crazier plea deals have been made. Prosecutor's offices are political engines, and any good prosecutor's office would start thinking plea deal when the evidence started to disappear and they knew the public would be on the side of the Defendant.

Also, even if the prosecutor could have made a few of the lesser charges stick (assault on the officer for instance), there's awfully good reason to believe that Kate would have received the lightest sentence possible given her history, her celebrity, etc. When you get out of the realm of charges with minimum sentencing guidelines (like murder, bank robbery, etc), you can get surprising light sentences, particularly when your defendant is pretty and sympathetic. Just think of all those young school teachers who raped 12 years old boys and spent no time at all in jail!

The statute of limitations would also bar at least a few charges related to Kate's past crimes.

Only if you assume it was a sincere trial rather than a kangaroo court as I do.


But they could just as easily have had her in jail. No, there must have been something very special about the DA's desire for 10 whole years of in-state probation. She knew something. So did the judge. The trial was just for show.


No, hire a better audience. When you see stuff like this, like the "continuity errors", those are clues.

Robert

Just for clarification - in your current "Everything on this show is one giant conspiracy" theory, how many people exactly are in on it and how many people are completely clueless?

From your past statements, it would appear that currently several hundred people are involved in one giant conspiracy against maybe 20 people that has been lasting for over a decade by now.

Terrible trial. (not a great episode overall). My question is how do you get "killed in the opening"? I mean, its a prepared statement that you have weeks to compose. You know pretty much what the prosecution will say. How do you botch that up?

Terrible trial. (not a great episode overall). My question is how do you get "killed in the opening"? I mean, its a prepared statement that you have weeks to compose. You know pretty much what the prosecution will say. How do you botch that up?

Good point. I had forgotten that line. You don't get killed. The opening is a statement of what the jury should expect to hear in the trial. It is not evidence. Yes you can screw it up, but this is not a complicated set of facts.

Perhaps he just meant that there was nothing he could say to counteract the opening of the prosecutor?

I agree. As someone who works in a courtroom (mind you, it's in Canada, but still) I get so frustrated seeing courtrooms on TV just get thrown together. The reading of the charges just killed me - murder, grand theft auto etc...no dates, no locations, just yeah, you did these. Oh well, I guess we do tend to nit pick.

Could someone tell me the name of the Judge? Thanks!

Gazelthron, believe it or not.

Yes there were inaccuracies, but so what? I mean I bet if you were part of the Iraqi army, you'd find fault in Sayid's flashbacks. Or if you were a surgeon, you'd find fault in some of Jack's practices. There are always errors that are going to be made in a show like this.

I mean how many flashbacks for characters have there been? How many different professions displayed? And you expect the writers to get every single fact right? I'd like to see you do a better job.

Yeh this error was a bit more obvious (still not as bad as the pace-maker one). Who cares, it was a Kate episode anyway, they usually suck.

...

No, hire a better audience. When you see stuff like this, like the "continuity errors", those are clues.

Robert

Name one instance where continuity errors of this magnitude were used as clues for later episodes. In fact, in all the instances I know, the continuity errors are just errors, such as the American spelling on the British poster.

I remember people saying it was an "error" that Jack had the modern cellphone in the Flash Forward. It wasn't an error, it was a flash forward.

No, I've read enough mea culpas (pun intended) from TPTB about their mistakes to know that they have not used these mistakes in future episodes previously.

Gazelthron, believe it or not.

You have to wonder why they chose that name:confused:

I've been on several juries and it's scary that people on them can't be convinced to adhere to the law. Their attitudes are like those in this thread--and it's not a tv show.

In my last case, the defendant was probably guilty, but the prosecution botched the case and in no way proved guilt based upon evidence. There was this blowhard guy who said that we all "knew" she was guilty so who cared about little technicalities? One other woman and I patiently explained legal procedure, the presumption of innocence, the fact that the burden of proof was not with the defendant (whose alibi was admittedly a mess)--and he had the gall to say that we should just pretend we weren't so smart and decide the case like regular people!

We ended up with a mistrial, because after that I was never going to go his way nor he mine.

Cardie

What's interesting is that in the murder trial my wife was in the jury for, she was in the other person's shoes. She later learned that this was the second time the person was tried- the first trial was a mistrial, because the defense successfully argued that the witnesses were unreliable and they had no physical evidence. My wife and the majority of the jurors felt that the addition of some coded language wiretaps were all that were necessary to put this guy away for life. But there were people who still felt the prosecutors didn't prove their case beyond the legal definition of doubt. Constant review of the wiretaps changed their mind, but it DID require the middle class jurors to accept that "bags of white girl" referred to crack cocaine instead of someone's white girlfriend.

Kate's "Dream" Future

After watching Eggtown for the 2'nd time, I'm more convinced then ever that the entire off island story line was a
dream, hallucination, or daydream by Kate.A movie star type arrival , she is a hero that saved people on the island,
Jack lies in court for her, She is on trial forall crimes in one venue. Her mother no longer wants to testify against her.
She gets a sweet 10 years parole offer and can't go anywhere either! Lives in a McMansion with a live in nanny with sweet Aaron as her child. Also please note, that when the court scenes are shot, they look different , monochrome
like , colorless and to point this out they dropped a bright red item in the scene with Kates mother, go back and look it sticks out!!

And trust me, crazier plea deals have been made. Prosecutor's offices are political engines, and any good prosecutor's office would start thinking plea deal when the evidence started to disappear and they knew the public would be on the side of the Defendant.

Aspects of human nature within the system of justice are too often overlooked.

The life of Lost is now finite, and we will hopefully never have to be subjected again to ten minutes of screen time focusing on starting a DHARMA van and drinking stale beer. Lost is on the move now. The handling of Kate obtaining probation within the context of ten minutes of screen time devoted to it might be the best writing of a murder trial ever.

I'm not sure if it's the worst writing of a murder trial ever, but it was certainly the worst I've ever seen. Yes, there were tons of procedural irregularities that anyone who'd ever watched an episode of Law and Order or who'd served on a jury would recognize. But my complaint goes deeper than that. It just wasn't believable, and that one little bit thrown in by Kate's attorney--about getting killed in the opening--makes it less believable. Diane wasn't the only evidence against Kate; there were a lot of charges read off, most of which didn't involve Diane. I'd have found a celebrity-style mistrial or acquittal more believable. And some interference by some outside power would have been a lot more interesting. (I don't think we'll ever be shown that someone else interfered to get Kate that sweet probation deal; I think we would have been shown that in this episode. Unless TPTB read the boards and are mighty embarrassed.)

For me the trial just lacked any tension or drama. It felt poorly thought out and poorly executed.

As sloppy as the trial was written, and it was, I'm just happy that THAT aspect of Kate's past is now done. I don't want the writers wasting time on it in future episodes. We know what Kate did, and yes she should be in jail, but that's pointless for her character. Also, for the record, celebrities get away with TONS of crap, including murder, all the time. The DA lost their key witness regarding the murder charge so that came off the table. Of course there was more than enough other charges, but like I said, let's just get on with the story. I don't need to watch a "realistic" trial because I don't want to invest four or five episodes of Lost to see one when I'd rather know the answers to so many other questions and mysteries.

This reminds me of the "we put a pacemaker inside you" story line with Ben and Sawyer. All the nurses and med students were all huffed up and PO'ed that Ben's description of how a pacemaker works was completely wrong (and it was)... The show isn't accurate...It happens.

Hell, if we're giving out awards for ludicrous factual inaccuracies, let's not forget the smudged EKG that indicated Juliet's sister still had cancer
:biggrin:

I cringed at the judge's decision to allow Jack to answer, "Do you love her?"
:rotflmao2: I know this isn't a courtroom drama show, but that trial was pretty hard to watch, even for a Lost fan well used to retaining a high level of suspension of disbelief.

The judge said he'd "opened the door" and I was like... WHAT?? Wheres the relevance - where's the precedent... heh..


The show isn't accurate. You are going to be very disappointed at how unrealistic it is once it hits a realm that you know something about ......We have all been burned on the inaccuracies. It's really nothing new and it's hardly shocking that the producers continue to do it because *ALL TV SHOWS DO*.
Agreed - we're nitpicking about a scene that simply advances a plot line.. Kate has a criminal history.. they've got to deal with it and make it advance so they can move on with their STORY - they're not obligated by any means to make things realistic.. polar bears are allowed in our jungle, Jacobs cabin is a mobile home, black smoke has a personality, a plane crashes and there are survivors who are but aren't alive -- etc.. so the actual process of a court room trial can certainly be adapted to fit the story..

The only really bad instance of writing that I thought was glaringly bad was the lack of any reference to Charlie whilst Claire and/or Kate had island scenes.. that just stood out.

The judge said he'd "opened the door" and I was like... WHAT?? Wheres the relevance - where's the precedent... heh..


The relevance is that if Jack loves Kate that clouds his judgment and makes his testimony useless.

Gazelthron, believe it or not.
Wasn't he a Transformer? :confused:

I agree with this thread - the trial was simply a horrible piece of plotline and writing. It would have been more interesting if a mysterious power broker behind the scenes had pulled some strings to get her off.

I guess TPTB prepared us in a way for this, though, with the opening scene of this season - a televised LA car chase, while Jack was pouring some OJ. :rolleyes:
It does pay to be a celebrity.
Oh my, I should have seen it coming!!:rolleyes:

I reject your reality and substitute my own! :biggrin:

In my little world, I see the reverse order of the defense and prosecution as thematic, artistic license, highlighting the presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Guilt is a pervasive theme in the show, and especially Kate's story. She was guilty before she walked into the courtroom, and no finding of the court could change that.

Further, the plea deal turns out to be a sort of redemption, not a finding of innocence. Guilt was where she started. It was the things that happened on the island that proved to be her redemption off the island. Her relationship with Jack, his subsequent testimony, and her mother's desire to see the "grandson" she brought home all culminate to bring her a kind of false redemption because it's all based on lies. (Interesting ordering of the events, too.)Do we think Kate will be satisfied with her false redemption? She didn't really get Tabula Rasa, now did she?

But yeah, it was probably just a mistake.:p

I just want to start off by saying that overall I enjoyed this episode, but not that I've read this thread, and thought about the trial was kind ridiculous. The thing that really bugs me is the fact that they let the whole thing go after her mother refused to testify, all of the things Kate's done, and all of the people who have been involved in those things and the whole thing relied just on her mother?

Now, as someone said that anyone who isn't a law expert but at least had a HS degree coujld have seen the glaring errors in Kate's trial, don't you think the writers at keast have a HS degree. If we all noticed these discrepancies, don't you think the writers would have seen the LARGE errors, like the defense going first? C'mon, give the writers some credit, I'm sure they knew some of these errors and they had a reason for it. Maybe the small errors they didn't know but who cares about those?
I reject your reality and substitute my own! :biggrin:

In my little world, I see the reverse order of the defense and prosecution as thematic, artistic license, highlighting the presumption of guilt rather than innocence. Guilt is a pervasive theme in the show, and especially Kate's story. She was guilty before she walked into the courtroom, and no finding of the court could change that.

Further, the plea deal turns out to be a sort of redemption, not a finding of innocence. Guilt was where she started. It was the things that happened on the island that proved to be her redemption off the island. Her relationship with Jack, his subsequent testimony, and her mother's desire to see the "grandson" she brought home all culminate to bring her a kind of false redemption because it's all based on lies. (Interesting ordering of the events, too.)Do we think Kate will be satisfied with her false redemption? She didn't really get Tabula Rasa, now did she?

But yeah, it was probably just a mistake.:p

I like your reasoning for having the Defense go first, it' makes sense. Also, wasn't the trial a mirror tothe trials that take place in our world? In reality, prosecution goes first followed by the defense, yet in LOST, where there's lots of examples of "mirrors", the defense goes first followed by the prosecution. It may be inaccurate in real life, but in LOST I don't find it too odd.

Secondly, as for the prosecutor doing a terrible job, well, what if she works for whoever is keeping tabs on the O6? All that mattered would be to keep her in CA so as to keep better tabs on her, so everything else didn't matter. She seemed pretty adamant that keeping Kate in CA be included in a plea deal, and I'm not sure if that is something that is included in many plea deals where the accused escapes jail time.

As for other witnesses besides her mom, who was there? I haven't read that anyone has named examples, only that she robbed the bank. Well, when she robbed the bank, she was acting as a hostage at first, until she went into the vault and turned the tables. Other then her fellow "robbers", there was just the bank manager, so I guess he could testify, but what would he say? Oh yeah, she stole a toy plane? Or she shot someone? Didn't she shoot the "ring leader" who was threatening to shoot the manager?

Regarding inconsistencies in other shows, well how about CSI? That show is riddled with inconsistencies. I worked as a CSI tech in a LAB in Las Vegas, and there;s NO WAY results are back in that short if time. DNA tests can take days, at the shortest, and look at all the equipment they have. No government lab has top of the line equipment like they do. Not only is there inconsistencies in the top rated TV shows, but how about a literature classic? In Lord of the Flies, the kids start a fire on the island with regular glasses. Not possible, sorry. Glasses are concave, whereas convex lenses are needed to start fires, which are contained in magnifying glasses.

We don't know yet if the inconsistencies in Kate's trial were "errors" or intentional, so really I don't think it's as big a deal as everyone thinks, and even the best books, and other shows have glaring inconsistencies as well.:)

I'm pretty sure a guy started fire with his glasses the other day on Survivor.

I'm pretty sure a guy started fire with his glasses the other day on Survivor.

It can be done with bifocals, but what child has bifocals? And sorry I'm not a Survivor fan.
















/

So glad I found this thread! That trial just drove me nuts and reminded me why I hate watching court shows.

I am a former NYC prosecutor and the huge errors really made it hard for me to stay in the story. I'm always willing to suspend belief, but it was impossible with such bad writing. Don't get me wrong - I love Lost...just love it. I guess that's why I'm all the more dissapointed in this.

Like Barrister, law is my field. I've worked many criminal trials in California, so of course, I noticed there were a few glaring errors in this scene. However, I felt they worked for the sake of the overall story and I can easily overlook them.

Also, some of the things that people think are errors are not as unrealistic as you might think. Really crazy stuff sometimes goes on in court rooms, especially in California. As someone pointed out, just think OJ and Phil Spector. When a jury idolizes a defendant, there's no explaining the amount of hard evidence they will overlook to render an acquital.

Of course, they did error by filming this trial in a California state courtroom (notice the California penal code books behind the judge), calling the prosecutor a district attorney instead of a U.S. attorney, and having a bailiff instead of a federal marshall as the court officer. Letting Jack testify before the prosecution witnesses was also an obvious mistake.

But these are small issues, in my opinion. Most people won't even catch it, since there was so much more important stuff going on in the episode. For instace, at the point in the episode where Jack testified, it wasn't even clear the prosecution's case wasn't over, and I was so captivated by the lies he was spewing from the stand, I'm not sure I would have thought of that anyway.

What people seem to have found the most unrealistic is the fact that she got off with probation only, and in fact this is the easiest part for me to believe.

The murder charge fell apart completely without Dianne to testify. She was the only real evidence they had. A charge of bank robbery always carries jail time, but as I recall she didn't steal any money from that bank and no such charge was read at her arraignment. The lesser remaining charges could also hinge on testimony from witnesses who are now gone (The Marshall, Tom, etc.).

I could also completely buy that Dharma, Oceanic, or Ben exerted some influence and caused witnesses or evidence to disappear. In fact, because the prosecutor insisted on a stipulation that Kate would not leave the state for 10 years, I strongly suspect that Dharma, Oceanic, or Ben had a hand in making sure Kate got a good plea deal.

And trust me, crazier plea deals have been made. Prosecutor's offices are political engines, and any good prosecutor's office would start thinking plea deal when the evidence started to disappear and they knew the public would be on the side of the Defendant.

Also, even if the prosecutor could have made a few of the lesser charges stick (assault on the officer for instance), there's awfully good reason to believe that Kate would have received the lightest sentence possible given her history, her celebrity, etc. When you get out of the realm of charges with minimum sentencing guidelines (like murder, bank robbery, etc), you can get surprising light sentences, particularly when your defendant is pretty and sympathetic. Just think of all those young school teachers who raped 12 years old boys and spent no time at all in jail!

The statute of limitations would also bar at least a few charges related to Kate's past crimes.

sandie - I have to disagree - the murder of her father took place in Iowa. Why was she subject to a state trial in California? They don't have jurisdiction and you can't convey jursidction of a state crime to another state's court. In addition, what about the federal crimes? Robbery (which does not require theft of funds - she was involved in an armed robbery) and the associated felony homicides (she would be liable for the deaths/injuries of her cohorts).

I do believe in creative license, but this was just egregious. I expect better from these writers.

The Jury finds this Trial GUILTY of First Degree Felony Suckitude!

I'm not asking for super-realistic things from this show, but this was just plain crap. This wasn't some time loop wormhole thing they got the science wrong in where only like 1% of the audience is going to notice. This was such a horrible job of writing that it completely ruined the episode.

I must add that I, for one, was ecstatic that there was no "time loop wormhole thing" in this episode so all you lawyers can take over the kvetching for one week....:biggrin:

The Jury finds this Trial GUILTY of First Degree Felony Suckitude!

I must add that I, for one, was ecstatic that there was no "time loop wormhole thing" in this episode so all you lawyers can take over the kvetching for one week....:biggrin:

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but one of my friends was (before he passed away). I've been to court before and seen trials. He used to teach a class at the local community college here as well. I sat in on some of the classes. I really hope that Darlton address these issues in the podcast or an interview cause they really bothered me.

But I can't wait for next week so we can see some more time-space bending stuff and you sci-fi haters can get back to kvetching again :biggrin:

Just for clarification - in your current "Everything on this show is one giant conspiracy" theory,
Well, it's actually two or more competing conspiracies.

how many people exactly are in on it
A lot.

and how many people are completely clueless?
In the world? Practically everyone. Of characters we've been shown? Not many.

From your past statements, it would appear that currently several hundred people are involved in one giant conspiracy against maybe 20 people that has been lasting for over a decade by now.
One of the conspiracies might fit your description of being against maybe 20 people (in that it's a conspiracy against the other conspiracy), but the other is a conspiracy against the world -- and so might the first one be too. See the Howard Fast (remember Horace Goodspeed? BTW, I heard of a real-world Goodspeed recently) short story The Martian Shop in which the conspiracy was said to be of approx. 300 persons.

But I think we're being given an illustration of the famous quote, "The history of the world is the history of war between secret societies." Conspiracies that last a lot longer than decades. Some day I'll have to read The Great and Secret Show.

Anyway, did you notice the wink Kate gave her ostensible mother as Kate got up to leave their meeting? I saw it the 1st time and confirmed it on my 2nd viewing. All for show.

It can be done with bifocals, but what child has bifocals? And sorry I'm not a Survivor fan.
I am. (So's my friend John, but he's sitting out from viewing this one in favor of the footnoted 2nd runs of Lost.) On this run of Survivor, Yau Man used a water drop to provide a convex surface and water's refractive index to turn a regular eyeglass into a burning glass; not the first time he's used his knowledge of physics to help play the game.

Robert

why do people get so riled about such details on a flashforward. Whether things were visually accurate or not is not what I as a viewer care about. I care about answers and we got them.
End of season three we wanted to know why Kate was walking free. Boom we know. Jack being asked only two things by prosecution...of course because if he had answered yes to still loving Kate his credibility is blown...no further questions...thank you.
let's applaude the episode as not letting us down on the whole. We waited for months for this new season are we really going to pick apart the fact her prison uniform is wrong or what the attorney's are like?

I am. (So's my friend John, but he's sitting out from viewing this one in favor of the footnoted 2nd runs of Lost.) On this run of Survivor, Yau Man used a water drop to provide a convex surface and water's refractive index to turn a regular eyeglass into a burning glass; not the first time he's used his knowledge of physics to help play the game.

Robert

Hey thanks Dr.Suds! That explains how they could use normal lenses to create a fire. The kids in Lord of the Flies definitely DID NOT do that!

why do people get so riled about such details on a flashforward. Whether things were visually accurate or not is not what I as a viewer care about. I care about answers and we got them.
End of season three we wanted to know why Kate was walking free. Boom we know. Jack being asked only two things by prosecution...of course because if he had answered yes to still loving Kate his credibility is blown...no further questions...thank you.
let's applaude the episode as not letting us down on the whole. We waited for months for this new season are we really going to pick apart the fact her prison uniform is wrong or what the attorney's are like?

I am truely sorry for what I am about to write because I do not consider myself a snob in any respect. But Lost for me has been an mind blowing experience. I have not been absorbed or teased or strung out like I have with this show. It has been an unbelievable rollercoaster.

But I have this feeling that now that we are wrapping this thing that the wrapping is going to bug the crap out of me and this is the beginning. And this is always what I have dreaded what would happen. Confuse the daylights out of us and then when you resolve the thing make it stupidly simple. I just won't stand for that.

If you want things resolved like they do on Barney or Hannah Montana then turn the channel. But I'm going to b.---- and complain if the resolve is stupid or inane.

Ok well the reason for insult, I am not sure but yes you do sound like a snob. High profile cases are always resolved in ridiculous ways. We have seen this in the media. I just don't see why it should ruin an entire episode for us. One question you find answered in a "stupidly simple way" is fine but remember there are still several things to be answered to blow us away.
This is a form to express opens freely, that is my opinion. No need to answer with snide remarks of intellect people can disagree without insult.
Besides one thing about LOST we know...nothing is wrapped up in a simple and things can come up later.
Overall I think it was good episode

why do people get so riled about such details on a flashforward. Whether things were visually accurate or not is not what I as a viewer care about. I care about answers and we got them.
End of season three we wanted to know why Kate was walking free. Boom we know. Jack being asked only two things by prosecution...of course because if he had answered yes to still loving Kate his credibility is blown...no further questions...thank you.
let's applaude the episode as not letting us down on the whole. We waited for months for this new season are we really going to pick apart the fact her prison uniform is wrong or what the attorney's are like?

Sorry, freks, I'm gonna have to go with Caliban on this one. The trial was more than a detail; this was an explanation as to how Kate is walking around free as a bird upon leaving the island. For all of the possibilities the writers chose to create an absolutely absurd mockery of how the court systems works? Frankly I'm a little insulted. Like I said before, I can take and understand some creative license. But, to totally go around the bend breaks the compact that writers make with their audience.

Yes, we got an answer but it feels like a cheat. With the sci-fi aspects of the show, you have so much latitude that you can bend the ideas to fit the story. But, with some as imbedded in concrete as the judicial system...where anyone who has ever watched a TV or movie or read a courtroom drama can recite the Miranda rights...writers have to be more cautious. They can't bend the rules as easily because they'll just snap if you go to far. This trial took me out of the story because it was handled so badly. I'm not a writer, but I am a viewer and a reader and I do know that a writer wants the audience sucked into the story and this portion pushed me out of the story.

Here is some advice I gave a friend before his closing argument in a difficult case (the victims were not particularly likeable) - the jury liked my friend (he was the prosecutor). I told him to be honest with the jury - yeah, those victims aren't likeable but they are victims. If the jury likes you and believes that you aren't taking them for fools, they will follow you anywhere. He took my advice and he won the trial (you could see the jury's attitude change during his closing). The writers of this epi took us for fools and I didn't want to follow them.

Caliban - I hope you're wrong. I hope this was just a glitch and that TPTB can show some restraint and give us good, well reasoned answers those burning questions they have been torturing us with for the past few years.

Yes, we got an answer but it feels like a cheat. With the sci-fi aspects of the show, you have so much latitude that you can bend the ideas to fit the story.


How bout this...Kate's mom was essentially killed by the Island, perhaps 'course adjusted' in some weird way, because Kate needs to get back to the island. There still could be all sorts of sci-fi forces at work.

How bout this...Kate's mom was essentially killed by the Island, perhaps 'course adjusted' in some weird way, because Kate needs to get back to the island. There still could be all sorts of sci-fi forces at work.

Oh JS! Thanks for finding a potential light at the end of this tunnel. If there was some cool explanation to that epi then I would be a happy camper. Thanks, dahlin'!:hug:

I agree, not that the rest was great because I hated the whole episode but I agree the trial was the most unrealistic thing I've ever seen. She's committed many many crimes and yet suddenly she can get off because one person calls her a hero after a plane crash? Is that how our justice system works? But then every character on this show seems to be suffering from memory loss so I guess it's not surprising the judge and jury did too.

Really?
Not smoke monster? Nor Bates Motel's cousin moving all around and appearing and disappearing on the island? What about Desmond doing the Time Warp Dance?
freaky deaky Walt? Hmmmm hidden island with seemingly only one entrance and exit? I didnt know the iraqi accent was the same as a british one, did you?

Almost the whole show is unrealistic. As with most films and art a suspension of disbelief is essential. The show wasnt about the trial but about getting info to the audience, such as the whole south pacific/bali paradox. about reconnecting jack and kate. reconnecting kate and evil mom(seriously who turns in their daughter)(and her whole freak out at the hospital is what cost kates boy chum his life)

watch court tv if you want to actually watch realism.

on anopther note: anyone see goodfellas? it is BASED ON A TRUE story, but i doubt Henry Hill actually stood up in the witness box and walked out of court to finish his narrative.

Not smoke monster?

I don't know what part of the world you live in, but the smoke monster is a fairly realistic portrayal of the smoke monsters I see where I live. :grin:

I don't know what part of the world you live in, but the smoke monster is a fairly realistic portrayal of the smoke monsters I see where I live. :grin:

:rotflmao2:

Forgive me, I didn't read all pages here, just the first three and the ninth, and I didn't see this mentioned. But seeing as how so many have already said to ignore that the trial isn't realistic, I'm sure this will be dismissed as well.

My biggest beef wasn't with the details of the trial and how unrealistic it was. My problem was that I thought Kate was up on FEDERAL charges, with crimes taking place in several states (Iowa, New Mexico, I think?), and yet she's being tried in California in what appears to be an LA county courthouse, by an LA county DA. How is it a local district attorney is trying a case like this? That part of it made no sense to me.

Well, it's actually two or more competing conspiracies.


A lot.


In the world? Practically everyone. Of characters we've been shown? Not many.


One of the conspiracies might fit your description of being against maybe 20 people (in that it's a conspiracy against the other conspiracy), but the other is a conspiracy against the world -- and so might the first one be too. See the Howard Fast (remember Horace Goodspeed? BTW, I heard of a real-world Goodspeed recently) short story The Martian Shop in which the conspiracy was said to be of approx. 300 persons.

But I think we're being given an illustration of the famous quote, "The history of the world is the history of war between secret societies." Conspiracies that last a lot longer than decades. Some day I'll have to read The Great and Secret Show.

Anyway, did you notice the wink Kate gave her ostensible mother as Kate got up to leave their meeting? I saw it the 1st time and confirmed it on my 2nd viewing. All for show.

There is a conspiracy. It's a TV show called "Lost".

Seriously. I see no real evidence for that amazingly constructed theory you're presenting there. And quite frankly - wouldn't that be a huge downer ending if the show ands with some guy showing up, saying "Gotcha!", everyone laughs and the credits roll?

Caliban - I hope you're wrong. I hope this was just a glitch and that TPTB can show some restraint and give us good, well reasoned answers those burning questions they have been torturing us with for the past few years.

Me too. Actually, I think I will be wrong. I think this group of writers are the best ever.

Forgive me, I didn't read all pages here, just the first three and the ninth, and I didn't see this mentioned. But seeing as how so many have already said to ignore that the trial isn't realistic, I'm sure this will be dismissed as well.

My biggest beef wasn't with the details of the trial and how unrealistic it was. My problem was that I thought Kate was up on FEDERAL charges, with crimes taking place in several states (Iowa, New Mexico, I think?), and yet she's being tried in California in what appears to be an LA county courthouse, by an LA county DA. How is it a local district attorney is trying a case like this? That part of it made no sense to me.

Yes. This was mentioned.. just not in the first 3 or 9th I guess... that's why reading the whole thread sometimes makes it unnecessary to post things that have already been discussed. The whole trial made no sense.. but my guess is that they were just trying to advance the plot - trying to write off all that Kate did.. and just took a very lazy, poorly thought out path in doing so. There wasn't anything in that trial that made any sense.

>>>> ...worst dramatization of a legal proceeding ever.

Just trying out a theory... What if what we saw, *was* a dramatization???
haha, that would be funny. Who knows, "tell my sister I love her" seemed a pretty corny line in e01.

What screwed them up was that they set themselves an impossible endpoint. What they wanted was to get Kate to where she is in the TTLG flashforward: not in jail and living the good life in LA, living with a "him" who turns out to be Aaron. At the same time, they felt that getting her off scot-free was not an option. Since none of her crimes are in the LA jurisdiction, they can't have her living there on restricted probation.

I can see Iowa trying her on the murder count first and her being acquitted when her mother doesn't testify. That really is a circumstantial case. That should have been very early in the fb. Since almost all her other crimes were caused by her need to run from this "false" accusation, and they were federal crimes, they could then jump to a federal trial in which she is offered a plea deal after the bank manager and Jack tesitfy as to her good character and heroism and the prosecutor realizes that the celebrity-effect that got her off in Iowa will probably work here as well. She'd get time served and then maybe six months in a federal prison.

But there's LA Aaron to consider and the need for dramatic license to have her encounter with Jack right after she gets probation. It would be better for her to be sent to a federal prison in CA so she could be near her son--one assumes the nanny could have been raising him, with Kate having frequent visits--and have Jack meet her right after her release. The final scene could still be the same.

I know this is a bit clumsy dramatically, but it doesn't alienate an audience that will accept all sorts of crazy things on a mysterious island but does expect the real world to behave like the real world.

Cardie

Really?
Not smoke monster? Nor Bates Motel's cousin moving all around and appearing and disappearing on the island? What about Desmond doing the Time Warp Dance?
freaky deaky Walt? Hmmmm hidden island with seemingly only one entrance and exit? I didnt know the iraqi accent was the same as a british one, did you?

Almost the whole show is unrealistic. As with most films and art a suspension of disbelief is essential. The show wasnt about the trial but about getting info to the audience, such as the whole south pacific/bali paradox. about reconnecting jack and kate. reconnecting kate and evil mom(seriously who turns in their daughter)(and her whole freak out at the hospital is what cost kates boy chum his life)

watch court tv if you want to actually watch realism.

on anopther note: anyone see goodfellas? it is BASED ON A TRUE story, but i doubt Henry Hill actually stood up in the witness box and walked out of court to finish his narrative.The fantastic nature of the show is grounded in credibility (and always has been) by the use of the Flash-back and touching on the real world so that the fantastic looks even more so. Your argument is flawed because of this. Having a more realistic and accurate portrayal of her trial would have been to the benefit of the show. It's nothing to do with demanding realism in an otherwise unreal show, it's about how it adds or detracts from quality of the episode.

Has anyone laid out a grand list of all the supposed mistakes in the trial? It would be cool to see them compiled. *hint, hint*

wouldn't that be a huge downer ending if the show ands with some guy showing up, saying "Gotcha!", everyone laughs and the credits roll?
Sure, that would be a downer. But was it a downer when any of the other con acts in the show were revealed? For instance, at the end of "The Long Con"? Or the orientation video in Pearl?

In this case it's simple: phony crimes, phony lawman (who suffers phony injury in phony plane crash and phony euthanasia, and is replaced by phony corpse), phony arrest, phony trial, phony testimony, phony penalty.

Robert

In this case it's simple: phony crimes, phony lawman (who suffers phony injury in phony plane crash and phony euthanasia, and is replaced by phony corpse), phony arrest, phony trial, phony testimony, phony penalty...

.....phony theory?

Yes. This was mentioned.. just not in the first 3 or 9th I guess... that's why reading the whole thread sometimes makes it unnecessary to post things that have already been discussed. The whole trial made no sense.. but my guess is that they were just trying to advance the plot - trying to write off all that Kate did.. and just took a very lazy, poorly thought out path in doing so. There wasn't anything in that trial that made any sense.
If it wasn't mentioned in 4 of the 9 pages, I'm going to assume that maybe it isn't in the rest of the thread since everyone else I read was so focussed on details of the trail. No need to make me feel like I can't express my thoughts.

The trial may have made no sense, but I also assume a lot went on that we didn't see and I can dismiss much of that. But a DA trying a case on a suspect that was so important that they sent a federal marshal to Australia to retrieve her, over crimes that never even happened in California, that seemed more implausible to me.

Her crime was an understandable one, in a way (given the abusive husband fact),

Except that the mother was not going to testify that she was abused. She pretty much said so back in S1. So if the mother doesn't testify that she was abused by the man, then it appears Kate killed an innocent man. That's not looking to good for her.

On a broader note, I thought this was probably the weakest episode in a very long time. Yes, the mother would have been called to the stand much earlier than Jack. For the years that Kate has been running from Federal Marshalls, you'd think there would be a wealth of evidence now piled on that they could have resorted to as well. Although, if all those crimes came out of her being hunted down for a murder she would have been found innocent for, then perhaps those too would pass... Who knows?

But in terms of writing, this was weak. Even her expositional reading of "Hi, Aaron" at the end of the episode lacked emotional punch.

Too bad...

Sure, that would be a downer. But was it a downer when any of the other con acts in the show were revealed? For instance, at the end of "The Long Con"? Or the orientation video in Pearl?

Those were all comparably short-term cons that didn't affect the perception of the entire show. And all of them were still within the bounds of reasonable belief, whereas that theory of yours would essentially require most of the characters on the show con people participating in an act, which would render three years of character development pointless and result in viewers completely detaching from them.

Why would anyone want to watch a show that revolves almost entirely around people constantly playing a giant con on everyone, which would not become apparent to the viewer until the end of the show, and make everything the characters have done up to that point part of the con, hence not actually part of their "real" characters?

Characters (except for the straight "is he telling the truth or not" mystery variety) being revealed as liars from the get-go usually results in viewer disconnection. Thereby most writers refrain from pulling that card except for characters they deliberately set up as antagonists, or want to get rid of and therefore pull the "liar" card to make it easier for the audience to accept the departure.

And besides, just for the record: If the show ended and nothing that explictly confirms or even adresses your theory (and I'm not talking about "obvious" hints that no-one except you actually happens to notice) ever comes up, would you still cling to your theory and insist that the rest of the audience simply didn't "get" that work of genius the show actually was, or would you agree that your theory was just that?

LOL After reading this I no longer feel bad for complaining about the way Hurley started the VW van.

When dealing with fictional things such as smoke monsters or time travel they have room to be realistic or unrealistic, follow established dogma or make it up on the fly. When dealing with something that a large part of the audience is familar with they should stick closer to reality. They did not do that with this trial. So unless it turns out to be Kate's dream, it was a (insert word of your choosing here). I suggest farce or mockery but will settle for lame plot device.

Perhaps a future episode will show us that, in a vain attempt to save money, the government has gone to privatization of the court system and this trial was contracted out to Dharma?

Really crazy stuff sometimes goes on in court rooms, especially in California. As someone pointed out, just think OJ and Phil Spector. When a jury idolizes a defendant, there's no explaining the amount of hard evidence they will overlook to render an acquital.But the jury didn't even get the case! An acquital would have been a perfectly legitimate way of getting Kate off the hook.

Plus it would have been wonderfully ironic, with all her on-island worrying about returning to the real world, the mere fact she survived the crash to begin with allowed her to be free...


But no, something tells me her probation will be a future plot point, so they had to find some really clumsy way of getting it into the story.

Sorry, freks, I'm gonna have to go with Caliban on this one. The trial was more than a detail; this was an explanation as to how Kate is walking around free as a bird upon leaving the island.Not only that, but Kate's status as a fugitive is pretty much what defines her character. And this is how TPTB resolved the issue??

But no, something tells me her probation will be a future plot point, so they had to find some really clumsy way of getting it into the story.

Agreed. Staying put for Kate will be difficult. Jack will be nagging to GO BACK.

They still could have her acquitted on the murder charge and given a short sentence on the federal charges, with her getting early release but her parole stipulating that she not leave the state for several years.

Everything could have been done right, all for the expense of two different courtroom set-ups and two extra actors to play the state and federal judges and prosecutors.

Cardie

No, they can't. Jack could not be called to the stand until the prosecution had rested its case, and if they rested, they could not then call Kate's Mom. Trials simply don't work that way.

Cardie

Well, actually, it can happen that way if the trial judge allows it. In the one jury I was on, the prosecution's main witness was not available when the trial started. The judge allowed the prosecution and defense to have their turns with the understanding that the prosecution would have a witness to call later on. Unfortunetly, for the prosecution, the witness never showed up to testify so we (the jury) got the case and wound up acquitting the defendant.

So the scenario in the show is possible if the judge allows it. That said, I still thought the trail was lame and the prosecutor was about as weak as they come.

They still could have her acquitted on the murder charge and given a short sentence on the federal charges, with her getting early release but her parole stipulating that she not leave the state for several years.

Everything could have been done right, all for the expense of two different courtroom set-ups and two extra actors to play the state and federal judges and prosecutors.They wouldn't have even needed that. Some clever dialogue could have easily conveyed what you've suggested.

I think TPTB should hire Cardie

I think TPTB should hire Cardie

My early desire was to write for television, but I 1) like the security of a regular paycheck and 2) don't write well quickly or under pressure. So writing alternative scenarios on message boards is my poor substitute for a dream deferred.:hypocrit:

Cardie

Just for the record, criminal trial protocol is as follows:

1. Jury Selection
2. Opening Statement by the State
3. Opening Statement by the Defense
4. State case in chief through witnesses
direct examination
cross examination
re-direct exam
re-cross exam
5. State rests
6. Motions out of view of Jury
7. Defense case in chief
direct examination
cross examination
re-direct exam
re-cross exam
8. State's rebutal evidence through witnesses
9. Closing argument of state
10. Closing argument of defense
11. Closing rebutal by State
12. Judge's charge
13. Deliberation of Jury

This is in general. Some states have some variation, I suppose.

Diane would have been a case in chief witness. Not a rebutal witness. And yes a judge can alter things the way he wants, subject to mistrial or appellate review.

Anyway, did you notice the wink Kate gave her ostensible mother as Kate got up to leave their meeting? I saw it the 1st time and confirmed it on my 2nd viewing. All for show.


WTH????:confused: :confused: I have no words....

I've skipped a couple of pages, but just wanted to throw out there that at the county jail I work at, the maximum security inmates do wear red jumpsuits. Even though it is only a county jail, we do house prisoners awaiting trial and some eventually end up in the big prisons such as Pelican Bay.

When dealing with fictional things such as smoke monsters or time travel they have room to be realistic or unrealistic, follow established dogma or make it up on the fly. When dealing with something that a large part of the audience is familar with they should stick closer to reality.

I fully agree with this.

I hate when people bring up the "It's a fiction story with unrealistic elements so don't expect any logic in storytelling or character actions and reactions" excuse.

When you have a show that deals with supernatural elements, that's a premise. However, the show still need to adhere to some basic rules, both internal and external. Ignoring both makes the viewer disconnect from the show.

Like, even if, say, you have a sci-fi story about aliens and demons and time-travel, you'd still want the characters to act like believable characters. So you, the viewer, can identify with them. For example, "I would react exactly the same way that guy did if I were to encounter aliens". If the actions and reactions of the character, the way they do stuff and the way they act around each other comes across as unbelievable ("no human person I know would ever act like that"), it makes you disconnect.

In fact, it's characters acting in a beliavable way that helps the viewer accept the unusual premise of the show. People (except for those intentionally written that way to make them look like jerks) still acting like it was none of their business during a major alien invasion makes you disconnect. Especially if those characters were previously established to be identification characters. Characters treating each other in unreasonable ways for extended periods of time, with no explanation ever given, makes you disconnect from the characters, which in turn makes you disconnect from the show.

A show's internal logic is also very important to maintaining a certain suspension of disbelief. If an episode spends a lot of time setting up a (pseudo-scientific, but still internally consistent) system of rules for how the supernatural elements of the show work and how they don't, and the next episode throws all of that out of the window just because the writer couldn't be bothered adhering to the established rules, it makes for shoddy writing (if he doesn't care for the "rules", who says he would care for established characterization? Or continuity?), damages continuity and makes the viewer disconnect, because it means the writers could come up with any rectum pull whenever they like to. (Also, it means a severe lack of respect for the writer who previously bothered to set up those rules in the first place. If they're the same writer, I'd say he has no idea what he's doing really)

So, in essence, any writer should keep the "unbelievable" elements to a minimum and adhere to established rules, norms and laws. Especially when you're dealing with things that can be found in real life. You can show the police acting incompetently if that's a point you want to make, but once you have the police arrest someone as a suspect and then pull him in front of a camera, reveal his name and insist he's guilty and it's only a matter of time until they find the evidence to prove it, you've gone a little too far in shifting reality for your purposes.

Bottom line: "It's a sci-fi/fantasy show" should never, ever be an excuse for bad writing.

And besides, just for the record: If the show ended and nothing that explictly confirms or even adresses your theory (and I'm not talking about "obvious" hints that no-one except you actually happens to notice) ever comes up, would you still cling to your theory and insist that the rest of the audience simply didn't "get" that work of genius the show actually was, or would you agree that your theory was just that?
I couldn't answer that in the general, abstract case now. I think the writers may be aiming to create an approximate 50-50 split in audience opinion at the end that would make bets unsettlable, but I think more likely the writers will go for the mindfreak that says, "Everything most of you thought was wrong." I don't think they'll explain all the details, because they'll want to keep up the DVD sales to people who'll want to figure out "how" once they get the answer to "what".

Robert

Admittedly I haven't looked at the boards very much in the past few days, but as I recall, this Prosecutor was terrible and acted very nervous. Is it possible that she is acting strangely b/c she's taking the fall for Mr. Abbadon? How could we explain the immediate dumping of her case simply by losing Mom's testimony? Am I waaaay out there?

I am a prosecutor and I was really disappointed by the whole courtroom scene. First off, the prosecutor calls it's witnesses first, not the other way around. And just because her mother refused to cooperate, she would have given a statement beforehand that the prosecutor could have used to cross-examine her on and try and get her to adopt her previous statement. But worst off all - just because the one witness on the murder went south, what about all the other serious charges she was facing???!!!!!! Probation?! Either the prosecutor took a dive on purpose (seems unlikely since she was all gung ho at the start), or that was some lazy, lazy writing. Lame.

I was wondering about the whole affidavit angle, too. It's not as though Kate's mom wouldn't've had some other paperwork that described what Kate did on file with the DA's office. After all, in her own words, she'd been expecting to die within 6 months for 4 years...one would think they'd prepared something.

I suppose the argument could be made that a secret someone (whether Abaddon, Ben, Jacob, Widmore, Paik, Mittelwerk, Hanso, whoever else has their hand in this mess of a pie) advised the DA that it would be best for all involved if the case were curtailed.

ETA: I had a sudden image of Sayid hiding in the courtroom with a gun trained on the DA. In my mind, he was crouching very sneaky-like, and it made me giggle.

I'm also a prosecutor, and while things do differ slightly between the UK and US in terms of procedure, they don't differ enough to prevent me from finding these scenes utterly ridicuolous. As Tracy42 has said - Did the rest of the (extremely compelling evidence, given what we've seen in the FBs) simply get flushed away?

Oh, and nobody as high profile as Kate who has ever been found not guilty (or plea-bargained their way to freedom) would ever be able to leave Court unnoticed. The press know exactly where all of the other exits are.

Flimsy and contrived, which is not what I expect from this show.

Peace
M

Props to a fellow Crown (Michaud) - I'm Canadian, but the complaint is all the same. The whole scene was even more embarassing than something you'd see on a cheesy soap opera. Witnesses recant all the time - you don't withdraw a murder charge without at least trying to get her to adopt the statement or trying to get her original statement in for it's truth!!! Not to beat a dead horse, but I'm praying that it was all a joke!

Hi Tracy. As Fogey said above, it's frustrating when things you're familiar with aren't portrayed realistically when they clearly should be (as Fierro said).

Not only that, but Kate's status as a fugitive is pretty much what defines her character. And this is how TPTB resolved the issue??

Exactly. There was no need for TPTB to 'disappear' the other witnesses that would have given statements to the prosecution. Use them as part of the story and produce a great storyline. 'Kate avoids prison by being sneaky again', as opposed to the sloppy mess we witnessed. I'd have her remain a fugitive, but TPTB chose for her to have a trial. At least have a trial that follows reality and also has an outcome that's relevant to the character.

Either the prosecutor took a dive on purpose (seems unlikely since she was all gung ho at the start)
If you were going to take a dive, wouldn't you try to make it look good at the start too? Especially if you knew the judge was also part of it?
100%
Oh, and nobody as high profile as Kate who has ever been found not guilty (or plea-bargained their way to freedom) would ever be able to leave Court unnoticed. The press know exactly where all of the other exits are.
What if they were distracted by her double?

What if "the press" wasn't the legitimate press, but consisted entirely of plants like Tricia Tanaka?

Robert

What if they were distracted by her double?

What if "the press" wasn't the legitimate press, but consisted entirely of plants like Tricia Tanaka?

Robert

If the conspiracy goes that wide, then why bother having her stand trial at all? Why not engineer a new identity and put her into something akin to witness protection?

The double's unlikely. Popular courts used for high profile cases generally have their exits covered - something that's become far easier with the surge in mobile communications. It would be impossible to sneak someone out at somewhere like the Old Bailey, which is where her case would have been heard here.

I see where you're coming from, but I don't see it as a sham trial. Just a sham bit of writing, which is rare. If TPTB reveal later in the series (beyond these epis we're seeing in this run) that it was a sham, then I'll have my doubts that it's not simply making up for a poor episode.