Subject: LIFE: 4. "What They Saw," 10/17/07 From: MDuPree@theworld.com.snip.to.reply (Micky DuPree) Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv Message-ID: Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2007 05:28:56 +0000 (UTC) Organization: The World : www.TheWorld.com : Since 1989 Lines: 541 A.k.a. "In and Out." Counter numbers refer to a copy taped off-air with the commercials left in. PROLOGUE 00:00 Title card: "What They Saw" I had a hard time coming up with a plausible "they." The most obvious person who saw something was Rachel Seybolt seeing the man who murdered her family, but who else? There was also homeless guy Holt Easley witnessing the murder of Len Sand and the planting of the evidence against neighbor Drew Borns. It's a tenuous connection, though. I suppose it could also be referring to Ames seeing Rachel at the crime scene, and Charlie seeing Rachel's unmade bed in the crime scene photo. The 241 stitches weren't readily visible on the right side of Charlie's back, on his upper right arm, or on the right side of his chest. Were Tina and Gina trying to steal an MP3 player from Charlie? I couldn't quite make out what they were trying to extract from his grasp. GRIFFITHS: Hello? Charlie? The door was open. As with the fence, I can understand Charlie despising locks, but if he's going to have overnight guests, he might want to think about the possibility of someone showing up to hurt him and hurting his guests as collateral damage. I wonder if at some point Ted is going to get suspicious of Charlie's conspiracy room, because it's likely to be the only locked door in the house besides Ted's. GRIFFITHS: What do you want with Rachel Seybolt? CREWS: She used to call me her uncle. GRIFFITHS: That's a long time ago. CREWS: I think, seeing what she went through, she might need some help. I think seeing what I went through, I might be in a position to do that. I think that's even true, but it's obviously not all there is to it. GRIFFITHS: I had Rachel Seybolt's records unsealed. The file was gone. The jacket was empty. It's not some big conspiracy, Charlie. It's social services. I'm sure the records -- fell behind a filing cabinet. Hands up if you believed that. (Even stranger, it was only the '90s. You'd think they were computerized by then.) Constance was wearing her wedding ring in this scene. There's no indication why Charlie wanted to investigate the woods near the crime scene. REESE: You got a problem with gay marriage, Officer? OFFICER: I embrace our city's rich diversity, Detective, like the department policy says I should. And it's a beautiful day in the neighborhood. CREWS: You do not throw things at the LAPD. Wise words for all occasions. CREWS: You're lucky I'm enlightened. Heh. But true. REESE: Yeah, well, I'm not as enlightened as my partner. [Throws Easley against a tree.] CREWS: You just called me your partner. REESE: When? CREWS: Just now. REESE: No, I didn't. CREWS: Yeah, you did. REESE: No. I never said that. CREWS: [To officer] You heard her, didn't you? It's the little things in life. ACT I 8:49 EASLEY: Baby powder! [Charlie stops scratching his shoulder.] For the poison ivy you got. You ran through it on the hill. I know to avoid it, but you must have not seen it. Cute, but usually only exposed skin gets hit with poison ivy rash, and at no time was Charlie's shoulder exposed. EASLEY: I'd really like to get outta here. I don't like it inside so much. CREWS: Can't breathe in here? EASLEY: Yeah, that's right. How'd you know? REESE: Why are you shouting? EASLEY: Am I? It's been so long since I talked to anybody, and my voice -- CREWS: -- sounds weird? EASLEY: Yeah, that's right. CREWS: Like someone else whispering in your ear? EASLEY: How did you know? A little bonding moment for the two survivors of solitary living. Easley may be the only person in L.A. who doesn't know who Charley is. CREWS: You give a flower sun, it opens up. You give a man respect, same thing. REESE: You think you're working him. He's working you. Drunks are great at telling you what you wanna hear. Now you think he's innocent. And the last two times Charlie thought a suspect was innocent, they turned out to be innocent. But at least Charlie's not quite as convinced this time, and at least Dani's not dressing him down in front of a civilian. INTERVIEWER: How long did you work on the Charlie Crews case? GRIFFITHS: Four years. JAMES: The things that were stolen were the things that Len loved best. A watch, his mother's candlesticks. They, uh, they left all the expensive things. REESE: How would they know what was most important to Len? JAMES: I, I, I don't know. But whoever did this knew Len well. Really well. On a normal crime drama, the detectives would be compiling a list of all the people who knew Len that well, and asking them for alibis. Here, they're sticking with the partner, the next-door neighbors, and the homeless guy. REESE: [To Charlie] All rich people are crazy. It's not just you. Easley and Dani got most of the zingers this episode. CREWS: I like the guy. If I was a cowboy, he'd be my goofy sidekick. REESE: Kind of like how you're mine. LOL. How old are these writers? 'Cause Charlie's probably too young to remember that subgenre of straitlaced-cowboy-with-comic-relief-sidekick western. CREWS: Easley, listen, they got a good medical wing in there, O.K.? Just tell 'em you have hep c. EASLEY: But I don't have hep c. CREWS: It'll buy you a few days in the infirmary while they run tests. Useful to know. I wonder if the show has a consultant who gives them inside information about being on the inside. ACT II 24:25 CREWS: I think he's a witness. Although there's a chance he's the killer. Nice to see him hedging a little. CREWS: What's this stack of mail? GRIFFITHS: That's your bills. So Charlie's mailing address isn't in The System yet? GRIFFITHS: And I really wish you wouldn't have Ted pay them. CREWS: Ted's good with money. GRIFFITHS: Ted is good at stealing money. Not that good. And so far, Charlie seems to be a better judge of character than Constance is. GRIFFITHS: There's this from the Alcohol and Tobacco Commission. It's your liquor license from the bar that you and your partner owned. Since you were acquitted, you're entitled to have it back, if you want it. Does "acquitted" mean Charlie got a new trial? Or does it just mean his previous conviction was overturned? The one thing I'm sure it doesn't mean is that he was pardoned. On the shoulder patch of the fired homophobic security guard: BEL AIR HILLS SECURITY EARLEY: I could run that for you, Charlie. I, I, I would love to run a bar. CREWS: The last time I ran a bar, my partner ended up dead. EARLEY: Well, what are the odds of that happening twice? They say lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place too, but they lie. EASLEY: That lady lawyer says he steals, boss. I heard her. I guess Ted knows where he stands with Constance. REESE: [To Easley] I'm getting you something to drink. CREWS: Wait. We don't want him hung over in the grand jury. REESE: [To Easley] When was your last hangover? EASLEY: Nineteen seventy-four. REESE: [To Charlie] He's a functioning alcoholic. He works better with booze. Trust me. It's nice to see Dani's intuition outdoing Charlie's once in a while, even if it does send up another red flag. And yeah, champion alcoholics don't get hangovers. REESE: [Checks text message.] They got Drew Borns at the station for questioning. He's there right now, no lawyer. But why? If the detectives assigned to the case didn't bring him in for questioning, who did? In the inter-commercial "evidence" spot, since it hasn't been covered elsewhere: INTERVIEWER: What about that guard in Pelican Bay that Charlie Crews put in the hospital? GRIFFITHS: My client was defending himself against a man with serious anger issues. INTERVIEWER: It was reported that the guard said he'd been paid to go after Crews. GRIFFITHS: That's something you should ask the guard about. INTERVIEWER: He's gone missing. Didn't you know that? [Constance shakes her head.] Viewers who automatically skip the commercials without a glance might want to rethink that strategy. (But you can still skip the real commercials.) ACT III 34:37 CREWS: Did Drew have a financial motive? REESE: No. Drew's rich. If he killed James, it wasn't for the money. Since they haven't actually investigated Drew's current financial status, I'd find it more convincing if they had said that Drew wasn't in Len's will, not simply that Drew's rich. For all the detectives know, Drew -- or his wife -- has a gambling problem. It's also a rare person who is comfortable saying he's "rich enough." Ted should know better than to name an ex-con's bar "Stir." EASLEY: You oughta grow more trees outside, boss. Give you privacy. Nobody'll see when you kill Ted. Heh. Easley way outdid Charlie in the eccentricity department this episode. One's reclamation projects don't always get along with one another. Ted doesn't like Easley, and Charlie doesn't like Cudahy. So now Charlie has to ask himself if Dani brought the booze with her to the courthouse specifically for Easley, or if that's just her customary stash. EASLEY: Wait, boss. Please, don't leave me. CREWS: I'm not your boss. I'm not your friend. And I'm not giving you any more chances. You're all out. That must've hurt. ACT IV 44:42 CREWS: James and Stephanie put that stuff there, hoping we'd find it and blame Drew. They didn't count on Easley taking it and burying it. Put the stuff where? They later say, "... on the hillside." Why would Drew or anyone else dump the bag o'stuff on the nearby hillside? Despite Drew's denials that his love letters in the bag o'buried mementoes were for the dead man, I don't understand how both detectives went from there to "James and Stephanie together planned to murder his partner and frame her husband for it." I understand that we have to take it on faith that Charlie reads people well, but why didn't Dani first try out the simpler hypothesis that James acted alone in a jealous rage, and that Drew was lying about the letters in order to save his ass and his marriage? CREWS: Well, let's see if they embrace not knowing what they don't know. I think that deductive shortcuts were taken in the plot so that Charlie could arrive at this big moment of Zen for the night. REESE: Come on, Stephanie. Drew's rich, you're not. He controls all the money. Your prenup states that you get everything if Drew gives you cause for a divorce. Now, a murder conviction. Guess what? That's cause. They didn't investigate the state of Drew's finances, but they somehow found out the terms of the prenup? I think, though I couldn't swear to it, that they're doing that jerky zoom trick via digital editing. Whatever it is, it does make nervous suspects seem more nervous. _Life_ is a surprisingly complex show visually, perhaps to keep younger eyes glued to what is mostly a straight-ahead procedural in format. CREWS: James. You put your bag on the hillside, knowing we'd find it. You didn't count on Holt Easley finding it first and burying it. That was gonna be his treasure. James still inherits Len's estate and comes out ahead if the bag is never found. In fact, why was Drew supposed to be stupid enough to leave the bag o'stuff -- including the murder weapon with his fingerprints on it -- on the hillside where everyone is sure the police would find it? That just makes it look like the frame that it is. Why wouldn't James bury the gun and a few valuables himself to make it look like a genuine robbery gone bad? I don't see why James needs to drag the high-strung and ultimately unreliable Stephanie into his plot at all. An alliance between James and Stephanie strong enough for them to trust each other in a murder conspiracy makes sense only if those two were having an affair, and the two lovers were greedy and wanted Drew's money on top of Len's. But the script didn't even touch on that possibility. ACT V 53:01 CREWS: [To Ames] She was there, wasn't she? Her bed was unmade. She was there when it happened, not at a sleepover. Rachel was in the house. So once again, Charlie doesn't mind if it gets back to whomever that he's trying to solve the Seybolt murder case. Charlie takes a manila envelope out from his waistband behind his back as he's about to get into his car, so I think it's safe to assume that he just liberated it from Ames' place. After Charlie's inside the car, he opens the envelope and takes some materials out. He sets aside a file with a blue cover and opens a file that has a light-brown cover with the words "CONFIDENTIAL FILE" on the outside. Inside the brown file: CHILDREN'S[seal]SERVICES CASE #CPS49950-946[?] RACHEL SEYBOLT: BIRTH DATE: DECEMBER 22, 1985 PARENTS AND BROTHER MURDERED: 1994 NAME CHANGED BY COURT ORDER: 1997 CURRENT NAME: UNKNOWN CURRENT ADDRESS: UNKNOWN I guess we're meant to infer that Charlie made the intuitive leap that since Rachel's file was missing from the social services records, it must have been Ames who took it. That doesn't necessarily follow to me, since someone higher up the conspiracy food chain could have done it, but those seem to be the dots that Charlie has (correctly) connected. It looks like Ames himself stole her records sometime after 1997 (Out of concern for her well-being? Out of concern that she'd finally talk?), only to discover that this was all the information available in them. CREWS: I just want you to drop Neil Cudahy. GRIFFITHS: You don't have the right to ask that. Unless you want that right. Do you, Charlie? I was looking for you, and I didn't even know it. And now you're here, and I can't have you. CREWS: You're married. Finally, the definitive answer. Oh yeah, he's interested all right, but it fits with Charlie's previous indications that he's a big respecter of marriage. Interesting moral choice given his history. He could have gone the other way and decided that marriage was just a lie. GRIFFITHS: And if I weren't? CREWS: You have a husband. It sounds like she's offering to divorce her husband to be with Charlie, so they wouldn't have to be adulterers, but Charlie still won't lift a finger to encourage her. GRIFFITHS: And I think about ... you when I'm with him. I need you to be all the way in. And if you can't be all the way in ... then I need you all the way ... out. Ew. How much can she love her husband if she's thinking of someone else? It sounds like she's one of those people who always has to keep someone else around as a safety net. CREWS: You know I can't do this. GRIFFITHS: Yeah. O.K. Whatever it is that you're doing is keeping you from being here. You're still in prison. The next time, you're gonna have to get another lawyer to get you out. Constance brushes aside Charlie's objection about her marriage and jumps straight to his not-so-undercover detective work as the reason why he's unavailable to her. Given her vehement disapproval of his investigations, there seems to be something to that, since she's not "all the way in" on his master plan either. But it sounds like she's kidding herself if she thinks that Charlie's just using her marriage as an excuse to keep her at arm's length, and that if he'd just walk away from his past, the two of them could live happily ever after. CREWS: Poor Easley. I thought telling the truth would set him free. EARLEY: When's that ever worked? Cute line, but I'm not sure exactly what sort of freedom Charlie was shooting for. Getting Easley a job? Getting him sober? Why would coming clean about evidence in a murder investigation set him on such a path? Living rough probably is Easley's idea of freedom. On the cover of a blue file, presumably the other one liberated from Ames' place: PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS RACHEL SEYBOLT Inside the file: [?] Subject refuses to speak [?] Subject refuses to speak 3/31 Subject refuses to speak 4/14 Subject refuses to speak 4/28 Subject refuses to speak 5/12 Subject refuses to speak 5/26 Subject refuses to speak 6/2 Subject refuses to speak 6/16 Subject refuses to speak [?]30 Subject refuses to speak [?] Subject refuses to speak [?] Subject refuses to speak Rachel Seybolt ART THERAPY Session #5 CPServices [???] So Rachel may be currently institutionalized if she never broke her silence. CREWS: She saw him. She saw the killer. No surprise, since that seems to be the whole story point behind her surviving, but it is nice that new facts are being established as we go along, and that the material in the continuing arc isn't just some sort of misdirection designed to keep us occupied until sweeps, when the REAL facts finally emerge. --