or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Homeland on SHO
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Homeland on SHO - Page 23

post #661 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dougotte View Post

Maybe I missed some dialogue. I remember the camera panning over the subjects on the board while they described the car wash guy etc. Then, the camera settled on Roya's picture, but I didn't hear them mention her. It gave me the impression that she's right under their nose, but they're not necessarily looking at her in their top tier of suspects. Again, maybe I just missed some dialogue. Patinkin seems to enjoy murmuring...wink.gif

Dougette, you posted earlier,

"That scene demonstrated how the human brain gravitates toward the obvious. They discussed possible reasons for the two guys to be suspicious, but here was Roya's ID right in front of them. Because she's a legitimate journalist, they seem to be overlooking her - for now".

I think you answered your own question? They mentioned all three as possible ties to Brody as I posted earlier.I'm sure she'll somehow find out Brody is off the radar?
post #662 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

They have a "confession" to a crime that never took place. No crime = no indictment. Unless they can prove that he attempted it or was somehow involved in the Walker assassination plot, they've got nothing on him from a legal sense.

Allow me to introduce you to the federal prosecutor's best friend, conspiracy. 18 USC § 371. All the prosecutor would have to prove is an agreement to commit an unlawful act between two or more people, and some overt act, even if ineffective, toward carrying out the agreement. The tape is circumstantial evidence of the first element (and contrary to what a lot of TV shows seem to believe, circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence) and could be construed as direct evidence of the second element (e.g., the tape itself could be the overt act). A simple conspiracy charge is good for five years in the federal pokey.

There's also a more specific statute on terrorism, 18 USC § 2332b, "acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries." It says: "Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries. . . kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States" is guilty of this offense.

Here, you have strong circumstantial evidence that the plot was hatched and is being directed from abroad -- there's your "transcending national boundaries." What Brody describes on the tape is evidence of a conspiracy as stated in the statute.

The punishment under this statute is far worse -- for "for attempting or conspiring to commit an offense, for any term of years up to the maximum punishment that would have applied had the offense been completed" -- which is anywhere from 25 years to life, depending on how the statute is construed in this particular case.

And if they ever figure out the connection between Tom Walker's murder of the VP's aide and Brody's actions, the US attorney would have a better than decent case that he's either an accomplice to that murder, or directly culpable under the felony murder rule.
post #663 of 1773
Small point, but when someone said "thats racial profiling" Mandy objected. He said it was description profiling, or words to that effect, because his contact would most likely be arab or african. I point that out because the show was careful to be PC.

As far as the bar scene goes, I think it was purposely left up in the air whether Brody had made her or not. We are supposed to wonder just how stable she is.
post #664 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The producers were right, more Carrie/Brody scenes please, they're intense together. smile.gif

Absolutely. Carrie alone is intense. Add Brody and you have the best couple on TV since Sam and Diane.

I also like the scenes with the daughter, Dana. She is excellent. And looking at Jess requires no work.
post #665 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonwolf615 View Post

Small point, but when someone said "thats racial profiling" Mandy objected. He said it was description profiling, or words to that effect, because his contact would most likely be arab or african. I point that out because the show was careful to be PC.

I don't think that had anything to do with it. They just wanted to show that Saul's actions were thoughtful and logical.
post #666 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post

Allow me to introduce you to the federal prosecutor's best friend, conspiracy. 18 USC § 371. All the prosecutor would have to prove is an agreement to commit an unlawful act between two or more people, and some overt act, even if ineffective, toward carrying out the agreement. The tape is circumstantial evidence of the first element (and contrary to what a lot of TV shows seem to believe, circumstantial evidence is perfectly good evidence) and could be construed as direct evidence of the second element (e.g., the tape itself could be the overt act). A simple conspiracy charge is good for five years in the federal pokey.

This is exactly my point: there is no evidence of an agreement thus no evidence of a conspiracy here. We haven't seen the entire tape but I don't recall Brody saying that he was acting on behalf of anyone but his own beliefs which he states clearly.

Quote:
There's also a more specific statute on terrorism, 18 USC § 2332b, "acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries." It says: "Whoever, involving conduct transcending national boundaries. . . kills, kidnaps, maims, commits an assault resulting in serious bodily injury, or assaults with a dangerous weapon any person within the United States; or creates a substantial risk of serious bodily injury to any other person by destroying or damaging any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States or by attempting or conspiring to destroy or damage any structure, conveyance, or other real or personal property within the United States" is guilty of this offense.

However the CIA has no evidence that Brody has done any of those things.

Quote:
Here, you have strong circumstantial evidence that the plot was hatched and is being directed from abroad -- there's your "transcending national boundaries."

The CIA has no circumstantial evidence of a plot from abroad. They have no evidence of him meeting with anyone about his supposed terrorist act. This would collapse in court.

Quote:
What Brody describes on the tape is evidence of a conspiracy as stated in the statute.

From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite: Brody says he's acting alone on his own belief that the leaders of his country are corrupt. The prosecutors would have to prove he was lying in his suicide video and with absolutely no evidence to contradict it, that would be a very difficult case.
post #667 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

This is exactly my point: there is no evidence of an agreement thus no evidence of a conspiracy here. We haven't seen the entire tape but I don't recall Brody saying that he was acting on behalf of anyone but his own beliefs which he states clearly.

He doesn't need to. The circumstantial evidence is that he was held captive for 8 years. He comes back and suddenly decides to blow stuff up. There is a reasonable inference for a jury to draw that he was prompted to do so by someone he met during his captivity. That's all that's needed. They don't need a confession, a smoking gun or direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence *is* evidence.
Quote:
However the CIA has no evidence that Brody has done any of those things.

For the "transcending national boundaries" they have the same circumstantial evidence as above. They have the tape that states his intent. They have the fact that he was in the bunker with the VP on the day the aide was killed. That's evidence of either attempt or conspiracy, take your pick, both of which are punishable as if they were completed crimes.
Quote:
The CIA has no circumstantial evidence of a plot from abroad.

Sure they do. Eight years of captivity, during which he claimed he was kept in a hole with no contact except interrogation, and suddenly he decides *our* leaders are corrupt? That doesn't make sense. It makes far more sense to believe that he was turned by his captors, who persuaded him to commit the act of terrorism.
Quote:
From what I've seen it's exactly the opposite: Brody says he's acting alone on his own belief that the leaders of his country are corrupt. The prosecutors would have to prove he was lying in his suicide video and with absolutely no evidence to contradict it, that would be a very difficult case.

I think all they would have to do is show the video to a jury, and they would be leaping to convict -- not that I think that's necessarily a good thing, but I think it's the reality of the world we live in now.
post #668 of 1773
A Officer in the Military takes an Oath to defend the Country against all enemies so does a U.S. Congressmen. I think Conspiring to blow up anything is going to get you in some trouble
post #669 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post

He doesn't need to. The circumstantial evidence is that he was held captive for 8 years. He comes back and suddenly decides to blow stuff up. There is a reasonable inference for a jury to draw that he was prompted to do so by someone he met during his captivity. That's all that's needed. They don't need a confession, a smoking gun or direct evidence. Circumstantial evidence *is* evidence.

But then the defending attorney will shred that circumstantial evidence by asking "who?" and "when?" "Somebody" and "at some point" will not persuade a jury to disregard Brody's actual suicide statement that he was acting alone on his own beliefs. That's stronger than any circumstantial evidence they were able to gather thanks to Superagent Carrie destroying the operation.

All evidence is that Brody held out against terrorists for eight years so much that he gave rousing speeches around the country about how great America is after he was rescued. He cared about his country so much that he was elected to Congress. That is the Congressman Nicolas Brody everyone knows and that's who the jury will see.

Quote:
For the "transcending national boundaries" they have the same circumstantial evidence as above. They have the tape that states his intent. They have the fact that he was in the bunker with the VP on the day the aide was killed. That's evidence of either attempt or conspiracy, take your pick, both of which are punishable as if they were completed crimes.

It is certainly not evidence of an act of conspiracy -- who was he conspiring with? What are their names? When was the plan formed? You can't conspire with ghosts through ESP.

As for the attempt, Brody could say he made the tape when he was mad about something and it was stolen by someone who was trying to blackmail him. See, those awful terrorists who took years of his life away are still after him. Brody is an American hero, not a terrorist.

Quote:
Sure they do. Eight years of captivity, during which he claimed he was kept in a hole with no contact except interrogation, and suddenly he decides *our* leaders are corrupt? That doesn't make sense.

Quite a number of Americans who have not been brainwashed by terrorists believe that our leaders are corrupt, yet they are free to believe this without fear of arrest. After all, Brody himself was able to become one of those leaders so it's a perfectly reasonable belief.

Quote:
It makes far more sense to believe that he was turned by his captors, who persuaded him to commit the act of terrorism.

The cminial justice system is not about what makes the most sense -- it's about reasonable doubt. The CIA was never able to get anything but a video confession of a crime that might not have ever taken place (Did the bomb vest even exist? Where is it?) and that leaves a gigantic hole of doubt for the jury who will only see an American hero.

It's possible that the video is more incriminating than what we've been shown or the CIA does have other evidence. The CIA somehow figured out what the plan was, even about the bomb vest. If they got this information through admissible evidence (not rumors or here-say) then everything I've said is wrong and they do have solid evidence of Brody's conspiracy and an assassination attempt. If not, this is going to be a fiasco.
post #670 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminches View Post

I also like the scenes with the daughter, Dana. She is excellent. And looking at Jess requires no work.

I forgot to mention the funniest line of the episode. Dana's bold insult to the Vice President:
"I guess a gentleman's C doesn't mean as much as it did back in your day."

And, the scenes of Jess sitting in bed with minimal makeup allowed us to see what a stunningly beautiful woman Morena is, moreso than when she's heavily made up.
post #671 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

But then the defending attorney will shred that circumstantial evidence by asking "who?" and "when?" "Somebody" and "at some point" will not persuade a jury to disregard Brody's actual suicide statement that he was acting alone on his own beliefs. That's stronger than any circumstantial evidence they were able to gather thanks to Superagent Carrie destroying the operation.
All evidence is that Brody held out against terrorists for eight years so much that he gave rousing speeches around the country about how great America is after he was rescued. He cared about his country so much that he was elected to Congress. That is the Congressman Nicolas Brody everyone knows and that's who the jury will see.
It is certainly not evidence of an act of conspiracy -- who was he conspiring with? What are their names? When was the plan formed? You can't conspire with ghosts through ESP.
As for the attempt, Brody could say he made the tape when he was mad about something and it was stolen by someone who was trying to blackmail him. See, those awful terrorists who took years of his life away are still after him. Brody is an American hero, not a terrorist.
Quite a number of Americans who have not been brainwashed by terrorists believe that our leaders are corrupt, yet they are free to believe this without fear of arrest. After all, Brody himself was able to become one of those leaders so it's a perfectly reasonable belief.
The cminial justice system is not about what makes the most sense -- it's about reasonable doubt. The CIA was never able to get anything but a video confession of a crime that might not have ever taken place (Did the bomb vest even exist? Where is it?) and that leaves a gigantic hole of doubt for the jury who will only see an American hero.
It's possible that the video is more incriminating than what we've been shown or the CIA does have other evidence. The CIA somehow figured out what the plan was, even about the bomb vest. If they got this information through admissible evidence (not rumors or here-say) then everything I've said is wrong and they do have solid evidence of Brody's conspiracy and an assassination attempt. If not, this is going to be a fiasco.

Of course this IS just a fictional TV show and not reality sooooo......;-)

Its not only the video but WHERE they found the video...The location of the original SD card that held the video was the "link". It was hidden in a bag that was taken from a known contact of Nazir......So someone tried to blackmail him, then sent it off to the middle east, "just in case". This was AFTER he had come home of course and was in his dress uniform....Its not like they are going to bring him to trial with just what they have now, they CAN however hold him under suspicion...They aer building the case and if they link the reporter to Nazir or Toms murder\shooting to him hes cooked....

Of course when watching I am thinking of the TV world not real world, so maybe I am crazy or something....
post #672 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

But then the defending attorney will shred that circumstantial evidence by asking "who?" and "when?" "Somebody" and "at some point" will not persuade a jury to disregard Brody's actual suicide statement that he was acting alone on his own beliefs. That's stronger than any circumstantial evidence they were able to gather thanks to Superagent Carrie destroying the operation.

You're free to believe that... I believe that once a jury sees the whole tape, it's game over. Conspiracy is amazingly easy to prove.
Quote:
It is certainly not evidence of an act of conspiracy -- who was he conspiring with? What are their names? When was the plan formed? You can't conspire with ghosts through ESP.

You're focusing entirely on the direct evidence, or lack thereof, and ignoring the reasonable inferences a jury could draw from the circumstantial evidence. The government doesn't need to prove the answers to *any* of the questions you just raised.
Quote:
As for the attempt, Brody could say he made the tape when he was mad about something and it was stolen by someone who was trying to blackmail him.

Wow, would that be incredibly unpersuasive.
Quote:
The cminial justice system is not about what makes the most sense -- it's about reasonable doubt.

You should sit in on a gang case in California sometime, see what happens, and tell me if you still believe that "reasonable doubt" is a particularly high bar to clear.
Quote:
If they got this information through admissible evidence (not rumors or here-say) then everything I've said is wrong and they do have solid evidence of Brody's conspiracy and an assassination attempt.

They don't need to get this information "through admissible evidence" as long as they have admissible evidence (like the testimony of a law enforcement officer) to present in court. Rumors and hearsay are completely acceptable avenues for investigation. And hearsay is often admissible in court -- there are so many exceptions to the "hearsay rule" that huge chunks of evidence hornbooks are devoted to it.
post #673 of 1773
Do you really think this show is going into the courtroom? I think he will be a double double agent under threat of Guantanamo. Brodie has few options at this point.
post #674 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by FOPA View Post

Do you really think this show is going into the courtroom?

No, I don't think so. I agree with you.

I'm just saying that if it *did* go to a courtroom, a conviction on conspiracy (at a minimum) wouldn't be hard to come by.
post #675 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whitearrow View Post

You're free to believe that... I believe that once a jury sees the whole tape, it's game over. Conspiracy is amazingly easy to prove.

But without names, times, and places, it's impossible to prove. You must conspire with someone.

Quote:
You're focusing entirely on the direct evidence, or lack thereof, and ignoring the reasonable inferences a jury could draw from the circumstantial evidence. The government doesn't need to prove the answers to *any* of the questions you just raised.

No they don't. If they want to persuade a jury they damn well better.

Quote:
You should sit in on a gang case in California sometime, see what happens, and tell me if you still believe that "reasonable doubt" is a particularly high bar to clear.

Give me a case and I'll look it up. I've served on two criminal juries and both judges explained "reasonable doubt" to us before the trial started and before our deliberation.

Quote:
They don't need to get this information "through admissible evidence" as long as they have admissible evidence (like the testimony of a law enforcement officer) to present in court.

Because juries always believe everything cops say in court. And what would law enforcement officers say in Brody's case? Oh wait, there aren't any! They never bothered to pull the FBI into the case. That may be a problem!

Quote:
Rumors and hearsay are completely acceptable avenues for investigation.

Absolutely. And if Carrie hadn't destroyed the investigation into Brody, they might have led to admissible evidence. Oh well, at least Carrie feels really good.

Quote:
And hearsay is often admissible in court -- there are so many exceptions to the "hearsay rule" that huge chunks of evidence hornbooks are devoted to it.

But there are more conditions that it isn't acceptable. There's even a case where repeating what you told someone is considered hearsay and inadmissible.

Also how the video came into the possession of the CIA might make the video unusable as evidence. They would have to disclose the entire assassination operation in open court. I don't think the CIA would be too excited about telling the world how they sent assassins into a foreign country.
post #676 of 1773
What happens if they decide to bring the Case in a Military Court?
post #677 of 1773
You people are talking about this like it is real. They will do whatever they think will keep people's interest. And, even if they have a court trial they will make it dramatic, not accurate, like every other court scene on TV.
post #678 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNINE View Post

What happens if they decide to bring the Case in a Military Court?

He's active duty military, if he went to court, that's the only court it would be. No way this would go to a civilian trial.

They have plenty of evidence to lock him away for life, or execute him, if that's what they want to do.
post #679 of 1773
I think they will try to turn him into a double agent. He can still do what he does best.
post #680 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by dminches View Post

You people are talking about this like it is real. They will do whatever they think will keep people's interest. And, even if they have a court trial they will make it dramatic, not accurate, like every other court scene on TV.
It wouldnt be AVS if they didnt wink.gifbiggrin.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNINE View Post

I think they will try to turn him into a double agent. He can still do what he does best.

I def think this is a possibility, to let him go back until they can get Nazir then take everyone down at once......I still think we ahve yet undiscoverd agent within the CIA (Estes is high on my list)....
post #681 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post


I still think we ahve yet undiscoverd agent within the CIA (Estes is high on my list)....

I agree...
post #682 of 1773
It's safe to assume that Brody is no longer on active duty. A lot of time has passed, and I'm pretty sure that active service members cannot hold political office.
post #683 of 1773
Estes wouldn't make sense because of the whole safe issue. They wouldn't need to send in Brody to get the target list.

If they were just checking/reinforcing Brody's commitment to the cause, the conversation between the reporter and Estes when she was stalling to give Brody time wouldn't make sense.
post #684 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by scowl View Post

But without names, times, and places, it's impossible to prove. You must conspire with someone.

In the interests of not boring everyone else to tears, I'm stepping away from this argument without conceding anything smile.gif
post #685 of 1773
It's interesting how Brody was the guy who went rogue now you have Carrie who is the one who has to be rogue to get the him.
post #686 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by CPanther95 View Post

Estes wouldn't make sense because of the whole safe issue. They wouldn't need to send in Brody to get the target list.
If they were just checking/reinforcing Brody's commitment to the cause, the conversation between the reporter and Estes when she was stalling to give Brody time wouldn't make sense.

They have people everywhere, each with thier own role. Estes would be a perfect person with access to all the needed information on the intelligence side. Since they had Tom, why did the need Brody??? Tom could have gotten both VP and anyone else with a sniper shot......Again, just putting my TV thinking cap on, it may not make sense now, but its jsut a feeling that there is someone else that we have met that is also an agent.
post #687 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph8te View Post

Estes would be a perfect person with access to all the needed information on the intelligence side.

When you need a separate operation to steal the intelligence out of your own operative's office safe, it's time to find a new operative.
post #688 of 1773
Dedicated conspiracy theorists might point out that a truly clandestine operation might have different operatives acting without the knowledge of other branches of the organization. Hence Estes might not be aware that someone was stealing his stuff, but he could still be part of the organization. Someone certainly had knowledge of the contents of his safe.
post #689 of 1773
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdgrimes View Post

Dedicated conspiracy theorists might point out that a truly clandestine operation might have different operatives acting without the knowledge of other branches of the organization. Hence Estes might not be aware that someone was stealing his stuff, but he could still be part of the organization. Someone certainly had knowledge of the contents of his safe.

Still don't buy it. If Estes is part of the loop with Brody/Nasir, They wouldn't have him as a separate cell in regards to intelligence gathering.

That would mean Estes was assisting Brody last season, but they have a separate operative that got hold of Estes' safe number, and knew the contents - then got Brody to steal them so Estes would be unaware? And unaware of what, that Brody was also a terrorist - something he would have to know if he was a Nasir mole helping him with Brody?

Doesn't make sense.
post #690 of 1773
It's supposed to make sense? eek.gif

Well somebody knew what was in the safe and told somebody else. The beauty of a story like this is that they can take it anywhere and offer semi-plausible reasoning.

Anybody been wondering why the VP has been so eager to get Brody on board? Who else but the VP would Estes have been talking to about the list in his safe? Or, where did he get the list from?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: HDTV Programming
AVS › AVS Forum › HDTV › HDTV Programming › Homeland on SHO