That line of questioning was so ridiculous. As if everyone's sexuality is exactly the same and there isn't a person in the world who gets off on bloodplay, which Andrea clearly did. Not to mention she was high.

That bothered me too. It's been awhile since I've been in a courtroom, but surely lawyers still wear ties during a trial.

I didn't really know what was going on either. I thought it was a consensual sex act. Why is everyone saying it was rape? And why are you saying it happened repeatedly? Didn't they only show it once? I feel like I missed something.

Since when? Prosecutors are there to win a conviction. Nobody in our system is an impartial seeker of truth, unless it's the cops, possibly.

I care, but I've never seen an accurate depiction of a trial on TV, so I never expect realism in this regard. Plus it would be boring as hell.

I wondered about that too. I wondered if the flashback during the kiss with Chandra was going to reveal a new memory showing that he actually did do it.

I don't think there's any doubt Naz was helping Freddy.

I think that line of questioning showed how little Weiss had to work with to destroy Katz' credibility. She couldn't attack him on substance so she had to get at him in oblique ways.

How is Naz able to afford a famous expert anyway? Was that ever explained? Did he owe Stone for something? Because it seems extremely unlikely.

That kiss came out of left field and was really jarring. I thought the trial scenes were well done. Loved the OJ references. Chandra seems more confident than she did in her opening. She's doing a good job creating reasonable doubt, I think. I guess she believes Naz or she wouldn't have kissed him.

It's not the prosecution, it's the defense who should've looked into it. Obviously the police thought they had an open and shut case and didn't need to look at anything else.

And then her opening was about 2 sentences long. I thought it was lame.

I yelled at the screen when he suddenly decided to look up Andrea's house because, damn it, I've been thinking that since the first episode, how does a young woman have an Upper West Side brownstone all to herself? That should've been one of the first things they looked into.

I think that every time they show his apartment. Maybe he inherited it.

I kept watching compulsively, but there were too many loose ends: the baker who seemed to commit one of the murders, who killed Hassan, what happened when Marcella blacked out when the 2nd taxi driver threatened her, Cara's connection with Henry, how could Marcella actually have moved the body, wasn't Jason there when…

I thought this episode was really slow and spent way too much time setting up Misha. Why not save that for next season? Also I can't believe most of the comments are about Stan's gleeful reaction to Paige and his son making out! I thought it was funny, btw, not creepy.

Meh, he didn't say much. A married couple with children, wife's pretty. That could be anybody. It didn't seem like too big a deal to me.

Well, that's true. But they didn't show them asking him anything at all. It just seemed weird to me. You'd think they'd at least try, even though they had no leverage.

This episode? They've been doing that all season. It's been entertaining.

Why didn't Aderholt and Stan interrogate William? I found that really weird.