Gideon DID kill Nathan -- that's official from Sylvia in a live interview

[LN Cronan]

If you can stand a mini-lesson in U.S. history ....

 

The criminal laws and the punishments for committing crimes are not all the exact same thing everywhere in the United States. Each of the 50 states has its own particular versions of the laws. Yes, murder is murder everywhere. But in some states, the maximum penalty is execution. Other states don't have a death penalty, and instead their maximum sentence is life in prison.

 

Then there are Federal criminal laws too. Certain crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Like domestic terrorism, organized crime (i.e. Mafia and similar organizations), taking kidnapped children across state lines, etc.

 

However, no matter which set of criminal laws applies - crimes in a particular state (like New York) or Federal crimes, certain things apply everywhere. Most of all what applies are "constitutional rights" -- rights guaranteed every citizen under the U.S. Constitution. When the original framework of the U.S. Government was built over 200 years ago, the founders created a set of principles to try to prevent some sorts of government abuses they'd seen under feudal governments centuries ago -- especially abuses of the government arresting, trying, convicting and imprisoning citizens.

 

Most of the "rights" you hear about when reading about American crime cases, fiction and in real life, stem from one of the oldest parts of the U.S. Constitution, what's known as the "Bill of Rights." It's a list of ten things, "Amendments" that spell out basic rights promised to all citizens of this country.

 

The "right to silence" is covered under the Fifth Amendment. When you hear something like "I plead the Fifth" it means a person is claiming his/her right to refuse to answer any question police ask that could incriminate him/her. The police cannot force people to tell them things that the police can then use as evidence against them.

 

The "right to a lawyer" is covered under the Sixth Amendment. (In fact, most of rights that concern criminal cases fall under the Sixth Amendment.) If a person wants one, he or she can have a lawyer present when talking to the police -- and most definitely, every person standing trial for a crime has a right to a lawyer, even if the government has to pay the bill.

 

So why do these rights apply to Eva? She didn't kill Nathan. She didn't even know he was in town.

 

She has these rights because it's remotely possible the police could try to accuse her of being involved. She could actually be 100% innocent, but still, the authorities could try to arrest her because they don't believe she's innocent. Because the mere possibility exists she could be implicated, she has a right to have a lawyer with her when the police try to ask her any questions. If she and her lawyer feel it would be bad for her to answer a particular question, she can invoke her right to silence.

 

The right to silence and the right to a lawyer do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to approach Eva. The rights do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to tell her things either. But those rights do mean she does not have to TELL the police things in return. She has every right to have a lawyer beside her -- and to even keep her mouth shut, if she chooses.

 

Most times, when someone possibly involved in a crime says he/she wants a lawyer, all questioning should immediately cease. If the cops keep asking questions, they've gone into a very dangerous place where they could get caught violating a person's constitutional rights. If a judge determines someone's rights were violated, the police cannot ever later use in court things the person said.

 

As soon as Victor figured out the cops were asking Eva questions as a potential witness in a very serious criminal matter, he immediately put a stop to it by telling the cops they'd have to let Eva get a lawyer before she'd do any more talking. Monica reminded Eva the next morning that she needed to have a lawyer with her if the cops wanted to talk to her (Eva) any more than they already had. And when Detective Graves approached Eva at the gym, Eva expressly reminded the detective she (Eva) didn't want to be questioned without a lawyer.

[julie54]

If you can stand a mini-lesson in U.S. history ....

 

The criminal laws and the punishments for committing crimes are not all the exact same thing everywhere in the United States. Each of the 50 states has its own particular versions of the laws. Yes, murder is murder everywhere. But in some states, the maximum penalty is execution. Other states don't have a death penalty, and instead their maximum sentence is life in prison.

 

Then there are Federal criminal laws too. Certain crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Like domestic terrorism, organized crime (i.e. Mafia and similar organizations), taking kidnapped children across state lines, etc.

 

However, no matter which set of criminal laws applies - crimes in a particular state (like New York) or Federal crimes, certain things apply everywhere. Most of all what applies are "constitutional rights" -- rights guaranteed every citizen under the U.S. Constitution. When the original framework of the U.S. Government was built over 200 years ago, the founders created a set of principles to try to prevent some sorts of government abuses they'd seen under feudal governments centuries ago -- especially abuses of the government arresting, trying, convicting and imprisoning citizens.

 

Most of the "rights" you hear about when reading about American crime cases, fiction and in real life, stem from one of the oldest parts of the U.S. Constitution, what's known as the "Bill of Rights." It's a list of ten things, "Amendments" that spell out basic rights promised to all citizens of this country.

 

The "right to silence" is covered under the Fifth Amendment. When you hear something like "I plead the Fifth" it means a person is claiming his/her right to refuse to answer any question police ask that could incriminate him/her. The police cannot force people to tell them things that the police can then use as evidence against them.

 

The "right to a lawyer" is covered under the Sixth Amendment. (In fact, most of rights that concern criminal cases fall under the Sixth Amendment.) If a person wants one, he or she can have a lawyer present when talking to the police -- and most definitely, every person standing trial for a crime has a right to a lawyer, even if the government has to pay the bill.

 

So why do these rights apply to Eva? She didn't kill Nathan. She didn't even know he was in town.

 

She has these rights because it's remotely possible the police could try to accuse her of being involved. She could actually be 100% innocent, but still, the authorities could try to arrest her because they don't believe she's innocent. Because the mere possibility exists she could be implicated, she has a right to have a lawyer with her when the police try to ask her any questions. If she and her lawyer feel it would be bad for her to answer a particular question, she can invoke her right to silence.

 

The right to silence and the right to a lawyer do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to approach Eva. The rights do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to tell her things either. But those rights do mean she does not have to TELL the police things in return. She has every right to have a lawyer beside her -- and to even keep her mouth shut, if she chooses.

 

Most times, when someone possibly involved in a crime says he/she wants a lawyer, all questioning should immediately cease. If the cops keep asking questions, they've gone into a very dangerous place where they could get caught violating a person's constitutional rights. If a judge determines someone's rights were violated, the police cannot ever later use in court things the person said.

 

As soon as Victor figured out the cops were asking Eva questions as a potential witness in a very serious criminal matter, he immediately put a stop to it by telling the cops they'd have to let Eva get a lawyer before she'd do any more talking. Monica reminded Eva the next morning that she needed to have a lawyer with her if the cops wanted to talk to her (Eva) any more than they already had. And when Detective Graves approached Eva at the gym, Eva expressly reminded the detective she (Eva) didn't want to be questioned without a lawyer.

hey! I think that is going to be Gideons get out of jail card. What say the rest of you?

[LauraJ]

If you can stand a mini-lesson in U.S. history ....

 

The criminal laws and the punishments for committing crimes are not all the exact same thing everywhere in the United States. Each of the 50 states has its own particular versions of the laws. Yes, murder is murder everywhere. But in some states, the maximum penalty is execution. Other states don't have a death penalty, and instead their maximum sentence is life in prison.

 

Then there are Federal criminal laws too. Certain crimes are prosecuted in the federal courts. Like domestic terrorism, organized crime (i.e. Mafia and similar organizations), taking kidnapped children across state lines, etc.

 

However, no matter which set of criminal laws applies - crimes in a particular state (like New York) or Federal crimes, certain things apply everywhere. Most of all what applies are "constitutional rights" -- rights guaranteed every citizen under the U.S. Constitution. When the original framework of the U.S. Government was built over 200 years ago, the founders created a set of principles to try to prevent some sorts of government abuses they'd seen under feudal governments centuries ago -- especially abuses of the government arresting, trying, convicting and imprisoning citizens.

 

Most of the "rights" you hear about when reading about American crime cases, fiction and in real life, stem from one of the oldest parts of the U.S. Constitution, what's known as the "Bill of Rights." It's a list of ten things, "Amendments" that spell out basic rights promised to all citizens of this country.

 

The "right to silence" is covered under the Fifth Amendment. When you hear something like "I plead the Fifth" it means a person is claiming his/her right to refuse to answer any question police ask that could incriminate him/her. The police cannot force people to tell them things that the police can then use as evidence against them.

 

The "right to a lawyer" is covered under the Sixth Amendment. (In fact, most of rights that concern criminal cases fall under the Sixth Amendment.) If a person wants one, he or she can have a lawyer present when talking to the police -- and most definitely, every person standing trial for a crime has a right to a lawyer, even if the government has to pay the bill.

 

So why do these rights apply to Eva? She didn't kill Nathan. She didn't even know he was in town.

 

She has these rights because it's remotely possible the police could try to accuse her of being involved. She could actually be 100% innocent, but still, the authorities could try to arrest her because they don't believe she's innocent. Because the mere possibility exists she could be implicated, she has a right to have a lawyer with her when the police try to ask her any questions. If she and her lawyer feel it would be bad for her to answer a particular question, she can invoke her right to silence.

 

The right to silence and the right to a lawyer do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to approach Eva. The rights do NOT mean the cops are forbidden to tell her things either. But those rights do mean she does not have to TELL the police things in return. She has every right to have a lawyer beside her -- and to even keep her mouth shut, if she chooses.

 

Most times, when someone possibly involved in a crime says he/she wants a lawyer, all questioning should immediately cease. If the cops keep asking questions, they've gone into a very dangerous place where they could get caught violating a person's constitutional rights. If a judge determines someone's rights were violated, the police cannot ever later use in court things the person said.

 

As soon as Victor figured out the cops were asking Eva questions as a potential witness in a very serious criminal matter, he immediately put a stop to it by telling the cops they'd have to let Eva get a lawyer before she'd do any more talking. Monica reminded Eva the next morning that she needed to have a lawyer with her if the cops wanted to talk to her (Eva) any more than they already had. And when Detective Graves approached Eva at the gym, Eva expressly reminded the detective she (Eva) didn't want to be questioned without a lawyer.

If I was a betting girl, which I'm not, but if I was I would bet all my money you LN.  I think you are so right on this theory!!!

[LN Cronan]

One more thing to add .... Eva most definitely needs her constitutional rights now to protect herself from the police.

 

When this whole situation first started unfolding, Eva was 100% innocent of any crime. She had nothing to do beforehand with any of the crimes tied to Nathan. Not his attempts to extort money from her boyfriend and her mother/stepfather. No knowledge she was a victim of stalking. No knowledge of his near-fatal beating of her roommate. And most certainly, nothing to do with Nathan's murder -- nothing the night it happened and nothing to do with the motive behind it.

 

BUT ....

 

Just like Gideon chose to break the law in order to protect his love, Eva is breaking the law now in order to protect her love in return. She's trying to stop the police from being able to build enough evidence Gideon had motive to kill Nathan.

 

They're definitely in this together now.

 

I think this is the trap Detective Graves has tried to lay -- to put Eva in legal danger of being charged herself with serious crimes. Graves may be betting Gideon will lay his life down again for Eva, this time by being willing to go to prison by pleading guilty to murder under a plea deal that will include guarantees Eva won't ever be charged in the case too.

[Kirsten]

One more thing to add .... Eva most definitely needs her constitutional rights now to protect herself from the police.

 

When this whole situation first started unfolding, Eva was 100% innocent of any crime. She had nothing to do beforehand with any of the crimes tied to Nathan. Not his attempts to extort money from her boyfriend and her mother/stepfather. No knowledge she was a victim of stalking. No knowledge of his near-fatal beating of her roommate. And most certainly, nothing to do with Nathan's murder -- nothing the night it happened and nothing to do with the motive behind it.

 

BUT ....

 

Just like Gideon chose to break the law in order to protect his love, Eva is breaking the law now in order to protect her love in return. She's trying to stop the police from being able to build enough evidence Gideon had motive to kill Nathan.

 

They're definitely in this together now.

 

I think this is the trap Detective Graves has tried to lay -- to put Eva in legal danger of being charged herself with serious crimes. Graves may be betting Gideon will lay his life down again for Eva, this time by being willing to go to prison by pleading guilty to murder under a plea deal that will include guarantees Eva won't ever be charged in the case too.

I think Detective Graves underestimates Gideon in this assumption. The man is a billionaire. No defense attorney is ever letting anything past Eva's request for her attorney at Krav Maga into evidence. I'm wondering if Graves actually takes Krav Maga at that studio, and if she does I hope Eva gets to spar with her one time.  

[LN Cronan]

I think Detective Graves underestimates Gideon in this assumption. The man is a billionaire. No defense attorney is ever letting anything past Eva's request for her attorney at Krav Maga into evidence. I'm wondering if Graves actually takes Krav Maga at that studio, and if she does I hope Eva gets to spar with her one time.  

 

Graves is very, very smart -- even Sylvia called her smart in a recent post on this site. Graves is also very aggressive. When she approached Eva, she was being aggressive. She also was winging it .... feeding Eva bits of information at a time, adapting what she was telling Eva as Eva's reactions continued to unfold. What happens when someone aggressively wings something? They sometimes screw up. That's what Graves did here. She was walking a tightrope, and she made one false step. Ooopps.

[Kirsten]

Graves is very, very smart -- even Sylvia called her smart in a recent post on this site. Graves is also very aggressive. When she approached Eva, she was being aggressive. She also was winging it .... feeding Eva bits of information at a time, adapting what she was telling Eva as Eva's reactions continued to unfold. What happens when someone aggressively wings something? They sometimes screw up. That's what Graves did here. She was walking a tightrope, and she made one false step. Ooopps.

That one false step might wind up costing them big time.

[LN Cronan]

OK, some fun here amid the deep discussion about U.S. constitutional rights in criminal cases ..... I'm going to teach y'all a piece of cop slang, a phrase cops use when moaning to one another (or to a prosecutor) when an interrogation doesn't go well.

 

"Take the nickle." You learned some trivia today.

 

A nickle is a five-cent coin, but here the "nickle" means another sort of five, the Fifth Amendment (right to silence.)

 

Criminals facing cops know they have the right to silence. The cops even have to go through the motions of reminding them the instant they place a person under arrest. You've seen it on TV and in the movies "You have the right to silence, anything you say can be used .... blah, blah, blah ...."

 

Truth of the matter is most people try to talk their way out of trouble. They figure if they're cooperative, the cops will let them go. When in actuality, all they manage to do is dig themselves even deeper. Some even spit out confessions, because they feel awful and want to unburden their anguish.

 

So when things have been going along great for a cop interrogating someone -- the person is blabbing all sorts of incriminating stuff -- and then suddenly the suspect decides to invoke the right to silence, he/she just "took the nickle." AGHHHHH cops will think inside. 

[LN Cronan]

In real life, I once covered a murder case where the detectives lost a chunk of a murder confession because they kept pushing. There they were, things going great with the murderer blabbing away in tears. But then she (yes, it was a she -- who'd blown her husband away) sobbed "should I have a lawyer?"

 

The detective should have ended the questioning immediately when the "L-word" came up. But she'd been a bit fuzzy in the way she tried invoking her right. She hadn't crystal clear demanded one. So the interrogation kept going, and she kept saying incriminating things.

 

Fast forward a couple of months later -- her defense team got every single thing she said after "lawyer" tossed out of evidence. Forever.

 

Fortunately though, this woman, guilty as sin, said plenty of incriminating stuff before the L-word. The defense tried to get everything tossed, but the judge ruled that all the things the woman said before "lawyer" could be used against her. And the cops had a lot of other very good evidence. She plea bargained and got 33-years-to-life. The detective didn't destroy the case when he screwed up. But he did have to suffer the professional shame of having messed up, and his mistake ending up in the news.

[julie54]

In real life, I once covered a murder case where the detectives lost a chunk of a murder confession because they kept pushing. There they were, things going great with the murderer blabbing away in tears. But then she (yes, it was a she -- who'd blown her husband away) sobbed "should I have a lawyer?"

 

The detective should have ended the questioning immediately when the "L-word" came up. But she'd been a bit fuzzy in the way she tried invoking her right. She hadn't crystal clear demanded one. So the interrogation kept going, and she kept saying incriminating things.

 

Fast forward a couple of months later -- her defense team got every single thing she said after "lawyer" tossed out of evidence. Forever.

 

Fortunately though, this woman, guilty as sin, said plenty of incriminating stuff before the L-word. The defense tried to get everything tossed, but the judge ruled that all the things the woman said before "lawyer" could be used against her. And the cops had a lot of other very good evidence. She plea bargained and got 33-years-to-life. The detective didn't destroy the case when he screwed up. But he did have to suffer the professional shame of having messed up, and his mistake ending up in the news.

hi

Oh I love reading your posts. Makes mine look boring.

Great lesson in American history and police speak. Anymore to get Gideon off the hook?

[julie54]

OK, some fun here amid the deep discussion about U.S. constitutional rights in criminal cases ..... I'm going to teach y'all a piece of cop slang, a phrase cops use when moaning to one another (or to a prosecutor) when an interrogation doesn't go well.

 

"Take the nickle." You learned some trivia today.

 

A nickle is a five-cent coin, but here the "nickle" means another sort of five, the Fifth Amendment (right to silence.)

 

Criminals facing cops know they have the right to silence. The cops even have to go through the motions of reminding them the instant they place a person under arrest. You've seen it on TV and in the movies "You have the right to silence, anything you say can be used .... blah, blah, blah ...."

 

Truth of the matter is most people try to talk their way out of trouble. They figure if they're cooperative, the cops will let them go. When in actuality, all they manage to do is dig themselves even deeper. Some even spit out confessions, because they feel awful and want to unburden their anguish.

 

So when things have been going along great for a cop interrogating someone -- the person is blabbing all sorts of incriminating stuff -- and then suddenly the suspect decides to invoke the right to silence, he/she just "took the nickle." AGHHHHH cops will think inside. 

hi again

Where does plausible deniability come into all this. Gideon mentioned this twice near the end of RIY.

[LN Cronan]

hi again

Where does plausible deniability come into all this. Gideon mentioned this twice near the end of RIY.

 

Plausible deniability is a fancy way of saying "lack of evidence."  If prosecution can't gather enough solid evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt he loved her enough to kill to protect her, his defense could "plausibly deny" Gideon loves Eva.

 

Plausible deniability is why Gideon has tried to limit his contact with Eva. Because contact could show evidence it's true he loves her. When he secretly met with her in that security office, it was to avoid creating any evidence they talked. In Entwined, plausible deniability is the reason they're going to need to meet in secret. So the cops can't gather any more evidence than they already have that they could use to argue Gideon loves Eva.

 

Gideon already has screwed up badly by having some contact with Eva after Nathan turned up dead. If Gideon had been smarter about it, he would have cut off all contact with Eva starting a few days before the killing and then kept up that zero-contact as long as the investigation dragged on. So the plausible deniability thing is even more important now. The pair of them can't be giving Graves any more solid ammo than Graves already has (family dinner at Eva's, phone call Saturday at the police station).

 

Gideon at least managed to keep it up proper I-don't-love-Eva appearances for better than a solid week after Graves saw him fall apart over that phone call. But then he broke down -- right around the time Brett told an interviewer he (Brett) plans to get Eva back.

1. Monday in the elevator, approaching her in front of witnesses and in sight of the security cameras? Stoooopid. He tried to counter that by parading Corrine through the lobby after business hours Monday.
2. Fetched Eva out of the clutches of the malicious Dr. Lucas, on Tuesday? Really stooopid. Eyewitness with a grudge who can testify Gideon cares about her.
3. Going off alone in his car with Eva right after the Lucas incident? Getting spotted by some street cop sitting in that parked car in a way that looked indecent. Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!!

 

 

So at least Gideon came to his senses later Tuesday, when he felt he absolutely had to talk to Eva after Eva had lunch with his snake of a half-brother. More possible rescuing of his lady love needed -- that and he'd been thrown off balance by the crusade she'd been on for days. Meeting with her in a secret place on his property, the security office, was for "plausible deniability." Don't leave any evidence the cops could get that they met.

[julie54]

Plausible deniability is a fancy way of saying "lack of evidence."  If prosecution can't gather enough solid evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt he loved her enough to kill to protect her, his defense could "plausibly deny" Gideon loves Eva.

 

Plausible deniability is why Gideon has tried to limit his contact with Eva. Because contact could show evidence it's true he loves her. When he secretly met with her in that security office, it was to avoid creating any evidence they talked. In Entwined, plausible deniability is the reason they're going to need to meet in secret. So the cops can't gather any more evidence than they already have that they could use to argue Gideon loves Eva.

 

Gideon already has screwed up badly by having some contact with Eva after Nathan turned up dead. If Gideon had been smarter about it, he would have cut off all contact with Eva starting a few days before the killing and then kept up that zero-contact as long as the investigation dragged on. So the plausible deniability thing is even more important now. The pair of them can't be giving Graves any more solid ammo than Graves already has (family dinner at Eva's, phone call Saturday at the police station).

 

Gideon at least managed to keep it up proper I-don't-love-Eva appearances for better than a solid week after Graves saw him fall apart over that phone call. But then he broke down -- right around the time Brett told an interviewer he (Brett) plans to get Eva back.

• Monday in the elevator, approaching her in front of witnesses and in sight of the security cameras? Stoooopid. He tried to counter that by parading Corrine through the lobby after business hours Monday.
• Fetched Eva out of the clutches of the malicious Dr. Lucas, on Tuesday? Really stooopid. Eyewitness with a grudge who can testify Gideon cares about her.
• Going off alone in his car with Eva right after the Lucas incident? Getting spotted by some street cop sitting in that parked car in a way that looked indecent. Dumb, dumb, dumb!!!!

 

 

So at least Gideon came to his senses later Tuesday, when he felt he absolutely had to talk to Eva after Eva had lunch with his snake of a half-brother. More possible rescuing of his lady love needed -- that and he'd been thrown off balance by the crusade she'd been on for days. Meeting with her in a secret place on his property, the security office, was for "plausible deniability." Don't leave any evidence the cops could get that they met.

that makes sense now. The security office being the only place with no cameras. Oh this can go so many ways. But Im plumping for your detective screw up. Poor Gideon.

[CAROLINE628]

OK, so what did Detective Graves do wrong that makes it impossible (I firmly believe) to get Gideon convicted of murder? I've discussed it in other threads, but I'll summarize here.

 

First, though, Detective Graves already has succeeded in getting one half of the evidence needed to attempt to convict Gideon of murder. She's got enough evidence to argue he had the "opportunity" to commit the crime.

• Gideon had the opportunity to get to Nathan's hotel that night and stab him. He was near enough to the location the night it happened and he had access to Nathan.
• Gideon cannot prove there's no way he could have gone after Nathan that night, because he was somewhere else the entire time and can prove it -- prove his has a solid alibi. The whole party, complete with press photos, was supposed to be Gideon's alibi. He was counting on the cops looking at the press photos and not even bothering to dig any deeper.
• But the detective dug hard enough and found a one-hour window during which Gideon could have slipped away to commit the killing. Graves broke his alibi.

 

So now, she's building the other half of the case, "motive." Gideon's motive. She know he did it, his motive being taking extreme measures to save the life of the woman he loves from a very dangerous person. However, there's a difference between knowing Gideon loved Eva all along and being able to prove it beyond reasonable doubt to a jury.

• Just like Gideon lined up an alibi, he lined up a defense cover story that if worse came to worse and he was charged, he his defense team could offer evidence suggesting Eva meant little to him. Gideon could show that even while Nathan was still alive, Gideon had gotten back together with another woman he's always been in love with - Corrine Giroux.
• Through witnesses and press photos, Gideon can show he and Corrine were already dating again while Nathan was still alive.
• Graves' side of the story is she can prove Gideon was in love with Eva all along and was devastated when Eva ended the relationship two days after Nathan died.
• Graves saw Gideon with Eva's family on Friday evening (after Nathan was already dead.)
• Graves would have copies of phone records that would prove Eva called Gideon from her home phone to his cell phone on Saturday morning.
• Graves can provide eyewitness testimony about Gideon's behavior during that phone call on Saturday.

 

BUT .....

 

Those phone records only show who called who at what time and how long the call lasted. There's no recording of what was said during the call.

 

So Graves tricked Eva into confirming that during that telephone call, Eva broke off the relationship -- she dumped Gideon after Nathan died, not Gideon left her while Nathan was still alive. Graves got the evidence.

 

But Graves obtained it illegally. She questioned Eva without a lawyer after Eva explicitly invoked her right to have a lawyer present for questioning. And because the evidence is illegally obtained, it cannot be used in court. Ever. It's permanently ruined. And because that evidence is now unusable, the motive side of the entire prosecution's case will collapse. They'll never win -- so they won't even attempt to charge Gideon.

 

Starting on June 5, you ladies either get to say I was right or tease me for guessing wrong.

I won't have to wait till then. I already know you're right : )

[AMC]

Surely Detective Graves KNOWS that she got this evidence illegally..

What was her motive---what did she think would happen???

[sscrph]

Surely Detective Graves KNOWS that she got this evidence illegally..What was her motive---what did she think would happen???

Yes this is a good question unless she was just so into it and that question just came out of her mouth and she couldn't take it back...

[LN Cronan]

Surely Detective Graves KNOWS that she got this evidence illegally..

What was her motive---what did she think would happen???

 

My theory - she's probably counting on getting away with it. Crossing her fingers her one mistake won't even end up becoming something Gideon's defense team finds out about and tries to dismantle the pile of motive evidence she's been building.

 

She's hoping it won't even matter, because now she's thrown Eva into the shark pool. She's counting on Gideon hanging himself by doing something really stupid, on top of some mistakes he's already made. I think Graves' goal is to get Gideon to paint himself into a corner where he'd take a plea deal rather ever allow the risk Eva could go down with him now too.

 

Gideon isn't some master criminal. He's a man who did a very bad thing for what he believed was a very good reason. But he's already made several very bad mistakes in his hastily-executed plot. Graves thinks she can push him over the edge now, as the building pressure makes his screw up even more, screw up to the point where everything comes crashing down.

[Kirsten]

Surely Detective Graves KNOWS that she got this evidence illegally..

What was her motive---what did she think would happen???

I think she thought that Eva realizing Gideon was a killer might make her disgusted by him, and thus in the end work in her favor. Unfortunately, Graves misjudged Eva. That is the only rational reason I can come up with for her talking to Eva at all.

[Kirsten]

Yes this is a good question unless she was just so into it and that question just came out of her mouth and she couldn't take it back...

This probably factored in sscrph.