Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- From: "Holly" <cuileann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Aug 2007 20:31:30 -0400
"Arthur Lipscomb" <arthur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:D_ednQKcJZxBi17bnZ2dnUVZ_u6rnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1b_nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MICdnaeEGNi4bl_bnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"DonnaB shallotpeel" <shallotpeel@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:ji75c3945v2qdmlg9heo44dn7u6jm9p2om@xxxxxxxxxx
In rec.arts.tv on Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:29:57 -0700 in Msg.#
<4I6dnSAI24zuAF_bnZ2dnUVZ_jCdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Arthur Lipscomb"
<arthur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
So first Patty wants Kate because she can get the witness but the it
turns
out she only wanted the witness so the witness would be discredited and
the
settlement withdrawn but the client's weren't going to accept the
settlement
(which Patty then needed to get withdrawn) until after Kate was hired.
What
am I missing?
I'm not sure what or that, etc.
Patty didn't know INITIALLY what Kate knew nor did Patty have the
evidence she had by the time Kate was deposed. However between those two
times, the clients accepted a settlement and Patty improvised by
pretending to fire Tom much as she improvised to get Ellen to bring in
Kate after Ellen figured out that was the real reason Patty hired her in
the first place.
Also, why did the witness lie and how did Patty know the witness was
going
to lie? And who was that mysterious guy?
The witness went by Gregory's identification to her of one of the
broker's
assistants. Gregory lied. We don't know who the mysterious guy is.
Kate was being set up to lie in deposition to discredit her by Frobisher.
Patty and Tom found out the truth between first getting Kate to testify
and when Kate was deposed, but let Kate be discredited in order for
Frobisher to withdraw the settlement. Altho I gotta think the clients are
gonna be furious at Patty for that.
And while I'm asking for clarification, why did she pretend to fire her
friend again?
She has never stopped pretending that he is fired.
Agreed. Notice Tom hasn't returned to Kate's office.
Yes, but why did she originally pretend to fire him? Just to trick Kate
into trusting him more? And now we're supposed to believe that despite
being in on the plan from the start (or maybe he wasn't) he's going to
between Patty to get his kid into a good school.
She wanted everyone to believe it was because of him not knowing about the
clients' agreement to settle if Frobisher offered them over a certain
amount. I don't think there was a clear answer to that, I think we were
suppose to draw our own conclusions. In my opinion though, it was a way for
her to be able to use Ellen to get to Katie and if the guy who was always
her right hand man (Tom) was there Ellen wouldn't have as easily bought into
the fact that she was needed by Patty. Patty was using the firing of Tom to
get close to Ellen and gain her trust and also was able to use that
situation by having Tom find things out for her under the radar and it also
happened that Ellen came to him for advice which since he was secretly still
working for Patty he told Ellen what Patty wanted him to.
I believe that Tom is now going to take up the offer by the other lawyer to
help get his daughter in that school. When I saw the clip for next weeks
show it made me wonder if Patty's clients are going to fire her and hire the
firm that Tom is going to.
Holly
.
- References:
- 8/14/07 - Damages
- From: Arthur Lipscomb
- Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- From: DonnaB shallotpeel
- Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- From: Ken from Chicago
- Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- From: Arthur Lipscomb
- 8/14/07 - Damages
- Prev by Date: Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- Next by Date: Re: Dexter
- Previous by thread: Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- Next by thread: Re: 8/14/07 - Damages
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
