![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
conuly
Honestly, Monk is always right, but he does everything backwards. If a real police department solved cases by finding the guilty party first and then proving it, we'd say they were railroading people - and rightfully so!
And despite what Monk thinks, pointing with two fingers is not a trait exclusive to murderers. THAT'S his big evidence? Now he's gonna prove that the guy's the killer, and he is, but Monk is still wrong.
Also? I cannot believe they killed off Monk's geeky upstairs neighbor. I liked Kevin.
Edit: "You don't like the way I phrased an answer? What kind of evidence is that?"
A very good question indeed. I can think of many reasons somebody wouldn't be drinking now. Like if they just joined AA, confided in you, and even after death you're attempting to keep their alcoholic status anonymous. Or, possibly, if they're lying about pregnancy not only to entrap a lover, but because they're some form of pathological liar. Or because it's Lent. (Was it Lent already when this episode aired?)
And despite what Monk thinks, pointing with two fingers is not a trait exclusive to murderers. THAT'S his big evidence? Now he's gonna prove that the guy's the killer, and he is, but Monk is still wrong.
Also? I cannot believe they killed off Monk's geeky upstairs neighbor. I liked Kevin.
Edit: "You don't like the way I phrased an answer? What kind of evidence is that?"
A very good question indeed. I can think of many reasons somebody wouldn't be drinking now. Like if they just joined AA, confided in you, and even after death you're attempting to keep their alcoholic status anonymous. Or, possibly, if they're lying about pregnancy not only to entrap a lover, but because they're some form of pathological liar. Or because it's Lent. (Was it Lent already when this episode aired?)
