Never did get to see Mr. Monk and the Magician, so I'm watching it now.

[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?)

Comments

[leora.livejournal.com]

Uh what? And an extra wtf?

I am familiar with the pointing with two fingers. We call it a Disney point, because my friend who worked at Disney World was taught to do that.

The idea behind it is beyond amazingly stupid. Some people think it is rude to point at a person with one finger, so they point with two fingers.

They think this because it is rude to point at someone if they don't know why you're pointing at them as it can seem like talking about them behind their back. Somehow this morphed into point with two fingers, which does absolutely nothing whatsoever to actually affect any relevant etiquette issues. Since whenever you point to something (like say where a restroom is) there might be a person in the way, you are supposed to use the two finger point.

So, I'm used to Disney employees, people making fun of Disney, people who get their etiquette from weird places, people who make fun of such people, and people who just picked it up from other people doing it pointing with two fingers. I don't know if any of these groups are more than usually prone to murder.

[conuly]

Well, indeed, this guy was prone to murder because he smuggled drugs into the country.

But Monk identified him solely because of the pointing thing despite the fact that he had an airtight alibi. Naturally, of course, on TV "airtight alibi" means "really guilty" and "obviously the guilty party" means "didn't do it at all", but Monk doesn't know he's on TV!

[circumstances.livejournal.com]

I recently watched this episode also, and I'm pretty sure that when Monk decided he was guilty after observing the two fingered point it was because he had seen the murder suspect leaving the scene of the crime exhibiting the same mannerism. Which is still a stretch, but not as totally outlandish because that style of two fingered pointing isn't all that common. I hadn't heard the thing about two fingered pointing at Disney that Leora mentions, though, so that's very interesting. I always thought the etiquette rule about single finger pointing was just odd. If two fingered pointing can get us as a culture out of that rut, then fine, works for me. ;-)

[conuly]

Yes, that is why Monk decided that guy was the killer, but my point remains that it's entirely circumstantial.

Monk needs to be wrong more often. It'd be good for him.