Some spoilers: Cahill, the killer (aka Mr. Lipstick Pants), had: • engaged in an affair, a fireable offense for a "family friendly" chain store. • accidentally purchased toothpaste contaminated with antifreeze. The store wouldn't have minded losing the money to trash it, but it would hurt his promotion chances so he... • sold the toothpaste through the store, and to various hospitals, prisons and retirement homes (places with higher rates of death to cover a few more deaths). • planned to blame the toothpaste debacle on his lover. • to hide his affair, he broke into the lawyer's office to get his pants, and ended up killing the lawyer. • used the toothpaste mistake to blackmail the chain store into getting evidence thrown out. Once this was all discovered, EADA Cutter made a deal with the chain store: no bad publicity in exchange for all the toothpaste recalled and Fuller (guy who lied on the stand) admitting he lied and getting the evidence back in. After Fuller does his part, Cutter continues and gets him to admit under oath about the toothpaste. ADA McCoy points out Cutter had broken the agreement, but is secretly pleased because he would have done the same when he was the EADA.
All that for a pair of trousers? Wow the irony of this episode. I wonder what these greedy scums are really hiding with all the money they are pocketing?
In the episode it’s revealed before the murder the murderer bought a large quantity of poisoned toothpaste made with anti freeze for the store to sell but was ultimately sent to another out of state store which sold them to prisons hospitals and old age homes the murderer blackmailed them into releasing this info if they didn’t help get the guy off
Fun fact(?): In Asian schools British English is taught where the word "pants" usually refers to a type of underwear. Add in various Asian language phonetics and you get the world famous "pan-tsu."
This skips one small but still troubling part at the beginning of the episode: When the detectives go to interview the lawyer's parents, her father *apologizes* on behalf of their daughter for "getting murdered," in such a way that implies it was her own fault! Even after becoming a lawyer and protecting them from a $20 Million lawsuit, she still wasn't good enough for them....
I don't know if it's a matter of being good enough here, maybe more like sorry we're inconveniencing you. I actually just apologized yesterday for having a cough at the doctor's office yesterday 😅 and they were like that's totally fine, now go get a chest x-ray
@@chip7486 But the difference there is you are apologizing for yourself, whereas they're apologizing on behalf of *someone else,* even worse someone who can't advocate for themself in part for being DEAD!
The late seasons were filled with cases that touched on hot button issues and controversial debates. This was an episode that was just a straightforward (by L&O standards) murder wrapped up in a web of mystery, which was becoming more of a rarity by that point.
It was, however, inspired by a real case, "Pearson v Chung", where a judge sued a dry-cleaner's place for 54 million dollars because they misplaced his pants. There was no murder involved in the real-life version, fortunately.
The retired inspector working for Savings Mart is creeping me out. Van Buren sussed what he was up to. When she didn’t give he turned cold. He wants those dry cleaned pants (sur)pressed.
The Dry Cleaner part was based on a true story. Basically, the guy whose pants were ruined had A LOT going on in his life and took it out on some family owned Dry Cleaners. He wound up destroying his life in the process. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung
All of that was for a Pair of trousers, what a nice butterfly effect
The Pants that got away
@@georgekraus9357 Yeep
Yikes😮😮😮😮😮
All of that was a lot to unpack
Some spoilers:
Cahill, the killer (aka Mr. Lipstick Pants), had:
• engaged in an affair, a fireable offense for a "family friendly" chain store.
• accidentally purchased toothpaste contaminated with antifreeze. The store wouldn't have minded losing the money to trash it, but it would hurt his promotion chances so he...
• sold the toothpaste through the store, and to various hospitals, prisons and retirement homes (places with higher rates of death to cover a few more deaths).
• planned to blame the toothpaste debacle on his lover.
• to hide his affair, he broke into the lawyer's office to get his pants, and ended up killing the lawyer.
• used the toothpaste mistake to blackmail the chain store into getting evidence thrown out.
Once this was all discovered, EADA Cutter made a deal with the chain store: no bad publicity in exchange for all the toothpaste recalled and Fuller (guy who lied on the stand) admitting he lied and getting the evidence back in.
After Fuller does his part, Cutter continues and gets him to admit under oath about the toothpaste. ADA McCoy points out Cutter had broken the agreement, but is secretly pleased because he would have done the same when he was the EADA.
Thank you!
Wow. That's a lot.
Thank you
ADA = Assistant District Attorney, right?
EADA = …what?
@@PokeMageTech as far as I can tell the E stands foe executive
So executive assistant district attorney
@@PokeMageTech
Executive Assistant District Attorney. Cutter is the second highest ranking attorney in the office, only under McCoy.
Supposedly based on real case of a Judge sueing korean onwers of a laundry place.
I heard about that. It is often used as an example of a frivolous lawsuit.
Yup, "Pearson v Chung", you can look it up. 54 million dollar pants.
@@civilwildman The fact that a Judge brought it...he should be removed from the bench.
He was removed from the bench shortly after the suit and his law license was suspended. No clue if it was reinstated but he’ll never be a judge again.
All that for a pair of trousers? Wow the irony of this episode. I wonder what these greedy scums are really hiding with all the money they are pocketing?
That's why it's a evident Butterfly Effect in this case
In the episode it’s revealed before the murder the murderer bought a large quantity of poisoned toothpaste made with anti freeze for the store to sell but was ultimately sent to another out of state store which sold them to prisons hospitals and old age homes the murderer blackmailed them into releasing this info if they didn’t help get the guy off
Hey hey, a clip from an episode I don't recognize? Rare to see that happen
Loyalties change. Never trust anyone.
He sure played the lieutenant.
Did anyone else see the rows of dry cleaned clothes in the background of the thumbnail as a crystalline cave for a second?
Yeah, I thought that too and was so confused.
"Look, I just want some pants. A decent pair of pants!"
"Solomon Grundy wants pants too!" I see you, pal.
@@rocketman544 Ah, I see you are a rocketman of culture as well.
2:58 anyone else think that was James Earl Jones at first!
At first, not his voice tho.
I did 😢
Yes
That is not James Earl Jones, bro.
@@erincosta565But he looks like him
Fun fact(?): In Asian schools British English is taught where the word "pants" usually refers to a type of underwear. Add in various Asian language phonetics and you get the world famous "pan-tsu."
This skips one small but still troubling part at the beginning of the episode: When the detectives go to interview the lawyer's parents, her father *apologizes* on behalf of their daughter for "getting murdered," in such a way that implies it was her own fault! Even after becoming a lawyer and protecting them from a $20 Million lawsuit, she still wasn't good enough for them....
I don't know if it's a matter of being good enough here, maybe more like sorry we're inconveniencing you. I actually just apologized yesterday for having a cough at the doctor's office yesterday 😅 and they were like that's totally fine, now go get a chest x-ray
@@chip7486 But the difference there is you are apologizing for yourself, whereas they're apologizing on behalf of *someone else,* even worse someone who can't advocate for themself in part for being DEAD!
The late seasons were filled with cases that touched on hot button issues and controversial debates. This was an episode that was just a straightforward (by L&O standards) murder wrapped up in a web of mystery, which was becoming more of a rarity by that point.
It was, however, inspired by a real case, "Pearson v Chung", where a judge sued a dry-cleaner's place for 54 million dollars because they misplaced his pants.
There was no murder involved in the real-life version, fortunately.
@@JumbleOfPeople Most episodes were based on real cases, sure, but that's not the point.
As much as I hate that pants guy he was ultimately right, it wasnt his pants
The retired inspector working for Savings Mart is creeping me out. Van Buren sussed what he was up to. When she didn’t give he turned cold. He wants those dry cleaned pants (sur)pressed.
They must have been some very special pants
why did he lie?
The extended summary with all the details is about 4 or 5 comments above yours.
Spoilers pls!!!!😭😭😭
Agreed we need some spoilers please!
already in the comments! scroll up someone dropped a nice summary :3
Is me of the one who takes care of this channel is British? Because he/she used "trousers" in the title and not "pants"
Americans are slowly adopting British terms, thanks Pepper Pig. You can see the pattern in other shows
Rempel Extension
What a old man lie 😅
Wallace and Gromit do it better
This is so unbelievably stupid it’s hilarious
Dominican Republic
The Dry Cleaner part was based on a true story. Basically, the guy whose pants were ruined had A LOT going on in his life and took it out on some family owned Dry Cleaners. He wound up destroying his life in the process.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung