Let me take a moment to tell you a little something about my ex-profession: when lawyers act like this, it's usually a performance for the client. Judges absolutely hate this shit -- this grandstanding, borderline abusive, bullying, "NO NO STOP TALKING!" stuff. Good judges hate it because...well, for obvious reasons, and bad judges hate it because they don't like anybody else to be pushier than they are. Most juries actually hate it too, unless they already agree with you, in which case the whole thing is kind of not necessary. ["Boy, is that right. I was on a jury very recently where a lawyer was pulling this, and not only did it turn the jurors off, but it got the judge royally pissed off. He eventually let the lawyer have it, too, it was awesome. I'd like to introduce that judge to Alex." -- Joe R] But sometimes, if the client hates his ex/boss/employee/government enough, this is what the client wants to see. The client wants to see some goddamn yelling and some goddamn pointing and some goddamn cutting off of answers, because the client hates that other guy. So the attorney can do that little show, and it's generally not going to get the client a good result in the case, but when the bad result comes around, the attorney will explain that the system doesn't work, blah blah, and of course, the attorney has the luxury of saying, in effect, "I did everything I could for you, of course; you heard all the yelling." I have seen attorneys blow cases royally by being more interested in personal attacks on other parties than in the substance of the case, and I have seen them then walk out with the client, saying, "Yeah, you never know with these cases, the system is really stacked against a guy like you." It's infuriating, because the client is receiving bad lawyering and doesn't even know it. My point is that this little "show" that Alex is putting on is for the jury and the audience at home, to make everyone think he's awesome, and of course, the only people who think he's awesome for doing this are people who already agreed with him, meaning that it's kind of a metaphor for the actual practice of law, if you see what I mean. But anyway.
But we are done with Alex, and now it's Lisi's turn. Oh, Lisi. She does manage to make it to the front of the jury without falling down. Ha ha! Anyway. Lisi immediately goes here: "Eenie meenie miney mo, catch a liar by the toe." Oh, Lisi. I don't think for one minute that she knows just how much she shouldn't do this, but it's the risk you take when you decide to be a bitch. Weirdly, when Lisi finally settles, she comes to Cassandra and says she wants to see her water shoes. Cassandra lifts her foot up, and Lisi pronounces them "the worst-looking water shoes [she's] ever seen." Lisi says that this means Cassandra was "completely unprepared." Thus spake the quitter, who wanted to curl up in a hole after about a day and a half without fresh fruit and a coffee machine. Lisi asks Cassandra if she'd agree, and Cassandra says no: "It's Day 39, and I'm still here, and my shoes are still here..." By this point, Lisi is dramatically rolling her head around in frustrated disgust. The theme of this tribal council is "My question is HOW DARE YOU ANSWER MY QUESTION!" Cassandra says she doesn't "see the relevance in the question." Earl looks at Lisi like she's nuts. Lisi says she raised the issue of the shoes because she thinks Cassandra was in over her head, so how could she have made it 39 days? "Greed!" she says, all sarcastically revelatory. Lisi wants to know whether Cassandra would agree that "greed really fueled everything." Cassandra takes the wrong approach, insisting that she came to learn things about herself and whatnot, which...oh, Cassandra, don't do that. Ultimately, Lisi presses Cassandra to admit that yes, part of what caused her to go so far in the game was wanting to win. The money! She is a terrible money-wanting money-wanter! I hope Cassandra can live with herself.