The Practice (1997–2004): Season 5, Episode 8 - Mr. Hinks Goes to Town - full transcript

Hi, I'm looking for... her.

Lindsay.

Jeannie? Hey.

Hi.

(chuckles)
How are you?

I'm fine. I see I don't
have to ask what's new.

Yeah, about five months.

I knew her
when she was a virgin.

LINDSAY: Funny.

Listen, you got two seconds?
I'm on a major clock.

Sure.



You must be a witch.
I have been meaning to call you.

Yeah, yeah.

Thanks for inviting me
to the wedding, by the way.

-Eloped.
-Right.

Listen-- William Hinks.

I've been treating him.

The William Hinks?

Yes.

Did he start
killing people

after you began
treating him, or...

That's cute.

(sighs)
I don't think he did it.

What do you mean,
you don't think he did it?
He confessed.

I think he fabricated
that confession.



He made up
that he killed nine people?

Yes.

And fooled the police?

It's complicated.

Listen,
as you probably know,

the trial starts
in two days.

He just fired
his attorney.

The judge, I'm told,

is not likely to grant him
much of a continuance.

He'll probably assign
a public defender, and...

Lindsay, would you
consider doing it?

Defending William Hinks?

You've become this big star.
I read about you now.

I don't do
serial killers, Jeannie.

Lindsay, I believe
the man didn't do it.

Yes, he says he did,

but as good as you are
at what you do,

I am just as good
at what I do,

and I'm telling you,
I have become

more and more convinced
he's delusional.

William Hinks is not
the serial killer

who murdered those women,

and right now
he needs a good lawyer.

♪ (theme)

BOBBY: I don't think
you should take it.

My first instinct was not to,
but she says he's innocent.

I don't know,
Lindsay.

How do you start
such a monster of a trial

on two days' notice?

The defense
is fully developed.

John Moore was the lawyer.
He's good.

Stephen Banks
was the lawyer before that,

and he's excellent.

What happened to them?

Well, he fired them.

According to Jeannie,
when they confronted Hinks

about his possibly
being delusional,

he fired them.

The man can't face the idea
that maybe he's not the killer.

In which case
how do you defend him?

And why would you
even want to?

I'd be going up against
Roland Hill, for one thing.

How often does any lawyer
get the chance

to go up against him?

Not very often,
but if I were going to do it,

I certainly wouldn't
want a client

who insists he's guilty.

You people supposedly
defend underdogs.

I've got one here.

He's ill,
and unless we help him,

he's going to destroy
his life.

I want to do it, Bobby,
but I will need backup.

I can do it.

-I was first. I got dibs.
-You were not first.

BOBBY: All right.

-Lindsay, you sure?
-Yes.

(sighs)
Jimmy, you second chair.

That's not fair.

Thank you. Thanks.

He's really
a docile man.

Just misunderstood.

Do we need
a guard in the room?

It's your call.
You'll lose privilege.

I think
we can take him.

Okay.

William,
this is Lindsay Dole,

the lawyer I was
telling you about,

and this is Jimmy Berluti,
also with the same firm.

My pleasure.

I guess "thank you"
is in order.

Mr. Hinks, we continued
the trial until next week,

which means
you may get transferred

back to Cedar Junction.

They don't like keeping
maximum security prisoners

in lockup for too long.

What we're going
to do first

is go over the confessions
and the evidence,

and then we'll get
back together and talk.

What is there
to talk about?

Well, Dr. Reynolds
tells me

it's your preference
to plead insanity.

You realize if we win
on that, you don't go free.

Yes, I realize that.

If we could possibly get
a straight not guilty--

No.

I did it, Ms. Dole.

At least with insanity,
I can perhaps be sent

to a place where they'll
help me get better.

Even if that's true,

you won't be getting out.

The closest diagnosis
I can make

is that he has delusions,

symptomatic of schizophrenia,
probably paranoid.

Not only does he believe
he committed these crimes,

the idea of others
not believing it

is, for some reason,
repugnant to him.

But if he didn't do them,

he sure gave them
a lot of details.

Almost all the information
he provided in his confession

was accessible.

There's a whole internet site
set up on this killer.

A lot of these facts
are available

to the general public.

Jeannie, tell me why
you think he didn't do it.

For one thing, he's got
a lot of holes in his story.

I also don't get
any sense of anger in him.

I don't see the necessary
capacity for violence.

He's a quiet
little accountant

who never
leaves his house.

It's always
the quiet ones.

I also put him
under hypnosis.

There, he told
a very different story.

Which was?

Basically,
that he didn't do it--

that he wishes he did it.

They found him

near the scene
of his last victim.

He said
he has a police radio.

According to his story
under hypnosis,

he heard of the crime,
he managed to go there,

get into
a neighboring cellar,

and let himself
be discovered there.

The police are pretty good

about sniffing out
false confessions.

He is extremely smart--
borderline genius.

He also
passed the polygraph,

which he would
if he were delusional.

Any chance he could have been
faking with the hypnosis?

That's what I thought
at first,

but I don't
believe it now.

Either way, Jeannie,
if he convinced the police

with his confession,
including an FBI profiler,

he'll likely
fool a jury.

He didn't necessarily
fool the FBI profiler.

What?

I was suspicious.

There were certain facts
he should have had

if he were the real killer,
and he didn't.

Such as?

Times of death.
He could only approximate.

A killer that precise,

I'd have thought
he'd be clear on time.

Positions of the bodies,
also the fingernails.

What about
the fingernails?

Well, you saw that he pulled
them off all of his victims.

And?

He actually didn't.

The police
planted that disinformation

for the very reason

to trip up
any false confessions.

Hinks has maintained

that he pulled the nails out
of all of his victims,

just as reported
in the papers.

If you've
checked discovery,

you now know that the nails
of the fifth victim

were never removed.

That's something
the real killer should know.

But you signed off
on this being the guy.

Because he did have a lot
of very specific details.

He was found near the scene
of the last one,

and when they searched
his apartment,

they found
voluminous clippings,

internet printouts,
whatever,

on each and every
previous killing.

But he could have
collected that stuff

to learn
about the murders.

Or he was the murderer

and he liked to read
about himself,

which is pretty typical
of serial killers.

One more thing--

the killings stopped

as soon as William Hinks
was in custody.

So you think he's it?

I think
he's probably the one.

But maybe not.

Maybe not.

How do we defend him?

If we plead not guilty,
he'll fire us.

Which, more than anything else,
is telling me he didn't do it.

How do you figure?

Well, a guilty man would
want to get an acquittal

if he could,
don't you think?

A man obsessed with having
the world think he's guilty,

on the other hand...

Isn't it possible
it could be both,

guilty and wanting
everyone to know it?

Possible, but I just don't
see it that way.

Maybe we just stick
with insanity.

Who knows? Maybe we could
win that way.

But we don't believe
he did it, Jimmy.

We can't argue he was insane
at the time he did it

if we know
he didn't do it.

We don't know it, Lindsay.
We don't know anything.

Could you ever go to a judge
and get an order

that he has to plead
not guilty?

I've never heard
of that happening.

Everybody wants it
to be him, Lindsay,

because they're afraid,

and he wants it to be him,
but it's not him.

I don't understand.

Are you arguing insanity
or not?

Mr. Hinks, this is
extremely complicated.

You're just going
to have to trust me.

Can you do that?

No, I can't, Ms. Dole.

My future is at stake--
my life.

I've known you
less than a week.

William, you trust me,
don't you?

Please don't handle me.

I'm not some anonymous
little man to be handled.

The plan is to keep you
out of prison,

but it may involve you
having to hear

some things in court
you don't want to hear.

It could also mean
you having to testify,

so be prepared for that.

Testify?

Your only chance at this point
is to trust her, William.

Are we going with insanity
or not, Ms. Dole?

Yes.

We're going with insanity.

All right.

Insanity.

WILLIAM: I always chose to drop the weapon
at the scene,

relieving myself
of the worry

of it ever being found
in my possession.

The gloves
I would either burn

or dispose of
at the right opportunity.

MAN: Why the fingernails?

WILLIAM:
Souvenir, I suppose.

A fingernail
is easier to remove

than one might expect.

Less bloody as well.

How many times
we got to watch it?

Until we've memorized
every word.

This confession
is their whole case.

I would have probably
removed all 10

except for
the time consumption.

It takes patience
to extract the fingernail

without damaging it.

I liked them in mint
condition, of course,

and it's difficult
not to rush

when you have a dissected
carcass in the room.

It can make you jumpy.

We will introduce
more of this tape

during the trial,

but the footage
that you just saw

will be introduced
as evidence

of the defendant's clarity
during his confession--

his precision,
his careful choice of words.

He had just committed
a murder and dismemberment

three hours
before this interview.

This was a man in control,

a man who understood
the nature and the quality

of the horrific acts
he had committed.

The evidence will show

that these crimes
were carried out

with detailed precision,
with thorough premeditation.

The evidence will reveal
cold-blooded murder--

executions, if you will--

committed by a man who knew
exactly what he was doing.

William Hinks is insane.

All nine victims had dogs.

Mr. Hinks met all of them
in various parks and streets

while walking his dog.

And you learned this
how, detective?

From his confession.

Then he would
telephone them,

always from a public
phone booth,

make a date or
a plan to see them,

be let into their homes,
and he'd kill them.

From your experience,
did these killings appear

to be acts
of uncontrolled behavior?

No.

Why is that, sir?

First of all,
they were meticulous.

Other than the mutilations,

which, of course,
were bloody,

there was never
any evidence.

No fingerprints, no DNA.

The weapon was always
carefully placed

next to the torso.

The first wound
was always fatal.

How could you tell that?

There was never
a sign of a struggle.

Plus, the coroner's report
would always confirm this.

Is it
your testimony, sir,

that a killer acting
outside of conscious control

could never act
in a meticulous manner?

It's not the norm.

Is it possible?

It's possible, but--

Thank you. You've answered
the question.

Actually, I didn't, counsel.
I'd like to complete it.

It was
a yes or no question.

But it was evidently not
a yes or no answer, your honor.

The witness may complete
his response.

If the last victim
hadn't hit that silent alarm,

if we hadn't
found the defendant

in that basement,
he'd still be out there.

We called these murders
the immaculate dissections

because the scenes
were free of evidence.

I mean clean.

That takes planning--
skill.

He didn't just know
what he was doing,

he knew how to do it
perfectly.

Are you finished now?

Yes.

Thank you, detective.
Nothing further.

JUDGE: Mr. Hill?

Prosecution rests,
your honor,

saving our psychiatric
evidence for rebuttal.

The witness may step down.

The defense calls
Dr. Jean Reynolds.

All set?

I think.

Watch yourself.

Don't worry.

Could you state your name and
occupation for the record?

Jean Reynolds.
I'm a criminal psychologist.

Could you briefly describe

what you mean
by criminal psychologist?

It's basically
how it sounds.

I've spent 10 years

treating patients
charged with violent crimes,

as well as studying
behavioral patterns

of repeat offenders,

including the patterns
of serial killers.

Dr. Reynolds,
did you have opportunity

to treat my client
Mr. William Hinks?

-I did.
-Did you have opportunity
to discuss with my client

the crimes
which he is currently

being charged with
in this trial?

-I did.
-Did you form any
medical conclusion

as a result
of this treatment?

Yes.

Could you please
state that opinion
for the court?

I do not believe Mr. Hinks
killed those women.

(gallery murmuring)

He did not
commit the crimes?

My opinion is Mr. Hinks is
suffering from delusions

secondary to schizophrenia.

Basically, he thinks
he killed those women.

He did not.

And on what do you base
this opinion?

On 30 hours of treatment
with Mr. Hinks,

as well as 10 years of
practical and academic
experience.

I also placed Mr. Hinks
under hypnosis

where he told me
he did not kill those women.

Objection. Hearsay.

Under hypnosis,
the reliability of--

There is no hypnosis exception
to the hearsay rule.

Your honor,
I would like a sidebar.

Mr. Hinks,
please sit down.

I seek
to discharge counsel.

She is soliciting false
testimony from this witness.

Mr. Hinks,
I asked you to sit down.

She doesn't represent
my interest,

nor does she represent
the truth.

I ask that
she be removed.

Mr. Hinks,
take your seat now.

I am very confused here.

You entered a plea
of not guilty

by reason of insanity.

Defense seeks
to change that plea

to a straight not guilty.

Mr. Hinks never killed
those women at all.

This is a lie,
your honor!

Security, take Mr. Hinks
into custody.

I will see counsel
in chambers now.

What the hell's
going on?

He didn't commit
the crimes.

Wait a second.

It was your intent
all along to argue this?

Yes.

You committed a fraud
on the court, counsel.

You filed an affirmative
defense of insanity.

-We had to.
-You had to?

Yes.

We had to keep it
from our client.

That necessitated
keeping it from the court.

You kept your strategy
from your client?

Your honor, he's delusional.
He not only thinks he did it,

he wants others to think
he did it, which precluded--

Then you should have
had him declared
incompetent to stand trial.

He would have passed
the competency test easily

and we'd be
right back in court.

You do not commit
a fraud on the court

or the district attorney.

These circumstances
warranted us--

No, they did not,
counsel.

Yes, they did,
your honor.

With all due respect,
William Hinks was prepared

to let himself be convicted
for a crime he didn't commit.

That's a bigger fraud--

a fraud that leaves the real
killer still out there.

And how do we know
that this isn't a trick?

If the defendant has not
agreed to the change of plea,

he has an automatic grounds
for a new trial.

This isn't a trick.

You have my word
as an officer of the court.

That doesn't solve it.

You cannot change the plea
without the client's consent.

The man has fired
two previous attorneys

who wanted to prove
his innocence

because he doesn't want
to be innocent.

We had to keep him
in the dark,

and that meant keeping
the court in the dark.

And if he loses,
his next lawyer

will be in here arguing
your incompetency for--

Look, this is
an unusual thing here.

We got a defendant
whose sickness prevents him

from wanting
to be found innocent.

If we had pled
straight not guilty,

he would have fired us

like he fired
the two guys before us.

He would have went out
and eventually found a lawyer

to tell his lie,
and as I said, in our minds,

that would have been
the biggest fraud.

Who the hell
do you think you are?

I'm your doctor,
William.

No, you're not.
Do you get that?

No, you are not.
You are all discharged.

That can't happen.

The judge has ordered us
to stay on.

William, you're ill.

You think
you committed those crimes.

Under hypnosis,

you admitted to me
you didn't.

Maybe I was lying
under hypnosis.

You think about that?

Maybe I was in denial.

For God's sake,
I killed nine women.

I can't be in denial?

William, all I care about
for this discussion

is keeping you
out of prison.

Why, so I can get
mental treatment

for my disorder?
Is that the secret plan?

-I'm testifying.
-We don't think that's--

I have a right
to testify, Ms. Dole.

If I'm competent
to stand trial,

I'm competent
to make this decision.

I will be getting
into that witness chair.

You cannot prevent that.

I'm testifying.

And while under hypnosis,

what did he say
about the basement?

That he'd heard about
the crime on his police radio,

together with the suspicion
that it was this same killer,

and went to the scene.

Police were all over it,

so he broke into the basement
two houses away.

I renew
my hearsay objection.

This is all being asserted
as the truth.

Mr. Hill, your objection
is noted and overruled.

Did he say why he went
into that basement?

No. I can only guess,
on some level,

he wanted to be caught.

Dr. Reynolds,

aside from what he told you
under hypnosis,

do you have
any other reason

to believe he did not
commit these crimes?

Well, as I said,

I've studied the patterns
of serial killers.

These people often have
some displaced anger.

I didn't find Mr. Hinks
to have a lot of anger,

if any.

He's seen these killings

on the front pages
of our newspapers,

and he's somehow
convinced himself

he is the object
of all these headlines.

Ever know a patient to fake
being under hypnosis?

I don't think Mr. Hinks
was faking--

My question was,
ever know a patient

to fake being under
hypnosis?

Yes.

And if this patient suffered
from a delusion, doctor,

wouldn't he suffer
from the same delusion

under hypnosis?

Yes, usually the delusion
would persist under hypnosis.

Didn't that
make you suspicious?

I was extremely
suspicious, but--

What is the I. Q.
of Mr. Hinks, if you know?

It's high.

And is it
your testimony, then,

that you make no room
for the possibility

that he faked
being under hypnosis

to tell his little tale
of innocence?

I not only considered it,
Mr. Hill,

I at first suspected it,
but when he kept insisting

that his lawyers not
declare him to be innocent,

when he fired lawyers

for endeavoring
to prove his innocence,

I knew then
he couldn't be faking.

Well, she's simply wrong.

What more can I tell you?

Dr. Gale,
did you consider

that this could be
a false confession?

It's one of the first things
that we look for,

but in Mr. Hinks' case,

I determined his confession
to be genuine.

And on what did you base
this opinion, sir?

I've been a clinical
and forensic psychologist

for 33 years now.
That's what I do.

And contrary
to Dr. Reynolds' findings,

I consider Mr. Hinks
to be consumed with rage.

He lived alone
with his mother growing up.

Though not
physically abusive,

she was
emotionally punishing.

The gruesome acts
committed here--

the dissection
of the bodies--

these are acts of hatred.

These murders are
very much about punishment.

Dr. Gale, I'm going
to play for you

a portion
of his confession.

If I could have
figured out a way

to dismember them alive,
I would have done so,

but fear of getting caught
was a deterrent there.

Still...

I would have so loved to have
extended that look of pain

in their faces--

that look of horror.

It's a thing of beauty--

the look
on the face of a woman

who knows
she's about to die.

They write in the papers,
why do they do it?

Why do these killers do it
over and over and over?

It's that look.

MAN: You think
you'll kill again?

Oh, yes.

I'll get out of this.
You just watch.

And I'll know the joy
of that look again.

Even if Hinks

were to somehow learn
all about those crimes

to the point of being able
to fool law enforcement,

and that's an extremely
unlikely if,

you cannot fake
a psychosis like that.

Sitting at that table

is the man
who mutilated those women.

Well, you got
your wish, William.

After watching
that last footage,

I'm sure everyone
thinks you did it,

including the jury.

Other than lying to me,

you've tried
an excellent case.

You should both feel good
about yourselves.

Do you truly appreciate
where you'll be going?

In this life or the next?

This one.

I'm talking about
the maximum security hell,

where prisoners
have special feelings

for men
who mutilate women.

Well, it's my turn now,
I suppose.

I still would
like to testify.

I don't see the harm
at this point.

What else is left?

Not much. We've got
an expert on tire tracks

that could place his car
maybe in some of the areas.

It's nothing.

They'll establish
he has no alibi.

Big deal--
he says that himself.

We're almost done.

Are you winning
or losing?

Well, that depends
on the goal, Eugene.

I think he's looking
at a conviction,

but to the client,
that seems to be a victory.

And why does he want
to testify, exactly?

Because if my soul
is to be offered

any chance at redemption,

I must make
a full confession.

LINDSAY:
And God would like you
to do that under oath?

God would like me to be open
and notorious with my evil.

Yes.

What did you do
with the gloves?

I'm sorry?

The killer
always wore latex gloves

to avoid leaving prints
or oils behind.

On the night you were caught,
the gloves were never found.

-What did you do with them?
-As I told the police,

I have no actual memory
of how I disposed of them.

And again,
as I told the police,

if I were to guess,

I threw them in the fire
and burnt them.

Actually,
you didn't make that guess

in your confession,
you made it much later

after it was reported that
there was a fire burning.

The police found
no residue of the gloves

in the fireplace.
Did you know that?

Is it possible nobody
could find the gloves

because the real killer
took them?

I am the real killer,
Ms. Dole.

How come you didn't know

the second victim
had cancer?

Something which was never
released to the media,

coincidentally,

something you didn't know
when you confessed.

I didn't give them
physicals, counsel.

I just removed
their heads.

This one's head
had a wig on it.

You decapitated her but
didn't know she had a wig?

Even the sickest
of criminals

knows not to mess
with a woman's hair.

What a clever answer.

Women have a thing
about their nails, too.

You messed with them.

Actually, I never so much
as scraped a nail.

I removed them
in perfect condition.

What happened to them?

I beg your pardon?

You said in your confession
you took them as souvenirs.

People keep souvenirs.
What did you do with them?

That I won't tell.

Come on, Mr. Hinks,
this is confession time.

We're trying to redeem
a soul here.

What'd you do with
the fingernails?

There are some things
I will take to my grave,
that's one.

You don't know where they are
because you never took them.

I did.

All of them?
Every victim?

Every victim.

What about the fingernails
on the last victim,

Mr. Hinks? They went
the way of the gloves?

I swallowed them.

What about the fifth victim,
Mr. Hinks?

Angela Barton--
you remember her?

Pretty, quick-tempered,
lost her head easily.

Clever again.
Did you remove
her fingernails?

One by one-- made difficult
because she bit them.

You didn't take her nails,
Mr. Hinks,

not Angela Barton's.

The police conceal
information for the purpose

of flushing out
phony confessions.

In your confession,

you talked about removing
Ms. Barton's nails

before you incised
the hands.

The thing is, Mr. Hinks,
when you go to trial,

the prosecution
has to hand over

all exculpatory evidence,

even the stuff
the police concealed,

and what
I've now learned--

the nails of Angela Barton
were never removed.

It was reported
that they were,

so you confessed
to doing it.

So I forgot.

It was four victims ago.
They blend.

You forgot. You forgot
a lot of things, Mr. Hinks.

You could never remember
the colors of carpets,

the layouts of rooms,
the types of drapes...

I was killing people.
You think I was going

to take time out
to notice fabric?

This killer
noticed everything.

He was meticulous.

Please don't talk about me
as if I were not in the room.

What about
the tenth victim?

There were nine.

Nine reported.
There was a tenth,

never confirmed to be
one of the serial victims

because she died
by a gunshot wound.

-Objection.
-Overruled.

Her fingernails
were also pulled out,

limbs and head amputated--
your work, Mr. Hinks?

Objection!

Ask that counsel not interrupt
or steer the witness.

Mr. Hill, you will sit
and remain quiet.

Your work, Mr. Hinks,

or another killer
who likes fingernails?

I didn't think the police
knew about that one.

So it was your work?

Your work, Mr. Hinks?

Yes.

Funny. I made it up.

You're a fraud.

You've never hurt anybody.

I killed those people.

No, you didn't.

I killed those people,
Ms. Dole.

Your doctor's discovered
you're delusional.

You're just
an anonymous little man--

I killed those women
as quickly and surely

as I would kill you.

Mr. Hinks.

I did it!

I'm famous.

You see my pictures
in the papers

because I did it!

Mr. Hinks,
you will lower your voice.

This is mine!

I-I killed them,

and you can't
take it away.

You can't.

You can't.

Okay, Mr. Hinks.

You win.

Forgive me, Mr. Hinks.

I was just trying
to decide

whose performance
was better here--

yours or Ms. Dole's.

Objection.

Sustained.

I have nothing
for Mr. Hinks.

I think maybe we've won.

It's not over.

You haven't
heard him close.

LINDSAY:
No physical evidence,

no witnesses--

just a confession from
a paranoid schizophrenic man

suffering from delusions,

a man desperate to believe
he's something he's not.

You heard
his treating psychologist.

You saw him
in that witness chair.

He's ill,

but he's not the sick man
who committed those crimes.

For this so-called confession,

he was armed
only with information

that had been published
somewhere,

stuff that he'd cut out,
downloaded, printed,

plastered all over his walls.

The things that weren't
public information

like the fingernails still being
on the fifth victim--

oh, he somehow forgot that.

Mr. Hinks,
as part of his illness,

is desperate to believe
he's the one.

The prosecution,
as a result of public pressure,

is desperate to believe
he's the one.

I think on some level
we all are,

because we want
this sick person,

whoever he is,
off the street.

But if we really, truly want
this killer captured,

we better send the message
to the police

that they'd better
keep looking,

because it's not
William Hinks.

I have never been on a case
where the defense pled insanity

only to then,
in the middle of trial,

suddenly declare
that he didn't do it at all,

and then to follow that,

with the defendant taking
the stand to say that he did.

Sounds crazy,

but it isn't crazy,
ladies and gentlemen.

It's brilliant and very
carefully orchestrated.

We're dealing with a sick, dark,
but brilliant chess player,

a man who met eight women--
eight different women--

got admitted to their homes,

murdered them,
leaving virtually no evidence--

not a hair,
not a bead of sweat, nothing.

Then he met his ninth victim,

and though she let him in

like the eight others had
before her,

she was also able to set off
a silent alarm.

Mr. Hinks still was able
to commit the murder

and do his
immaculate clean-up,

but when it came time to leave,
the police were coming,

and this time
he had to take flight,

to seek cover
in a neighboring basement,

and this time he was caught.

He knew the police
would search his apartment

and find those clippings
and those web site printouts.

He knew that he could offer
no alibis

for those eight other killings.

He knew that the police
would know

they had the right guy.

Well, to get out of this now,

Mr. Hinks would have to be
at his most ingenious,
wouldn't he?

So he gives a confession,

careful to provide
most details,

but also careful
to leave out a few,

and then,
while under the pretense

of being hypnotized
while being treated,

he tells a different story--
a story of innocence,

and he hopes that this therapist
will become his pawn.

Well, Dr. Reynolds
is no pushover.

She's a gifted psychologist,

one likely capable
of detecting a sham,

and though he had her
mostly convinced,

he knew that
she remained doubtful.

According to her own testimony,

it was only after Mr. Hinks
fired his previous attorneys

that she finally decided
he was not faking his delusions.

He got her,
and he needed her.

You see, to have any chance
of an acquittal,

Mr. Hinks needed this therapist
to sell you,

and in order to keep her
convinced enough,

he had to keep insisting
that he did it,

and he had to keep insisting

that his lawyers
not say otherwise,

all the while needing a lawyer
who would say otherwise,

over his feigned protests.

Enter Ms. Dole,
pawn number two.

Mr. Hinks needed an attorney

who would find a way
to plead not guilty,

in spite of being told not to.

Sound complicated? You bet.

Hard to pull off? Absolutely.

Far-fetched? Maybe.

But let's consider what
he's pulled off before.

Not many people can commit
eight murders

without leaving a single clue.

He did,
then he met his ninth,

and we got him.

We finally got him,

and in order to get off,

he would have to come up
with something masterful.

He did.

You want to give him
an Academy Award

for his wrenching performance
on the witness stand,

you do it, but don't you dare
give him an acquittal.

Don't you dare.

You don't want him out there
looking for number 10.

How long?

I expect this one
to take a while.

It's close.

His closing was good,
wasn't it?

Extremely.

He kind of sold me.

Did you know I planned
to yank the insanity plea

and go straight
not guilty?

I had a pretty good idea.

When you wouldn't
tell me the strategy,

and you said I might
be testifying,

I figured that's what
you were planning.

What if I hadn't?
Wasn't that sort of a risk?

Considering my plight,
Ms. Dole,

I was in a position
to take risks.

Besides, I was poised
to suffer a mental breakdown

and at least secure
a mistrial

if you stuck
with insanity.

Why didn't you just
let me talk you

into going not guilty
over your objection?

Because Dr. Reynolds
was measuring me

every single step
along the way.

I had to cling
to my delusions.

Without her completely sold,
I didn't stand a chance,

and what perhaps
she didn't tell you--

she wasn't completely sure.
She thought I was innocent,

but her medical conclusions
were far more precarious

than she ever let on.

I couldn't risk losing her.

Okay, why not
feign improvement?

Take medication, then you
could have just testified

and said,
"I thought I killed them,

but now I know I didn't."

Far too self-serving.

When you murder
nine people,

the jury is not looking
for a reason

to let you go.

Things have to be perfect.

If you get off,

you're going to
kill again?

Mr. Berluti,

if I tell you
I'm about to kill again,

you don't have
to honor privilege,

and you can repeat
everything I'm telling you now,

but nice try.

So things went just
as you planned in there.

I certainly didn't plan

for Mr. Hill to be so good
in his closing.

If he convinced you,
I hardly feel overconfident.

What about the latex gloves
on the last victim?

Burned in the fireplace.

The police are shoddy.

(knock on door)

Verdict.

JUDGE WHITE: All right.

Mr. Hinks,
will you please rise?

Madame foreperson,
the jury has a final verdict?

We do, your honor.

What say you?

Commonwealth
vs. William Hinks--

counts one through nine

of murder
in the first degree,

we find the defendant
William Hinks...

not guilty.

(gallery reacts loudly)

JUDGE WHITE: All right.

Members of the jury,
your service here is completed.

Mr. Hinks, you have been
declared not guilty.

You are free to go.
This court is adjourned.

(bangs gavel)

I might go out
the back way.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you both.

MAN: Mr. Hinks,
about the fingernails, sir?

JIMMY: Can you keep
them back, please?

-Unbelievable.
-Yeah.

Thank you, Dr. Reynolds.

I suppose your heart
was in the right place.

Yeah. Listen, William,
this gets you out,

but you still need
treatment.

Will you let me
help you?

Let me think about that,
all right?

You really need
to get help.

I'll call you.

You did it, Lindsay.

Incredible.

Were you really sure
he was innocent?

Was I sure? No.

I'll probably never be
100% sure.

He knew that.

Sorry?

Nothing.

Well, he's not
out of the woods

unless he gets treatment.

Let him go, Jeannie.

He's ill, Lindsay.

Everything doesn't just end
with a trial, sorry to say.

Especially this one.

Let him go.

♪ (theme)

You stinker!