Follow TV Tropes


Headscratchers / Bull

Go To

  • Something that's been bothering me about the pilot: The defendant outs himself on the stand, then gives the alibi that, on the night of the murder, he was with someone. His lawyer asks him twice to name this person, he says no. Last time I checked, you couldn't just refuse to answer a question that you're asked on the witness stand (the 5th amendment being one exception), not without objections and contempt of court charges flying. But the defendant in this case gets away with it. Que?
    • Because neither lawyer was willing to press him that hard with the question, probably. The defense respected his wish not to out the guy he was with, and the prosecution doesn't actually want him to name anybody, because they'd rather the jury conclude the alibi was a lie than have it verified.
  • In the self-driving car episode, Bull's eventual strategy is to get the program's creator to stop treating it as a Replacement Goldfish so that she can testify in court that the program caused the crash because it had been tampered with. But the way it's talked about, it makes it seem like the programmer will have to give up working on the program entirely in order to win the case, rather than trying to fix it. Since she did win, what's stopping her from fixing the program anyway?
    • Too much bad publicity? A trial like that would splash her name and the program's all over the media. Once it got out that her program was vulnerable to hacking, people would be a lot more reluctant to use it, even if she is certain she's fixed the problem.
  • In the "Justice for Cable" episode, they ask the jury the Fox-Chicken-Grain Puzzle and Bull dismisses all the jurors who raise their hands to answer it saying "They just think they do. There is no answer." Why? There is an answer and Bull was looking for jurors who didn't pay attention to minute details not people who happen to know answers to old puzzles.
    • No there isn't. If you leave the fox with the duck, then the fox eats the duck and if you leave the duck with the beans, the duck eats the beans. That means you have to take the duck across first because the fox and beans are the only two that can be left together without losing one of them. The problem is when you then go back for the second thing. If you take the fox across second then when you go back to get the beans last, the fox eats the duck while you're getting the beans and if you take the beans across second and go back for the fox last, then the duck eats the beans while you're getting the fox. No matter how you do it eventually the fox is left with the duck or the duck is left with the beans; hence, unsolvable.
      • Definitely solvable. You take the chicken across, then take either the fox or the beans across and take the chicken back to the start. Then take whatever's left of the fox or the beans across. Then take the chicken across. Solved.
  • Advertisement:
  • In the episode "But For the Grace," didn't Connor's friends commit perjury when they said that Chris, not Connor, was the instigator in the fight between them?
  • In the opening scene of the episode "Safe and Sound," Charlie screams "Theo!" in horror after shooting his brother. Why would he have done this if he had indeed shot his brother on purpose?
    • My best guess is he was covering his bases just in case there was a hidden camera in the room recording the shooting or in case he failed to kill his brother or the gun jammed or something of that nature occurred.
      • If there was a camera in the room it would have shown him loading the gun. He'd have been screwed from the start.

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:


Media sources: