S18.E13: Misconduct

[thewhiteowl]

The team investigates a biker killed in a hit and run. Gibbs prepares to testify against a financial advisor who stole millions from his Navy clients.

[immortalfrieza]

Apparently the words "Objection" and "Irrelevant" are not in the prosecution's vocabulary.

Really, the old guy should've gone directly to the cops instead of stopping at home. Parker's wife realized she hit the wrong person awfully quickly. Said wrong person also somehow died of impact trauma to the head without ever actually hitting their head on anything... and while wearing a bike helmet. Would've made more sense if he died of internal injuries.

The wife was really quick to flip on Parker. You just wonder how many people on these shows would get away with everything if they just kept their mouth shut.

Edited May 5, 2021 by immortalfrieza

[Grrarrggh]

Ugh, sooo many things wrong with this episode, where to start? First, they couldn't tell the type of car from the video?!! Second, having Kasie blame herself because Gibbs is a willing moron?!! Third, why did the prosecutor bring such a weak case to court?! Fourth, does the team know how to do nothing without Gibbs there?!?! All around crap episode, which seems all too usual for this programme. 

Who was the knitting woman in court?

[GHScorpiosRule]

Forget objection or irrelevant. Stupid defense attorney wasn’t even cross examining. That looked like a closing argument. Didn’t even ask Gibbs any questions about what he knew. Just spoke to the jury. God.  I knew this show wasn’t realistic, but this was even beyond the suspension of disbelief.

Indefinitely suspended also makes no sense to me. If it’s indefinite, just fire him then. Jeebus Cripes.

Just now, Grrarrggh said:

Who was the knitting woman in court?

One of the victims of the Ponzi scheme.

[Xeliou66]

I actually liked this episode for the most part - it was interesting to see how the 2 crimes were connected, and I thought the investigation was good and I liked seeing McGee in charge of the team and them solving the case without Gibbs for the most part. I did have a feeling the wife was going to be the killer and had made a deal with her con man husband about the money. Still I liked the case.

My one problem was the courtroom scenes - the defense attorney basically started testifying during his cross examination of Gibbs, it was absurd the prosecutor didn’t object and the judge didn’t tell him to save his speech for closing arguments. That part was poorly done.

I do wonder if Gibbs will ever come back to NCIS, I know the show’s been renewed but I wonder if Gibbs will ever be team leader again. I personally think McGee is a good team leader and deserves the position if Gibbs steps down.

I liked seeing Gibbs with his dog. Gibbs seemed to be staring intently at the paper at the end, and I saw a headline in it about an elderly woman’s murder - what was that about? Was that the woman who was in court who lost her money to the conman, or was that something else or maybe it had nothing to do with the plot? But it seems like something in the paper caught Gibbs attention. 

[immortalfrieza]

27 minutes ago, Grrarrggh said:

Third, why did the prosecutor bring such a weak case to court?!

Yes! NCIS apparently didn't even bother to find any actual evidence to tie Parker to the ponzi scheme before arresting him. There's a reason why eyewitness testimony isn't even close to enough to convict someone and it's because it's really easy for the witness to get the facts wrong, to be bribed or coerced, or in this case their credibility questioned or even just be killed. It's a lot harder to get rid of actual evidence than it is to get rid of witnesses, especially in this day and age where it can be recorded, photographed and distributed digitally to countless secure servers.

And REALLY Gibbs? I know being utterly incompetent with technology is a running gag for him but somehow he doesn't know how to push a button and turn on a wire? That technology is older than he is! How'd he even make it through basic military training if he's that hopeless with technology?

[BookWitch]

It's good to see Prince Valiant getting work again. 

[DrScottie]

I would have expected a reaction from the jury when Gibbs listed the reason for his suspension is because he assaulted a man who shot and drowned dogs. 

36 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I liked seeing Gibbs with his dog. Gibbs seemed to be staring intently at the paper at the end, and I saw a headline in it about an elderly woman’s murder - what was that about? Was that the woman who was in court who lost her money to the conman, or was that something else or maybe it had nothing to do with the plot? But it seems like something in the paper caught Gibbs attention. 

That wasn't her. I think it's something Pam Dawber's character was working on. 

[mommalib]

What I took from this episode is that McGee would make a good team leader.

[Packerbrewerbadger]

If they were all so worried about Gibbs testifying because of the defense attorney attacking his credibility, why didn’t the prosecutor bring it up when she was questioning Gibbs- put it out there in their terms before he had a chance to question him - Duh!

[Katy M]

First of all, the Ponzi scheme woman telling Gibbs it was all his fault was ridiculous.  Especially since she didn't know about the wire fail.  It's really her fault for falling for the scheme.  Yeah, I know, I'm a monster.

As everyone else has says the court room scenes were ridiculous.  I found myself yelling objection at least 3 times when it looked like nobody else was. the lawyers did more testifying than Gibbs.

i'm with Jimmy.  I gave up watching rated R movies eons ago.  I never end up liking them.  

Yes, Gibbs should have at least asked Kasie if she turned the wire on if he couldn't do it himself.  Or probably even if he could.  Or she should have told him remember to turn it on.  lack of communication.

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, Grrarrggh said:

Third, why did the prosecutor bring such a weak case to court?!

I think it was stronger before they lost the accountant.

And, I realize we didn't see any of the rest ot the trial but if it ended up hinging so heavily on Gibbs' word, I probably would have acquitted, too, without any of the dog stuff.  If all you've got is one person saying that the defendant confessed, I have reasonable doubt no matter who that person is.

[eel21788]

10 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I do wonder if Gibbs will ever come back to NCIS, I know the show’s been renewed but I wonder if Gibbs will ever be team leader again. I personally think McGee is a good team leader and deserves the position if Gibbs steps down.

In year two or three, Don Bellasario said the show would end when Gibbs sailed away on his boat. The boat he has in the basement right now is almost finished. You do the math.

[DavidWeis1]

I wonder if this episode was filmed before Harmon announced he was coming back (That was just last week, right?). I think he fully intended on leaving, and how he acted and was treated by Vance last night, I think they were heading in that direction.

[preeya]

20 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Forget objection or irrelevant. Stupid defense attorney wasn’t even cross examining. That looked like a closing argument. Didn’t even ask Gibbs any questions about what he knew. Just spoke to the jury. God.  I knew this show wasn’t realistic, but this was even beyond the suspension of disbelief.

THIS ↑.  Don't they have advisors that are versed in court room procedure. 

Night Court & My Cousin Vinny were more realistic than that farce of a cross examination.

Edited May 5, 2021 by preeya

[squidprincess]

I was frustrated because this was the perfect time for Gibbs's decisions to come bite him in the butt.  I completely understand why he beat up the guy, but I really do wish he seemed even remotely affected by the consequences.  It aggravated me to see his smug smile when he told the Ponzi dude that it wasn't over.

I suppose I'm just tired of Gibbs at this point.  If he's not going to rejoin the team, then what's the point of him being on the show at all?  If he does rejoin the team, then this entire storyline will seem like a bit of a waste of time. 

The trial was frustrating because ultimately the defense attorney did have a point.  Gibbs's actions impugned his credibility.  And he was right to focus on that.  But the execution was incompetent.  (It's kind of the same issue as in that previous episode, when the other team called Gibbs's team out on their actions.  They were right!  But the point was lost because our heroes still ended up being right.)

[Ebau]

21 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Forget objection or irrelevant. Stupid defense attorney wasn’t even cross examining. That looked like a closing argument. Didn’t even ask Gibbs any questions about what he knew. Just spoke to the jury. God.  I knew this show wasn’t realistic, but this was even beyond the suspension of disbelief.

This is exactly what I was thinking when the smarmy defense attorney was doing nothing more than taking shots at Gibbs. No judge would allow that; it had abso-fucking-lutely nothing  to do with the charges against Parsons. And it in no way would persuade a jury to find him not guilty. Of course, a guilty verdict would have spoiled the denoument, when the thieving fuck-wad got busted for soliciting murder at the end of the episode, but still...

15 hours ago, Packerbrewerbadger said:

If they were all so worried about Gibbs testifying because of the defense attorney attacking his credibility, why didn’t the prosecutor bring it up when she was questioning Gibbs- put it out there in their terms before he had a chance to question him - Duh!

That would have been the smart thing to do, and the most believable.

12 minutes ago, squidprincess said:

I suppose I'm just tired of Gibbs at this point.  If he's not going to rejoin the team, then what's the point of him being on the show at all?

It might have something to do with the $500K+ Harmon is paid per episode, probably notwithstanding the quantity or content of his dialogue. You can never have too much money, doncha know?

Cheers!

[LuvMyShows]

22 hours ago, immortalfrieza said:

And REALLY Gibbs? I know being utterly incompetent with technology is a running gag for him but somehow he doesn't know how to push a button and turn on a wire? 

And why would he have thought Kasie would have turned it on, when that would have been waaay in advance of him going there.

1 hour ago, squidprincess said:

The trial was frustrating because ultimately the defense attorney did have a point.  Gibbs's actions impugned his credibility.  

But his actions actually didn't impugn his credibility...they proved it!  Here is a man with everything to lose by telling the truth about what he did...and yet he told the truth.  He even endangered the careers of his team (even though it was their stupid decision to lie) by not lying and corroborating their false narrative.  That would have been a very easy case to make, if the defense attorney had done anything appropriate regarding Gibbs' testimony.

[squidprincess]

35 minutes ago, LuvMyShows said:

But his actions actually didn't impugn his credibility...they proved it!  Here is a man with everything to lose by telling the truth about what he did...and yet he told the truth.  He even endangered the careers of his team (even though it was their stupid decision to lie) by not lying and corroborating their false narrative.  That would have been a very easy case to make, if the defense attorney had done anything appropriate regarding Gibbs' testimony.

Credibility is about more than just not lying on the witness stand or when caught.  

Gibbs has proven that he's willing to use extrajudicial measures to punish a suspect that he believes is guilty.  He's proven that he'll let his emotions overpower logic and reason and take "justice" into his own hands.   Now we, the audience, know that there are lines that Gibbs won't cross and that he's fundamentally an honest man.  But the jury doesn't know Gibbs.  And it's not really that much of a stretch to suggest that a man who will attack a suspect in a rage might do other things if he thinks someone is getting away with a crime.  

It is absolutely appropriate for the defense attorney to bring this up.   The standard of proof for a conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt", and it's very reasonable at this point for someone who doesn't know Gibbs like the audience does, to think "maybe this is another situation where this guy decided someone was guilty and decided to do something about it."  It's POSSIBLE that the prosecutor could have mitigated the effect by pointing out Gibbs's general honesty, but that's the prosecutor's job not the defense attorney's.

Besides, when you think about it, Gibbs HAS resorted to extra-judicial measures before.  (See, for example, when he set a gang member up to be murdered by his own men when the team couldn't find enough evidence to make an arrest.)  Falsifying evidence isn't really his style, but they're not exactly wrong to doubt his ethics in general.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by squidprincess
technological incompetence on my part

[Runningwild]

I missed part of the show and also wasn’t paying real close attention- why was Vance so against Gibbs testifying? Did he say it would hurt Gibbs’ chances of getting the suspension lifted?

[CheshireCat]

Gibbs killed the murderer of his daughter and wife, has done countless other grey-area things while he's been with NCIS and gone rogue several times and the prosecution is worried about he going after someone who shoots and kills dogs? They act as if Gibbs was a poster boy who lived and breathed the rule book and has never defied an order before that. If the defense wanted to attack his credibility, I'm sure they could have found a long list of things to use against him if they had wanted to. There are also countless instances in which he did something right. He got at least one medal from NCIS and doesn't he have military honors, too? I think there's a lot that the prosecution could have used to highlight his honorable character. That's why I find this whole dog story so infuriating and ridiculous. They're letting it define Gibbs as if there's nothing else to him. 

On 5/5/2021 at 9:35 AM, eel21788 said:

In year two or three, Don Bellasario said the show would end when Gibbs sailed away on his boat. The boat he has in the basement right now is almost finished. You do the math.

Bellasario hasn't been working on the show for years. I read that he's still listed as exec producer was part of the deal the network made with him when he had to leave.
That aside, I think the boat looks very small. It looks fine to take it out for a day and go fishing but I wouldn't want to make long trips with it. (He's also finished at least one boat before. I don't remember if the Kelly is the boat that was suddenly gone and the team tried to figure out how he got out of the basement or if they're two different boats).

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, CheshireCat said:

I don't remember if the Kelly is the boat that was suddenly gone and the team tried to figure out how he got out of the basement or if they're two different boats).

It was Kelly. He gave her to Mike, and poor Kelly got destroyed when the children of Hernandez came seeking revenge, along with Col. Bell and his henchman in Mexico.

[squidprincess]

2 hours ago, CheshireCat said:

Gibbs killed the murderer of his daughter and wife, has done countless other grey-area things while he's been with NCIS and gone rogue several times and the prosecution is worried about he going after someone who shoots and kills dogs? They act as if Gibbs was a poster boy who lived and breathed the rule book and has never defied an order before that. If the defense wanted to attack his credibility, I'm sure they could have found a long list of things to use against him if they had wanted to. There are also countless instances in which he did something right. He got at least one medal from NCIS and doesn't he have military honors, too? I think there's a lot that the prosecution could have used to highlight his honorable character. That's why I find this whole dog story so infuriating and ridiculous. They're letting it define Gibbs as if there's nothing else to him. 

To be honest, I'm not sure I can think of anything the prosecution could have done to save Gibbs as a witness.

Gibbs has a very respectable career, but he'd hardly be the first person with a respectable career to be revealed to engage in corrupt behavior behind the scenes.  The jury is not made up of people who watch the show, they're people who are watching the testimony of a man who, they've just learned, has been put on indefinite leave because he took the law in his own hands.

I think if Gibbs had eaten crow, apologized, and gotten reinstated, then it might not have been so bad.  It might have been easier to convince the jury that Gibbs's lapse was a one time thing, based on the extreme circumstances of the case.  But the fact that he's still on indefinite leave makes it seem like his bosses have no faith that he won't do something like this again.  That's the defense attorney's point: if Gibbs did something extra-judicial once, whose to say he wouldn't do it multiple times?

(And as you've pointed out, he HAS done this sort of thing multiple times.  But fortunately for every case he's investigated, that doesn't appear to be common knowledge the way the dog incident is.)

Edited May 13, 2021 by squidprincess

[UnikornRainbowz]

I clapped when Gibbs told the truth and said he had no remorse. That was literally one of the most satisfying scenes in the whole series (the beatdown). It is a fictional show so I really do not care about his team covering up for him, and I wouldn't care if it was true either, HERO. 

 

This episode? Besides the No Remorse, boring.

[Ceindreadh]

On 5/13/2021 at 2:51 PM, squidprincess said:

To be honest, I'm not sure I can think of anything the prosecution could have done to save Gibbs as a witness.

To borrow a quote, Gibbs shouldn't be a witness at a wedding.

I almost wanted to throw something at the screen when he was sitting there in the courtroom at the end with the smug grin on his face.