S22.E15: What Can Happen In The Dark

[WendyCR72]

And believe it or not, this is not the last episode of the season, but the penultimate episode. Listings have it going through the first week of June. Airing May 27, 2021:

Quote

Garland asks Benson to investigate an unusual domestic violence case when his neighbor is found injured.

 

[dttruman]

After watching the first 10 minutes, I have no idea what to expect from this episode, only that something happen to Mr Richards. Well we're half way through the episode and nothing really confirmed yet, except they we know for sure that Mr Richards has a drinking problem.

Edited May 28, 2021 by dttruman

[SunnyBeBe]

The male victim is being played by a former actor from Mad Men.  

[TM101]

That was the best plot they can think of for a Season Finale?

Edit: my mistake not finale

Edited May 28, 2021 by TM101

[dttruman]

15 minutes ago, TM101 said:

That was the best plot they can think of for a Season Finale?

How convenient that they would have a mass conspiracy for a season finale. How many times will that be now?

[Xeliou66]

This was for the most part a really good episode - I was glad SVU tackled this subject matter, female on male domestic abuse happens, and I think this is the first time SVU took on this subject matter, and they handled it pretty well. I was unsure if SVU would ever have another female abuser/villain, and I’m glad they did.

The case played out well, I found it very believable how the victim didn’t want anyone to know what was happening to him, and it was a nice mix of investigation and courtroom scenes. 

Most of the characters had good roles - it was nice that Garland finally got something to do and had a leading role, he was good in this one.

Carisi was really good and was pretty much the star of the episode, it’s nice when he gets to show off his prosecutorial skills and he’s come into his own in the ADA role this season, and the courtroom scenes were above average for modern day SVU, I always like when they go into court and Carisi did a good job. I liked seeing some fire from Carisi with Garland after Andy showed up drunk. Nice to see Judge Blake again, she’s been a mainstay for a long time. And the defense attorney was good as well.

Part of me was hoping the case would go to verdict, but I found the plea bargain more believable, juries are unpredictable and it was unlikely she would get jail time, so it was probably best to end the case ensuring she went on the registry and would never have custody of her son. And most cases do end in plea bargains.

The one thing I disliked was the victim telling her she could still see her son, that bitch didn’t belong anywhere near her kid, at least Andy said she would never be in his life, I didn’t buy her remorse act.

Rollins was irritating once again, attacking Carisi just because Carisi was following the law instead of having people arrested on no evidence. I laughed when Carisi said that’s what Kat usually did. I did like how Kat acknowledged she was wrong and Benson said she herself had been wrong before, it’s rare for either character or the show to ever acknowledge them being wrong. Fin was his usual awesome self throughout. 

Nice to get a reference to the prior case where Carisi’s brother in law was raped by his parole officer, another example of how SVU has done better with continuity this season.

Overall this episode was a good one - they tackled a subject matter that isn’t talked about much and is different from their usual material, the courtroom scenes were above average, each character had a decent role and there were no major flaws. SVU has gotten back on track in their last 2 episodes, let’s hope they finish the season with a solid episode next week. 

[Zoe]

39 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

The male victim is being played by a former actor from Mad Men.  

He was also recycled--played one of the rapists in "Branded".

Edited May 28, 2021 by Zoe

[txhorns79]

It's good to see we've just barely inched ahead way back from that episode 20 years ago where Stabler wasn't entirely convinced that a man could be raped by a woman.

I didn't love that the case was essentially won because the defendant is so dumb as to text threats to her husband while he is testifying.  Otherwise, decent-ish episode.     

[dttruman]

7 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Most of the characters had good roles - it was nice that Garland finally got something to do and had a leading role, he was good in this one.

Carisi was really good and was pretty much the star of the episode, it’s nice when he gets to show off his prosecutorial skills and he’s come into his own in the ADA role this season, and the courtroom scenes were above average for modern day SVU, I always like when they go into court and Carisi did a good job. I liked seeing some fire from Carisi with Garland after Andy showed up drunk. Nice to see Judge Blake again, she’s been a mainstay for a long time. And the defense attorney was good as well.

I thought they covered it well but there were a couple of questionable moments that pushed the plot in an arbitrary direction (probably for expeditious reasons). They used the old standby when they had Benson testifying instead of a social worker or shrink. When Mr Richards initially testifies he is rock solid (even after having taken some pills with alcohol and then coffee), but when he steps down from the stand he stumbles and suddenly becomes noticeably drunk with slurred speech. A recess is called and when they go back into court, he seems to be rock solid again and brings up the convenient threatening text messages she just sent him. 

I am an avid SVU viewer, but I can't remember there ever being a plea bargain for a female victim and a male defendant after the trial. If there is a guilty verdict, the victim gets justice. If there is a not guilty verdict, everyone thinks the system needs to be changed and the victim gets the overwhelming sympathy, leading to a clear resolution. The plea bargain here, makes it seem like she will give in now, but try and manipulate him later.

 

[Xeliou66]

3 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I thought they covered it well but there were a couple of questionable moments that pushed the plot in an arbitrary direction (probably for expeditious reasons). They used the old standby when they had Benson testifying instead of a social worker or shrink. When Mr Richards initially testifies he is rock solid (even after having taken some pills with alcohol and then coffee), but when he steps down from the stand he stumbles and suddenly becomes noticeably drunk with slurred speech. A recess is called and when they go back into court, he seems to be rock solid again and brings up the convenient threatening text messages she just sent him. 

I am an avid SVU viewer, but I can't remember there ever being a plea bargain for a female victim and a male defendant after the trial. If there is a guilty verdict, the victim gets justice. If there is a not guilty verdict, everyone thinks the system needs to be changed and the victim gets the overwhelming sympathy, leading to a clear resolution. The plea bargain here, makes it seem like she will give in now, but try and manipulate him later.

 

There have been plenty of cases with male perps/female victims that ended in plea bargains on this show. 

[dttruman]

47 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I did like how Kat acknowledged she was wrong and Benson said she herself had been wrong before, it’s rare for either character or the show to ever acknowledge them being wrong. Fin was his usual awesome self throughout. 

They are becoming like politicians. They admit when they were wrong or accept the responsibility, but for some reason they never suffer the consequences

[dttruman]

13 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

There have been plenty of cases with male perps/female victims that ended in plea bargains on this show. 

Not in the courtroom, right before a verdict is rendered and the defendant doesn't testify. That's when the defendant says something stupid testifying or new evidence is suddenly found and the detectives sum up the case when Carisi says the defendant pleads out.

Edited May 28, 2021 by dttruman

[The Wild Sow]

2 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

The male victim is being played by a former actor from Mad Men.  

 

1 hour ago, Zoe said:

He was also recycled--played one of the rapists in "Branded".

I came here to say the same thing.

When I saw him on the preview, I wondered if he’d be Bill Dixon or a different character. Bill’s probably out of prison by now (he was convicted of perjury, not the rape itself.)

Edited May 28, 2021 by The Wild Sow

[SunnyBeBe]

I know Jon Hamm does mostly movies right now, but I’d like to see him back on a series....maybe, a L&O franchise.  What about Law & Order in the Attorney General’s Office? 🤣

 

Edited May 28, 2021 by SunnyBeBe

[WendyCR72]

5 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I know Jon Hamm does mostly movies right now, but I’d like to see him back on a series....maybe, a L&O franchise.  What about Law & Order in the Attorney General’s Office? 🤣

 

You are aware another series, Law & Order: For The Defense, will be airing on Thursdays this fall with the other two L&O shows, right?

[SunnyBeBe]

36 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

You are aware another series, Law & Order: For The Defense, will be airing on Thursdays this fall with the other two L&O shows, right?

Alrighty!  I’ll have to check it out.  I guess no Hamm though.  Lol

[MerBearHou]

I hear all of the concerns about the episode, but this story really got to me.  My heart broke for Mr. Richards in all sorts of respects.  

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I know Jon Hamm does mostly movies right now, but I’d like to see him back on a series....maybe, a L&O franchise.  What about Law & Order in the Attorney General’s Office?

The last time I saw Jon Hamm on tv was when he played an incompetent assistant to Leslie Knope on Parks & Rec

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I know Jon Hamm does mostly movies right now, but I’d like to see him back on a series....maybe, a L&O franchise.  What about Law & Order in the Attorney General’s Office? 🤣

 

How about Law & Order: Whatever Else Is Left

[Gigi43]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

The last time I saw Jon Hamm on tv was when he played an incompetent assistant to Leslie Knope on Parks & Rec

 

Last time I saw Jon Hamm was in last seasons Curb Your Enthusiasm, he was trying to act like Larry David and was really funny. 

 

Anyway...

 

Rollin's shouldn't have approached the wife and I'm surprised that wasn't a bigger deal. Garland probably shouldn't have Charlie at his house but it seems Charlie's parents were okay with that, so whatever. 

 

I can't believe they went with a female perp like this, I thought those days were done. I loved Carisi pointing out  usually Kat gives him grief. I didn't like that Finn was acting like he hadn't seen men get raped by women before. I did like Benson was not bending over backwards to try to make the husband somehow at fault.

 

The wife shouldn't be near the son again but at least she's going on registry.

 

I liked the episode because it gets a lot of points from me for not having the woman the victim. Two good episodes I'd watch again on a USA marathon, back to back. 

[dttruman]

6 hours ago, dttruman said:

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

There have been plenty of cases with male perps/female victims that ended in plea bargains on this show. 

Not in the courtroom, right before a verdict is rendered and the defendant doesn't testify. That's when the defendant says something stupid testifying or new evidence is suddenly found and the detectives sum up the case when Carisi says the defendant pleads out.

Edited 5 hours ago by dttruman

Sorry, if I had a hard-ass tone there.

[dttruman]

5 minutes ago, Gigi43 said:

I can't believe they went with a female perp like this, I thought those days were done. I loved Carisi pointing out  usually Kat gives him grief. I didn't like that Finn was acting like he hadn't seen men get raped by women before. I did like Benson was not bending over backwards to try to make the husband somehow at fault.

The writers have referenced a crime from a previous episode again so Carisi could understand Mr Richards situation. I don't know why they couldn't do the same for Finn to have the same kind of understanding, after all he was part of that case (or episode) where 3 women raped a male stripper episode.

[Devonte Huntley]

They need to do more female-on-male cases because it's not always about women and they are victimized way too much. The unit might as well be SPECIAL WOMENS UNIT because it's certainly not showing a proper balance to the male side of things. 

[Zoe]

8 hours ago, dttruman said:

Not in the courtroom, right before a verdict is rendered and the defendant doesn't testify. That's when the defendant says something stupid testifying or new evidence is suddenly found and the detectives sum up the case when Carisi says the defendant pleads out.

It wasn't right before the verdict. The plea came after the prosecution resting and before the defense started to present their case. 

 

The defense was Beecher. Another perp recycled lol

[txhorns79]

12 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

The male victim is being played by a former actor from Mad Men.  

If you are a fan of Mad Men, the casting was even more on the nose than you might realize.  The actress playing the abusive wife also played the Hare Krishna member (Mother Lakshmi) who tried to prevent Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) from leaving that group during his last appearance on the show in the fifth season. 

[SunnyBeBe]

21 minutes ago, txhorns79 said:

If you are a fan of Mad Men, the casting was even more on the nose than you might realize.  The actress playing the abusive wife also played the Hare Krishna member (Mother Lakshmi) who tried to prevent Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) from leaving that group during his last appearance on the show in the fifth season. 

Good catch! 

[Cristofle]

5 hours ago, Gigi43 said:

The wife shouldn't be near the son again but at least she's going on registry.

This was my main thought at the end. That woman should never be allowed near her child, or any child, again. I can't see what good could come to her son from being more exposed to her. 

I LOLed about Carisi saying normally Kat is the one disagreeing with him. But I suppose it was her turn to be the one who has a hard time seeing the big male husband as the victim rather than the perpetrator, and she owned up to that gap in the end. Finn, however, should have known better after all this time.

[853fisher]

13 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I know Jon Hamm does mostly movies right now, but I’d like to see him back on a series....maybe, a L&O franchise.  What about Law & Order in the Attorney General’s Office?

I lost interest in Hamm when it came out that he was involved in a serious hazing incident in college.  A pledge displeased Hamm by not having memorized details about the older brothers.  Hamm set his clothing on fire, dragged him around by the testicles with a claw hammer, and beat him so severely that it fractured his spine and almost caused him to lose a kidney.  When a tabloid found the old records, Hamm took no responsibility, calling the situation "a fucking bummer" and describing himself as "essentially acquitted": in fact, he pled guilty, because of course he was.  I've stayed involved with my fraternity since college and I despise men who use brotherhood as an excuse for this kind of behavior.  Now, 30 years on, he still can't take responsibility.  I certainly don't think someone with his past belongs on this show and I hope he doesn't end up on any of my others.  I can barely stand to look at him.

Edited May 28, 2021 by 853fisher

[Pj3422]

They’ve got to stop with the dramatic music swells just before the commercial breaks. Yeah, I’m being petty, but it bugs. 

[melon]

I feel like I'm the contrarian here, but these are my honest thoughts of the episode:

Pros: There finally was a male protagonist and a female antagonist.  Benson was finally sympathetic to a male.  These are two items that should occur more often to make the series less predictable. 

Cons:

1. When a husband and wife want to be left alone and not file charges against each other, the cops should respect their wishes.  It's a slippery slope when the law wants to force themselves in between married BDSD couples in the bedroom. Get a safe word and call it a day.  I don't like it when Benson strong arms a female victim to press charges and get a rape kit; I don't like it when the male gets his arm twisted to basically end his marriage and turn his kid's life upside down.  Especially on such a flimsy case.

2.  Speaking of a flimsy case, I didn't like that the jury didn't get to render a decision.  I'm convinced that there would have been an acquittal or hung jury.  FWIW, if I was on the jury, it would have been an easy decision to acquit, especially after looking at the size difference and his train wreck of a testimony.  At the end of the day, who actually won here- not the wife, kid, or hubby, IMO.

3.  Aren't there any other cases for the squad to work on?  They spent so much time looking for a crime, especially when husband/wife refused to press charges.  It was as if there's wasn't any other SVU related crimes in Manhattan to investigate. I recall in the past when the captains would complain that there aren't more SVU detectives to handle the workload.

[MerBearHou]

31 minutes ago, melon said:

1. When a husband and wife want to be left alone and not file charges against each other, the cops should respect their wishes.  It's a slippery slope when the law wants to force themselves in between married BDSD couples in the bedroom. Get a safe word and call it a day.  I don't like it when Benson strong arms a female victim to press charges and get a rape kit; I don't like it when the male gets his arm twisted to basically end his marriage and turn his kid's life upside down.  Especially on such a flimsy case.

It just seemed like it was non-consensual by the husband and the squad could sense that he was frequently being injured by his wife.  It was not going to end well for the husband.  

[Ohiopirate02]

4 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

If you are a fan of Mad Men, the casting was even more on the nose than you might realize.  The actress playing the abusive wife also played the Hare Krishna member (Mother Lakshmi) who tried to prevent Paul Kinsey (Michael Gladis) from leaving that group during his last appearance on the show in the fifth season. 

The actress looked familiar, but I could not place her, thanks.  I spent most of the episode thinking that yes Paul Kinsey is the kind of man who would end up in an abusive relationship.  In my head the character was Paul in the 21st century.  

[linger]

2 hours ago, melon said:

I feel like I'm the contrarian here, but these are my honest thoughts of the episode:

Pros: There finally was a male protagonist and a female antagonist.  Benson was finally sympathetic to a male.  These are two items that should occur more often to make the series less predictable. 

Cons:

1. When a husband and wife want to be left alone and not file charges against each other, the cops should respect their wishes.  It's a slippery slope when the law wants to force themselves in between married BDSD couples in the bedroom. Get a safe word and call it a day.  I don't like it when Benson strong arms a female victim to press charges and get a rape kit; I don't like it when the male gets his arm twisted to basically end his marriage and turn his kid's life upside down.  Especially on such a flimsy case.

2.  Speaking of a flimsy case, I didn't like that the jury didn't get to render a decision.  I'm convinced that there would have been an acquittal or hung jury.  FWIW, if I was on the jury, it would have been an easy decision to acquit, especially after looking at the size difference and his train wreck of a testimony.  At the end of the day, who actually won here- not the wife, kid, or hubby, IMO.

3.  Aren't there any other cases for the squad to work on?  They spent so much time looking for a crime, especially when husband/wife refused to press charges.  It was as if there's wasn't any other SVU related crimes in Manhattan to investigate. I recall in the past when the captains would complain that there aren't more SVU detectives to handle the workload.

1 - I believe it is now typical that the state files charges in domestic abuse cases, because often times the person being abused would be too afraid to pursue charges. As far as a safe word, he said “No.” Does that count?

2 - I’m pretty sure the husband & son won here. Living in that home with a mother who yelled, screamed, threw things including coffee pots, hit your father with beer bottles, etc is traumatic for a child. Oh wait, she also cut herself with a knife so she could falsely accuse his father. It’s difficult to make the case that living in that home with both his parents is what is best for that child. And the same argument could be made for the husband. He certainly didn’t look sad when he told her they wouldn’t be getting back together. That woman was dangerous. Size difference? Does that go along with “Why didn’t you just get up & leave?” If so, talk about a slippery slope.

3 - I agree that in the real world, pursuing this case so aggressively is very unlikely, especially considering the other cases that would be coming down.

[dttruman]

3 hours ago, melon said:

1. When a husband and wife want to be left alone and not file charges against each other, the cops should respect their wishes.  It's a slippery slope when the law wants to force themselves in between married BDSD couples in the bedroom. Get a safe word and call it a day.  I don't like it when Benson strong arms a female victim to press charges and get a rape kit; I don't like it when the male gets his arm twisted to basically end his marriage and turn his kid's life upside down.  Especially on such a flimsy case.

2.  Speaking of a flimsy case, I didn't like that the jury didn't get to render a decision.  I'm convinced that there would have been an acquittal or hung jury.  FWIW, if I was on the jury, it would have been an easy decision to acquit, especially after looking at the size difference and his train wreck of a testimony.  At the end of the day, who actually won here- not the wife, kid, or hubby, IMO.

The one thing that the jury has to take into consideration when trying to determine guilty in a case like this when the female is victimizing the male physically, especially when the male is bigger and stronger than the female here. Why does he let her do that to him?

IMO, it's going to be very difficult when determining guilt and the severity of the punishment.

Edited May 28, 2021 by dttruman

[linger]

To the “He was bigger, why didn’t he just leave the room” argument:

1. He testified that he was initially unconscious and came to when she was already assaulting him. And yes, anally penetrating an unconscious person is assault. It could have been left purely at that & been considered a crime,

2. But let’s say he was drunk, but had the cognitive wherewithal to leave. The man has experienced years of emotional, and with the throwing of things, hitting with beer bottles, at times physical abuse. He was clearly very afraid of this woman. It is not unusual, especially in abuse situations, for the victim to behave in this way. And also, he probably could have walked out of the room relatively unscathed. But what about later? There for sure would be retaliation.

3. in times of threat, humans do one of three things: fight, flight, or freeze. He froze. That doesn’t make him any less the victim, just because he’s a large man.

[dttruman]

3 minutes ago, linger said:

3. in times of threat, humans do one of three things: fight, flight, or freeze. He froze. That doesn’t make him any less the victim, just because he’s a large man.

 

You're talking about actual actions and I am talking about perception by the jury. He chose to stay there, just like when a battered wife faces that dilemma. It's more understandable why a battered wife stays then it is for a battered husband who is bigger and stronger than the wife.

As for the husband passing out, I can see that happening on occasions, but not all the time. He can invoke what small statured women use on their much bigger and stronger boyfriends or husbands. Just say "Not tonight, I have a headache"

[tennisgurl]

I was very curious about this episode, its rare for the show to have male victims anymore, let alone female perps of domestic and sexual violence, so I am glad that it turned out really well. I wish that some parts of it were smoother, but the case in general was very engaging, with good performances by the guest stars, no ridiculous twists, the whole cast got a lot to do and no one was really annoying. Plus it had a lot of Garland in it, which is always a plus. Demore Barnes just gives him so much quiet strength but also a lot of empathy. Like in the episode with his pastor, you could tell that he was trying to stay professional in this case despite him being emotionally involved, and admitting when he was letting his feelings affect his judgement. I also liked seeing more of his family and home life, its nice to have a character who has a nice normal family without any long lost relatives or scammer sisters or angsty teens who show up to annoy the audience a few times a season. 

The case itself was, like I should, quite compelling and I really like that they had a male victim and female perpetrator, especially after several seasons of that very rarely happening. Sexual assault and abuse towards men are very real issues and very much happen, but it is so rarely talked about in media or in the general conversations about sexual assault and domestic abuse, and that just makes it harder for male victims to come forward, as its seen as a "women's issue" only, so I am really glad that they called attention to it and how assault and abuse is assault and abuse, regardless of gender. Its one of those times when the speeches are actually needed to call attention to an underexplored topic, and even the speeches, compared to a lot of this shows "this is the point damn it" speeches weren't too bad. They sounded like actual conversations, not buzzwords that the writers saw on Twitter the night before, probably because, again, not a topic that gets a lot of discussion. A lot of them sort of had to be asked, like why he didn't just push his wife off of him or everyone assuming that the wife had to be the victim just because that's what society tells us a domestic abuse victim should look like. I felt so bad for Andy, he just seemed so miserable in every scene he was in, I mostly know the actor from Mad Men but he's been in a lot of different things and he was really good here, showing how even someone physically bigger can be abused and dominated by a physically smaller person through years of emotional and physical abuse and intimidation. I am less familiar with the actress playing the wife but she was really good too, she did a great job at seeming to be just an intense but normal person to seriously scary, that look she gave Andy when he was talking about how she became a different person when she was mad was chilling. Even the kid playing Charlie was good, I hope that he spends as little time with his awful mother as possible. I don't buy her remorseful act at all, she was upset that she got caught not that she was an abuser, and I don't think she should be around Charlie at all, but at least Andy wont be around her and we can hope that her interactions with Charlie will be limited to supervised short visits and Zoom calls. I don't think Charlie will even want to be around her if he doesn't have to, even when she was stabbed in the neck he was only worried about his dad. 

I do wish that the investigation had been a bit tighter, there were some scenes that felt weird, like Rollins dressing up to talk to the wife at her gallery, which felt legally questionable, as did Charlie staying with Garland and giving him information that implicated his mother. That one is probably more understandable, as Charlie knows them and no one mentioned other relatives in the area, but you would think the defense could have used that against them. I also wish that they had come up with a better way to convict her without the convenient evil text threatening, but I guess that was what Carisi was banking on, her showing her real colors for the jury. It was a bit like the case with the stalker who raped the camgirl, they had to get a seemingly sympathetic defendant to show that they were only wearing a mask of being a decent person by pushing their buttons and getting them to break. 

Carisi had a good episode, it has been fun seeing him really come into his own in the courtroom even when he has to engage in TV court shenanigans. I thought the exchange about how normally its Kat who is call up in his grill was hilarious, then when Kat said he agreed with her he was like "whoa whoa I believe that men can be raped by women, I just need evidence to do lawyer stuff, I don't need to learn the lesson this week Kat" and even brought up the case with his brother in law from several seasons ago, which is I think the last time the show had a male victim and female rapist. Did the show get a new continuity person? They keep actually bringing up old characters and cases at relevant times, its weird and awesome. Everyone was actually pretty solid this week, Benson had lot of the speeches about believing victims regardless of gender and she actually pulled them off pretty well, Finn had a lot of great reactions as always, Rollins didn't get any weird domestic abuse blaming bits and was pretty helpful and professional, all leaving Kat as the one who has to be close minded and has to learn a lesson. That actually makes total sense, as Stabler was I think the person who had to learn this lesson about male rape victims way back in the day during one of the first episodes involving a male victim and female rapists, and Kat is very early Stabler like, just from the other side of the political spectrum. I wish we could have had a bit more of her realizing that she was wrong, but she did admit it and apologized by the end, although we will wait and see if that lesson actually sticks. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by tennisgurl

[melon]

1 hour ago, linger said:

3. in times of threat, humans do one of three things: fight, flight, or freeze. He froze. That doesn’t make him any less the victim, just because he’s a large man.

I think it just takes one in the jury to think that he is less of a victim because he is a large man.  I would be that one juror if I was selected for jury duty, and I bought into the defense of why didn't he just leave the room.  That's one of the reasons why I wanted to see how the jury would decide the case and wasn't happy with the plea.

[marceline]

I actually found this one of the best of the season.

• The case was engaging. It was a decent mystery at the beginning. 
• We got to learn a little more about Garland. 
• The SVU team was competent.
• Olivia was less overbearing than usual and I really felt for the victim and I was glad he got justice.
• Also, no mention of Stabler. 

Thumbs up.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by marceline

[wknt3]

A little late as the local affiliate had transmission issues of some sort so I had to catch it on Peacock.

The Good:
The case as a whole. It was something a little bit different and they did a good job of executing that concept. Skilled detectives investigating sexually based offenses. Interesting idea for the series. I could see it working out for them.
Carisi. They used him really well this week. Both during the investigation and in the surprisingly extensive and well done legal side of the show. Two weeks in a row of using the court case to explore the philosophical, social and cultural issues at play in a case? Interesting direction for the series. I could really see it working. How come nobody's done this sort of thing before?
Garland, It was good to see him getting some solid material this week with something to do without becoming just another cop.
Good use of the entire squad - perhaps I missed something, but it seemed like everyone actually had varying perspectives that were true to character without making anyone an asshole just for the sake of having another POV. I mean Rollins was a bit ridiculous, but as I said they stayed true to character.
The writing. It was nice to see them remembering how to do exposition and explore issues without beating us over the head with it. And some nice little bit of continuity too!
The promo for next week looks good or at least interesting,

The Bad:
The over stylized teaser. I'm so tired of these C+ senior film class projects. At least it wasn't a musical montage.
Replacing unnecessary Stabler mentions with unnecessary Benson praise. She is the only one ER experts ask for. She is the one that knows more than the chief. She is our Lord and Savior... They actually showed her as being a great cop and a good leader who had a lot of expertise and experience. You don't need to tell us.
The OTT sound mixing on the music cues.

Overall this was a very good episode. Well done, Hopefully the finale will keep the same level of quality and add some special moments, And next season will build on the progress they have made.

Edited May 30, 2021 by wknt3
putting back the lines the site/computer/internet ate

[linger]

4 hours ago, melon said:

I think it just takes one in the jury to think that he is less of a victim because he is a large man.  I would be that one juror if I was selected for jury duty, and I bought into the defense of why didn't he just leave the room.  That's one of the reasons why I wanted to see how the jury would decide the case and wasn't happy with the plea.

Victim blaming is the reason so many rape & abuse victims don’t go to the police.

[CrystalBlue]

The Richards marriage was not an organized BDSM relationship.  Andy was an emotionally and physically abused man; a victim of domestic violence despite his larger size or gender.  Diana was a witch who pulled all sorts of crap on her husband, probably banking on him to keep quiet out of shame and embarrassment.

I was so confused in the beginning of what was going on.  At first I thought Diana had drugged her husband's secret booze stash which caused him to pass out!  The case started out as a good mystery and when I finally got it the episode continued as one of the best this season, with the change of the usual perp being interesting and eye-opening.

Jon Hamm wasn't listed as a cast member so I'm confused about the mentions of him in this thread.

[MarylandGirl]

I thought this was a good episode, for many reasons already mentioned. But I'm confused about the texting thing. I thought people weren't allowed to have phones in courthouses? Or has that changed? (It's been years since I've been in a courthouse, but I had to go in alone to get our marriage license because my husband had his phone on him, and it was a long walk back to the car (in a major city). So he sat on the courthouse steps while I went in and got the license. And this was 13 years ago, so his phone didn't do nearly what phones can do now.

But mainly, I question her stupidity in texting him during the trial, as then he had concrete evidence he could show. It felt like a copout of sorts to me. It might have been better/more believable if, say, she said a certain word or phrase that only had meaning to him (or put it in a text). Or how he said her eyes would go dark, which is how he knew she was mad at him. I would think, with his being an abuse victim, that just a look from her would be enough. I'm just thinking of cases on here or original L&O with witness intimidation where the perp would be staring down the accuser or witness on the stand, and the witness would suddenly not remember what happened.

[SunnyBeBe]

Most courtrooms require you to put your phone on silent or turn it off.  I’ve been to one courthouse that allows attorneys to have them, but forbids others from bringing them inside the courthouse. 

[melon]

The texting aspect didn't fit into the plot because it's not real life.  She had the acquittal in the bag, IMO, before sending the texts at the worst possible moment.   It's similar to when perps spill their guts and confess to crimes when the squad has nothing to convict them on. 

But it allows the episode to wrapped up into a neat 1 hour package.  I'm hard to please because I don't  like the season long storyline with the OC series, but I also don't like unrealistic convictions quickly obtained without evidence either.

 

[MarylandGirl]

2 minutes ago, melon said:

The texting aspect didn't fit into the plot because it's not real life.  She had the acquittal in the bag, IMO, before sending the texts at the worst possible moment.   It's similar to when perps spill their guts and confess to crimes when the squad has nothing to convict them on. 

But it allows the episode to wrapped up into a neat 1 hour package.  I'm hard to please because I don't  like the season long storyline with the OC series, but I also don't like unrealistic convictions quickly obtained without evidence either.

 

Also, she had just sent him that text, right, while he was testifying? Shouldn't her attorney have been paying attention and been like, "Hey, what are you doing?" It seems like she should have her phone away and be focusing on the trial.

I agree that it can be annoying when they spill their guts at the last minute. But I could see myself doing that, as I'm someone who tends to have a guilty conscience (confessing, not sending threatening texts!).

[dttruman]

32 minutes ago, melon said:

  It's similar to when perps spill their guts and confess to crimes when the squad has nothing to convict them on. 

That is called the "Perry Mason" affect. It's what happens at the end of every Perry Mason episode.

[illdoc]

49 minutes ago, dttruman said:

That is called the "Perry Mason" affect. It's what happens at the end of every Perry Mason episode.

We have yelled at the screen "keep your mouth shut! they've got nothing" to the witnesses, but they never listen :)

[SunnyBeBe]

2 hours ago, illdoc said:

We have yelled at the screen "keep your mouth shut! they've got nothing" to the witnesses, but they never listen :)

True.  People have the right to remain silent, but often not the ability.  Lol

[dttruman]

On 5/29/2021 at 4:29 PM, SunnyBeBe said:

On 5/29/2021 at 2:19 PM, illdoc said:

We have yelled at the screen "keep your mouth shut! they've got nothing" to the witnesses, but they never listen :)

True.  People have the right to remain silent, but often not the ability.  Lol

Has Saturday Night Live ever done a parody of a live police interrogation where the cops ask a suspect a question and the perp says "I want to talk to a lawyer" and then the narrator says "Join us next week for another exciting questioning"?

Edited May 31, 2021 by dttruman