Season 15: Buh-Bye Rohmbot

[WendyCR72]

2 hours ago, illdoc said:

Actually, I always thought he started drinking because of the bad interaction with his daughter after all that time apart (having her think that the divorce was his fault because he was protecting the wife, the daughter still hating him for leaving, etc.).

That makes much more sense, although I'm not sure that's it since everyone else acting like morons was directly tied to the most horrible execution event all had ever witnessed. /s

But yeah, at least the motivation you point out makes actual sense. If Lennie had to fall off the wagon at all (and I'm not convinced he had to!), a much better time would have been after seeing his murdered daughter.

I always thought it ridiculous that he could start drinking because of a criminal stranger's execution and yet he held on to his sobriety when his child was murdered. That defied reality.

[Xeliou66]

4 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

That makes much more sense, although I'm not sure that's it since everyone else acting like morons was directly tied to the most horrible execution event all had ever witnessed. /s

But yeah, at least the motivation you point out makes actual sense. If Lennie had to fall off the wagon at all (and I'm not convinced he had to!), a much better time would have been after seeing his murdered daughter.

I always thought it ridiculous that he could start drinking because of a criminal stranger's execution and yet he held on to his sobriety when his child was murdered. That defied reality.

And even in season 6 Lennie had seen far worse than some scumbag killer’s execution - in the episode right before Aftershock, him and Curtis investigated a poisoned baby, and earlier in the season they dealt with the subway bombing in the episode Charm City and the serial killer case in Trophy, those come to mind as some disturbing cases Lennie worked on in season 6 and he didn’t come close to drinking during those, but suddenly he falls off the wagon after seeing a killer executed? That was so stupid.

[andromeda331]

That would make the most sense. Losing a child isn't easy, they had a difficult relationship and Lennie had supported her testifying against her drug dealer. I just can't see him falling off the wagon for any other reason.

[GHScorpiosRule]

What I hated was we never got to see Lennie's other daughter. He had two.

[Xeliou66]

Gunplay was just on, it’s one of the best season 15 episodes - good first half with the hunt for the perps who killed the 2 undercover detectives, and it was interesting seeing Green go undercover in the operation to nab the perps - it was a bit different and more intense than usual. It was a good twist that the lawyer was exposing the identities of undercover officers because of his anger - I thought he was about to hit the female cop during his cross of her at trial, he was enraged. The security guard who took the pictures of undercover cops for the lawyer for $500 was epically stupid, what did he think would happen? I loved Fontana calling him a “big dummy”. I also thought it was funny when they were talking about the website and Serena said to Branch “everybody serves the web, Arthur, everybody but you”. It’s a stellar episode in an uneven season.

Cut is on now - decent episode but very low key, especially compared to Gunplay, it was just a manslaughter/negligence case, still a decent one, there are plenty of cases like that. It was very coincidental that Fontana knew the family of the doctor’s assistant, that felt contrived. I did like the scene between McCoy/Fontana in the courthouse hall, that was the first time we saw them interact onscreen. It was interesting that Arthur was more intent on prosecuting the doctor for negligence while Jack wasn’t as eager. I liked Arthur’s passion when he emphatically stated that the office wouldn’t tolerate the doctor’s negligence. 

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Gunplay was just on, it’s one of the best season 15 episodes - good first half with the hunt for the perps who killed the 2 undercover detectives, and it was interesting seeing Green go undercover in the operation to nab the perps - it was a bit different and more intense than usual. It was a good twist that the lawyer was exposing the identities of undercover officers because of his anger - I thought he was about to hit the female cop during his cross of her at trial, he was enraged. The security guard who took the pictures of undercover cops for the lawyer for $500 was epically stupid, what did he think would happen? I loved Fontana calling him a “big dummy”. I also thought it was funny when they were talking about the website and Serena said to Branch “everybody serves the web, Arthur, everybody but you”. It’s a stellar episode in an uneven season.

It was a good episode. I was really worried about Green when the SUV drove away with him. The lawyer was an idiot for getting the two officers killed because he blamed them for his stepson's death even though they had video that it clearly wasn't and even the accomplice agreed. But it's not uncommon for a parent or step parent to think that. I like that he tried to go after the woman undercover officer on the stand but she didn't budget. Definitely not a fan of reveal the identities of undercover cops being revealed. That's dangerous.

Quote

Cut is on now - decent episode but very low key, especially compared to Gunplay, it was just a manslaughter/negligence case, still a decent one, there are plenty of cases like that. It was very coincidental that Fontana knew the family of the doctor’s assistant, that felt contrived. I did like the scene between McCoy/Fontana in the courthouse hall, that was the first time we saw them interact onscreen. It was interesting that Arthur was more intent on prosecuting the doctor for negligence while Jack wasn’t as eager. I liked Arthur’s passion when he emphatically stated that the office wouldn’t tolerate the doctor’s negligence. 

Yeah it was really unlike Jack to not be the first to go after the doctor. He usually is and it's usually Adam or Arthur who are the ones that hesitate. 

 

 

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

It was a good episode. I was really worried about Green when the SUV drove away with him. The lawyer was an idiot for getting the two officers killed because he blamed them for his stepson's death even though they had video that it clearly wasn't and even the accomplice agreed. But it's not uncommon for a parent or step parent to think that. I like that he tried to go after the woman undercover officer on the stand but she didn't budget. Definitely not a fan of reveal the identities of undercover cops being revealed. That's dangerous.

Yeah it was really unlike Jack to not be the first to go after the doctor. He usually is and it's usually Adam or Arthur who are the ones that hesitate. 

 

 

Yeah Gunplay was an intense episode, I liked seeing how Green was determined to apprehend the perps, and then it was an interesting twist that their identities had been exposed. The lawyer was filled with hate, I think he was in denial about his son’s death and wanted someone to blame, and I liked how the undercover cop didn’t back down when he was yelling at her. The security guard was so stupid, what did he think the lawyer was doing with the photos of undercover cops, and he was willing to risk their safety for $500. And then acted surprised that he was going to face consequences. What a moron.

In Cut it was an interesting role reversal that Arthur was the one pushing to nail the doctor while Jack was more hesitant - I liked seeing Arthur forcefully saying his office wouldn’t tolerate what the doctor was doing. I know Arthur is kind of polarizing but he certainly had a commanding presence and wasn’t afraid to exercise his authority. 

[WendyCR72]

I admit, Alex Borgia didn't bother me as much as she did others (that dubious honor goes to Serena Southerlyn and Paul Robinette V2.0 [loved 1.0, to be clear!]), but man, she is trying my last nerve while watching "In God We Trust" now on Sundance.

So, because the perp didn't mean to kill the firefighter and hasn't killed since, his finding religion should wipe the slate clean? No.

And his lawyer basically outright stating just that earns her a "shut up!", too.

Been ages since I watched this one, and all this is reminding me why.

[Xeliou66]

10 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I admit, Alex Borgia didn't bother me as much as she did others (that dubious honor goes to Serena Southerlyn and Paul Robinette V2.0 [loved 1.0, to be clear!]), but man, she is trying my last nerve while watching "In God We Trust" now on Sundance.

So, because the perp didn't mean to kill the firefighter and hasn't killed since, his finding religion should wipe the slate clean? No.

And his lawyer basically outright stating just that earns her a "shut up!", too.

Been ages since I watched this one, and all this is reminding me why.

In God We Trust is the main reason for my dislike of Borgia. Her acting like the defense motion to dismiss the case had merit and being sympathetic to their cause disgusted me, being religious and remorseful doesn’t earn someone a free pass for murder - Jack was spot on about it throughout the episode, and Borgia’s whole “forgiveness is a Christian ideal” stuff was irritating, I loved when Jack responded “and if you don’t believe in Christ you just have to do your time?”. It was absurd to act like the defendant should get a free pass for his crime. 

[WendyCR72]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

In God We Trust is the main reason for my dislike of Borgia. Her acting like the defense motion to dismiss the case had merit and being sympathetic to their cause disgusted me, being religious and remorseful doesn’t earn someone a free pass for murder - Jack was spot on about it throughout the episode, and Borgia’s whole “forgiveness is a Christian ideal” stuff was irritating, I loved when Jack responded “and if you don’t believe in Christ you just have to do your time?”. It was absurd to act like the defendant should get a free pass for his crime. 

Yeah, so if I rob a bank and claim I found God, in Borgia's view, the debt is paid?

No, doesn't work like that.

[Xeliou66]

15 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

Yeah, so if I rob a bank and claim I found God, in Borgia's view, the debt is paid?

No, doesn't work like that.

Yeah, it was really stupid. She basically thought that people who became Christians after committing a crime had a valid defense for their criminal activity. It’s absurd on so many levels, for one it would allow anyone who committed a crime to just claim to have found god/Jesus and have a viable defense, and for another it would give special treatment to a group based on religion, which is blatantly unconstitutional.
I did believe the defendant was genuinely remorseful for what he had done in this episode, but being remorseful doesn’t give you a get out of jail free card, he committed a hate crime and deserved to go to prison for it. I think even the defendant realized this. His lawyer was just trying to make a statement for whatever reason, both her and Borgia pissed me off. Jack was great in this episode, he was right that the defense had no merits and his arguments were great. I also liked getting the perspectives of the victim’s father and the killer’s sister on the matter. But Borgia really pissed me off. In most episodes Borgia didn’t make much of an impact at all, but this episode is why she is the only second chair ADA besides Serena I’m not a fan of. 

[andromeda331]

12 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

In God We Trust is the main reason for my dislike of Borgia. Her acting like the defense motion to dismiss the case had merit and being sympathetic to their cause disgusted me, being religious and remorseful doesn’t earn someone a free pass for murder - Jack was spot on about it throughout the episode, and Borgia’s whole “forgiveness is a Christian ideal” stuff was irritating, I loved when Jack responded “and if you don’t believe in Christ you just have to do your time?”. It was absurd to act like the defendant should get a free pass for his crime. 

Same here. It's great that the defendent felt remorse but he still had to atone for his crime. He hadn't done that. I like when they call his sister and ask if she forgave him and said no. I'm glad he asked that because everyone had been all focused on the poor murderer especially his lawyer and Borgia. He still murdered a man. That man is the victim not the murderer. His life was taken.  He never got to go on and to have a life. His father lost his son. They believed in God too. They both deserve justice. The murderer deserves to serve time for it.

[Xeliou66]

11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Same here. It's great that the defendent felt remorse but he still had to atone for his crime. He hadn't done that. I like when they call his sister and ask if she forgave him and said no. I'm glad he asked that because everyone had been all focused on the poor murderer especially his lawyer and Borgia. He still murdered a man. That man is the victim not the murderer. His life was taken.  He never got to go on and to have a life. His father lost his son. They believed in God too. They both deserve justice. The murderer deserves to serve time for it.

Agreed 100%. Being sorry you committed a crime doesn’t give you a free pass for the crime. And giving a defendant special treatment because of their religion is unconstitutional and wrong. I liked hearing the perspectives of the victim’s father and the sister of the killer. This episode is the main reason why I’m not a fan of Borgia, her extreme sympathy for the killer and the bogus defense disgusted me. Usually Borgia didn’t make an impact at all - she was very dull, but this episode is the main reason she’s one of my least favorites. She only had one episode where she was strong IMO, and that’s Cost of Capital in season 16.  
In God We Trust is a good episode, and it’s the only Falco episode I like, I’m not a fan of the Falco character at all and him and Fontana together were just way too abrasive. But the case was good in this one and unique enough to make it a strong episode, even though Borgia was infuriating.    
The guy who set the fire at the start of the episode was a piece of garbage, and I wonder if his daughter would ever be okay, knowing that her scumbag dad almost killed her by trying to burn her mother alive. 

[andromeda331]

10 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Agreed 100%. Being sorry you committed a crime doesn’t give you a free pass for the crime. And giving a defendant special treatment because of their religion is unconstitutional and wrong. I liked hearing the perspectives of the victim’s father and the sister of the killer. This episode is the main reason why I’m not a fan of Borgia, her extreme sympathy for the killer and the bogus defense disgusted me. Usually Borgia didn’t make an impact at all - she was very dull, but this episode is the main reason she’s one of my least favorites. She only had one episode where she was strong IMO, and that’s Cost of Capital in season 16.  

Yeah this is an episode I really disliked Borgia. Before she was mostly just there. I don't like her wanting to let a murderer get away with his crime because of his faith. It's wrong. He still needs to be held accountable and it's also problematic if all you have to do is claim to be a Christian and get away with a crime. All criminals would do that. If he had been Muslim or Hindi or Wicca would she say the same thing? Nope. 

Quote

In God We Trust is a good episode, and it’s the only Falco episode I like, I’m not a fan of the Falco character at all and him and Fontana together were just way too abrasive. But the case was good in this one and unique enough to make it a strong episode, even though Borgia was infuriating.    
The guy who set the fire at the start of the episode was a piece of garbage, and I wonder if his daughter would ever be okay, knowing that her scumbag dad almost killed her by trying to burn her mother alive. 

Falco is my least favorite detective he's tied with Curtis. He's just abrassive and a jerk most of the time. I couldn't wait for Green to come back.

[Xeliou66]

11 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Yeah this is an episode I really disliked Borgia. Before she was mostly just there. I don't like her wanting to let a murderer get away with his crime because of his faith. It's wrong. He still needs to be held accountable and it's also problematic if all you have to do is claim to be a Christian and get away with a crime. All criminals would do that. If he had been Muslim or Hindi or Wicca would she say the same thing? Nope. 

Falco is my least favorite detective he's tied with Curtis. He's just abrassive and a jerk most of the time. I couldn't wait for Green to come back.

Yeah Borgia was just there for the most part, but this episode made me dislike her - the defense was such bullshit and was offensive to me how it suggested some religious beliefs deserved preferential treatment - as Jack pointed out in his great line. I think even the defendant knew he belonged in prison, he was ready to plead guilty and eventually he put a stop to his lawyer’s crap and went against her advice to plead guilty and accept whatever punishment the court saw fit.

Falco was terrible and very abrasive, him and Fontana together were just unbearable given that Fontana was a jerk most of the time as well - it least Fontana was interesting enough to pull it off and paired with the smooth Green he was okay, but pairing him was Falco was just too much. Falco, Curtis and Beauty Queen Cassady are by far my least favorite detectives. After his first episode in season 21 I thought Cosgrove was going to join that list, but season 22 made him a much stronger, well rounded and more likable character and he’s actually become one of my favorites on the revival now. I think who a detective is paired with makes an impact on how strong or a character they are - like the Fontana example I gave, he was much better paired with Green than Falco, and on the revival Cosgrove is much better paired with Shaw than with Bernard. The exception is Rey Curtis, he was paired with the best detective in L&O history in the always awesome Lennie Briscoe and he still was a massive self righteous jackass who was infuriating to watch.

Edited October 29, 2023 by Xeliou66

[Spartan Girl]

@GHScorpiosRule brought up the memory of the 9/11 firefighter who dumped his wife for his dead best friend/fellow firefighter's widow in "Dead Wives Club" and hoo boy, those two deserve to be in the Asshole Victim Hall of Fame on this show. Let's not use trauma as an excuse to walk out on your family to "console" your best friend's widow/steal your best friend's husband. Not that it's an excuse for the ex-wife to murder her, mind you, but she still has my sympathy.

Which is why this is one of the few episodes where I was on Serena's side; I hated that Jack acted like the ex-wife was lying about her mental breakdown just because she didn't seek out professional help. Uh, Jack, the woman had to work a full-time job because the asshole didn't pay proper child support, and she didn't have much other support going on either, so she didn't have time or money to seek help--something which the jerkass had the nerve to use against her while using the excuse that the new wife didn't want to share her insurance money!

I felt so bad for both sets of kids, losing both their mothers because of his actions. I wouldn't blame the stepkids if they thought that if he died instead of their dad, they'd still have both their parents.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Spartan Girl

[Xeliou66]

I saw Fixed last night on WE and I’m still bugged by the continuity errors in this episode - they said the DA’s pleaded out Lowenstein and that isn’t what happened in Indifference, Lowenstein was convicted and got 25 to life. They could’ve come up with another way of explaining Lowenstein’s release without rewriting what happened - it’s one of the few examples of poor continuity on L&O. Also Carla was just as nuts and despicable as Jacob Lowenstein was, and this episode made her out like she was some kind of victim of Lowenstein - that didn’t ring true. 
The only thing the episode got right about the original case was just how creepy Lowenstein was - he was just as chilling here as he was the first time around, one of L&O’s most evil and creepy villains. He was still the exact same sociopathic creep that he was years earlier. And it was nice to see Cragen talk about the case with Green/Fontana, that was a well done crossover cameo since Cragen was the squad leader at the time of the original case.     
I thought the jury’s decision was so dumb not to convict Joyce Draper, the evidence was clear she did it and Jack made a strong closing argument, but I guess the jury just thought Lowenstein deserved it and wouldn’t convict no matter what the evidence was or what the prosecution said, and Arthur alluded to that. 
It’s a decent episode but the continuity errors bugged me.

[andromeda331]

On 12/18/2023 at 1:17 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I saw Fixed last night on WE and I’m still bugged by the continuity errors in this episode - they said the DA’s pleaded out Lowenstein and that isn’t what happened in Indifference, Lowenstein was convicted and got 25 to life. They could’ve come up with another way of explaining Lowenstein’s release without rewriting what happened - it’s one of the few examples of poor continuity on L&O. Also Carla was just as nuts and despicable as Jacob Lowenstein was, and this episode made her out like she was some kind of victim of Lowenstein - that didn’t ring true. 

I agree they should have a different reason for how he got out of jail. State running out of money and/or he became a model prisoner are the usual reasons. It would make more sense then the one they used. I don't like them changing Carla either. They made a point in the original that while she probably was abused by her husband she was just as bad as he was for abusing the kids. Mike pointed that out when Greevey said he felt bad for Carla. He grew up with parents just like them. Dad hit Mom and Mom hit Mike. Hell, they interrupted her about to burn her son's hand. 

Quote

The only thing the episode got right about the original case was just how creepy Lowenstein was - he was just as chilling here as he was the first time around, one of L&O’s most evil and creepy villains. He was still the exact same sociopathic creep that he was years earlier. And it was nice to see Cragen talk about the case with Green/Fontana, that was a well done crossover cameo since Cragen was the squad leader at the time of the original case.

They got that right. They also got how his son was right too. He was lucky to have gotten good adopted parents' but he still had a hard time and he was still terrified of Lowenstein.
 

Quote

I thought the jury’s decision was so dumb not to convict Joyce Draper, the evidence was clear she did it and Jack made a strong closing argument, but I guess the jury just thought Lowenstein deserved it and wouldn’t convict no matter what the evidence was or what the prosecution said, and Arthur alluded to that. 
It’s a decent episode but the continuity errors bugged me.

That's exactly what happened. They knew what she did but they didn't care. but the person she ran down was so dispicable that they didn't want to convicted her. I really don't think any jury would have convicted her.  Lowenstein was just so dispicable. Plus, he was no longer a threat to anyone anymore. I wish they could thrown his stupid girlfriend in jail for her stupidity in dating and letting her child around a man who abused his kids and sexually abused and murdered his daughter. I know women (and men) can be that stupid. They should go to jail for it.

[Xeliou66]

8 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I agree they should have a different reason for how he got out of jail. State running out of money and/or he became a model prisoner are the usual reasons. It would make more sense then the one they used. I don't like them changing Carla either. They made a point in the original that while she probably was abused by her husband she was just as bad as he was for abusing the kids. Mike pointed that out when Greevey said he felt bad for Carla. He grew up with parents just like them. Dad hit Mom and Mom hit Mike. Hell, they interrupted her about to burn her son's hand. 

They got that right. They also got how his son was right too. He was lucky to have gotten good adopted parents' but he still had a hard time and he was still terrified of Lowenstein.
 

That's exactly what happened. They knew what she did but they didn't care. but the person she ran down was so dispicable that they didn't want to convicted her. I really don't think any jury would have convicted her.  Lowenstein was just so dispicable. Plus, he was no longer a threat to anyone anymore. I wish they could thrown his stupid girlfriend in jail for her stupidity in dating and letting her child around a man who abused his kids and sexually abused and murdered his daughter. I know women (and men) can be that stupid. They should go to jail for it.

Lowenstein’s current girlfriend was epically stupid, letting the creep move in with her and her kids. I think that’s one reason the jury refused to convict Draper, they still saw Lowenstein as a danger who needed to die. But she still should’ve gone to prison, vigilante justice is wrong and she should’ve just informed his parole officer and sent him back to prison. 
The continuity errors just bugged me, particularly the way they said they cut a deal with Lowenstein when that was not what happened. It was nice to see that the son had a good adoptive family. And it was nice to see Cragen. It was a good idea to bring Lowenstein back, like I said he was very chilling with his whole “I’ve always been a good daddy” lines, but the execution of the plot was botched in some ways.

[andromeda331]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Lowenstein’s current girlfriend was epically stupid, letting the creep move in with her and her kids. I think that’s one reason the jury refused to convict Draper, they still saw Lowenstein as a danger who needed to die. But she still should’ve gone to prison, vigilante justice is wrong and she should’ve just informed his parole officer and sent him back to prison. 

That's probably the reason. Just watching the video of his session with Draper. It was clear he still was a danger. No kid would be safe as long as he was walking the streets. I do agree Draper should have gone to jail. She had other options. Living with children was a violation of his parole. Also, who's to say she won't do it again? She's a prison therapist and there are a lot of horrible people who get released from prison who absolutely should not. Is she going to run them down too? Or kill them in some other way.
 

Quote

The continuity errors just bugged me, particularly the way they said they cut a deal with Lowenstein when that was not what happened. It was nice to see that the son had a good adoptive family. And it was nice to see Cragen. It was a good idea to bring Lowenstein back, like I said he was very chilling with his whole “I’ve always been a good daddy” lines, but the execution of the plot was botched in some ways.

Me too. That's what made it hard to enjoy the episode. I don't know why they made the mistakes. It would made a really great episode had they not. 

[Xeliou66]

19 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

That's probably the reason. Just watching the video of his session with Draper. It was clear he still was a danger. No kid would be safe as long as he was walking the streets. I do agree Draper should have gone to jail. She had other options. Living with children was a violation of his parole. Also, who's to say she won't do it again? She's a prison therapist and there are a lot of horrible people who get released from prison who absolutely should not. Is she going to run them down too? Or kill them in some other way.
 

Me too. That's what made it hard to enjoy the episode. I don't know why they made the mistakes. It would made a really great episode had they not. 

Yeah those mistakes were easily avoidable if they had just watched Indifference closely before coming up with the episode. It was very sloppy - something which L&O rarely is. Did they just think the viewers had forgotten the details of the case since it was a season 1 episode? Shoddy job. But Lowenstein’s creepiness was spot on - and he still was a danger given that he was living with kids again. But Draper should’ve just informed the authorities who would’ve had Lowenstein locked up again.