S21.E02: Impossible Dream

[Sir RaiderDuck OMS]

Question: Sgt. Dixon says they knew Ellis called the police and made a bullshit report about someone in a blue Tesla dropping a gun in an effort to frame ex-employee Seaver. If Ellis is claiming Self-Defense/Battered Woman syndrome, wouldn't that false police report be incriminating, and wouldn't Price be sure to mention it?

[Xeliou66]

4 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Question: Sgt. Dixon says they knew Ellis called the police and made a bullshit report about someone in a blue Tesla dropping a gun in an effort to frame ex-employee Seaver. If Ellis is claiming Self-Defense/Battered Woman syndrome, wouldn't that false police report be incriminating, and wouldn't Price be sure to mention it?

I thought about that as well, and I was surprised Price didn’t bring that up during his cross, that she managed to go up to Westchester, dump the weapon and call the cops about it, all trying to evade capture. 

[shapeshifter]

59 minutes ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Question: Sgt. Dixon says they knew Ellis called the police and made a bullshit report about someone in a blue Tesla dropping a gun in an effort to frame ex-employee Seaver. If Ellis is claiming Self-Defense/Battered Woman syndrome, wouldn't that false police report be incriminating, and wouldn't Price be sure to mention it?

53 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I thought about that as well, and I was surprised Price didn’t bring that up during his cross, that she managed to go up to Westchester, dump the weapon and call the cops about it, all trying to evade capture. 

Oops?
Maybe her calling in the gun dump was edited out of the trial portion of the script for time?
If so, they should have rewritten the first mention of her calling in the gun dump to have it not be provable that she was the caller.

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

3 hours ago, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Sgt. Dixon says

Dixon is actually Lieutenant.

[buttersister]

I was under the impression that they believed she made the call about the gun going into the sewer, but I don’t recall them having irrefutable proof. My thought as to why it wasn’t brought up by the aging gracefully Hugh Dancy, er, the DA.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, buttersister said:

I was under the impression that they believed she made the call about the gun going into the sewer, but I don’t recall them having irrefutable proof. My thought as to why it wasn’t brought up by the aging gracefully Hugh Dancy, er, the DA.

When the prosecutors are going over the evidence, the line about the call is:

• "She tried to frame a former employee for the murder. She actually called the Scarsdale PD, said she saw some guy in a blue Tesla drop a gun in the sewer."

They should have edited that line so it wasn't so definitive if it wasn't going to be brought up during the trial to prove her guilt.
Like maybe another line saying they couldn't prove it because anyone could have used her phone and the connection was too poor for voice recognition. 
Oops.

[dttruman]

On 3/5/2022 at 5:34 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I thought about that as well, and I was surprised Price didn’t bring that up during his cross, that she managed to go up to Westchester, dump the weapon and call the cops about it, all trying to evade capture. 

 

[dttruman]

On 3/5/2022 at 5:28 PM, Sir RaiderDuck OMS said:

Question: Sgt. Dixon says they knew Ellis called the police and made a bullshit report about someone in a blue Tesla dropping a gun in an effort to frame ex-employee Seaver. If Ellis is claiming Self-Defense/Battered Woman syndrome, wouldn't that false police report be incriminating, and wouldn't Price be sure to mention it?

 

On 3/5/2022 at 5:34 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I thought about that as well, and I was surprised Price didn’t bring that up during his cross, that she managed to go up to Westchester, dump the weapon and call the cops about it, all trying to evade capture. 

 

On 3/5/2022 at 5:34 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I thought about that as well, and I was surprised Price didn’t bring that up during his cross, that she managed to go up to Westchester, dump the weapon and call the cops about it, all trying to evade capture. 

I have to watch it again, did they decide to dump that "attempt to evade capture" move when she changed her defense? The defense could just say she did it out of panic because of that "Battered Woman syndrome" defense and she just feels so sorry for trying to frame the guy.

[Xeliou66]

1 minute ago, dttruman said:

 

 

I have to watch it again, did they decide to dump that "attempt to evade capture" move when she changed her defense? The defense could just say she did it out of panic because of that "Battered Woman syndrome" defense and she just feels so sorry for trying to frame the guy.

Still it would’ve lost her points with the jury and been strong evidence that she was cunning and deceptive and knew killing the guy was wrong. They just forgot about all of the evidence when they went with the self-defense/battered woman defense. It was a little hole in the writing, had the writing been more cohesive, they would’ve had Price bring it up on cross. Still a good episode overall but that was a little glitch. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

I have to watch it again, did they decide to dump that "attempt to evade capture" move when she changed her defense? The defense could just say she did it out of panic because of that "Battered Woman syndrome" defense and she just feels so sorry for trying to frame the guy.

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Still it would’ve lost her points with the jury and been strong evidence that she was cunning and deceptive and knew killing the guy was wrong. They just forgot about all of the evidence when they went with the self-defense/battered woman defense. It was a little hole in the writing, had the writing been more cohesive, they would’ve had Price bring it up on cross. Still a good episode overall but that was a little glitch. 

Yeah, the vague (IMO) throwaway line is:

• Don't think we need to worry about proving Nina actually killed Kyle. . . . She just changed her defense. Nina Ellis is going for a battered woman defense.

 

 

[andromeda331]

24 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Yeah, the vague (IMO) throwaway line is:

• Don't think we need to worry about proving Nina actually killed Kyle. . . . She just changed her defense. Nina Ellis is going for a battered woman defense.

 

 

Not a good enough reason for not bringing up that she tried framing someone else. They didn't need to have the broken arm story when they had that. 

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

Not a good enough reason for not bringing up that she tried framing someone else. They didn't need to have the broken arm story when they had that. 

Oh, I think they needed both. 
And since I got my degree at the School of Law & Order, I should know, right? 😉

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Oh, I think they needed both. 
And since I got my degree at the School of Law & Order, I should know, right? 😉

Well, it's better than Hudson University.

[Blakeston]

On 3/4/2022 at 11:30 PM, Halting Hex said:

While the sentencing rules have changed, First Degree is still reserved for a variety of "special circumstances" cases.  As far as I can tell, this doesn't meet any of those.

A rough summary:

1.  Killing a police officer or a court officer (judge/bailiff/guard/parole officer) or a firefighter/medical first responder or a prison official, assuming that the victim was on-duty and that it was reasonable that the defendant knew the victim's status.

2.  If the defendant is already serving a life sentence.

3.  Killing a witness to another crime, or killing them after they testify in revenge, or killing their family as revenge.

4.  Murder for hire.

5.  Felony murder (in the course of robbery/burglary/kidnapping/arson/rape or other sexual offenses), or if you're fleeing arrest from the same.

6.  Multiple homicides

7.  If the defendant had already been convicted of another murder and was free on bail pending appeal, or awaiting sentencing or other reason.
8. Torture

9.  If it's part of a series of killings (two or more others in the previous two years), all part of an overall plan.  Kill one or two relatives to get a bigger share of an upcoming inheritance and it's murder-two; three or more, and it's murder one.

10.  Terrorism.

AFAICT, two bullets in your partner to save your company's finances doesn't tick any of those boxes, so I do think that "first degree" was an error.  Good catch.

I guess one could argue that she killed him for being a witness to her crime of swindling investors.

I thought this was very weak. It didn't seem like much thought was put into it beyond "let's do one about Elizabeth Holmes."

There was no mystery in the police's side of the story. The victim happening to be her fiance pointed squarely at her being guilty, and then as soon as faulty medical tests were mentioned, there was no question at all that she'd done it.

Then on the prosecutorial side, there was very little to it beyond a few references to how they need to be wary of #MeToo, and then the broken arm fell into their laps. It would have been interested to hear from a psychologist about how they could use her narcissism against her.

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, Blakeston said:

There was no mystery in the police's side of the story. The victim happening to be her fiance pointed squarely at her being guilty,

Yeah, back in the old days we had a nice scavenger hunt of red herrings until they finally caught the perp fish.

[dttruman]

10 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Oh, I think they needed both. 
And since I got my degree at the School of Law & Order, I should know, right? 😉

I believe my degree from the Perry Mason Correspondence School may take precedent. I have to go back and check which episode, I can base the proper ruling on.

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, Blakeston said:

I guess one could argue that she killed him for being a witness to her crime of swindling investors.

I thought this was very weak. It didn't seem like much thought was put into it beyond "let's do one about Elizabeth Holmes."

There was no mystery in the police's side of the story. The victim happening to be her fiance pointed squarely at her being guilty, and then as soon as faulty medical tests were mentioned, there was no question at all that she'd done it.

Then on the prosecutorial side, there was very little to it beyond a few references to how they need to be wary of #MeToo, and then the broken arm fell into their laps. It would have been interested to hear from a psychologist about how they could use her narcissism against her.

What is the story on changing a plea when you are already into the trial proceedings? Would the defendant still have the same jury or would there be a new jury? I wasn't really paying attention when they show those short quick clips of where the trial stands

[GHScorpiosRule]

33 minutes ago, dttruman said:

What is the story on changing a plea when you are already into the trial proceedings? Would the defendant still have the same jury or would there be a new jury? I wasn't really paying attention when they show those short quick clips of where the trial stands

It's always been the same jury in this show's canon/history. Not sure if that's a creative license or true.

There were a number of episodes during the first 20 seasons where defendant(s) changed their plea mid-trial.

[peacheslatour]

11 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Well, it's better than Hudson University.

Drink!

Edited March 7, 2022 by peacheslatour

[BlackberryJam]

I think they are trying to do too much with each episode. This could have been an Elizabeth Holmes episode without the battered woman portion. The stories aren't given a chance to breathe and develop before we whiplash to something else. 

[blackwing]

She first claimed she didn't do it.  Then she admitted to killing him and was going for a battered woman defense.  She says she killed him because she was in fear of her life.

Agree with everyone above that the writing was a bit odd.  She first lied about trying to frame her ex-employee for murder.  Then she changes her plea.  Then she lied about her fiance breaking her arm.  Price puts the polo instructor on the stand who says that Ellis broke her arm while training.  Jury convicts her, presumably because SHE LIED about the broken arm, she must have killed him!

The jury already knew she lied about the blue Tesla.  They knew she is a liar.  Also, I was surprised there was no scene of the defense attorney trying to suppress the testimony of the polo instructor.  You would think that the defense attorney would have talked to her client and asked "why is the prosecution calling this woman?  Tell me everything you know about her and your interaction with her."  The scenes we saw play out made it seem like the defense attorney is a bad attorney who didn't even do any research or preparation.  She should have instructed her client not to say anything about any physical injuries that couldn't be proven and she should have tried cross examination of her own to try and introduce some doubt. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

I wonder if they'll figure out a way to turn the Palin/NYT libel trial into a criminal case.

[KittyQ]

On 3/6/2022 at 8:04 PM, shapeshifter said:

Oh, I think they needed both. 
And since I got my degree at the School of Law & Order, I should know, right? 😉

Nice to meet a fellow alumna! Whenever a legal question comes up IRL, I cite my degree from L&O U. as my credential. 

[debraran]

8 hours ago, KittyQ said:

Nice to meet a fellow alumna! Whenever a legal question comes up IRL, I cite my degree from L&O U. as my credential. 

I'm allowed too, lol.My husband was an officer for 30 years in different areas and his uncle is Judge/Lawyer. If I start to say "I saw on L&O, I get the "look". ☺️ He can appreciate the acting , but no references.

 

a

 

[Samsnee]

Writing was weak on this one, especially when we had a “self defense in an abusive relationship as a motive” in the episode right before.  
 

Catching her in the lie about the broken arm was just lazy writing. Did this woman really think they wouldn’t look into it? 
 

Disappointed since this was inspired by Theranos that the CEO didn’t do an awkward obvious deep voice like Holmes. 

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Samsnee said:

Catching her in the lie about the broken arm was just lazy writing. Did this woman really think they wouldn’t look into it?

Yeah, there probably should have been a line about her hubris in thinking she could get away with the broken arm claim.

I’m noticing a lack of such lines acknowledging otherwise unstated details of the cases. Is it because there are more commercials now than 10-20 years ago?

[dubbel zout]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I’m noticing a lack of such lines acknowledging otherwise unstated details of the cases. Is it because there are more commercials now than 10-20 years ago?

I think the cases are simpler (i.e., fewer twists) because there are more commercials. An explanatory line here and there shouldn't add that much time to an episode, but who knows?

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I think the cases are simpler (i.e., fewer twists) because there are more commercials. An explanatory line here and there shouldn't add that much time to an episode, but who knows?

Yeah, and I/we would probably be complaining about exposition fairy dialog if they slipped in some facts about the case via a 10-second bit of talk instead of showing us through actions of the characters.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, dubbel zout said:

I think the cases are simpler (i.e., fewer twists) because there are more commercials. An explanatory line here and there shouldn't add that much time to an episode, but who knows?

I don’t know. I’ve been watching this show in syndication and they have a lot more commercials. When I was watching one episode and thought they cut out a scene with Olivet because of advertising/time, and watched it on the dvd, turns out that the cable network aired the unedited episode. That’s why the show runs for one hour and one minute.

They just don’t have good writers. I’ve said it before and I’ll keep saying it, even though he’s not available, this show needs René Balcer.

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don’t know. I’ve been watching this show in syndication and they have a lot more commercials. When I was watching one episode and thought they cut out a scene with Olivet because of advertising/time, and watched it on the dvd, turns out that the cable network aired the unedited episode. That’s why the show runs for one hour and one minute.

I think when it goes into syndication, they can take out as much as they want. The amount probably depends on how many sponsor spots they have to fill.

[Tdoc72]

On 3/7/2022 at 12:25 AM, andromeda331 said:

Well, it's better than Hudson University.

If I survived long enough to get a degree from HU, I’d be screaming my pride from the rafters and put it in all my resumes!  

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, Tdoc72 said:

On 3/7/2022 at 12:25 AM, andromeda331 said:

Well, it's better than Hudson University.

If I survived long enough to get a degree from HU, I’d be screaming my pride from the rafters and put it in all my resumes!  

If you contact the producers and writers, I am sure they can make you Valedictorian, but you'll have to let Benson be involved in some way or another. The only problem is that Benson will probably have you up on rape charges, force Carisi to prosecute, and maybe if she feels like it, exonerate you.

[Prevailing Wind]

WTH??  A rerun ALREADY????

[GHScorpiosRule]

13 minutes ago, Prevailing Wind said:

WTH??  A rerun ALREADY????

Maybe because of March Madness?

[dttruman]

2 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

16 minutes ago, Prevailing Wind said:

WTH??  A rerun ALREADY????

Maybe because of March Madness?

Didn't you guys check NBC's line up for tonight? I think most of us have known about this for a week now. If I had known you guys didn't know, I would have put something on the SVU board. Next week is another rerun, "Nightmares in Drill City"

[GHScorpiosRule]

19 minutes ago, dttruman said:

Didn't you guys check NBC's line up for tonight? I think most of us have known about this for a week now. If I had known you guys didn't know, I would have put something on the SVU board. Next week is another rerun, "Nightmares in Drill City"

The previews from last week didn’t state when the next new episode would air.

Best place to let others know is the media thread for this show.

[Xeliou66]

L&O returns with a new episode April 7.

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

The previews from last week didn’t state when the next new episode would air.

Best place to let others know is the media thread for this show.

There was, though. I saw the preview. It said either the date or in two weeks, but it was one of the two. Not surprised, with March Madness.

[Prevailing Wind]

Can y'all tell I don't give a flying fig about sports?  And, honestly, L&O is the ONLY network show I watch other than NBC Nightly News.  So, no, I was not aware.

And I never heard of "Nightmares in Drill City."  What episode is that?

[Xeliou66]

Just now, Prevailing Wind said:

Can y'all tell I don't give a flying fig about sports?  And, honestly, L&O is the ONLY network show I watch other than NBC Nightly News.  So, no, I was not aware.

And I never heard of "Nightmares in Drill City."  What episode is that?

Nightmares in Drill City is an SVU episode from earlier this year, I guess it’s being rerun in the SVU time slot next week. 

[Door County Cherry]

Yeah.  I remember them saying it's returning April 7th but I forgot.

Oh well, at least I got to start watching Starstruck sooner. 

[Kemper]

Like most, I have been watching Law and Order for decades; watched the reruns when they were original episodes.  And I will watch this version until a new version comes out.  My biggest complaint is there is not enough time devoted to solving the case and making an arrest; we are not given time to invest in the detectives or their Lieutenant.  By the way, the detectives are starting to gel a little but need more air time. But (just my opinion) the actors for the "Law" part are lacking charisma;  both the actor and actress are attractive; but they are not engaging and just seem to be "there" and we watch because they are "there" - not because they are doing a wonderful, believable job.  Maybe it is the writing.  

Finally, I wish we could get a good, old-fashioned murder.  Rich family killing the heir, drug dealers and sainted victim, entitled teens having a party and someone dies, etc.  The detectives interviewing witnesses and doormen outside city apartments with traffic noise, a hot dog cart, etc.  Or the gorgeous interior of a brownstone with the victim lying on an antique, blood-soaked oriental rug.  Average sociopaths and their victims.  I get enough 'pulled from the headlines" in real life.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Kemper said:

Like most, I have been watching Law and Order for decades; watched the reruns when they were original episodes.  And I will watch this version until a new version comes out.  My biggest complaint is there is not enough time devoted to solving the case and making an arrest; we are not given time to invest in the detectives or their Lieutenant.  By the way, the detectives are starting to gel a little but need more air time. But (just my opinion) the actors for the "Law" part are lacking charisma;  both the actor and actress are attractive; but they are not engaging and just seem to be "there" and we watch because they are "there" - not because they are doing a wonderful, believable job.  Maybe it is the writing.  

Finally, I wish we could get a good, old-fashioned murder.  Rich family killing the heir, drug dealers and sainted victim, entitled teens having a party and someone dies, etc.  The detectives interviewing witnesses and doormen outside city apartments with traffic noise, a hot dog cart, etc.  Or the gorgeous interior of a brownstone with the victim lying on an antique, blood-soaked oriental rug.  Average sociopaths and their victims.  I get enough 'pulled from the headlines" in real life.

And a twist! I miss watching the various interviews trying to guess what the twist is. Some of them were really good. Like the poor murderer Double Blind didn't have schizophrenia but a tumor that was no longer operatable. Or in Faccia a Faccia with the murderer being the daughter of one of the victims. My favorite opening was when there's a shooting at a restaurant and bodyguards rush the mobster out of the restaurant assuming it was for him. And it wasn't. 

[dttruman]

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

8 hours ago, Prevailing Wind said:

Can y'all tell I don't give a flying fig about sports?  And, honestly, L&O is the ONLY network show I watch other than NBC Nightly News.  So, no, I was not aware.

And I never heard of "Nightmares in Drill City."  What episode is that?

Nightmares in Drill City is an SVU episode from earlier this year, I guess it’s being rerun in the SVU time slot next week. 

My bad! I get SVU and L&O mixed up sometimes. The next episode of L&O on Thursday night will be "Filtered Life", a rerun.

[dttruman]

10 hours ago, Kemper said:

Like most, I have been watching Law and Order for decades; watched the reruns when they were original episodes.  And I will watch this version until a new version comes out.  My biggest complaint is there is not enough time devoted to solving the case and making an arrest; we are not given time to invest in the detectives or their Lieutenant.  By the way, the detectives are starting to gel a little but need more air time. But (just my opinion) the actors for the "Law" part are lacking charisma;  both the actor and actress are attractive; but they are not engaging and just seem to be "there" and we watch because they are "there" - not because they are doing a wonderful, believable job.  Maybe it is the writing.  

Finally, I wish we could get a good, old-fashioned murder.  Rich family killing the heir, drug dealers and sainted victim, entitled teens having a party and someone dies, etc.  The detectives interviewing witnesses and doormen outside city apartments with traffic noise, a hot dog cart, etc.  Or the gorgeous interior of a brownstone with the victim lying on an antique, blood-soaked oriental rug.  Average sociopaths and their victims.  I get enough 'pulled from the headlines" in real life.

I haven't been keeping up with the L&O Reboot, but are they putting the DA's opening and closing arguments in the episodes now? In the old ones they use to include Stone's closing arguments. I thought they took them out because people were losing interest. But here, they just show Prices' closing argument not the defense attorney's.

It seemed like Price and Maroun were going into a too much detailed debate concerning the circumstances of the death what they could prove and not prove.

Edited March 25, 2022 by dttruman

[Kemper]

Stone and Jack could bring the passion when called for. Jack’s was fiery and sometimes incredulous; Stone’s was quiet outrage. This new version just can’t bring it; and I can’t stand his Assistant. Bad casting with both; or again, maybe bad writing. This show was always gritty; now it seems we have nothing but “White Collar” murders with pretty people doing the crimes.

 

[illdoc]

7 hours ago, dttruman said:

The next episode of L&O on Thursday night will be "Filtered Life", a rerun.

Which was new just last week!!!!!!!!

[dttruman]

 

18 minutes ago, illdoc said:

7 hours ago, dttruman said:

The next episode of L&O on Thursday night will be "Filtered Life", a rerun.

Which was new just last week!!!!!!!!

Yes, but most of the commercials should be new and time consuming!