S21.E08: Severance (2022)

[WendyCR72]

Airing May 5, 2022:

Quote

When the CFO of a Fortune 500 company is found strangled in her home, Bernard and Cosgrove work to connect multiple dead ends to find her killer. The prosecution is faced with an uphill battle as McCoy and Price butt heads over a choice that could cost them the case.

 

[WendyCR72]

And, as someone mentioned, another recycled title used for the next episode here (used first back in 1992, Season 2!).

[Prairie Rose]

11 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

And, as someone mentioned, another recycled title used for the next episode here (used first back in 1992, Season 2!).

Yeah, that was me. I can't decide which is worse - recycling episode titles or making the goofy original episode titles of SVU!! 😵😱

[andromeda331]

On 4/29/2022 at 8:56 AM, Prairie Rose said:

Yeah, that was me. I can't decide which is worse - recycling episode titles or making the goofy original episode titles of SVU!! 😵😱

I really don't know. All through this episode I could think of the much superior episode with the same name. I like that episode since it's rare for a defense attorney to get the better of Ben. 

[Xeliou66]

This episode sounds interesting - I don’t like how they are reusing a title but the plot sounds interesting, I wonder what Jack and Nolan will disagree about, I hope Jack gets some meaty scenes, the more of Jack the better.

[dttruman]

I thought throwing out the DNA was kind of ticky tack here. The way the judge just dismissed it was a little too arbitrary and blaming the detectives was a poor attempt at making them look sloppy and unprofessional.

[psychfan]

I am already annoyed at this episode. My Law and Order studies have clearly taught that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered gets in. So what was with that ‘you should have gotten a warrant, the DNA’s out’ thing when they clearly would have been able to get a warrant if he’d refused (and unlike other evidence the dna obviously wasn’t going anywhere in the interim). Witness plus scratches? They’ve gotten warrants for way less. So it bugs me the dna was just out.

 

Edited May 6, 2022 by psychfan

[dttruman]

5 minutes ago, psychfan said:

I am already annoyed at this episode. My Law and Order studies have clearly taught that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered gets in. So what was with that ‘you should have gotten a warrant, the DNA’s out’ thing when they clearly would have been able to get a warrant if he’d refused. Witness plus scratches? They’ve gotten warrants for way less. So it bugs me the dna was just out.

 

What do you think about this new defense of some kind of weird syndrome? I wonder why they avoid talking to others who might have it, even the Doctor who is a defense witness didn't say anything about others in Havana having violent  tendencies. Now they are trying to bring in the CIA into this, which seems kind of lame too.

[scarynikki12]

"No escaping the rat race."

"Until you do."

Sorry Frank and Bernard, Lenny could have pulled those lines off but y'all didn't. Maybe next time.

I assume the Merritt guy is Elon Musk while the reporter reminded me of Ronan Farrow. 

What case is this based on?

I was certain that the scratches on Baker's arms would turn out to be him cutting himself but they went straightforward instead. This is what SVU and other shows has done to me that the twist is when they keep it simple.

[WendyCR72]

The "old boss" McCoy mentioned about lawyers needing to be right losing more cases, which do you think, Adam or Arthur?

As for the rest? This case, I do think should have been won, if just for the fact the guy never sought medical treatment. And his spouse being a doctor should have highlighted that. But as someone said before, we would finally have a case lost that should have been won since the team won some that they likely should have lost, so...yeah.

This one sort of bored me, though, it we are being honest.

At least we did get an arraignment scene, though!

[psychfan]

11 minutes ago, dttruman said:

What do you think about this new defense of some kind of weird syndrome? I wonder why they avoid talking to others who might have it, even the Doctor who is a defense witness didn't say anything about others in Havana having violent  tendencies. Now they are trying to bring in the CIA into this, which seems kind of lame too.

Mostly I was glad what’s his name finally lost with his ‘no I don’t want to make a deal despite your reasons for suggesting it because I know I can win this’ thing. 

[dttruman]

3 minutes ago, psychfan said:

Mostly I was glad what’s his name finally lost with his ‘no I don’t want to make a deal despite your reasons for suggesting it because I know I can win this’ thing. 

Is it me, that this case should have been won and some of the others cases where they won, they should have lost? I thought the juries in most of these cases, the verdicts seem to favor the issue or situation at hand.

[WendyCR72]

1 minute ago, dttruman said:

Is it me, that this case should have been won and some of the others cases where they won, they should have lost? I thought the juries in most of these cases, the verdicts seem to favor the issue or situation at hand.

I said that exact thing above.

[dttruman]

23 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

The "old boss" McCoy mentioned about lawyers needing to be right losing more cases, which do you think, Adam or Arthur?

As for the rest? This case, I do think should have been won, if just for the fact the guy never sought medical treatment. And his spouse being a doctor should have highlighted that. But as someone said before, we would finally have a case lost that should have been won since the team won some that they likely should have lost, so...yeah.

This one sort of bored me, though, it we are being honest.

At least we did get an arraignment scene, though!

Did you think this case and maybe a few others were more or less manipulated, rather than have the natural flow of the investigation and the trial? In this case it seemed like they added that CIA scenario to create a little more drama so Nolan would have a dilemma deciding whether to fully prosecute or plead down. In the past they would get a ruling from the judge to determine if a top CIA guy would need to testify, because it seemed like his testimony would kind of be irrelevant.

[WendyCR72]

Just now, dttruman said:

Did you think this case and maybe a few others were more or less manipulated, rather than have the natural flow of the investigation and the trial? In this case it seemed like they added that CIA scenario to create a little more drama so Nolan would have a dilemma deciding whether to fully prosecute or plead down. In the past they would get a ruling from the judge to determine if a top CIA guy would need to testify, because it seemed like his testimony would kind of be irrelevant.

Not sure. I do think the CIA angle was contrived and a bit lazy, though. To me, anyway. It's like the show wanted an obstacle, but couldn't think of anything a little more natural/a little less schlocky, so insert the big-bad shadowy government agency angle...

[Prevailing Wind]

That micropulse thing is scary as hell, though. It's still happening. People who were in Cuba and are now home in D.C. are STILL getting "attacked."

[edhopper]

I am not claiming one way or another, but Havana syndrome is far from proven. And the physics of any type of 'ray' is problematic. 

https://www.salon.com/2021/10/21/scientists-are-skeptical-that-havana-syndrome-is-anything-more-than-a-psychogenic-illness/

Edited May 6, 2022 by edhopper

[dttruman]

25 minutes ago, Prevailing Wind said:

That micropulse thing is scary as hell, though. It's still happening. People who were in Cuba and are now home in D.C. are STILL getting "attacked."

The writers seem to give it a solid backing, some type of legitimacy that I don't think would be a good excuse to cause a murder or manslaughter.

[stonehaven]

Yeah....boring episode...

Two things stuck out...First after the whole "Should the CIA be forced to testify?", we got NO CIA testify scene...and the point was?

Also ONE witness that saw the guy in the area at the time of the murder was himself a suspect. ONE witness and no further backing of his testimony? Seemed shaky...

Also, the DA didn't exactly cross examine the wife, he pretty much testified. I was waiting for the defense to object and ask "Is there a question in there somewhere??
 

Sloppy, dull episode....

[Xeliou66]

This was one of the season’s better episodes, not perfect but pretty good. I liked that for once the outcome of the case didn’t go the prosecutions way, I like that on L&O the prosecutors don’t win every case, and I was unsure how I would’ve voted if I were on the jury, I wasn’t so sure that Baker was lying, he did seem to have severe medical symptoms, whether that prevented him from knowing right from wrong I don’t know, but it was not an easy case. I would’ve liked the opinion of a psych expert like Skoda or Olivet on the matter, I wish they would introduce a psych expert.

The investigation part was good, I thought Merritt would be the perp so I liked the twist that he wasn’t, and I liked seeing them chase down the various leads. I laughed at the part about Cosgrove saying you don’t have to like your co-workers, and Bernard’s response about if Cosgrove was trying to send them a message, the actors faces were great in that scene. Note that Bernard called the Lieutenant “Kate” which was interesting, the detectives don’t usually call their boss by their first name.

I liked Jack’s comment at the end to Nolan about how lawyers who don’t always have to be right win more cases than those who do, I wish he had said his old boss’ name but I believe it was Adam Schiff, it sounds like something Adam would’ve said. Nolan was a bit too stubborn in this episode and certain he would win and didn’t seem to consider other possibilities.

I’m still wishing for more interactions between the cops and DA’s, and more recurring characters would be nice as well.

Overall this was pretty good, no major flaws and a solid case, I’m loving having the Mothership back and it seems I’m enjoying it more than most. 

[Kemper]

I liked this episode - for me, the best one so far. Throwing in the guy having “Havana Syndrome” was a nice touch; much better than a brain tumor, ptsd, etc. I am pretty easy - I take the show as it comes.  I don’t compare the episodes and cast too much to the original. But I do think the “Order” segment could be improved upon. It is certainly better than the two shows that follow it.

[Door County Cherry]

2 hours ago, psychfan said:

I am already annoyed at this episode. My Law and Order studies have clearly taught that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered gets in. So what was with that ‘you should have gotten a warrant, the DNA’s out’ thing when they clearly would have been able to get a warrant if he’d refused (and unlike other evidence the dna obviously wasn’t going anywhere in the interim). Witness plus scratches? They’ve gotten warrants for way less. So it bugs me the dna was just out.

 

Exactly.  Cosgrove saw the scratches before the perp lifted up his sleeves.  That, with the witness testimony, would have gotten them the warrant. 

2 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

"What case is this based on?

I don't think it was based on a case, for once.  There was a mishmash of personalities that might evoke people/situations but they did what I've wanted them to do more (or at least I think they did) in creating a story with only part of it maybe based on a news story (the Havana Syndrome). 

2 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

This case, I do think should have been won, if just for the fact the guy never sought medical treatment. And his spouse being a doctor should have highlighted that. But as someone said before, we would finally have a case lost that should have been won since the team won some that they likely should have lost, so...yeah.

Right.  I think the fact that no one else has gotten violent on this would have been the clincher to a conviction.  

1 hour ago, WendyCR72 said:

Not sure. I do think the CIA angle was contrived and a bit lazy, though. 

It was maybe the longest scene Jack has had but it was silly.  I don't know that the judge would have allowed it.  The Havana Syndrome might have gotten into a court but how he got it has no relevance to the murder he committed unless it was his commanding officer or something like that. 

[shapeshifter]

17 hours ago, psychfan said:

I am already annoyed at this episode. My Law and Order studies have clearly taught that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered gets in. So what was with that ‘you should have gotten a warrant, the DNA’s out’ thing when they clearly would have been able to get a warrant if he’d refused (and unlike other evidence the dna obviously wasn’t going anywhere in the interim). Witness plus scratches? They’ve gotten warrants for way less. So it bugs me the dna was just out.

13 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

Exactly.  Cosgrove saw the scratches before the perp lifted up his sleeves.  That, with the witness testimony, would have gotten them the warrant. 

Is this because recreational marijuana is now legal in NYC? That could explain a lot of the prosecutorial disconnects so far this season --written by writers living in NYC?

The writers weren't wrong to leave the validity of Havana Syndrome vague. But it was a bit of a stretch to expect something like "Havana Syndrome" to register with an audience who might also be smokin' stuff that makes them forget about long-since faded headlines from which it was ripped. I guess the writers figured it was okay if half the viewers went "Havana WHAT now??"
I mean. We've got Google.

Edited May 6, 2022 by shapeshifter
hyphen

[dttruman]

12 hours ago, stonehaven said:

Also ONE witness that saw the guy in the area at the time of the murder was himself a suspect. ONE witness and no further backing of his testimony? Seemed shaky...

When the guy had deep scratches on his arm and  the DNA matched, that sold me

[dttruman]

17 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I don't think it was based on a case, for once.  There was a mishmash of personalities that might evoke people/situations but they did what I've wanted them to do more (or at least I think they did) in creating a story with only part of it maybe based on a news story (the Havana Syndrome).

The Havana Syndrome was an interesting part for the defense, but it was kind of superficial because we only heard from the Defense's expert witness, just one side of the argument. Xeliou66 made a very good point about why we should have gotten to hear from the Prosecution's expert witness like Skoda or Oliver (from the past).

Edited May 6, 2022 by dttruman

[watcher1006]

I also don't think it likely that the DNA evidence would have been thrown out. But still, the defense went to an affirmative strategy, saying that the suspect did what he did because of his medical circumstances. Perhaps it was not all that strong a defense, but isn't the switch basically a concession by the defense that the suspect actually did the act in question? I would think that the prosecution's job changed at that to proving criminal motive and non-medical causation.

[Prevailing Wind]

I don't understand the titled. What got "severed"? Re-use an old title if it makes sense, but I'm baffled at this one.

[dttruman]

7 minutes ago, Prevailing Wind said:

I don't understand the titled. What got "severed"? Re-use an old title if it makes sense, but I'm baffled at this one.

I'm not sure myself, is "Severance" suppose to be significant in some way with the Havana Syndrome? Or does it have to do with the effects of a toxic work environment and his losing his job (or was it just the contract he lost)?

[shapeshifter]

27 minutes ago, Prevailing Wind said:

I don't understand the titled. What got "severed"? Re-use an old title if it makes sense, but I'm baffled at this one.

The killer was given a severance package when he was let go from the company, right? 

[milkyaqua]

I've heard of Havana Syndrome because it was featured on a 60 minutes segment so the CIA reach didn't necessarily surprise.  That they didn't go anywhere with it didn't surprise me either since this show has left things dangling before.

Frankly, I thought the case last week made more sense to have either been dismissed or at least to have had a hung jury.  I thought this one should have ended in a guilty verdict but I had no problem with Price finally losing a case.

[blackwing]

Very unsatisfying result.  I wish that the jury or the judge would at least have made the guy go to an in-patient treatment center for this supposed disease.  If he can just snap for no reason, kill someone, blackout and not remember anything, then he is a danger to society.  He's also a danger to his wife and children.  Isn't she concerned?  He should have a forced stay in a residential treatment center until he is cured.

If the show gets renewed for another season, I'd like to see an episode in Season 22 where this guy kills again, and the judge and jury from this case realise that they got it wrong.

18 hours ago, psychfan said:

I am already annoyed at this episode. My Law and Order studies have clearly taught that evidence that would have been inevitably discovered gets in. So what was with that ‘you should have gotten a warrant, the DNA’s out’ thing when they clearly would have been able to get a warrant if he’d refused (and unlike other evidence the dna obviously wasn’t going anywhere in the interim). Witness plus scratches? They’ve gotten warrants for way less. So it bugs me the dna was just out.

 

I agree that the DNA should not have been thrown out, but I guess it wouldn't have mattered since the accused admitted to killing her.   But still, if he hadn't changed his defence it could have made a huge difference.

18 hours ago, dttruman said:

Is it me, that this case should have been won and some of the others cases where they won, they should have lost? I thought the juries in most of these cases, the verdicts seem to favor the issue or situation at hand.

Agree completely.  I knew that Hugh Dancy was going to lose one eventually, but I wish it hadn't been this one.  The evidence was so clear and the performance of the accused was just ridiculous... I wish the jury would have sent a message that the fact that he didn't seek medical treatment must have meant it wasn't all that debilitating.

 

1 hour ago, Prevailing Wind said:

I don't understand the titled. What got "severed"? Re-use an old title if it makes sense, but I'm baffled at this one.

51 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

The killer was given a severance package when he was let go from the company, right? 

No, I don't think so.  The killer was a consultant who was trying to get victim's company to buy the company of the witness.  And I think because he was a consultant he would get paid a lot if the sale went through.  The one who got the severance package was the ex-CFO that the victim replaced (the one with the fancy apartment and wraparound balcony in the sky that complained that he is being punished for being a white male).  So I would agree that there wasn't really any severance involved in the crime, unless we are talking about how the victim severed the deal.

Edited May 6, 2022 by blackwing

[Xantar]

Knowing what I do now about the legal system, the insanity defense comes across very differently in Law & Order episodes than they used to. In reality, the insanity defense almost never works. And even if it does, the result is the defendant gets locked up in a psychiatric ward. After all, he is objectively dangerous! It’s a little weird to see the not guilty verdict treated as if he got away with something. In reality, he might be confined for even longer than he would have been for a prison sentence. 

[MarylandGirl]

21 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

I was certain that the scratches on Baker's arms would turn out to be him cutting himself but they went straightforward instead. This is what SVU and other shows has done to me that the twist is when they keep it simple.

I also thought the scratches were from self-harm, especially with his saying he didn't want to talk about them. I thought maybe they'd be tied into how the victim made him feel, that he self-harmed as a result. Either that, or they were in an intimate relationship where he was submissive and let her do that to him. I guess they didnt' look like defensive wounds to me?

I admit I was a bit intrigued at first by the migraine angle, as I also suffer from migraines. Though it turned out to be a more complex disorder.

[dttruman]

22 minutes ago, MarylandGirl said:

21 hours ago, scarynikki12 said:

I was certain that the scratches on Baker's arms would turn out to be him cutting himself but they went straightforward instead. This is what SVU and other shows has done to me that the twist is when they keep it simple.

I also thought the scratches were from self-harm, especially with his saying he didn't want to talk about them. I thought maybe they'd be tied into how the victim made him feel, that he self-harmed as a result. Either that, or they were in an intimate relationship where he was submissive and let her do that to him. I guess they didnt' look like defensive wounds to me?

I admit I was a bit intrigued at first by the migraine angle, as I also suffer from migraines. Though it turned out to be a more complex disorder.

When Cosgrove saw the scratches, wouldn't that still give the police probable cause for testing for DNA? The question of admissibility of the DNA was completely bias. With your reasons for him killing her, did you think it was more plausible if he killed her during some weird BDSM session? I don' think self harm would hold water because his DNA was on her fingernails.

[milkyaqua]

2 hours ago, Xantar said:

In reality, the insanity defense almost never works. And even if it does, the result is the defendant gets locked up in a psychiatric ward. After all, he is objectively dangerous! It’s a little weird to see the not guilty verdict treated as if he got away with something. In reality, he might be confined for even longer than he would have been for a prison sentence. 

I also found that bizarre.  How is this guy just let off scot free when he in fact killed someone?  Are we to believe that he was ordered to some sort of treatment afterward or that the judicial system is just letting killers go free for the heck of it?

[Xeliou66]

4 minutes ago, milkyaqua said:

I also found that bizarre.  How is this guy just let off scot free when he in fact killed someone?  Are we to believe that he was ordered to some sort of treatment afterward or that the judicial system is just letting killers go free for the heck of it?

Oh I think the killer was going to a psychiatric facility, I don’t think he was getting to go home. That’s what happens when someone is found not guilty by reason of mental disease. Nothing in the episode said he was getting to go home or get off scot-free, I’m certain he was going to a psych facility for a while.

[WendyCR72]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Oh I think the killer was going to a psychiatric facility, I don’t think he was getting to go home. That’s what happens when someone is found not guilty by reason of mental disease. Nothing in the episode said he was getting to go home or get off scot-free, I’m certain he was going to a psych facility for a while.

See, I think he does get off scot-free. Because he was found not guilty because of said disease. Ergo, as he was essentially freed, it doesn't appear to me that he is going anywhere. The judge never commented of such following the verdict.

And if that is the case, it sucks. Intentional or not, he took another person's life.

Now, assuming this does get a renewal, I want a follow up. Because if he can kill a "friend", he can kill his wife or child, God forbid.

[Xeliou66]

15 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

See, I think he does get off scot-free. Because he was found not guilty because of said disease. Ergo, as he was essentially freed, it doesn't appear to me that he is going anywhere. The judge never commented of such following the verdict.

And if that is the case, it sucks. Intentional or not, he took another person's life.

Now, assuming this does get a renewal, I want a follow up. Because if he can kill a "friend", he can kill his wife or child, God forbid.

Nothing was said following the verdict, but nothing was said that he was going home to his wife and kids, so I assume he would go to a psych facility until he was deemed sane by experts, as the jury found him insane. Nothing said in the episode contradicted that. So I would assume he would be headed to a psych facility for a while. Just my opinion and how I took it.

I had mixed feelings about it - I thought Nolan was way too stubborn and certain Baker was lying, when I didn’t think Baker was lying about his health issues, I don’t know if it kept him from knowing right from wrong, but he had severe health issues and did come off as very sympathetic and the defense did a better job than the prosecution. But I kind of liked seeing the DA’s lose a case, I like how in L&O the protagonists don’t always win and things aren’t always black and white.

[CrystalBlue]

I thought Jack's "old boss" was Adam too.  I didn't like Nolan being so sure this time around.  This case he should have won, not the previous case.

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, CrystalBlue said:

I didn't like Nolan being so sure this time around.  This case he should have won, not the previous case.

So was McCoy’s line:

• “My old boss used to say that lawyers who have to be right lose more cases than those that don't.”

supposed to confirm that Nolan was wrong about the killer faking mental illness?

Or was it just making the point that it is unknowable whether or not Havana syndrome could cause someone to commit murder?

Or was it that Nolan was right about the killer fake-blaming Havana Syndrome for making him strangle the victim, but that was not what he needed to prove or even could prove to the jury (so he needed to go for a plea deal)?

I guess it was the last, and the writers are trying to make the show less formulaic and deeper. 

[dttruman]

7 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I had mixed feelings about it - I thought Nolan was way too stubborn and certain Baker was lying, when I didn’t think Baker was lying about his health issues, I don’t know if it kept him from knowing right from wrong, but he had severe health issues and did come off as very sympathetic and the defense did a better job than the prosecution. But I kind of liked seeing the DA’s lose a case, I like how in L&O the protagonists don’t always win and things aren’t always black and white.

I had mixed feelings also, but I was more frustrated, because there were too many unanswered questions concerning the case, which did not allow me to form any kind of judgement at all. It was like they intentionally left out testimony by a prosecution witness and used a forced manipulation of the law to keep out key evidence. All the evidence for the defendant seemed to be very vague. I don't know if it was sloppy writing or if it was planned that way.

[illdoc]

From Google: 

What does a guilty but mentally ill verdict mean?

: a verdict available in some jurisdictions in cases involving an insanity defense in which the defendant is considered as if having been found guilty but is committed to a mental hospital rather than imprisoned if an examination shows a need for psychiatric treatment — compare not guilty by reason of insanity. 

Also this: Post-Hinckley, some states adopted the guilty but mentally ill verdict. A defendant who is found guilty but mentally ill is not acquitted but punished and treated for mental health simultaneously while in prison. Typically, the guilty but mentally ill verdict is available only when the defendant fails to prove legal insanity, and requires the defendant to prove mental illness at the time of the crime to a preponderance of evidence

Versus: “Not guilty by reason of insanity” is a plea entered by a defendant in a criminal trial, where the defendant claims that they were so mentally disturbed or incapacitated at the time of the offense that they did not have the required intention to commit the crime, and are therefore not guilty. It can also be a verdict entered by a jury in a criminal case, stating that the defendant cannot be held guilty because of the defendant’s insanity (however, such a verdict may require the defendant to be admitted into a mental institution).

 

Me: So, it is possible the defendant did indeed get off "scot-free".

 

 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, illdoc said:

So, it is possible the defendant did indeed get off "scot-free".

Yes, it seems the killer got off with the defense that he only did it because he was mentally ill.
But, even if that is true (and Nolan, for one, does not believe it is true) isn't it implied that he is still a danger to society?
I guess this new rebooted version expects us to figure stuff out on our own.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, illdoc said:

Also this: Post-Hinckley,

A very Good Example!

[blackwing]

On 5/7/2022 at 2:20 PM, shapeshifter said:

Yes, it seems the killer got off with the defense that he only did it because he was mentally ill.
But, even if that is true (and Nolan, for one, does not believe it is true) isn't it implied that he is still a danger to society?
I guess this new rebooted version expects us to figure stuff out on our own.

Yep, count me among those who assumed that because he was found "not guilty because of mental disease" that in show terms, this means he goes completely free.  His defence is that he lacked the capacity to control or understand his actions.  I do think that in real life, he would be sent to a mental institute for treatment, he doesn't just get to go home.  But on this show, with the pall that hung over the courtroom and the reaction from Price, it seems that he is going home. 

Earlier in the episode it was said by the defence team that the guy wanted to go home where he can get treated by his wife who is a doctor.  I wish the judge would have clarified.  The wife is a pediatrician who doesn't seem to know anything about mental illness, she was "treating" him but was clearly ineffective.

It does seem odd that the show just expects us to make up our own ending.  Either 1) he goes to an institution or 2) he goes home completely free.  Or as I suggested above, if the show is renewed, I think it would be interesting to see 2A) he goes home and kills his wife or someone else and we get to see that part of the trial that the CIA guy wanted to avoid, "the USA on trial".

[andromeda331]

I thought he would be found guilty. Especially after he admitted he killed an innocent woman and doesn't know why. 

I do sympathize completely with him being pissed at serving his country and being screwed over by the government. The government has a bad habit of doing that. A lot. 

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I thought he would be found guilty. Especially after he admitted he killed an innocent woman and doesn't know why. 

I do sympathize completely with him being pissed at serving his country and being screwed over by the government. The government has a bad habit of doing that. A lot. 

I feel for the guy also, but the producers and writers gave us some slip-shoty vague nonspecific details that a prosecutor's expert witness probably could have countered, but for some reason they didn't want to delve into it. I thought it was very lazy that they went with an old standby, blame the "government" and even the "CIA".

[blackwing]

6 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

I thought he would be found guilty. Especially after he admitted he killed an innocent woman and doesn't know why. 

I do sympathize completely with him being pissed at serving his country and being screwed over by the government. The government has a bad habit of doing that. A lot. 

 

13 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I feel for the guy also, but the producers and writers gave us some slip-shoty vague nonspecific details that a prosecutor's expert witness probably could have countered, but for some reason they didn't want to delve into it. I thought it was very lazy that they went with an old standby, blame the "government" and even the "CIA".

Assuming his story is true, I feel bad for the guy too.  He got this syndrome while serving his country and didn't ask for it to happen to him.  However, where I lack sympathy for him is the fact that he doesn't seem to have tried to get real treatment.  His wife who is a pediatrician is supposedly caring for him but she's doing a pretty shitty job... he admits that he has debilitating headaches and that he gets blackouts where he doesn't remember anything.  She's completely clueless.  If that's the case, send yourself to a treatment center right now.  What if he was driving his family and he had a headache and blackout and crashed his car?  If this was happening to me, the possibility of injuring my family would have sent me looking for treatment like yesterday.

[Totale]

On 5/5/2022 at 9:02 PM, WendyCR72 said:

The "old boss" McCoy mentioned about lawyers needing to be right losing more cases, which do you think, Adam or Arthur?

Doesn't matter.  ADA Jack would have argued with him whichever one said it.

On 5/5/2022 at 8:37 PM, dttruman said:

I thought throwing out the DNA was kind of ticky tack here. The way the judge just dismissed it was a little too arbitrary and blaming the detectives was a poor attempt at making them look sloppy and unprofessional.

What threw me was that I didn't think evidence was like double jeopardy.  The DNA was tossed out because they didn't have a warrant?  OK, we'll go get a warrant and take the sample again, and now it's back in.

[dubbel zout]

I'm not sure they get two bites at the apple. I think once something is ruled inadmissible, it's out. There are exceptions, as always, but I think in general you get one chance for stuff like that.