S22.E04: Benefit Of The Doubt

[WendyCR72]

Airing October 13, 2022:

Quote

When the young author of a tell-all book is found dead, Cosgrove asks a former mentor for help with the case. Price has an uphill battle in court when a search and seizure is deemed illegal.

[Door County Cherry]

The legal aspects of the episode will probably make me mad but it sounds like this might actually be a straight forward/not ripped from the headlines episode.  

[Door County Cherry]

I don't know what to say about this episode.  Or how I'm supposed to feel.

The obsessed cop fake sees evidence so he can search the car.  That evidence gets tossed because he lied and yet they invite him to continue searching?  And then obsessed cop plans a necklace and gets away with it because the actor is very probably guilty* but it was all police corruption.  Is the thesis, police corruption is good if it leads to getting the "right" guy?

It's especially strange because I think they're trying to rehab Frank.  They show him at home with his daughter (I could have sworn he had 4 kids but I guess it's only 1?), less volatile (he didn't get mad when the evidence got tossed) and seemed conflicted that his hero likely planted evidence. And yet, he didn't speak up or say anything.  He let it happen.  He wasn't happy but he was complicit--especially after what happened with the car.

And that's frustrating because overall I thought it was a solid case.  There was only the slightest hint of "ripped from the headlines" by making the chef a perv with an Italian name (paging Mario Batali). 

There was one other thing I hated.  The cop was interviewed by the prosecutor.  Then the defense did the cross examination.  And rested?  So did the prosecution call the cop or the defense?  And if it was the defense, why did the prosecution start with the questions?

[Xeliou66]

This was an interesting episode - I was unsure of how to feel about it. I liked the case, but it was predictable that Jerry would screw things up for them with his overzealousness and I was unsure of how to feel about the ending. Yes they convicted the right guy, but at what cost? It was heavily implied Jerry planted evidence with the mother’s help and Cosgrove had that suspicion but said nothing. In fact, I was surprised the defense didn’t call Cosgrove or Shaw to the stand to testify about the search and not finding the necklace at first, that was the one flaw with the episode IMO. Jerry was just a moron, if he had been patient and done his job the right way, they would’ve been able to get the earring and the evidence from the apartment admitted and they would’ve had a much easier path to convicting him. I was glad Frank told Jerry to get out at the end and that he was apparently done with him, but I was left unsure about Frank’s actions, I wonder if he should’ve gone to Price with his suspicions about Jerry. Frank has grown on me a lot, and while I usually dislike personal scenes I liked seeing a softer side of him with his daughter, but I was left with mixed feelings at the end of this episode. I am enjoying the Cosgrove/Shaw pairing and I liked their investigation a lot, nice to see them talk to an ME especially, but they never should’ve let Jerry take such an active role in the case.

Another thing is that I thought the perp’s motive was underdeveloped - if they could’ve found out evidence as to why he was such a violent, sadistic predator maybe that could’ve helped their case. Or they could’ve gone back to the girlfriend and tried to break her by giving her a better idea of what kind of a predator he was.

Only one scene with Jack which was disappointing, but they were light on the legal side in this episode as the investigative stuff took up way more time.

So an interesting case that I was left with mixed feelings about - it was a compelling case but it was also predictable that Jerry would fuck everything up and I had mixed feelings about the ending. If Jerry hadn’t been an overzealous moron the case would’ve been closed a lot quicker, but then there wouldn’t have been all of the drama.

[Serena McClain]

4 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

They show him at home with his daughter (I could have sworn he had 4 kids but I guess it's only 1?)

There was one other thing I hated.  The cop was interviewed by the prosecutor.  Then the defense did the cross examination.  And rested?  So did the prosecution call the cop or the defense?  And if it was the defense, why did the prosecution start with the questions?

See, I guess the writers forgot this detail and I'm sure she is the seventeen-year-old Frank was referencing you claimed was to another daughter, when Lily was said to be fifteen in the Organized Crime crossover episode. This is what you get when the show does not dwell on the personal lives of these characters. Any small details we do get just told out of the blue on certain occasions just get forgotten later on when they do decide to give something a bit of focus. 

I don't really see this as an issue. The cop was the prosecutions witness, the defense did the cross and I'm guessing the lawyer had no other witnesses to call so they would rest. 

This episode was an odd one. Jerry came off too finnicky when it came to the evidence and what they needed to find, he clearly showed signs of being guilty here. I figured he would have gotten busted by the end, but he did not and lives to see another episode and do the same thing. So, I expect to see him play more of an antagonistic role this season which will be a nice change of format for this show. I do hope they don't just forget about him the rest of the season like they did with Jamie Ross the last season. That arc sort of just was never resolved from the revival premiere. I expected to see her again by the Season 1 finale. She would have been the fitting third ADA for this show if we were to add another of those to the bunch. We better see her again this season. 

They might as well add that female detective to the credits who is always doing research because we see her every damn episode with a great amount of screentime. Also, a nice change to have THREE detectives credited. Of course, to even this out they would need to add another ADA, which is why Jamie Ross coming back and on a regular basis would be good. I'm sure they could squeeze her in. 

Glad to see they added the STARRING above Jeffrey Donovan's name, which was missing for three episodes now.

I also think they should do away with the title card scene transitions entirely because dates overlap with other episodes and events just do not make a lick of sense if they are to be out of order. Why are we in April? Shaw was not even there at the precinct at the time and the events of the crossover where we first meet him took place in JULY. Again, the writers are incompetent!

Edited October 14, 2022 by Serena McClain

[illdoc]

7 hours ago, Serena McClain said:

See, I guess the writers forgot this detail and I'm sure she is the seventeen-year-old Frank was referencing you claimed was to another daughter, when Lily was said to be fifteen in the Organized Crime crossover episode. This is what you get when the show does not dwell on the personal lives of these characters. Any small details we do get just told out of the blue on certain occasions just get forgotten later on when they do decide to give something a bit of focus. 

A couple of possibilities: (a) the other children are older, so away at college/out on their own (even the "17 year old") (b) Frank has been married more than once and the other children are with their mother(s) and we are only seeing Frank, his current wife and their daughter (c) both (a) and (b). 

[blackwing]

Still yet to hear any mention of Bernard.  Not sure why it's so difficult to have Cosgrove mention something.  But yay for Jeffrey Donovan finally getting "STARRING" above his name in the credits.

I feel like some scenes might have been cut.  Particularly a scene where we were introduced to the actor.  We went from restaurant manager talking about how Christina got into a fight on the corner.  Then all of a sudden they are confronting the actor with the video.  There was zero discussion of who he was, where he was (it took me a minute to realise we were in his trailer).  We didn't even get his name until he became a suspect.

12 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

I don't know what to say about this episode.  Or how I'm supposed to feel.

The obsessed cop fake sees evidence so he can search the car.  That evidence gets tossed because he lied and yet they invite him to continue searching?  And then obsessed cop plans a necklace and gets away with it because the actor is very probably guilty* but it was all police corruption.  Is the thesis, police corruption is good if it leads to getting the "right" guy?

It's especially strange because I think they're trying to rehab Frank.  They show him at home with his daughter (I could have sworn he had 4 kids but I guess it's only 1?), less volatile (he didn't get mad when the evidence got tossed) and seemed conflicted that his hero likely planted evidence. And yet, he didn't speak up or say anything.  He let it happen.  He wasn't happy but he was complicit--especially after what happened with the car.

And that's frustrating because overall I thought it was a solid case.  There was only the slightest hint of "ripped from the headlines" by making the chef a perv with an Italian name (paging Mario Batali). 

There was one other thing I hated.  The cop was interviewed by the prosecutor.  Then the defense did the cross examination.  And rested?  So did the prosecution call the cop or the defense?  And if it was the defense, why did the prosecution start with the questions?

This episode was obviously meant to get viewers thinking about whether the ends justify the means.  Obviously all of the evidence pointed to this actor having killed all these women, and it seemed clear that he did it.  Five murders, all similar methods, and the guy happens to be in those locations every time?  

Another week with a lenient judge who takes the side of the defense.  I guess if the judge had agreed with Price then the case would be open and shut and it wouldn't be entertaining enough for TV.  So the judge agrees with the defense that the search was illegal.  In real life, I'm not so sure.  I think it is entirely believable that Jerry could have said he saw a glint of blood on the earring.

I don't agree with Jerry's methods of getting the necklace from the mom and planting it there... but assuming that's what he did, why didn't the defense attack him more?  

I agree that Frank is getting written as softer and less edgy this season.  Last season, he would have been the one that wouldn't have had an issue with planting evidence.  Also, for some reason, I thought he and his wife were divorced, in particular, the way he had told his daughter things like "I promised your mom I would talk to you" or "I can call your mom to come get you", made it sound like they weren't together.  But this episode, wife is in the kitchen cooking, and they are about to have family dinner with Uncle Jerry.

8 hours ago, Serena McClain said:

I don't really see this as an issue. The cop was the prosecutions witness, the defense did the cross and I'm guessing the lawyer had no other witnesses to call so they would rest. 

I think the issue is that the defense crossexamined Jerry, then said "no further questions" then immediately said "the defense rests".  I think there were a couple lines missing.  It wasn't her turn to speak and rest.  "Any redirect, Mr. Price?"  "None, Your Honor."  "Call your next witness."  "The prosecution rests."  "Ms. Defense?"  "The defense rests, Your Honor."

1 hour ago, illdoc said:

A couple of possibilities: (a) the other children are older, so away at college/out on their own (even the "17 year old") (b) Frank has been married more than once and the other children are with their mother(s) and we are only seeing Frank, his current wife and their daughter (c) both (a) and (b). 

It's possible, but now we might be getting a little too complicated for the show.  I'd like to think that Frank is a happily married family man with one child and that the earlier mention was just a continuity error because they hadn't thought about embarking on "the humanization of Frank" and introducing his family this season.

I've also noticed that Frank stopped whistling at others like a dog to call their attention to something.  I wonder if the producers decided that is a trait of gruff asstastic Frank and wanted softer moral Frank so cut out the whistling.

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 hours ago, Serena McClain said:

a nice change to have THREE detectives credited. Of course, to even this out they would need to add another ADA, which is why Jamie Ross coming back and on a regular basis would be good. I'm sure they could squeeze her in. 

I don't understand this-the show has ALWAYS credited three cops credited-the squad commander (Cragen, Van Buren), Greevy-Logan/Ceretta-Logan/Briscoe-Logan/Briscoe-Curtis/Briscoe-Green/Green-Cassady/Green-Lupo/Lupo-Bernard.

If I recall correctly from last season, it was Dixon, Frank and Bernard.

And the Order portion always had the two ADAS and the DA. Never used a third ADA.

1 minute ago, blackwing said:

"STARRING"

Is this a new thing for the new seasons? I swear, I don't remember seeing that during its original run. Just Zoom of the Law, and then the actors, and then ORDER, and then the actors.

[Xeliou66]

I think they probably deleted the scene where they mentioned Bernard, not sure what episode it was supposed to be in, but I have a feeling it got cut, which is too bad because I would like to know where he wound up. 

As for Frank’s family - I took it that this episode was confirmation he is married given what was said at the end, and as for his kids I do believe he mentioned multiple children last season but I don’t think he gave a number, so who knows, maybe he has an older child that is at college now, or maybe he has a younger child that just hasn’t been shown yet. But I like how they haven’t gone overboard with info about his family, just giving us bits and pieces, L&O is great about just giving glimpses of the characters personal lives but not going overboard. And I like how they’ve mellowed Frank out some this season while not having him lose his edge completely.

I also felt like there were a few scenes missing on the legal side, I guess they had to make it quicker because the investigative stuff took up so much time, but I did feel it was a bit odd how the defense rested immediately after crossing Jerry, both because Jerry was a prosecution witness and because surely the defense would put on the girlfriend as an alibi witness to try to give the jury doubt. Also I feel like the defense should’ve gotten Shaw or Cosgrove on the stand and grilled them about not immediately finding the necklace, it would’ve cast more doubt on Jerry. So I did feel some stuff was rushed on the legal side.

[shapeshifter]

24 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I also felt like there were a few scenes missing on the legal side, I guess they had to make it quicker because the investigative stuff took up so much time, but I did feel it was a bit odd how the defense rested immediately after crossing Jerry, both because Jerry was a prosecution witness and because surely the defense would put on the girlfriend as an alibi witness to try to give the jury doubt. Also I feel like the defense should’ve gotten Shaw or Cosgrove on the stand and grilled them about not immediately finding the necklace, it would’ve cast more doubt on Jerry. So I did feel some stuff was rushed on the legal side.

I'm going to assume all of those missing scenes happened off-camera, because, yeah, they would have happened.
This whole reboot has required the audience to assume a lot of stuff happens off-screen, if the viewers know enough to realize those scenes had to happen.

[dubbel zout]

42 minutes ago, blackwing said:

Another week with a lenient judge who takes the side of the defense.

I don't think lenient judge = side of the defense. The cops should have impounded the car and gotten a search warrant. Shaw and Cosgrove knew the bad cop was doing the wrong thing. 

The shorter show length really makes a difference when it comes to those linking scenes, like suddenly we're in the actor's trailer when we barely knew he existed. 

Props to the actress who had to shoot that scene in her underwear and a shirt. L&O doesn't usually go for that sort of thing. It was sort of disappointing to see both Shaw and Cosgrove keep averting their gaze bashfully. Her eyes are up here, guys. It's not that different from a low décolletage. And, they're NYC cops. I'm sure they've seen much racier outfits.

[WendyCR72]

5 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

I don't understand this-the show has ALWAYS credited three cops credited-the squad commander (Cragen, Van Buren), Greevy-Logan/Ceretta-Logan/Briscoe-Logan/Briscoe-Curtis/Briscoe-Green/Green-Cassady/Green-Lupo/Lupo-Bernard.

If I recall correctly from last season, it was Dixon, Frank and Bernard.

And the Order portion always had the two ADAS and the DA. Never used a third ADA.

Is this a new thing for the new seasons? I swear, I don't remember seeing that during its original run. Just Zoom of the Law, and then the actors, and then ORDER, and then the actors.

Just checked an old episode from Amazon video from S2, and yes, "Starring" was always above the first actor's/cop's name, i.e. Starring Paul Sorvino. Same for when Jerry Orbach was around. "Starring" is in smaller font above the name, so it is easy to miss.

[hifihifi]

One of the worst Law and Order's ever! The verdict made no sense especially when the defense showed she wasn't wearing the object the guy planted. I felt sure they were going to say "Not Guilty". The evidence did not support the verdict.

I also don't like if this guy was supposed to be a famous actor, the detectives were nonchalant like he was just any Tom, Dick, and Harry when they met him and they showed no motivation for his supposed murders. Just because he was in the same area where 4 different murders occurs does not mean someone else wasn't.

I hope they do a follow-up episode where the Actor appeals.

[Raja]

On 10/13/2022 at 11:21 PM, Serena McClain said:

They might as well add that female detective to the credits who is always doing research because we see her every damn episode with a great amount of screentime. Also, a nice change to have THREE detectives credited. Of course, to even this out they would need to add another ADA, which is why Jamie Ross coming back and on a regular basis would be good. I'm sure they could squeeze her in. 

They have often had the reoccurring squad detective around. I remember Lennie often asking Fal-someone for assistance but since I can't remember his name my searches always default to Falco. So far we don't have the go to medical examiner or psychologist. 

[Kemper]

8 minutes ago, Raja said:

They have often had the reoccurring squad detective around. I remember Lennie often asking Fal-someone for assistance but since I can't remember his name my searches always default to Falco. So far we don't have the go to medical examiner or psychologist. 

Prevachi? 

[Raja]

2 minutes ago, Kemper said:

Prevachi? 

Detective Tony Profaci 53 episodes and Logan's TV movie

[Kemper]

12 minutes ago, Raja said:

Detective Tony Profaci 53 episodes and Logan's TV movie

Thanks! Didn’t he do something shady or illegal? Got fired?

[Raja]

On 10/13/2022 at 7:20 PM, Door County Cherry said:

I don't know what to say about this episode.  Or how I'm supposed to feel.

The obsessed cop fake sees evidence so he can search the car.  That evidence gets tossed because he lied and yet they invite him to continue searching?  And then obsessed cop plans a necklace and gets away with it because the actor is very probably guilty* but it was all police corruption.  Is the thesis, police corruption is good if it leads to getting the "right" guy?

I don't know if it is portrayed as good, but rather something that happens. With the framing of a guilty man Jack McCoy would often know what was happening and go ahead anyway. Here Detective Cosgrove who seems like Fontana with Rey Curtis' family who turned the other way instead of jamming up his mentor who crossed the line.

[shapeshifter]

On 10/13/2022 at 10:20 PM, Door County Cherry said:

I don't know what to say about this episode.  Or how I'm supposed to feel.
The obsessed cop fake sees evidence so he can search the car.  That evidence gets tossed because he lied and yet they invite him to continue searching?  And then obsessed cop plans a necklace and gets away with it because the actor is very probably guilty* but it was all police corruption.  Is the thesis, police corruption is good if it leads to getting the "right" guy?

IIRC, only Cosgrove (not Lieutenant Kate Dixon) "invited" the old-school dirty evidence-planting cop (who is godfather to Cosgrove's 15-year-old daughter) to continue searching after the earing was tossed, and it was tossed because they didn't follow the procedure of impounding the vehicle and then getting a search warrant, not per se because of the earring. Also, I thought the earing had a red stone, which Dirty Cop evidence-planting cop could have mistaken for blood when looking through the car window——if there was an earring. 
But where did Dirty Cop evidence-planting cop find the missing earring? Is that a plot hole? Or maybe there really was an earring in the car?

Anyway, Cosgrove's partner is new to this job, and although his wealth of legal knowledge should be appreciated by the detectives, such has never been the case on L&O.
So after being overruled on the scene when he says they should get a warrant, Detective Shaw keeps quiet, but does not "invite" Dirty Cop evidence-planting cop to accompany them. 
Actually, I don't think Cosgrove does either. 
I think Dirty Cop evidence-planting cop  invites himself because he's been tracking this serial killer for a long time.

Edited October 15, 2022 by shapeshifter
Replace “Dirty Cop” with “evidence-planting cop”

[edhopper]

Jerry wasn't Dirty, just overzealous and bent the law. Dirty denotes taking bribes and such. I thought the Judge throwing out evidence felt too much like a plot device and not realistic, considering the Judge knew this guy was a suspected serial killer.

That said, the guy was going to kill again if released, so I don't think I can fault Jerry for setting him up.

[dubbel zout]

4 minutes ago, edhopper said:

considering the Judge knew this guy was a suspected serial killer.

The severity of the crime shouldn't mean the rules aren't to be followed, though. I'd argue it's even more important to be sure the perp gets convicted.

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, edhopper said:

Jerry wasn't Dirty, just overzealous and bent the law. Dirty denotes taking bribes and such

True.
Jerry had nothing to gain.

Is there an adjective to use in place of “Dirty” to describe a cop who plants evidence, but only when he’s sure a ruthless killer will otherwise go free?

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:True.
Jerry had nothing to gain.

Is there an adjective to use in place of “Dirty” to describe a cop who plants evidence, but only when he’s sure a ruthless killer will otherwise go free?

I think planting evidence does make Jerry dirty, regardless of what his intentions were. The bottom line is is that Jerry screwed up the case by being an overzealous moron, had he been patient and just let Cosgrove/Shaw do their jobs they could’ve gotten the car impounded and searched and thus gotten the earring from the car and the hair from the apartment into evidence and had a much easier time convicting the perp. I felt no sympathy for Jerry and I was glad Frank cut ties with him at the end.

[edhopper]

3 hours ago, dubbel zout said:

The severity of the crime shouldn't mean the rules aren't to be followed, though. I'd argue it's even more important to be sure the perp gets convicted.

True, but the bloody earring in plain sight should have given the cops the benefit of the doubt 😉. I feel that was a forced plot device.

But I am looking at this as TV and not real life. In real life guilt is not so obvious, unless you are OJ and judges tend to side with the cops and prosecutors more than the defendants, unless you are OJ.

Edited October 15, 2022 by edhopper

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

. . . they could’ve gotten the car impounded and searched and thus gotten the earring from the car and the hair from the apartment into evidence . . .

25 minutes ago, edhopper said:

True, but the bloody earring in plain sight should have given the cops the benefit of the doubt 😉. I feel that was a forced plot device.

At the end, we (and Cosgrove, and seemingly Shaw and even Price) are sure Jerry planted the necklace. 
The episode title seems to refer at least in part to the jury's "Benefit of the Doubt" that the necklace might not have been planted. 

But, are we sure the earring was or was not planted too?

I think the earring was just as likely to have been planted by Jerry. 

How did Jerry get the bloody earring? Maybe he read the report about the rookie on the scene having moved the purse from an undetermined location to give it to the officers, and then he went back and combed the area until he found the earring. 
I do wish we'd at least been given some glimpse of Jerry's face looking in the direction from where the Rookie had retrieved the purse, but Jerry was not yet in on the case yet at that point, right?

But I suppose Cosgrove reprimanding the Rookie for screwing up the chain of evidence on the purse was just to let us know that Cosgrove cares about such things.

Maybe the victim had a spare earring at home he got from the mother too? If she had just one piecing in each ear, it would not be unusual for her to buy a new pair if she lost one of a favorite pair, and then keep the spare in case she lost another. 

Edited October 15, 2022 by shapeshifter

[Door County Cherry]

4 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

But where did Dirty Cop evidence-planting cop find the missing earring? Is that a plot hole? Or maybe there really was an earring in the car?

Jerry didn't plant the earring.  The earring was in the car.  He planted the necklace once the other evidence got tossed. 

3 hours ago, edhopper said:

Jerry wasn't Dirty, just overzealous and bent the law. Dirty denotes taking bribes and such. I thought the Judge throwing out evidence felt too much like a plot device and not realistic, considering the Judge knew this guy was a suspected serial killer.

Dirty includes planting evidence, IMO.  

9 minutes ago, edhopper said:

True, but the bloody earring in plain sight should have given the cops the benefit of the doubt 😉. I feel that was a forced plot device.

The earring wasn't in plain site, though.  It was hidden under the console.  IIRC, the cop pointed out the blood in a specific place.  It wasn't the earring.  I think the one thing that should have potentially counteracted their actions was the fact that the actor, with his attorney present, admitted that she had been in his car.  

[ML89]

On 10/14/2022 at 2:21 AM, Serena McClain said:

also think they should do away with the title card scene transitions entirely because dates overlap with other episodes and events just do not make a lick of sense if they are to be out of order. Why are we in April? Shaw was not even there at the precinct at the time and the events of the crossover where we first meet him took place in JULY. Again, the writers are incompetent!

The title cards have always been a mess, that is not new (as far back as the Logan years, the wrong precinct is on them and the dates are off kilter too). Also, Lennie had one daughter until they needed him to have a daughter to turn into an addict, then he had two. 
 

I just realized that Shaw leaving the law for being a cop is from Law & Order LA when they moved the prosecutor to lead detective (it kade absolutely no sense there). At least Lupo quoting law sometimes got Bernard to stop - that car search was boneheaded. Then a search in the pitch dark with some flashlights? Did L&O turn into X-Files?

[GHScorpiosRule]

2 minutes ago, ML89 said:

Lennie had one daughter until they needed him to have a daughter to turn into an addict, then he had two. 

No. Lennie originally said/told Mike he had two kids. But we only ever saw one-and she was the nurse who turned into a drug addict. Never even saw the second kid at her funeral.

[Xeliou66]

6 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

No. Lennie originally said/told Mike he had two kids. But we only ever saw one-and she was the nurse who turned into a drug addict. Never even saw the second kid at her funeral.

Yes Lennie always had 2 kids, that was established early on. We only saw Cathy, the one who had drug issues and was killed, but the other daughter was mentioned many times, even after Cathy’s death, so the writers did stick to continuity there. The show has really been very good when sticking to continuity, it’s rare that they screw something up.

[WendyCR72]

42 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yes Lennie always had 2 kids, that was established early on. We only saw Cathy, the one who had drug issues and was killed, but the other daughter was mentioned many times, even after Cathy’s death, so the writers did stick to continuity there. The show has really been very good when sticking to continuity, it’s rare that they screw something up.

I do remember the other daughter's name was Julia. So, yes, Lennie always had two daughters.

[shapeshifter]

7 hours ago, Door County Cherry said:

Jerry didn't plant the earring.  The earring was in the car. 

Rewatching on Peacock, starting at 19:22, Cosgrove, Jerry, and Shaw are talking to the actor, Niles, asking about his removed tattoo, when he says he has to leave. 
The scene then cuts to the parking lot, where we see Niles' black Tesla with the windows rolled down, and Jerry is looking(?) into it from the driver's side. Cosgrove and Shaw have not arrived at the car yet. This is the moment when it's possible Jerry could have planted the other earring, but I doubt we'll ever know for sure.

Cosgrove approaches and asks: "What's going on, Jerry?"
Jerry says that since the actor lied about the victim being in his car but now admitted it, that makes the car a crime scene that needs to be searched. Now.
When Shaw says they need a warrant, Jerry shuts him down, saying he's a cop now, not a lawyer, etc. 
When Niles the serial killer/actor then shows up and is about to drive away, Jerry yells "I see blood!" And then, looking in the passenger window into the dark interior of the car, he points across to the driver's side (where he was before Cosgrove and Shaw got there) and says "I see something red!"

Now looking through the passenger window, could Jerry really see a spec of red, or any earring that was mostly under the floormat but barely visible through the driver's window by Cosgrove? 
I think it's supposed to be suspicious, or else why have Jerry hovering around the car parked with the frickin windows rolled all the way down, and why else was Jerry there alone ahead of Cosgrove and Shaw? 
But we will never know for sure.
🤷🏻‍♀️

Edited October 16, 2022 by shapeshifter

[ML89]

10 hours ago, WendyCR72 said:

I do remember the other daughter's name was Julia. So, yes, Lennie always had two daughters.

I'll just say, to me, it was unclear early on. In the one with his pal the dirty cop back in season 3  - "Kids" - he keeps talking about "my daughter" not plural. Or buying sneakers, I think in the one with the baseball player. (cf how many dirty cops did Lennie know? A friend and I had a theory that Lennie was really the cop Jerry played in Prince of the City...)

I swear, I thought Detective Jerry was retired and I was really surprised when he rolled up with them to look at the Tesla. Why wasn't Dixon complaining about some cop from another precinct on their turf?

Also, not to tread on dangerous ground and hot take, but did it strike anyone else that they had the actor playing a cop and he looked vaguely like Chris Noth?

[Chyromaniac]

On 10/14/2022 at 10:56 AM, blackwing said:

I don't agree with Jerry's methods of getting the necklace from the mom and planting it there... but assuming that's what he did, why didn't the defense attack him more?

Presumably the defense doesn’t know what we do- that Det. Planter visited Christina’s mother just before the warehouse search.  I’m sure if she had, it would have come out in her cross - that’s incredibly damaging to his testimony.

What I found odd was Cosgrove and the mother talking about finding receipts for the necklace- as if it was never actually her jewelry in the first place.  I thought they were implying that Planter went out and got the necklace himself - but that never came up again.

I also was confused by a line Planter says to the Defense Attorney.  She says he’d do anything to convict the defendant.  But he replies no - he does things the right way, “but you already know that.”  What is that supposed to mean?  It sounds like there’s some history between the two of them, but it never gets followed up on.

So… how does she know???  Did she accuse him of planting evidence in a previous case, that he’s also gotten away with?  Is she his ex?  Is she a former DA who relied on his (tainted) testimony?  There seem to be several issues in this episode that could have been executed better- with the run time they have now, it’s incumbent on the writers to make these stories as compact and clear, while still debating moral questions.

[Zaffy]

So cliche and so predictable... and well boring..

[zapper]

I think that Jerry did plant the necklace - with the mother's help. 

I also think that he did not plant the earring, but was lucky when he found it because I also do not think that Jerry saw blood in the car any more than any other TV cop who says "did you hear a shout? I heard a shout" actually heard something before breaking down a door.

[Xeliou66]

9 minutes ago, zapper said:

I think that Jerry did plant the necklace - with the mother's help. 

I also think that he did not plant the earring, but was lucky when he found it because I also do not think that Jerry saw blood in the car any more than any other TV cop who says "did you hear a shout? I heard a shout" actually heard something before breaking down a door.

Agreed completely - Jerry definitely didn’t plant the earring, but he didn’t see blood either, he just wanted to enter the car. Had he been patient and had they just called for an impound they could’ve searched the car later and found the earring and everything would’ve been admissible. Jerry fucked up the case with his overzealousness, and I saw that coming a mile away. I agree that Jerry probably planted the necklace with the mom’s help, but there was no way of ever proving it for sure as neither the mom nor Jerry would ever admit to it, so they had to use what they had. I still liked the episode despite it being predictable that Jerry would be a problem. I just wonder what the DA’s would’ve done if they had known about Jerry’s visit to the mom before the search, would they have presented the necklace into evidence then? 

[andromeda331]

I really don't like planting evidence even against someone as horrible as the murderer. I understand wanting to get the guy badly to the point of considering it. But what if it does come out that it was planted? Here or down the road. The case gets tossed and he goes free. He's becomes even less likely to be convicted again because of it. How much worse would it be for the families to see the murderer walk because a cop planted evidence?

[Chyromaniac]

On 10/17/2022 at 2:45 PM, andromeda331 said:

I really don't like planting evidence even against someone as horrible as the murderer. I understand wanting to get the guy badly to the point of considering it. But what if it does come out that it was planted? Here or down the road. The case gets tossed and he goes free. He's becomes even less likely to be convicted again because of it. How much worse would it be for the families to see the murderer walk because a cop planted evidence?

Also, keep in mind that this case is taking place in the Dick Wolf Fantasy World, where the person on trial is always clearly the killer- the only questions are whether they’ll be held accountable, or to what end.  Here in the real world, we don’t have that luxury.  So when a cop like Det. Planter decides that because “this is the guy” it’s okay to put their thumb on the scale, the consequences go a lot further than possibly a killer going free.  It wastes time and money, makes actually solving the case even harder, and in all likelihood puts an innocent person in prison.

[Xeliou66]

19 minutes ago, Chyromaniac said:

Also, keep in mind that this case is taking place in the Dick Wolf Fantasy World, where the person on trial is always clearly the killer- the only questions are whether they’ll be held accountable, or to what end.  Here in the real world, we don’t have that luxury.  So when a cop like Det. Planter decides that because “this is the guy” it’s okay to put their thumb on the scale, the consequences go a lot further than possibly a killer going free.  It wastes time and money, makes actually solving the case even harder, and in all likelihood puts an innocent person in prison.

I understand what you’re saying, but to be fair to the show, they have put people on trial before who they later realize are not guilty, and have dealt with the consequences of police corruption and misconduct. This show doesn’t portray the system as perfect or flawless.

[Joimiaroxeu]

Why were the detectives acting so embarrassed by the woman who answered the door in her underwear? She wasn't showing any more skin than what you could easily see at the beach or a swimming pool.

A black Tesla is kind of a high profile vehicle for a perp to be using near multiple crime scenes across multiple states. The killer must've wanted to get caught since he was being so brazen.

The prosecution will lose on appeal, I bet.  

[Chyromaniac]

On 10/18/2022 at 8:01 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I understand what you’re saying, but to be fair to the show, they have put people on trial before who they later realize are not guilty, and have dealt with the consequences of police corruption and misconduct. This show doesn’t portray the system as perfect or flawless.

Tbh, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen an episode where, at the end of the day, the police/prosecutors are just flat out wrong.  Maybe the episode where Jack takes out his grief over Claire on that drunk driver- but that guy was still guilty, just not a “murderer.” By the end, the characters invariably know the truth- I’d suggest it’s kind of essential for the premise of the show.

Dick Wolf has said that the first half of the show is a mystery, and the second half is a morality play.  Once we know who the killer is, the questions become: will/should they be held accountable? What consequences should they face?  Unfortunately, this means that presumption of guilt is baked into the show.  After all, this series is about “the police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”

As for the portrayal of police, the show has certainly had it’s share of bad apples- but I’d suggest that they are used mostly to make the overall force look good by comparison.  That’s what this guy is doing.  He’s here so that Cosgrove- a detective who engages in a wide range of questionable attitudes and methods- can say at the end, “no, you went too far - I’m not like you, bad cop.”  Otherwise, if anyone has any doubts about the show’s (or Wolf’s) attitudes towards police/prosecutors I strongly suggest watching the recent Last Week Tonight segment.

Look, I’m a fan of the show- I enjoy combination of the mystery story mixed with social debate. And it’s fun to watch Briscoe track down a suspect, or McCoy use some legal loophole to get a conviction.  But, I never forget that those things are only “fun” because it’s a show. The real life consequences that can happen when cops or DAs bend the rules, or follow their hunches over facts, can be pretty severe.  That’s all I was intending to point out.

[Xeliou66]

45 minutes ago, Chyromaniac said:

Tbh, I don’t know if I’ve ever seen an episode where, at the end of the day, the police/prosecutors are just flat out wrong.  Maybe the episode where Jack takes out his grief over Claire on that drunk driver- but that guy was still guilty, just not a “murderer.” By the end, the characters invariably know the truth- I’d suggest it’s kind of essential for the premise of the show.

Dick Wolf has said that the first half of the show is a mystery, and the second half is a morality play.  Once we know who the killer is, the questions become: will/should they be held accountable? What consequences should they face?  Unfortunately, this means that presumption of guilt is baked into the show.  After all, this series is about “the police who investigate crime, and the district attorneys who prosecute the offenders.”

As for the portrayal of police, the show has certainly had it’s share of bad apples- but I’d suggest that they are used mostly to make the overall force look good by comparison.  That’s what this guy is doing.  He’s here so that Cosgrove- a detective who engages in a wide range of questionable attitudes and methods- can say at the end, “no, you went too far - I’m not like you, bad cop.”  Otherwise, if anyone has any doubts about the show’s (or Wolf’s) attitudes towards police/prosecutors I strongly suggest watching the recent Last Week Tonight segment.

Look, I’m a fan of the show- I enjoy combination of the mystery story mixed with social debate. And it’s fun to watch Briscoe track down a suspect, or McCoy use some legal loophole to get a conviction.  But, I never forget that those things are only “fun” because it’s a show. The real life consequences that can happen when cops or DAs bend the rules, or follow their hunches over facts, can be pretty severe.  That’s all I was intending to point out.

I understand where you’re coming from, and I agree that the show is pro-police and pro-prosecutors overall, it naturally is as those are the protagonists, but it’s for entertainment first and foremost. And not to offend or attack anyone, but as for John Oliver, I don’t get why him and other critics trash forms of entertainment they dislike, just change the channel if you dislike a show or a genre, the only type of show critics seem to like are gloomy depressing evil vs evil trash with tons of violence and profanity and where no character is sympathetic. 

The closest episode I can think of where the police and DA’s were wrong about a case all the way until the very end is Patsy from season 10 - the police and DA’s were certain the guy was guilty of assaulting the comatose victim found at the start of the episode and of murdering her sister years earlier, and it was only at the very end that they realized they were likely wrong about the whole case, with the “victim” from the start of the episode having killed her sister and then tried to frame the defendant for assaulting her and accidentally wound up in a coma all because she was obsessed with the guy. The main characters were certain the guy was guilty until the last minute of the episode when they realized they were likely wrong. 

[love2lovebadtv]

On 10/7/2022 at 7:53 AM, dttruman said:

I thought they were being very superficial with the character of the shooter. If they would have made him more in depth the trial would have been much better. If the defense was going with the mental disorder, they should have had him testify to show how messed up he was. There white supremacist angle was lightweight also. All we heard him say were a couple of quick racist statements as he was being apprehended and that was it. With all the white supremacist scenarios we have seen on all the L & O outlets, they always make a definite speech or two.

I think not hearing more about the shooter was amplified by never seeing the detectives never talk to anyone but the child's mom about him. If they had talked to the transit authority about suspects who would have a key, they would uncovered more. I didn't understand the reliance on the child's mom as their witness. 

On 10/13/2022 at 10:20 PM, Door County Cherry said:

It's especially strange because I think they're trying to rehab Frank.  They show him at home with his daughter (I could have sworn he had 4 kids but I guess it's only 1?)

I just assumed his other children are older and not living at home full-time/not in the picture as much.

On 10/14/2022 at 12:07 AM, Xeliou66 said:

I am enjoying the Cosgrove/Shaw pairing and I liked their investigation a lot, nice to see them talk to an ME especially, but they never should’ve let Jerry take such an active role in the case.

I like that Shaw was skeptical but came around after making an observation. They make a nice team. But yea, Jerry showed his true colors when he lied about seeing blood in the car. 

[Samsnee]

The actor who played Jerry has been on L&O before right? 

[Xeliou66]

12 minutes ago, Samsnee said:

The actor who played Jerry has been on L&O before right? 

Yes, I knew he looked familiar, I looked him up and he played the murderer husband from the rich snobby family in season 2’s fantastic episode Blood Is Thicker! I didn’t recognize him at first it’s been so long, but it’s him. He’s played some other roles as well.

[GHScorpiosRule]

28 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yes, I knew he looked familiar, I looked him up and he played the murderer husband from the rich snobby family in season 2’s fantastic episode Blood Is Thicker! I didn’t recognize him at first it’s been so long, but it’s him. He’s played some other roles as well.

Yes. He played the hack doctor who treated Alan as schizophrenic, but if he had done the PET, would have known he had a tumor in “Double Blind” from season 7, I think? Because of the funding he wanted, he kept Alan on the drugs that weren’t working and so Alan was the one who had committed the murder in the cold open.

[Tachi Rocinante]

Planting evidence is dirty, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the party you're trying to frame. Especially when your own stupidity got legitimate evidence tossed.

No closing arguments? Really? Is that even possible?

I think they left legal stuff out, too.  "One time is chance, twice is a coincidence, the third and fourth times denote a pattern. The prosecution rests, your Honor."

[andromeda331]

14 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Yes. He played the hack doctor who treated Alan as schizophrenic, but if he had done the PET, would have known he had a tumor in “Double Blind” from season 7, I think? Because of the funding he wanted, he kept Alan on the drugs that weren’t working and so Alan was the one who had committed the murder in the cold open.

That was such a great episode. That doctor was so incompetent and smug. I wish we could lock him in a room with Alan. If there's anything left let the janitor's family go next.