S23.E09: Family Ties

[Xeliou66]

Here’s the thread for tonight’s episode 

[shapeshifter]

Episode description from DirectTV.com:

Quote

When a congressman's aide is found dead after testifying in a corruption case, Shaw and Riley discover the suspect may be someone close to home; as Price solidifies his case against the defendant, Baxter proposes they go after an accomplice as well.

 

[wknt3]

22 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Episode description from DirectTV.com:
 

Quote

When a congressman's aide is found dead after testifying in a corruption case, Shaw and Riley discover the suspect may be someone close to home; as Price solidifies his case against the defendant, Baxter proposes they go after an accomplice as well

 

What is the over/under for life expectancy of anyone closely associated with a politician taking the subway from or to Hudson University in the current run of Law & Order? 2 minutes? 3?

[dttruman]

25 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

What is the over/under for life expectancy of anyone closely associated with a politician taking the subway from or to Hudson University in the current run of Law & Order? 2 minutes? 3?

Since betting is legal now, you will probably get a lot of action on that outcome.

[dttruman]

• Did the judge agree with the defense here a lot? From excluding the bloody hammer to the change of plea w/o notification?
• Did it seem like the husband was more interested in getting the baby, then getting justice for his murdered wife?
• As traumatized as the mother said she is with (PTSD), you'd think she would definitely want take the 15 years than go back to Ukraine. Is she more conniving than we think, because she wants only 5 years?

Edited April 12 by dttruman

[Spartan Girl]

9 hours ago, dttruman said:

As traumatized as the mother said she is with (PTSD), you'd think she would definitely want take the 15 years than go back to Ukraine. Is she more conniving than we think, because she wants only 5 years?

My guess is yes.

I’m glad Maroun finally sacked up and did her job because I was ready to smack her. Her parents getting spooked and paranoid and almost fleeing in the middle of the night doesn’t compare to Drina bludgeoning two people and selling her baby to the highest bidder. No matter what trauma she had been through. And the fact that she basically screwed the victim’s husband out of the child that was rightfully his after murdering his wife to try to get a sweetheart deal…how the hell could Maroun still feel any pity for her after that?!

Edited April 12 by Spartan Girl

[EtheltoTillie]

I’m not questioning the husband’s prioritizing getting the baby.  It would seem the dead wife would have wanted that. 
 

Question: what happened to the scammy lawyer?  I missed that when not watching every minute. 

I’m confused on the hammer:  did they find it just lying openly in the crime scene?  Then why the expectation of privacy?  Again, I wasn’t paying close attention. The judge did say it was a close call, but I thought a wrong call. 
Then they kept talking about the hammer anyway. How was that allowed?  I guess because she changed her plea . . .  

[Xeliou66]

Interesting episode - pretty good - I have several thoughts 

I was annoyed with Maroun as well, and I didn’t feel much sympathy for the defendant - she committed a vicious murder, almost a double murder, and any sympathy I had went out the window when she used the baby as a bargaining chip to try to get off with a slap on the wrist, that was just callous and showed that she wasn’t a good person who snapped because of mental trauma but a cold blooded killer who would do anything for her own self interest. I was very glad Baxter said he wouldn’t let the killer use a child as a bargaining chip - in fact I liked Baxter throughout this one and things seemed more settled in with him tonight and I liked that. I also agreed with Baxter that the scumbag scamming couples didn’t deserve immunity and they could make their murder case without him - I hope he got the book thrown at him, a reference to that would’ve been nice. 
But yeah Maroun seemed ready to tank the case until Price called her out, and I don’t know how Maroun had any sympathy for this woman after what she did. The jury got the right verdict. 

Once again we have a judge making questionable rulings and letting the defense get away with anything - the tossing out the murder weapon was absurd, and then he just let the defense change course in the middle of trial even though you have to give notice - he was so biased. Having a judge harm the DAs case with ridiculous decisions is unfortunately a common theme on the revival.

And we really need a psych expert - I sorely miss Skoda/Olivet - there have been several revival episodes where an expert could’ve been used to consult with the police/DAs and I miss that.

The investigation was strong as usual - I love Shaw and Riley and I liked how they followed the various leads until they found the culprit. The detective part of the show is really excellent now. No foot chases this week which was a plus!! 

Overall a good episode, but I was annoyed with Maroun. I liked Baxter and I’m hopeful he’s settled in now. Pretty good case. 

[dttruman]

27 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

Question: what happened to the scammy lawyer?  I missed that when not watching every minute. 

I can understand the girl suffering from PTSD and committing the crime and pleading mentally unstable, but Baxter wanted a conviction at first then would settle for 15 years for murder for some reason. Instead, they should have gone after that crooked lawyer, it would have been more entertaining.

[Xeliou66]

42 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I’m not questioning the husband’s prioritizing getting the baby.  It would seem the dead wife would have wanted that. 
 

Question: what happened to the scammy lawyer?  I missed that when not watching every minute. 

I’m confused on the hammer:  did they find it just lying openly in the crime scene?  Then why the expectation of privacy?  Again, I wasn’t paying close attention. The judge did say it was a close call, but I thought a wrong call. 
Then they kept talking about the hammer anyway. How was that allowed?  I guess because she changed her plea . . .  

They found the hammer in a garbage can at the residence. I agree that the judge’s ruling was really bad. And yeah since the defendant admitted to the crime the prosecution could use her actions afterwards, including disposing the weapon, to impeach her credibility. 
And yeah a line about the guy scamming the couples looking to adopt going to jail would’ve been nice, I’m glad Baxter said the office would open a case against him.

[dttruman]

5 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

And we really need a psych expert - I sorely miss Skoda/Olivet - there have been several revival episodes where an expert could’ve been used to consult with the police/DAs and I miss that.

I thought that one shrink that testified that the mother had PTSD was a defense shrink, where was the prosecution's shrink? Apparently Dick Wolf doesn't want to chip in for another shrink character.

[mjc570]

Finally, an episode where I wasn't completely disgusted by the prosecution's incompetence.  Of course, there were questionable rulings to amp up the suspense, but both lawyers actually did their jobs.  And, I really like Tony Goldwin as the DA.  I  felt for the dad, and I hope he can do some fundraising to afford the legal fees to get custody (or establish paternity, whatever), which I assume would actually be a slam-dunk given the mother's circumstances.  

Edited April 12 by mjc570
typos cannot be allowed to survive

[edhopper]

That is not how it works. They just don't get to put a defense psychologist on the stand. There should be an expert from the prosecution and even an independent assigned by the Judge. 

And you wait until the end to bring up she was trying to sell the baby?

And no, you don't need a search warrant at a murder scene. 

Also, I can't see the husband not getting the baby immediately. Any Judge would give him custody while it goes through the courts.  

And if she was just a surrogate for the couple's baby, the birth certificate is a fraud.

[paigow]

7 hours ago, wknt3 said:

What is the over/under for life expectancy of anyone closely associated with a politician taking the subway from or to Hudson University in the current run of Law & Order? 2 minutes? 3?

NYC streets are safer... except around bus stops...

[TakomaSnark]

9 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

My guess is yes.

I’m glad Maroun finally sacked up and did her job because I was ready to smack her. Her parents getting spooked and paranoid and almost fleeing in the middle of the night doesn’t compare to Drina bludgeoning two people and selling her baby to the highest bidder. No matter what trauma she had been through. And the fact that she basically screwed the victim’s husband out of the child that was rightfully his after murdering his wife to try to get a sweetheart deal…how the hell could Maroun still feel any pity for her after that?!

At this point, Maroun has my vote for the worst ADA in mothership history. From the character to the performance, she's the absolute pits.

[Madding crowd]

9 hours ago, edhopper said:

That is not how it works. They just don't get to put a defense psychologist on the stand. There should be an expert from the prosecution and even an independent assigned by the Judge. 

And you wait until the end to bring up she was trying to sell the baby?

And no, you don't need a search warrant at a murder scene. 

Also, I can't see the husband not getting the baby immediately. Any Judge would give him custody while it goes through the courts.  

And if she was just a surrogate for the couple's baby, the birth certificate is a fraud.

Surrogate laws are different in each state and in New York the birth mother is the legal mother. I assume the father could demand a paternity test and file for custody since the baby will be going from jail to foster care. I don’t blame the husband for caring more about the baby than getting a long prison sentence for the killer; his wife is gone the baby is all that’s left of her. Glad this woman was convicted, the clean up afterwards and trying to sell the baby proved it wasn’t just PTSD.

[shapeshifter]

14 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I was very glad Baxter said he wouldn’t let the killer use a child as a bargaining chip

It was most likely the defense attorney's idea to bargain with the baby to get 5 years in prison for the defendant. 
— but which perhaps led to Maroun pointing out that the killer fled the scene to sell the baby to the highest bidder. 
If this were a novel where we could have access to the characters' inner thoughts, there could have been an explanation that the killer realized she was not fit to raise a child, and presumed both of the child's biological parents were now dead, so she went to the people who she'd been told wanted the baby. But the killer's lawyer could not bring that up because it would contribute to the prosecutors' point about her being able to think rationally. 

 

 

4 hours ago, Madding crowd said:

his wife is gone the baby is all that’s left of her.

The point of the baby being all the widowed father had left of his wife needed to be strengthened by the father stating it in a tear-jerker moment, but I guess the writers nowadays think that's too chewing too much scenery or something? 

BTW, why didn't she smash in the husband/father's skully too? His complete recovery seemed to be mostly plot device.

 

 

15 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

I’m confused on the hammer:  did they find it just lying openly in the crime scene?  Then why the expectation of privacy?  Again, I wasn’t paying close attention. The judge did say it was a close call, but I thought a wrong call. 
Then they kept talking about the hammer anyway. How was that allowed?  I guess because she changed her plea . . .

The killer's name was still on the lease as a roommate, so they needed to get her permission to look in the garbage can inside the apartment — which seems a little silly plot-wise. 

[dubbel zout]

2 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

The killer's name was still on the lease as a roommate

I thought the name wasn't on the lease, but she was a tenant there, and that's why the judge said it was a close call to disallow the hammer. Which as someone posted earlier, shouldn't matter in a murder investigation. It's not as if anyone cut off a lock or something. A trash can is in plain sight.

[EtheltoTillie]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

I

The killer's name was still on the lease as a roommate, so they needed to get her permission to look in the garbage can inside the apartment — which seems a little silly plot-wise. 

 I went back and replayed the scene because I was curious.   They actually did a good job of setting up the legal question.

When they started looking around they made a point of asking if anyone else lived there, and they were told no.  They were told the  extra room was for an office.  We jokingly call this type of conundrum a law school exam question.  Professors throw in a lot of points in a "fact pattern"  that could make the decision go one way or another.  When you take the exam you have to point out all the arguments going both ways.  You then have to pick an answer and justify it.  There's really no one right answer.  You get a higher grade on the exam just for having spotted more issues. 

In the same way, there's no right answer when you go before the judge and you have facts that can go both ways.  You present your side and the other side presents theirs.  The judge picks the answer and you have to live with it, unless you would appeal for some reason.  That doesn't happen in these trial shows.  Appeal would come later.  The "right" answer comes when you get to the highest appeals court if that happens.

If they had found the hammer in the garbage in the street it would have been a slam dunk for no expectation of privacy.

[shapeshifter]

15 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

…there's no right answer when you go before the judge and you have facts that can go both ways.  You present your side and the other side presents theirs.  The judge picks the answer and you have to live with it, unless you would appeal for some reason.  That doesn't happen in these trial shows.  Appeal would come later.  The "right" answer comes when you get to the highest appeals court if that happens.

Thanks for this detailed explanation.

15 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

 I went back and replayed the scene because I was curious.

Do you recall if the defense attorney sprung the objection to hammer in the middle of the courtroom proceedings? If so, that would explain why Price didn't present more convincing arguments to keep the hammer in.  
I thought it was handed to Price and Maroun in an envelope outside the courtroom, but I don't know whether that was moments before they were "called to order" or not.
IDK. Price did point out to the judge:

15 minutes ago, EtheltoTillie said:

When they started looking around they made a point of asking if anyone else lived there, and they were told no.  They were told the  extra room was for an office. 

Right? It seems like that should have been good enough.
Especially if the garbage can didn't have a lid, but I'm guessing in NYC, all indoor garbage containers have lids due to ubiquitous cockroaches, due to buildings being interconnected. 
So I guess opening a trash receptacle lid to see the hammer means it was not "in plane sight" at the crime scene. 

Edited April 12 by shapeshifter

[EtheltoTillie]

14 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

 

Do you recall if the defense attorney sprung the objection to hammer in the middle of the courtroom proceedings? If so, that would explain why Price didn't present more convincing arguments to keep the hammer in. 

Especially if the garbage can didn't have a lid, but I'm guessing in NYC, all indoor garbage containers have lids due to ubiquitous cockroaches, due to buildings being interconnected. 
So I guess opening a trash receptacle lid to see the hammer means it was not "in plane sight" at the crime scene. 

I did not go back and watch the argument--only the search.  That's where they made the comment about the trash.  I think the hammer was just in a wastebasket, but who knows.

In NYC there is not actually a danger of ubiquitous cockroaches these days, although I lived in some apartments and college dorm rooms in the 70s that had that problem.

I do keep ordinary wastebaskets for paper garbage without covers!  Of course, the food garbage containers have covers.

As for the timing of the argument, I think it was a pretrial motion to exclude the evidence.  The timing on TV trials is so off kilter, because TV court has trials start days after the arrest--ha!

Also in Law and Order world they never prepare for trial in advance--they start investigating new theories in the middle of trials.  Sigh. 

 

[blackwing]

This episode irritated me to no end.  Really ticked off that the writers tried to excuse the defendant's murderous actions with a handwave of "she's from Ukraine, she's had a rough time".  When Price suggests that millions of people have come from Ukraine and no one else has murdered, defence lawyer objects and judge agrees.  Terrible.

How is it that the woman thought she could just leave in the first place?  She had a contract to be surrogate, she decides no, I'm moving out today?  I think I missed the explanation for why she was moving out.  Just didn't want to do it anymore?  Wanted to keep the baby for herself?  If these were said, I missed it.  I much rather would have gotten better explanation of some events instead of wasting time on the homeless guy who stole $20 from the wife.

Really ticked off at Maroun.  I wish Baxter had been observing and fired her on the spot.  I knew right away that she was siding with the defendant.  Why is she even a prosecutor?  She frequently seems to have a bleeding heart for the defendants.  Wouldn't she be happier in life if she were a defence attorney?  I know that her role on this show is to be contrarian to Price, but still.  How come she kept her job while Greg or whatever the name of that poor schlub with his things in a box from the other week was got fired?

The defence attorney... ugh.  I think this actress thinks she knocked it out of the park but everything about her bugged me.  The bug eyes, the superior inflection of her voice, the severely short/pinned "I'm a professional" hair.  I hope we don't see her again.

18 hours ago, dttruman said:

• Did the judge agree with the defense here a lot? From excluding the bloody hammer to the change of plea w/o notification?

17 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Once again we have a judge making questionable rulings and letting the defense get away with anything - the tossing out the murder weapon was absurd, and then he just let the defense change course in the middle of trial even though you have to give notice - he was so biased. Having a judge harm the DAs case with ridiculous decisions is unfortunately a common theme on the revival.

In this era of L&O it seems like anytime the defence asks for something, they get it.  This judge was truly ridiculous.  The hammer was found at the CRIME SCENE.  Shouldn't that just be part of collecting evidence?  For the judge to say she was living there and therefore has an expectation of privacy, doesn't that suggest that any evidence collected at any crime scene would be inadmissible, as long as the defendant lived there and didn't consent?  So a husband who kills his wife inside their home, he can flee the home and then later claim that evidence was improperly collected?  Makes zero sense.  And he was so dismissive with his repeated "anything else?" demands to move on, like he was impatient to get home so he could clean his belly button lint.

Changing tactics mid-trial, also terrible.  Judge said they would get time to prepare, I wonder how much time that was.  Why didn't the prosecution have their own psych expert who was able to talk to Davina and come up with their own conclusions?

17 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

And yeah a line about the guy scamming the couples looking to adopt going to jail would’ve been nice, I’m glad Baxter said the office would open a case against him.

Did they though?  I thought Baxter said he'd like to bring a case against the baby broker.  But I would have liked to have gotten more definite confirmation.  Why was the baby broker in any position to bargain?  He said he would only testify if he got full immunity.  Why not say "no, and here's your subpoena".  I was surprised they didn't put this guy on the stand.  We needed to hear from him about the other couple and the $250,000.  But I guess that would have been an open and shut case against Davina so it would have made things too easy.

Why did it take until so far into the trial to mention the $250,000?  I'm hoping Price said something in his opening statement that was cut for time purposes.

If I were prosecution I would have subpeonaed the 250K couple to testify that Davina was completely calm and collected and rational when trying to sell the baby.  Not someone who was suffering from PTSD and shocked at what she did and not thinking straight.

 

[zapper]

The killer was not on the lease, that was established. But it was also established that she had not fully moved out and had a hair brush and other items still in "her room" so some modicum of privacy should be given to that room as being hers. The hammer was found in a wastebasket in her room, so that privacy was extended by the judge to disallow the hammer.  I seem to remember the uniform coming from the back room with the discovered hammer and it was not just lying by the bodies.

I believe that the killer had every intent to kill both the husband and the wife, she just didn't manage it - likely thought that the husband was dead when he was still hanging on.

As for a complete recovery, I think they showed pretty well that the husband had a degree of brain damage with memory loss &c.

 

Finally Maroun. I was convinced this was her "write out" but maybe just a foreshadow. I did not get the impression that she "sacked up" (as someone above put it) to do her job, but rather that she rationalized that bartering the baby, and also sell the baby off to higher paying clients showed Maroun that the killer was calculating, manipulative and not PTSD. So rationalization to enable her to fight the case, not realizing that this is job she signed on to do.

[Raja]

When we heard the defense's motion I remembered the first episode of The Closer when their new Chief made those experienced homicide detectives stop and get a search warrant before processing the crime scene.

[Theli11]

I think this episode was missing some scenes here, they should've at least spent some time looking for the beer with the print on it, would've been a nicer scene and I think could've flowed better. (Bar Scene -> Searching in trash -> getting the print match -> next suspect). Just realized that this is the first episode of the season Connie Shi [Detective Yee] wasn't here, (it seems she comes back next episode). Felt a little better than before.. Could've also added them talking to the scam lawyer and making a deal with him after he tries the immunity BS. Would've served the same purpose as them talking about what they did (rather than actually showing what they did).

The hammer thing was also really dumb. Maybe if they'd shown us how they found the hammer (or had the detectives look for it themselves). The whole hammer thing is so stupid. How bad of a ADA do you have to be to lose the murder weapon in your case. It's a crime scene, how the hell would they even get a warrant from the suspect in the case, when it's obviously she fled the scene. I can't even.. There's gotta be a list of the worst motion losses and I expect the top.. ~15 to be between these two screw-ups who couldn't win a motion if the ghost of Ben Stone possessed their bodies. Baxter needs to start biting their heads off every time they lose a motion, or keeping score. They should not be going at a 90% motion loss rate. 

On a brighter side.. When Baxter told Sam to step up and do her part, I really did enjoy that. She's spent the past couple of episodes meandering about. All in all, I liked the episode but like always it could've been better. Baxter is really starting to become likable, McCoy seemed to be too soft where he was and wasn't exactly pushing either of them to do better. 

[dttruman]

37 minutes ago, Raja said:

When we heard the defense's motion I remembered the first episode of The Closer when their new Chief made those experienced homicide detectives stop and get a search warrant before processing the crime scene.

I always heard the police don't need a search warrant for a crime scene, it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

[Raja]

20 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I always heard the police don't need a search warrant for a crime scene, it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

The premise of The Closer was that the LAPD, and by extension the County DA was losing big cases like O.J. so they brought in the specialist who crossed ever T and dotted every i and  made her a Chief to do a Lieutenant's job. Given the decisions that Law & Order New York Supreme Court judges  have made over the decades maybe the the 27th needs a Chief Johnson around instead of the Lieutenant Dixon so drawing a bad judge doesn't cause the ADAs to twist.

[Theli11]

42 minutes ago, dttruman said:

I always heard the police don't need a search warrant for a crime scene, it doesn't violate the 4th amendment.

Yes it's an exception, I think the legal issue here (which isn't seen in the show, outside of a comment "I found this [the hammer] in the trash]") is that it's not in plain view.. HOWEVER, the defended didn't have any reason to believe she had privacy there in a trash can owned by the two residents in the house. They should've argued that the defendant didn't live there anymore or something.. it's irritating to me for numerous reasons and it should've been explain a hell of a lot better in-show

[Andyourlittledog2]

3 hours ago, EtheltoTillie said:

As for the timing of the argument, I think it was a pretrial motion to exclude the evidence.  The timing on TV trials is so off kilter, because TV court has trials start days after the arrest--ha!

I seem to recall in the original L&O there was always a dark screen between scenes and a date given for the scene if time moved on. So if you paid attention you could see how much time had passed. In the updated L& O there are no more dark screens between scenes. I miss those and the little sound made each time. I miss everything about that older version of the show.

I cannot stand Maroun. I have no idea why she is a prosecutor and not a defense attorney really. She makes much more sense on defense side where she has much more personal leeway to argue whatever nonsense she sees fit in defense of her client. It's not always nonsense, but she bugs me most of the time. I wish they'd replace her.  New DA was great this episode though. Really think he fits well as Jack's replacement.

[dttruman]

6 minutes ago, Theli11 said:

Yes it's an exception, I think the legal issue here (which isn't seen in the show, outside of a comment "I found this [the hammer] in the trash]") is that it's not in plain view.. HOWEVER, the defended didn't have any reason to believe she had privacy there in a trash can owned by the two residents in the house. They should've argued that the defendant didn't live there anymore or something.. it's irritating to me for numerous reasons and it should've been explain a hell of a lot better in-show

Do you watch Law & Order SVU also? Because IMO, the writers from both shows have become a little sloppy. It seems like the executive producers give the writers a story line and the writes use weak excuses to validate the story line.

[marc20]

One note....this revival has little to no sense of humor, a pretty major component and plus of the original

although points last night for the writer who had within minutes the detectives saying "put down the burrito" and then "put down the "weapon" (I forgot what he had)

also, nobody eats on this show...the original, and Seinfeld, were maybe the two best food shows on tv

Edited April 12 by marc20

[txhorns79]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:42 PM, dttruman said:

Did it seem like the husband was more interested in getting the baby, then getting justice for his murdered wife?

Yes.  I'd almost go so far as to say he didn't really care that his wife was dead.  Maybe you could say his behavior was about grief, but he played it like his wife's death was someone else's problem. 

 

4 hours ago, Theli11 said:

On a brighter side.. When Baxter told Sam to step up and do her part, I really did enjoy that. She's spent the past couple of episodes meandering about.

I just wanted him to slap her.  She was so mesmerized by the defendant's sad story that she seemed to forget that the same defendant bludgeoned the victim to death and stole her baby.  Not to mention, the defendant had enough foresight to use that baby to try and leverage a plea. 

[shapeshifter]

2 hours ago, marc20 said:

One note....this revival has little to no sense of humor, a pretty major component and plus of the original

True, but at least we got these crumbs:

• [DETECTIVE] Computer crimes has been analyzing Eileen's devices. And when they were looking at her phone, it rang.
• [DIXON] Who was it?
• [DETECTIVE] Federal prosecutor. I called him, but I got the runaround.
• [DIXON] Those guys wouldn't tell you if your coat was on fire.

[buttersister]

Quote

Why is she even a prosecutor?  She frequently seems to have a bleeding heart for the defendants.  Wouldn't she be happier in life if she were a defence attorney?

Shades of Serena. Get packin’, girl.

[Spartan Girl]

9 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Yes.  I'd almost go so far as to say he didn't really care that his wife was dead.  Maybe you could say his behavior was about grief, but he played it like his wife's death was someone else's problem. 

In fairness, the baby was all he had left. Not to mention he was recovering from a head injury. I don’t fault him for what was obviously a shell shocked state of mind.

[shapeshifter]

43 minutes ago, Spartan Girl said:

10 hours ago, txhorns79 said:

Yes.  I'd almost go so far as to say he didn't really care that his wife was dead.  Maybe you could say his behavior was about grief, but he played it like his wife's death was someone else's problem. 

In fairness, the baby was all he had left. Not to mention he was recovering from a head injury. I don’t fault him for what was obviously a shell shocked state of mind

I’m left wondering if the writers edited out a line of the father’s to Price and Maroun of “she’s [the baby is] all I’ve got left of my wife” (because the baby had the DNA of the father and his wife).
And, if they did edit out the line for time or triteness or whatever narrative reasons, did they assume that we viewers would assume the father felt that way (that the baby was all he had left of his wife)??

Similarly, we were not given any information as to the cognitive state of the father due to Traumatic Brain Injury other than a little memory loss.
IRL, the father could have been no longer cognitively capable of being a parent, or even performing the work he had done previously. 
A psychiatrist for the prosecution could have told us that on the stand.

Maybe the passing line by the new DA to go after the evil surrogate broker would include a penalty of millions in damages for the father?? 

Edited April 13 by shapeshifter

[Xeliou66]

17 hours ago, buttersister said:

Shades of Serena. Get packin’, girl.

Exactly what I was thinking - Maroun is starting to remind me of Serena some - she’s kind of disagreeable and a bit too empathetic with defendants sometimes. She hasn’t annoyed me as much as Serena did, but she doesn’t add a lot to the show either. 

[Proteus]

I don't understand why the surrogate had any rights to the child if she wasn't even the biological mother.

[dttruman]

15 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Exactly what I was thinking - Maroun is starting to remind me of Serena some - she’s kind of disagreeable and a bit too empathetic with defendants sometimes. She hasn’t annoyed me as much as Serena did, but she doesn’t add a lot to the show either. 

Isn't this how Serena was written out? She started to disagree, almost argue with her superiors, literally and philosophically, just like what Maroun is doing now.  Will she be gone at the end of the season?

Edited April 14 by dttruman

[shapeshifter]

46 minutes ago, dttruman said:

Isn't this how Serena was written out? She started to disagree, almost argue with her superiors, literally and philosophically, just like what Maroun is doing now.  Will she be gone at the end of the season?

Yes.  Pretty much the same writing for Maroun as for Serena Southerlyn, especially in this episode.
But if this is Maroun's swan song, her penultimate line cannot be:

Spoiler

Is this because I'm a lesbian?*

Can it?

 

-----

* Serena Southerlyn departed L&O mid-season in "Ain't No Love" (S15.E13, aired January 12, 2005).

Edited April 14 by shapeshifter

[Raja]

37 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes.  Pretty much the same writing for Maroun as for Serena Southerlyn, especially in this episode.
But if this is Maroun's swan song, her penultimate line cannot be:

  Hide contents

Is this because I'm a lesbian?*

Can it?

 

-----

* Serena Southerlyn departed L&O mid-season in "Ain't No Love" (S15.E13, aired January 12, 2005).

They would have to flip it for the DA's DEI score purposes 

[ML89]

The music is getting even more annoying - I don't know how much longer I can continue to watch. Whoever told Mike to flood the screen with hype music and then turned it up to 11 should be fired and if it's Dick Wolf, double it.

I really wish Maroun had just turned around in that cross, got the woman to give her sob story, sympathized, brought up a little of her background, then gone in for the kill and said 'yeah, no one in my family conned one person, murdered them and nearly her husband, and then skipped blithely down the street to go con another family. Just sayin'." 

I join everyone currently at the Over Maroun, Can She Leave table.

Although Nolan lecturing anyone on doing their job, considering some of the stuff he's done, was the height of irony. Also, seriously, do they even work together? They couldn't have done this, oh, I don't know, in trial prep? Then again, if they actually did trial prep, they might not have the problems they do.

On 4/12/2024 at 4:40 PM, Theli11 said:

The hammer thing was also really dumb. Maybe if they'd shown us how they found the hammer (or had the detectives look for it themselves). The whole hammer thing is so stupid. How bad of a ADA do you have to be to lose the murder weapon in your case. It's a crime scene, how the hell would they even get a warrant from the suspect in the case, when it's obviously she fled the scene. I can't even.. There's gotta be a list of the worst motion losses and I expect the top.. ~15 to be between these two screw-ups who couldn't win a motion if the ghost of Ben Stone possessed their bodies. Baxter needs to start biting their heads off every time they lose a motion, or keeping score. They should not be going at a 90% motion loss rate. 

I would pay to see that scene. Maybe he can get a whiteboard as part of his office redecoration (did that even happen, it looks the same?). "It has been 50 days since Price and Maroun won a motion."

The husband wasn't believable either, frankly. And why he wasn't suing in minute one to get his kid was unreal. Then again, do we really know it was his kid anyway? Did someone do a DNA test?

Again, though, I will keep showing up for Shaw and Riley, who did some good old fashioned detective work and rocked it.

On 4/11/2024 at 10:05 PM, Xeliou66 said:

No foot chases this week which was a plus!! 

 

Maybe they're saving themselves for the Olympic trials...

 

[wknt3]

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Yes.  Pretty much the same writing for Maroun as for Serena Southerlyn, especially in this episode.
But if this is Maroun's swan song, her penultimate line cannot be:

  Reveal spoiler

Is this because I'm a lesbian?*

Can it?

-----

* Serena Southerlyn departed L&O mid-season in "Ain't No Love" (S15.E13, aired January 12, 2005).

Isn't it obvious which way they would go?
 

Spoiler

"Is this because I'm Lebanese?"

 

Edited April 14 by wknt3
fix formatting

[wknt3]

On 4/12/2024 at 6:37 PM, marc20 said:

One note....this revival has little to no sense of humor, a pretty major component and plus of the original

although points last night for the writer who had within minutes the detectives saying "put down the burrito" and then "put down the "weapon" (I forgot what he had)

A sense of humor is a big part of real world police work too. I think there is still some snark and one liners, but unfortunately this another problem that I suspect is caused by NBC/Dick Wolf mandates and not anything that could be fixed bringing in new writers or a new showrunner. TPTB want the new shows to be more like present day SVU than the original run and there is very little humor there these days since the lead does not have the chops to pull it off. Also they like to show us the crime in the opening scene instead of discovering the body during stereotypical NYC moments that were often little comedic gems. The other big opportunity for comedy was during witness interviews and those have been dramatically pared back because it saves money on hiring actors for those small speaking roles - which I strongly suspect is a big reason for almost entirely eliminating the cold openings where passers by find the dead body too. Where it is a matter of weak writing is on the legal side although part of that is also structural with less time for anything not essential to advancing the plot and a seeming reluctance to have the same number of recurring experts and distinctive arraignment judges which is where a lot of the courtroom humor came from.

[Joimiaroxeu]

"The pains and penalties of perjury." Yikes, does the prosecutor actually say that?

Yeah, PTSD doesn't give you license to murder people, especially if the victim had nothing to with how the PTSD was caused. I hate it every time L&O uses that plot device.

The birth certificate stuff was some b.s. How do you not have rights to your own child simply because the surrogate beat you to the punch? Seems like motivation for the surrogate or the baby broker to commit murder, or at least put the biological parents out of commission so they can't sign the birth certificate.

Not only no running after suspects in this one, no crime analysis detective combing through surveillance videos either.

Quote

Baxter is really starting to become likable, McCoy seemed to be too soft where he was and wasn't exactly pushing either of them to do better

Funny how viewers can watch the same thing and see it almost 180° differently. There was this comment on reddit:

Quote

I like the new DA. He appears to have no principles whatsoever and only does what he thinks is popular. That makes him unlike every other DA on the show.

I still can't look at Baxter without thinking of Fitz. Tony Goldwyn was interviewed on the Today show last week and they made him address that issue. He's unbothered by the comparisons, lol.

Edited April 14 by Joimiaroxeu

[MarylandGirl]

There might have been a foot chase had the suspect not been in active labor!

[shapeshifter]

9 hours ago, ML89 said:

…do we really know it was his kid anyway? Did someone do a DNA test?

Great question given the totally shady surrogate broker. 
I wonder if this was originally intended to be a crossover with SVU and maybe FBI International.

 

9 hours ago, ML89 said:

…Shaw and Riley, who did some good old fashioned detective work…

I was feeling happily nostalgic during the old-style L&O red herring scavenger hunt in the first half.
Sadly, I guess this was only because:

24 minutes ago, MarylandGirl said:

There might have been a foot chase had the suspect not been in active labor!

 

[blackwing]

On 4/14/2024 at 1:57 AM, Proteus said:

I don't understand why the surrogate had any rights to the child if she wasn't even the biological mother.

The explanation given onscreen was "she signed the birth certificate" and "in New York, whoever signs the birth certificate has the rights".  Makes ZERO sense to me.  There have to be thousands of babies born each year by surrogates (in New York or otherwise).  Wouldn't something like this be easily determined?  She was a surrogate and she fraudulently signed the birth certificate and claimed it was her baby.  The hospital would be liable too.  Don't understand why it would take months to go through the court system, a judge should be able to make that determination and ruling pretty quickly.

On 4/14/2024 at 6:27 AM, dttruman said:

Isn't this how Serena was written out? She started to disagree, almost argue with her superiors, literally and philosophically, just like what Maroun is doing now.  Will she be gone at the end of the season?

Three seasons of Maroun, that's enough.  Three seasons of this revival and we've already had four detectives for two slots.  We've gotten a new DA.  So I think it's time for a new ADA too!

[Irlandesa]

I still like Maroun more than Price and I'd rather get rid of him.  Or both.  Only a few episodes in and Baxter is the best thing about that DA's office even if he is more political than Jack. 

6 hours ago, blackwing said:

The explanation given onscreen was "she signed the birth certificate" and "in New York, whoever signs the birth certificate has the rights".  Makes ZERO sense to me.

They could have easily tweaked it and said that the victim couldn't provide and egg so they used the surrogate's, especially since they made it clear that the guy who ran the agency was unethical.  I thought that's where they were going when it was revealed the victim had childhood cancer. 

But their explanation doesn't make sense since NY has laws that make a surrogacy contract enforceable.

[FozzyBear]

I’m struggling to articulate something that’s been bugging me since the reboot started. Even though I know logically the episodes are the same length they always were, they seem so much shorter. It’s like nothing really happens but it takes up the whole episode. In old L&O there would have been an investigation, some comedy business with Lenny, an interrogation scene, new information to change the investigation, an arrest, a scene with Skoda, a legal debate in Adam’s office, a tense cross examination, Jack having a temper tantrum about something, more investigation, a surprise twist at the end of the case, and then a little stinger in the elevator to wrap everything up. Now it just seems like there’s no twist, no development, nothing actually happening. What are they doing to fill the time? Just me?

Edited April 16 by FozzyBear