S05.E05: To Catch a Predator Predator

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Quote

Holmes and Watson have plenty of suspects when they investigate the murder of a man who led a secret life as a vigilante, "catfishing" sexual predators on dating sites and publicly shaming them. Also, when Shinwell's criminal record prevents him from finding a full-time job, Holmes disagrees with Watson's plan to help him.

Promo:

Edited October 31, 2016 by ElectricBoogaloo

[fauntleroy]

No comments yet? Well obviously. A few thoughts...

This show makes me feel smart because I now know to DVR it and the news afterward. I don't know why they treat new episodes of a popular show so carelessly. Straighten out the evening schedule by showing 60 Minutes or that dreadful Madam show on another night and filling the odd time between when football ends and the top of the next hour with game highlights or whatnot.

I was almost able to keep up with the plot which I rarely do. I would rather see Alfredo or Sherlock's girlfriend, than a new guy Shinwell. Where did those people go? Dorian Missick is well-known so he'll be in several episodes and up to no good. It feels tacked on and predictable. Of course that's easy to say if you don't predict anything about it.

Finally, I was not happy that both of them were okay with the planting of evidence. I guess because it's like, in some other faraway country where we need not concern ourselves with the usual ethical niceties? Sorry, they should do better. 

Edited November 7, 2016 by fauntleroy

[ElectricBoogaloo]

Frank Whaley's more recent roles are some variation of shady or crazy (I feel like the last non-crazy/shade character he played was in Career Opportunities) so as soon as I saw him at the beginning of the episode I was just waiting for him to be some sort of bad guy (even though we knew he didn't actually shoot the victim). The fact that he was "only" cheating on his wife with an underage girl in a motel seems like a moral upgrade from some of the characters he has played in the last few years!

Edited November 7, 2016 by ElectricBoogaloo

[paigow]

45 minutes ago, fauntleroy said:

Finally, I was not happy that both of them were okay with the planting of evidence. I guess because it's like, in some other faraway country where we need not concern ourselves with the usual ethical niceties? Sorry, they should do better. 

It worked for the Tyler Perry version of Alex Cross so it's impossible that Sherlock could not do the same....

[Eneya]

On one side, it was shady. On the other... it is quite in cannon for Sherlock to be OK with the criminal getting their due.
For the mystery, I CRINGED for a bit that they are going to go with the "lying sexual assault victim"... fortunately, that was not the case.

I definitely empathysed with the killer. This is one of the reasons why vigilantes are not a good idea and I enjoyed that it showed a problem with the dead guy's thinking. He took somebody else's pain and put his feelings on the topic as more important than the victims. And it also showed the kind of mentality some people have "beat them and that will teach them"...

For Shinwell, I am definitely not going to repeat the standard procedure "oh, no, a new character, boo, ooh, actually the writers have a point and I actually like that character", so I am just going to wait and see what it is in stock for him. So far, nothing good.

On one side, I enjoyed that Watson got kind of needled and defensive, on the other, I loved that Shinwell told her that he should have the right to say no. I think she will realise it that somebody may not want her help... of course, he is trying to keep her away from something. Alas, we shall see.

Edited November 7, 2016 by Eneya

[johntfs]

4 hours ago, fauntleroy said:

Finally, I was not happy that both of them were okay with the planting of evidence. I guess because it's like, in some other faraway country where we need not concern ourselves with the usual ethical niceties? Sorry, they should do better. 

Sherlock's always been more concerned with justice as he sees it than with legal or ethical niceties.  He'd been forced to follow the law and put the man's victim in prison for the murder she committed.  The fact the he couldn't abide her rotting in prison while her abuser got to enjoy life in Indonesia (likely by raping/abusing other young girls) is completely understandable to me.  Meanwhile Joan was clearly moved by what happened to the girl as well.  It's almost cool that Sherlock dealt with a situation where vigilantism derailed justice (by spooking the abuser into fleeing before he could be prosecuted) by engaging in vigilantism.

Besides, this guy abused/raped at least three girls, so fuck him.

[iMonrey]

Why is Lafayette from True Blood a regular on this snow now? I saw Nelsan Ellis's name in the opening credits so I'm assuming he'll be a regular cast member. He just came out of nowhere. Also, whatever happened to Alfredo? That was Sherlock's sponsor, right?

[NYCFree]

6 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Why is Lafayette from True Blood a regular on this snow now? I saw Nelsan Ellis's name in the opening credits so I'm assuming he'll be a regular cast member. He just came out of nowhere. Also, whatever happened to Alfredo? That was Sherlock's sponsor, right?

Alfredo is now the top cardiac surgeon on Chicago Med. A man with eccentricities and many facets.

[Gregg247]

This episode was an example of the "too many plot twists lead to a weak ending" style of writing that "The Mentalist" perfected years ago.  

They had so many sudden turns that, by the end, I was unsure as to why the killer was the killer, except for the fact that they'd already run through all the other characters they'd introduced, and, at that point, either the young woman or Captain Gregson himself had to be the guilty party!

Sherlock was pretty slow in figuring out that the victim wasn't a predator, but the predator of predators.  I knew that as soon as I saw the body in the morgue and his sister talked about his frequent gym workouts.  It took Sherlock until the 22 minute mark in the show to make that connection.  I know an episode is in trouble when I'm at home muttering, "Come on, Sherlock, catch up with the rest of us!"

[fauntleroy]

The plots are typically so overscripted I don't even try to keep up. And the rapid-fire explication in the last few minutes usually makes my head spin. I just take their word for it. The predator of predators model is most recently known from Dexter I guess, and before that Kramer's coffee table book about coffee tables.

I tune in for the scenes where they speak more or less normally to each other. I like the characters best when they aren't having to rattle off the convoluted plot points. Credit to Jonny Lee Miller I gotta say, for reciting the meds he saw at a glance - a mouthful!

As for 'justice', I wonder if Sherlock feels the same about extraordinary rendition. Or the planting of evidence by the NYPD. I guess as long as the perpetrators are 'especially heinous', and we are real sure they are guilty, then it's okay. TV is nice that way.

Edited November 7, 2016 by fauntleroy

[Heatsja]

Arg!   Missed the last 20 minutes due to time overrun.  Why does CBS still do this?  Do they want me to watch their show or not?  It shouldn't be so hard. 

Will someone summarize what happens at the end?  I saw Shinwell turn down Joan's job offer. 

[Writing Wrongs]

I just started ending my dvr taping a half hour later than normal. My dvr seems to cut off the last few minutes of a lot of shows.

3 hours ago, iMonrey said:

 

Why is Lafayette from True Blood a regular on this snow now?

 

Thank you! I could not figure out where I knew him from.

[MisterGlass]

I lol’d at the deerstalker in the trunk.

7 hours ago, NYCFree said:

Alfredo is now the top cardiac surgeon on Chicago Med. A man with eccentricities and many facets.

Ah, thank you.  That explains his absence.

[chitowngirl]

14 hours ago, Writing Wrongs said:

 

I just started ending my dvr taping a half hour later than normal. My dvr seems to cut off the last few minutes of a lot of shows.

 

It's not that the DVR cuts off the end, it's that shows are scheduled to run over the typical :00 or :30 end times.

[sjohnson]

The implication that Indonesia doesn't have laws against sex with minors is bizarre. The implication that a native policeman wouldn't be able to find evidence of a white man's crimes in Indonesia (and the story does tell us he is a genuine predator,) is equally bizarre. They were so desperate to have Sherlock commit a crime and pretend it was heroic they inadvertently insulted an entire nation, relying on timeworn prejudices I think. 

Entrapment is bad law enforcement. It doesn't really get any better when a private party does this. But when the show still goes out of its way to imply that framing not one, but two characters, isn't so bad because they're guilty? Really, the producers have apparently decided now that Elementary is headed out the exit they can let us know how they really feel. But my tastes are apparently too vanilla, I don't find assholes erotic.  

My opinion of course. But it's why I'm done.

[basiltherat]

Perhaps I wasn't paying attention, but I assume that Sherlock's "tip" to the Indonesian policeman was because that country is MORE harsh on pedophiles, not less!

[shapeshifter]

2 minutes ago, basiltherat said:

Perhaps I wasn't paying attention, but I assume that Sherlock's "tip" to the Indonesian policeman was because that country is MORE harsh on pedophiles, not less!

No, his tip was on drug trafficking.

[possibilities]

Sherlock has always disregarded laws and done whatever he felt like doing to get the result he wanted. He and Joan are constantly breaking into places without a warrant, and violating all kinds of procedures. He was planning to kill someone he suspected in season 1, in a very gruesome way (bloodletting). I would prefer to see them be clever and creative enough to solve cases without resorting to that kind of thing, but it's not new.

I stopped watching Hawaii 5-0 because of the constant torture of suspects (and in that show the chosen targets almost never turned out to actually be guilty), so I think it's a CBS thing to hero worship vigilantes.

[PaulaO]

Sherlock said there was no extradition law between Bali and the U.S., so the guy could not be sent back to the U.S. for trial, and there's no proof that he molested any children in Bali.  I love that Sherlock had the coke planted.  I'm not above television characters taking the law into their own hands.   And when Sherlock mentioned Kitty, he said it in very derisive terms--her killing the guy (or was it throwing acid on his face?) and leaving the country.  He did not seem amused with her.

[fauntleroy]

What if he had had the coke planted in NYC - okay then?

[FormerMod-a1]

If the guy were in NYC, then he'd be arrested.  No "need" to frame for anything.

[fauntleroy]

But in principle, is it okay to plant evidence in another country, but not in NYC?

[sinkwriter]

No episode recap/review this week?  :(  I look forward to them!

[mojoween]

I just don't care about Shinwell or his problems.  His friend who found his gun, I know from somewhere but can't place him.

I loved Gregson's explanation how the wife might find out about Frank Whaley.  If she sees it on the news, eh.

They mentioned nine million times how fit the guy was and that he was built like a linebacker but when he was on the table in the morgue he didn't look very big.

[theatremouse]

I was annoyed with the killer in this one. Because the dude did his little expose shit and her attacker got away (and yes yes he did attack many more) she shot him, but still murderer-vigilante-catfish dude did get several other predators caught. What he did was not the correct way to go about this, but hers was idiotic too. I mean, I get that she was not at all stable, and for good reason, but it still pissed me off that it seemed all that mattered to her was that the dude's actions caused her attacker to successfully flee, but she didn't factor in all the other bad dudes he'd caused to be caught. It would've made more sense if she followed the catfish dude and then murdered the people who trapped than murdering him if her beef was about predators getting away.

[johntfs]

10 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

I was annoyed with the killer in this one. Because the dude did his little expose shit and her attacker got away (and yes yes he did attack many more) she shot him, but still murderer-vigilante-catfish dude did get several other predators caught. What he did was not the correct way to go about this, but hers was idiotic too. I mean, I get that she was not at all stable, and for good reason, but it still pissed me off that it seemed all that mattered to her was that the dude's actions caused her attacker to successfully flee, but she didn't factor in all the other bad dudes he'd caused to be caught. It would've made more sense if she followed the catfish dude and then murdered the people who trapped than murdering him if her beef was about predators getting away.

She didn't set out to murder him (even if she will go down for first degree murder since his death happened as part of her kidnapping him, which is a felony).  She wanted to confront him with the consequences of his actions, specifically that the man who raped/abused her over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again got to fly away free to Indonesia to rape again.  So during the kidnapping her saw her and basically said "I'm sorry that you're upset, but I'm going to keep doing the stuff that allowed the escape of the guy who abused/raped you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again because servicing my issues about my sister is more important than justice for others."  And she lost it and shot him.

[ChelseaNH]

26 minutes ago, johntfs said:

I'm going to keep doing the stuff that allowed the escape of the guy

The predator could have gone on the lam at any time; the predator predator's actions didn't change that.  And one could argue that the predator predator was interested in justice for others, because he was exposing predators who harmed other girls, predators who would have continued to operate.  

[theatremouse]

2 hours ago, johntfs said:

And she lost it and shot him.

I get that she lost it and shot him, and the very nature of her entire crime was a product of her "losing it" in general even just making the decision to kidnap him. That does not make the plot point any less frustrating for me, which I suppose may have been the point, that violent crime is often senseless, even when you do know the motive.

[Eneya]

3 hours ago, theatremouse said:

I was annoyed with the killer in this one. Because the dude did his little expose shit and her attacker got away (and yes yes he did attack many more) she shot him, but still murderer-vigilante-catfish dude did get several other predators caught. What he did was not the correct way to go about this, but hers was idiotic too. I mean, I get that she was not at all stable, and for good reason, but it still pissed me off that it seemed all that mattered to her was that the dude's actions caused her attacker to successfully flee, but she didn't factor in all the other bad dudes he'd caused to be caught. It would've made more sense if she followed the catfish dude and then murdered the people who trapped than murdering him if her beef was about predators getting away.

 

Yeah, how dare she value her feelings more than he valued his, based on SECONDHAND feelings of somebody else been violated. I mean the fracking nerve... :)

[thuganomics85]

Didn't know they were going to bump up Nelsan Ellis to regular status, after only just appearing in the premiere (and I think he was labeled a guest in that one.)  I guess he really left an impression and it does look like Shinwell's story will be playing a big part this season; especially with Dorian Missick joining the fray.  I did like how Joan's idea to take him under her and Sherlock's wing lead to a Kitty namedrop.

The case was somehow too convoluted and predictable at the same time.  I knew the victim was going to the video camera guy, because they talked about how big the camera guy apparently was, and I noticed that the guy looked pretty fit.  And I figured the dating website tech girl was the killer or at least involved, since her scene with Sherlock felt longer then necessary and the actress (Conor Leslie), has done enough things that I knew she likely wasn't just going to be a day player.  Of course, I think the main problem with these type of cases is that almost everyone is kind of unlikable, so I have no real investment in the outcome.

Kind of a small role for Frank Whaley though.  Although after seeing him on Luke Cage most recently, it was fun seeing him on the opposite end of the table this time.

[possibilities]

Maybe they made him a regular so he wouldn't get a job elsewhere, which is how they lost the guy who played Sherlock's AA sponsor.

[fauntleroy]

These last few replies have been quite deep, thanks to all. I will print them out and watch the episode again with markers and hiliters on hand. And will have a cane to shake at the TV too.

As for Alfredo, at least they could have put together a bit of ... well it's not backstory - awaystory? It's annoying when they don't even acknowledge the disappearance of a character just suddenly poof. See also the Betty Gilpin character. Fiona. Doesn't seem like somebody you'd just forget about.

Edited November 9, 2016 by fauntleroy

[MissLucas]

I don't mind Sherlock bending the laws and playing fast and loose with justice because that's what canon Sherlock did too. Doesn't make it right though and I wasn't a fan of his snide attitude towards Kitty (don't piss on one of your best arcs, show).

When the reveal about the abuse victim being the murderer came about I was dubious about that plot-twist. It just seemed to defy logic on so many terms. But the writing and the actress were superb - I really got how his attitude towards her brought back all the trauma of being helpless and that the experience of once again being victimized made her snap. Excellent scene - the silent work by Miller and Hill was also great.

The one thing that seemed odd to me was the prelude to Watson's job offer: Shinwell talking about all the broken stuff 'down here' - was that just a random scene or was there more to it? And why could he smell the gas while Watson despite her hyper-vigilance training by Sherlok couldn't?

[theatremouse]

I didn't see his remark about Kitty to be pissing on that arc. I saw it as his being (reasonably) still upset about how that relationship ended, and also being reasonably less-willing-than-before to take on another protege. I think he was lashing out because the whole thing fucked him up a bit, more than he's shown on other occasions. Not as fucked up as he was leading into meeting her, but I thought it made sense to have him show some emotion there, and also made sense that those emotions would be unpleasant. I didn't view the snippiness so much as at Kitty herself but moreso his being still upset about the situation and also not wanting to have any further discussion of it. So be snappish to force moving on. It was a logical reaction, to me.

[Athena]

18 minutes ago, theatremouse said:

I didn't see his remark about Kitty to be pissing on that arc. I saw it as his being (reasonably) still upset about how that relationship ended, and also being reasonably less-willing-than-before to take on another protege. I think he was lashing out because the whole thing fucked him up a bit, more than he's shown on other occasions. Not as fucked up as he was leading into meeting her, but I thought it made sense to have him show some emotion there, and also made sense that those emotions would be unpleasant. I didn't view the snippiness so much as at Kitty herself but moreso his being still upset about the situation and also not wanting to have any further discussion of it. So be snappish to force moving on. It was a logical reaction, to me.

I agree. I also didn't think Sherlock's reaction was that he was pissed off at Kitty or the show was making commentary on it negatively, but that it is not always a great idea to train another detective especially ones with issues like Kitty and Shinwell. I actually found the reaction a bit amusing because I was with Sherlock in that the it wasn't a good idea. Shinwell did not seem remotely interested. Joan was basically projecting onto Shinwell how great being a detective could be because it solved some of her problems. She had the idea from a good place in her heart.

I absolutely loved the Kitty arc. I think Kitty gained a lot in being a detective. I think even our two leads agree, but it is a painful subject for Sherlock. They did become very close and I think he loved her like a daughter.

It was significant to bring Kitty up in an episode about abuse victims. It drives home a point about how circumstances (and sometimes the system) fails the victim. The episode had more than one character who could not gain justice against abusers in the established system (Yvette/law firm, the killer, the dead victim's sister's predator presumably) and the emotional, physical, and mental ramifications of it. 

[Ailianna]

On 11/8/2016 at 5:28 PM, ChelseaNH said:

The predator could have gone on the lam at any time; the predator predator's actions didn't change that.  And one could argue that the predator predator was interested in justice for others, because he was exposing predators who harmed other girls, predators who would have continued to operate.  

But until the catfisher exposed him, he had no reason to go on the lam.  And the expose came right when he was finally about to be arrested and held accountable for his crimes against her and other victims.  Not to justify the reaction, but it wasn't completely irrational either.  

[ChelseaNH]

Would they arrest him without questioning him first?  And if he was arrested, could he have gotten bail?  I don't think there's any kind of guarantee that he would never had had a chance to run, and would inevitably face justice.

I do feel sympathy for the victim; I don't feel sympathy for the argument that the predator predator was somehow presumptuous.

[Loandbehold]

Quote

Would they arrest him without questioning him first?  And if he was arrested, could he have gotten bail?  I don't think there's any kind of guarantee that he would never had had a chance to run, and would inevitably face justice.

Yes, the policve can arrest a subject w/o questioning them. It happens all the time. He probably would be entitled to bail, but, if the DA made the argument, would likely have to turn over his passport to at least prevent him from leaving the country. And, if he leaves the state, he could be arrested in any other state and extradited back to NY, or caught by a bounty hunter and brought back by that person.

[withanaich]

20 hours ago, ChelseaNH said:

I do feel sympathy for the victim; I don't feel sympathy for the argument that the predator predator was somehow presumptuous.

I think he was presumptuous not necessarily because he became a vigilante, but because he didn't even want to consider deferring to A VICTIM about how the person who victimized her should be dealt with. When he was confronted, he didn't think, "oh shit, maybe I've gone too far and now I'm hurting the people I claim to want to help," he kind of shrugged and was very smug about insisting on doing what HE wanted.

[andromeda331]

On ‎11‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 8:42 AM, withanaich said:

I think he was presumptuous not necessarily because he became a vigilante, but because he didn't even want to consider deferring to A VICTIM about how the person who victimized her should be dealt with. When he was confronted, he didn't think, "oh shit, maybe I've gone too far and now I'm hurting the people I claim to want to help," he kind of shrugged and was very smug about insisting on doing what HE wanted.

Exactly, he couldn't have known there was going to be a case against one of the men and that he ruined another victim's chance at getting
justice and getting him off the street. But upon learning that he look horrified and/or sorry like someone who really was doing it
for the victims would have felt.