Law & Order Discussion Topic (2019 - 2021)

[Xeliou66]

I’ve been watching some season 15 episodes today and I have to say the more I watch these episodes the more I dislike Fontana. He was such a dick to everyone and seemed to believe that wearing a badge gave him the right to treat everyone, from witnesses to suspects to everyone around him in general, like shit. He was condescending and demeaning towards everyone. He was just a genuine asshole 99% of the time and seemed to think being a cop made him superior to everyone else, and he acted like he was above the law a lot of the time as well. I get that Briscoe was irreplaceable and they had to go with someone with a different type of personality but still Fontana was a remarkably unlikable jackass. 

And the episodes where Fontana was paired with Nick Falco were just unbearable, Falco was just as much of a smug prick as Fontana, having 2 detectives with the same unlikable personality was just bad - the smooth and more laid back Green made Fontana much more tolerable.

It didn’t help that the writing was at its weakest during those years IMO so the episodes weren’t quite as strong usually. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

And the episodes where Fontana was paired with Nick Falco were just unbearable, Falco was just as much of a smug prick as Fontana,

I haven’t watched those episodes enough (or completely) to have strong opinions, but Falco is the one I recall strongly disliking. 

[Xeliou66]

53 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I haven’t watched those episodes enough (or completely) to have strong opinions, but Falco is the one I recall strongly disliking. 

Falco sucked - he wasn’t a very competent detective for one thing - as shown when he returned in season 16’s Hindsight, he kept on ignoring orders to stay away from the case, and he was also a smug prick, basically a less competent, less charismatic version of Fontana. Fontana/Falco episodes are just brutal to watch.

[Scarlett45]

On 9/17/2020 at 3:47 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I think Harding’s parents might’ve been the better choice to care for the child than the woman’s parents, given that the mom was going to prison

I agree with you. Harding’s parents had no part of the crime and didn’t do anything wrong. I can’t recall was the maternal grandfather in on it?

 

Also Harding was a fucking fool. He didn’t think he’d get caught? Reminds me of those vile men that raped the woman in a vegetative state in AZ a few years ago. So you’re going to rape a woman that can’t even fight back, leave your dna behind and a BABY as evidence of your crime??????? Not only are you an evil POS you’re a fool. 

[Xeliou66]

2 hours ago, Scarlett45 said:

I agree with you. Harding’s parents had no part of the crime and didn’t do anything wrong. I can’t recall was the maternal grandfather in on it?

 

Also Harding was a fucking fool. He didn’t think he’d get caught? Reminds me of those vile men that raped the woman in a vegetative state in AZ a few years ago. So you’re going to rape a woman that can’t even fight back, leave your dna behind and a BABY as evidence of your crime??????? Not only are you an evil POS you’re a fool. 

No the maternal grandfather was not in on it - he was shocked to find out what his wife had done. But yeah I think Harding’s parents were probably the most fit guardians of the child and would provide the most stable home. 

[Scarlett45]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

No the maternal grandfather was not in on it - he was shocked to find out what his wife had done. But yeah I think Harding’s parents were probably the most fit guardians of the child and would provide the most stable home. 

Thank you. I feel so bad for that poor man. Not only was his daughter in a vegetative state, his wife orchestrated for his daughter to be raped and BRED like a cow. WTF. Psychologically thats awful, and now you have a grandchild out there whom of course you would love, but again thats a mind trip. Given that the maternal grandfather was not in on the rape/forced breeding- who would be the best guardian would probably come down to resources, health (given their age) employment status and additional supports (like more extended family etc).

[wknt3]

On 9/22/2020 at 11:14 PM, shapeshifter said:

I haven’t watched those episodes enough (or completely) to have strong opinions, but Falco is the one I recall strongly disliking. 

 

On 9/23/2020 at 12:10 AM, Xeliou66 said:

Falco sucked - he wasn’t a very competent detective for one thing - as shown when he returned in season 16’s Hindsight, he kept on ignoring orders to stay away from the case, and he was also a smug prick, basically a less competent, less charismatic version of Fontana. Fontana/Falco episodes are just brutal to watch.

 

I'm wondering how anyone can feel as strongly about Falco as both of you apparently do. He was pretty much the Borgia of detectives - a blank slate whom the writers never really bothered developing as a character. Which is understandable in his case as he was basically a warm body brought in to fill the slot while Jesse Martin was filming Rent. I don't see him as a less competent version of Fontana since the material they did give him was basically the role of pointing out that the Constitution still existed and there were rules to follow.  There were some similar elements as he was a bit of a loose cannon type at times, but he usually followed the rules and was a bit uncomfortable with Fontana's lax approach even if he admired his investigative skills. That makes sense if you think of him as a placeholder for Green. And honestly I don't think the episodes would be objectively better with Green. Michael Imperioli does a good job with weak writing. There is a reason why he is required by union contracts to be cast in any series filmed in NYC after all...

"Hindsight" only makes sense if you remember it was in the period where the writing was week and they were basically following trends and network notes rather than doing their own thing. "Hindsight" really feels more like SVU than the mothership and I don't think anyone comes off well or in character.

Edited September 24, 2020 by wknt3
revised and extended my remarks

[ML89]

On 9/23/2020 at 12:10 AM, Xeliou66 said:

Falco sucked - he wasn’t a very competent detective for one thing - as shown when he returned in season 16’s Hindsight, he kept on ignoring orders to stay away from the case, and he was also a smug prick, basically a less competent, less charismatic version of Fontana. Fontana/Falco episodes are just brutal to watch.

All I remember is he did have the best line about Fontana - "You're high maintenance."

[Xeliou66]

8 hours ago, wknt3 said:

 

 

I'm wondering how anyone can feel as strongly about Falco as both of you apparently do. He was pretty much the Borgia of detectives a blank slate whom the writers never really bothered developing as a character. Which is understandable in his case as he was basically a warm body brought in to fill the slot while Jesse Martin was filming Rent. I don't see him as a less competent version of Fontana since the material they did give him was basically the role of pointing out that the Constitution still existed and there were rules to follow.  Which is why "Hindsight" only makes sense if you remember it was in the period where the writing was week and they were basically following trends and network notes rather than doing their own thing. "Hindsight" really feels more like SVU than the mothership and I don't think anyone comes off well or in character.

I just found Falco beyond irritating in Hindsight, he behaved like a moronic dipshit in that episode, I didn’t find him particularly likable in season 15 but that episode just ruined him for me. Fontana was a geniune prick, and when paired with someone who wasn’t very likable either in Falco, it just made the episodes hard to watch, whereas with Green and Fontana they had decent chemistry and Green’s likable personality made Fontana a lot more tolerable. 

[Broderbits]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Green’s likable personality made Fontana a lot more tolerable

Ed Green was so smooth he even made watching him partnered with the beauty queen detective ( or as I call her, Officer Chesty)somewhat  tolerable.

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, Broderbits said:

Ed Green was so smooth he even made watching him partnered with the beauty queen detective ( or as I call her, Officer Chesty)somewhat  tolerable.

Agreed - he made Detective Beauty Queen tolerable as well. 

Briscoe and Green were the perfect detective pairing - they had terrific chemistry together and both were very likable, both had a rather laid back style, Green was a bit more hot tempered than Briscoe but they just went perfectly together, I love the Briscoe/Green episodes, any episode with those 2 as the detectives is going to be entertaining. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 9/17/2020 at 3:08 PM, shapeshifter said:

BTW, Marin Hinkle was great as the schizophrenic sister. 

"Are you some kind of sex pervert?"

Hinkle was also in season nine's Stiff, playing the daughter of the woman who was in a coma because of playing weird sex games with her husband, at least indirectly. So, more sex perverts. 😛

[Xeliou66]

43 minutes ago, Cobalt Stargazer said:

"Are you some kind of sex pervert?"

Hinkle was also in season nine's Stiff, playing the daughter of the woman who was in a coma because of playing weird sex games with her husband, at least indirectly. So, more sex perverts. 😛

Stiff was in season 10 - that was a bizarre and weird episode but it was good. Everyone’s reactions to the couples sex games was funny IMO, and the case was complex but interesting. 

[Xeliou66]

I saw Cost of Capital tonight - one of season 16’s better episodes, and about the only episode in which Borgia showed personality and was likable in - I liked seeing her take the lead in court questioning the daughter and her disgust with the scumbag doctor who covered up the rape. The case was very good, both Andrew and Sophia Keener were despicable people, and I loved McCoy’s outrage with them. I did question why Sophia’s husband and the father of their daughter didn’t contact the police when it was discovered his daughter had been raped, he seemed like a guy who cared about his daughter so I found it somewhat odd that he didn’t seem determined to find out the truth about what happened to her. 

Did anyone else really find the defense attorney, Vanessa Galiano, annoying? She was somewhat irritating in the other 2 episodes she was in as well, it was implied that her and McCoy had been romantically involved at one point, but I found her to be irritating. 

I liked Fontana insisting that handcuffs were necessary during the arrest of Sophia when Andrew complained about it - I’ve said Fontana isn’t one of my favorite characters but he had some good moments. 

[shapeshifter]

9.14 "Sideshow" just aired on Bounce, in which 

Quote

The death of a government official in New York leads Jack McCoy to cross swords with the Independent Counsel [William Dell, played by George Hearn] in Washington, as he tries to keep the identity of a key witness secret.

Maybe it's because of all the strife lately, or maybe it's just the skill of the actor and the writing, but I have finally watched a portrayal of a character who I really detested.
Here's the dialogue that makes fictional William Dell so odious to me:

Quote

Independent Counsel William Dell : Your name is John James McCoy?

Jack McCoy : Yes

[Dell fills out a form and hands it to McCoy] 

Jack McCoy : What's this?

Independent Counsel William Dell : I'm subpoenaing you before my grand jury.

________________

[In front of the Grand Jury]

Independent Counsel William Dell : Mr. McCoy, what are you hiding?

Jack McCoy : Nothing. I'm simply trying to discharge my duties as a prosecutor for New York County.

Independent Counsel William Dell : Your duties? Mr. McCoy, weren't you called before the Disciplinary Committee of the New York Bar Association for withholding a witness statement in a murder case?

Jack McCoy : I ultimately offered that statement at trial.

Independent Counsel William Dell : That wasn't my question.

Jack McCoy : Yes, I appeared before the Disciplinary Committee.

Independent Counsel William Dell : Isn't it true a fellow A.D.A., Diane Hawthorne, illegally withheld exculpatory evidence in a case you were both prosecuting which led to the conviction of an innocent man?

Jack McCoy : Yes. I had no knowledge of that, and furthermore...

Independent Counsel William Dell : This A.D.A. was one of your lovers, isn't that right?

Jack McCoy : Now, you just hold on...

Independent Counsel William Dell : A simple yes or no, Mr. McCoy.

Jack McCoy : I can't see any possible relevance...

Independent Counsel William Dell : I see in your record a disturbing pattern of perjury, contempt of court, obstruction of justice. I want to know what it is you're hiding, Mr. McCoy, and why.

Jack McCoy : I answered that.

Independent Counsel William Dell : Not to my satisfaction. One of the principal investigators in Janine McBride's murder is Detective Leonard Briscoe, is that right?

Jack McCoy : Yes.

Independent Counsel William Dell : The same Detective Briscoe who was investigated by the Hellman Commission for destroying evidence in a drug case?

Jack McCoy : Why don't you tell the grand jury he was cleared of that?

Independent Counsel William Dell : Just a moment, Mr. McCoy. And whose daughter was murdered after testifying in the trial of a drug dealer?

Jack McCoy : What are you insinuating?

Independent Counsel William Dell : His involvement in this case raises serious concerns about the integrity of your investigation.

Jack McCoy : Detective Briscoe is above reproach.

Independent Counsel William Dell : You're hardly an impartial witness. Wasn't he a passenger in a car driven by another one of your lovers at the D. A. 's office when she was killed? Wasn't he drunk at the time? The accident report indicates that he was. Now, one last time, Mr. McCoy, what is the name of your witness, and what did they tell the police?

Jack McCoy : Mr. Dell, have you no shame? Have you no shame?

Independent Counsel William Dell : What I have is little patience for people who stonewall me. I direct you to answer.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629422/characters/nm0372493

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 minute ago, shapeshifter said:

9.14 "Sideshow" just aired on Bounce, in which 

Maybe it's because of all the strife lately, or maybe it's just the skill of the actor and the writing, but I have finally watched a portrayal of a character who I really detested.
Here's the dialogue that makes fictional William Dell so odious to me:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629422/characters/nm0372493

This was clearly based on Clinton.

[Xeliou66]

About Sideshow - I’ll say again, it drives me fucking nuts how they never show Part 2, the Homicide episode, it’s infuriating how we never get to see the second part of the Homicide crossover episodes. Sideshow had an extremely complicated plot that was very hard to follow IMO, but the scenes with Briscoe and Munch in DC were awesome, especially with Munch trying to get hold of his FBI file, and I liked the McCoy/Danvers interactions as well. And when Dell was questioning McCoy, they referenced a lot of events from past episodes, nice continuity there, it was the most references to previous events in L&O history probably. But yeah the plot was a jumbled mess. 

[wknt3]

17 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

9.14 "Sideshow" just aired on Bounce, in which 

Maybe it's because of all the strife lately, or maybe it's just the skill of the actor and the writing, but I have finally watched a portrayal of a character who I really detested.
Here's the dialogue that makes fictional William Dell so odious to me:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629422/characters/nm0372493

 

17 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

This was clearly based on Clinton.

 

More specifically on Kenneth Starr. They were unusually blatant about which current politician's headline's they were ripping from with the opening at Fort Clinton which is a bit unusual as they usually tried to at least file off the serial number even if it was obvious to anyone who followed the news at all. Here's a good contemporary look at the background and how the TV critics saw it at the time  - https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1999-02-17-9902170231-story.html

 

11 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

About Sideshow - I’ll say again, it drives me fucking nuts how they never show Part 2, the Homicide episode, it’s infuriating how we never get to see the second part of the Homicide crossover episodes. Sideshow had an extremely complicated plot that was very hard to follow IMO, but the scenes with Briscoe and Munch in DC were awesome, especially with Munch trying to get hold of his FBI file, and I liked the McCoy/Danvers interactions as well. And when Dell was questioning McCoy, they referenced a lot of events from past episodes, nice continuity there, it was the most references to previous events in L&O history probably. But yeah the plot was a jumbled mess. 

It's annoying as there is no good reason just another example of how one of the top 5 performers in all of cable is handled so lazily by the networks that carry it, with the exception of the late lamented TNT. I was unable to find the interview again, but I remember Dick Wolf talking about how they managed to get the rights so the other half of the crossovers could be shown in syndication and TNT did show the conclusions at times in the past. I'm sure they still could and probably could even get permission to list it as Law & Order in the channel guides so DVRs picked it up. But that would require a modicum of effort and respect for the viewers so it is impossible.

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, wknt3 said:

More specifically on Kenneth Starr.

That's who I meant to add! I was blanking on the rest! 

Can you blame me? 

But I had to roll my eyes at the article's piece claiming that Benjamin Bratt's talent was up there with Orbach and Selzer. PUHLEAZE.

[blondiec0332]

5 hours ago, wknt3 said:

 

 

More specifically on Kenneth Starr. They were unusually blatant about which current politician's headline's they were ripping from with the opening at Fort Clinton which is a bit unusual as they usually tried to at least file off the serial number even if it was obvious to anyone who followed the news at all. Here's a good contemporary look at the background and how the TV critics saw it at the time  - https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-1999-02-17-9902170231-story.html

 

It's annoying as there is no good reason just another example of how one of the top 5 performers in all of cable is handled so lazily by the networks that carry it, with the exception of the late lamented TNT. I was unable to find the interview again, but I remember Dick Wolf talking about how they managed to get the rights so the other half of the crossovers could be shown in syndication and TNT did show the conclusions at times in the past. I'm sure they still could and probably could even get permission to list it as Law & Order in the channel guides so DVRs picked it up. But that would require a modicum of effort and respect for the viewers so it is impossible.

A library in my area has Law & Order on dvd and the seasons with Homicide crossovers have those episodes.   Another library has Homicide Life on the Street so I would be able to watch the crossover episodes one way or the other. 

I'm surprised Homicide doesn't stream anywhere.

[wknt3]

7 hours ago, blondiec0332 said:

I'm surprised Homicide doesn't stream anywhere.

Unfortunately HLOTS has music rights issues like many shows that make streaming deals a nightmare. We (OK - I) may complain about Dick Wolf being concerned with business over art, but sometimes it has it's upsides and one of those is making sure you retain the rights to everything in perpetuity on all possible platforms. Of course sometimes it doesn't matter when you think ahead because your network partners are too lazy to take advantage...

Edited October 2, 2020 by wknt3
revise and extend my remarks

[Xeliou66]

I saw Good Faith today - one of season 17’s better episodes, this was Melnick’s final appearance and she was infuriating as usual, she acted incredibly self righteous and her defense was absolutely ludicrous and then her saying at the end it was “the right principle” that was bullshit, trying to give religious fanatics a pass for murder isn’t the “right principle”, Melnick can take her self righteousness and shove it. She was at her most annoying in this one, and I got really sick of her self righteous attitude, like I’ve said before, she should’ve been disbarred after what she did in Open Season. 

And her client was a piece of shit, he psychologically terrorized his daughter with his religious rants and then he bashed a guy’s skull in and burned down a church to cover up his crime, then he used a phony defense to try to get off. And I have mixed feelings about the daughter - she was understandably terrified of her father and was psychologically abused by him, but she still lied about who she was having sex with and as a result her father killed a completely innocent man. 

Melnick’s defense was beyond absurd, and I think Arthur was right when he said the judge should be removed the bench for allowing it.

McCoy was great in this one, as usual, I liked when he asked the defendant why he hadn’t been struck down because he was a lapsed Catholic. Rubirosa is one of my favorite ADA’s, the McCoy/Rubirosa tandem in season 17 made the legal side of the show good, while Detective Beauty Queen really dragged down the investigation part of the show, and the writing was probably at its weakest in season 17. 

I liked the scene of Van Buren interrogating one of the guys who burned down the other churches, she could be intimidating without using physical force and it wasn’t often we saw her interrogate suspects. 

This was one of the better and most entertaining episodes of season 17.

[Katy M]

22 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I saw Good Faith today - one of season 17’s better episodes, this was Melnick’s final appearance and she was infuriating as usual, she acted incredibly self righteous and her defense was absolutely ludicrous and then her saying at the end it was “the right principle” that was bullshit, trying to give religious fanatics a pass for murder isn’t the “right principle”, Melnick can take her self righteousness and shove it. She was at her most annoying in this one, and I got really sick of her self righteous attitude, like I’ve said before, she should’ve been disbarred after what she did in Open Season. 

And her client was a piece of shit, he psychologically terrorized his daughter with his religious rants and then he bashed a guy’s skull in and burned down a church to cover up his crime, then he used a phony defense to try to get off. And I have mixed feelings about the daughter - she was understandably terrified of her father and was psychologically abused by him, but she still lied about who she was having sex with and as a result her father killed a completely innocent man. 

Melnick’s defense was beyond absurd, and I think Arthur was right when he said the judge should be removed the bench for allowing it.

I generally don't like the L&O episodes that have to do with religion because a lot of times they're just straight up stupid.  I don't remember the name of the episode, but there's one where someone killed someone and then became a Christian.  He waited to be arrested but wasn't and just kind of went on living his life.  Eventually, a few years down the road he was arrested and confessed.  OK, so far, so good. But, then his lawyer said that since he was born again he was a different person and therefore didn't commit the crime.  No.,  Just no. The only saving grace of that episode was at the end when the defendant admitted that was just a ridiculous defense and plead guilty.

 

[Xeliou66]

6 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I generally don't like the L&O episodes that have to do with religion because a lot of times they're just straight up stupid.  I don't remember the name of the episode, but there's one where someone killed someone and then became a Christian.  He waited to be arrested but wasn't and just kind of went on living his life.  Eventually, a few years down the road he was arrested and confessed.  OK, so far, so good. But, then his lawyer said that since he was born again he was a different person and therefore didn't commit the crime.  No.,  Just no. The only saving grace of that episode was at the end when the defendant admitted that was just a ridiculous defense and plead guilty.

 

That was In God We Trust from season 15. L&O’s religious episodes were a mixed bag IMO, sometimes they were compelling and interesting, sometimes they were clunky and heavy handed. I liked In God We Trust mainly for McCoy’s arguments, Borgia really pissed me off in that episode acting like the defense had merit and that someone’s religious beliefs should influence their sentence, that’s absolute bullshit.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

That was In God We Trust from season 15. L&O’s religious episodes were a mixed bag IMO, sometimes they were compelling and interesting, sometimes they were clunky and heavy handed. I liked In God We Trust mainly for McCoy’s arguments, Borgia really pissed me off in that episode acting like the defense had merit and that someone’s religious beliefs should influence their sentence, that’s absolute bullshit.

It just bugged me because the murderer should have come forward and confessed immediately. Or at least as soon as he got his affairs in order.  I understand that he didn't because nobody's perfect and the temptation to get away with murder is probably more than most people could resist.  It just bugged me that he went along with the defense as long as he did, but like I said, the character redeemed himself a bit in my eyes when he realized he just had to take his punishment at the end.

I haven't seen that episode in eons, but IIRC he had spent the last few years doing "good works" so I could see maybe a little mitigation in sentencing. Certainly nothing major.  He did kill someone for absolutely no good reason.  (not that there's really a good reason to kill someone barring self-defense or defense of others, but because of prejudice is one of the worse reasons).

[andromeda331]

18 minutes ago, Katy M said:

It just bugged me because the murderer should have come forward and confessed immediately. Or at least as soon as he got his affairs in order.  I understand that he didn't because nobody's perfect and the temptation to get away with murder is probably more than most people could resist.  It just bugged me that he went along with the defense as long as he did, but like I said, the character redeemed himself a bit in my eyes when he realized he just had to take his punishment at the end.

I haven't seen that episode in eons, but IIRC he had spent the last few years doing "good works" so I could see maybe a little mitigation in sentencing. Certainly nothing major.  He did kill someone for absolutely no good reason.  (not that there's really a good reason to kill someone barring self-defense or defense of others, but because of prejudice is one of the worse reasons).

Same here. If he had really become a Christian and changed then the first thing he should have done is come forward and confessed.  Its so common in TV shows and real life which is probably why it bugs me so much. One of the big parts of being a Christian is your suppose to confess your sins and take responsibility for them. Then be forgiven. So many very conveniently forget that step and declare themselves forgiven. So many act like its a get out of jail free card. Its not. That goes against the Christian faith. If you had done that step then your not really forgiven. You can't be forgiven until you take responsibility for your actions. Any real priest or reverend that he talked to and confessed to would have told him that. That he needed to come forward and confess. I do like that he ends up thinking that his sentence is the will of God. Which yes it probably is. He's finally sentence for the crime that he committed. And the crime was discovered and that he did it. Yeah that was probably God making sure that he not only paid for his crime but the man who was murder got justice. That's important too. It  bugged me so much that people in the episode wanted him to walk free for a crime that he committed but never took any responsibility. Its very realistic which is probably why it annoys me so much. So many people hear a criminal is a Christian and suddenly want him not to have to pay for his crime. The man he murdered still deserved justice. If he truly did feel sorry for killing the man, why wouldn't he come forward and take responsibility? You murdered someone, you realize its wrong, you never should have done it and feel terrible. But then don't do anything. I do like when they ask his sister who was dating the victim if she forgave her brother and said no. Good for her. He may have changed but he still killed someone, her boyfriend. The only one who ended up doing the right thing was the woman who found God in prison and decided not to fight. She accepted the judgment and fate. While she didn't come forward the end part is how its suppose to go. 

Same with the episode with the Jewish defendant who should get away with murder because he was Jewish. McCoy asking his wife if she'd feel the same way if the victim was Jewish. Of course she wouldn't. Would so many people be fighting to get them off for their crime if they had been Muslim or another religion? Nope. Also, as McCoy points out all any criminal would have to do is claim to be Christian and get away with their crime. 

 

[Xeliou66]

3 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Same here. If he had really become a Christian and changed then the first thing he should have done is come forward and confessed.  Its so common in TV shows and real life which is probably why it bugs me so much. One of the big parts of being a Christian is your suppose to confess your sins and take responsibility for them. Then be forgiven. So many very conveniently forget that step and declare themselves forgiven. So many act like its a get out of jail free card. Its not. That goes against the Christian faith. If you had done that step then your not really forgiven. You can't be forgiven until you take responsibility for your actions. Any real priest or reverend that he talked to and confessed to would have told him that. That he needed to come forward and confess. I do like that he ends up thinking that his sentence is the will of God. Which yes it probably is. He's finally sentence for the crime that he committed. And the crime was discovered and that he did it. Yeah that was probably God making sure that he not only paid for his crime but the man who was murder got justice. That's important too. It  bugged me so much that people in the episode wanted him to walk free for a crime that he committed but never took any responsibility. Its very realistic which is probably why it annoys me so much. So many people hear a criminal is a Christian and suddenly want him not to have to pay for his crime. The man he murdered still deserved justice. If he truly did feel sorry for killing the man, why wouldn't he come forward and take responsibility? You murdered someone, you realize its wrong, you never should have done it and feel terrible. But then don't do anything. I do like when they ask his sister who was dating the victim if she forgave her brother and said no. Good for her. He may have changed but he still killed someone, her boyfriend. The only one who ended up doing the right thing was the woman who found God in prison and decided not to fight. She accepted the judgment and fate. While she didn't come forward the end part is how its suppose to go. 

Same with the episode with the Jewish defendant who should get away with murder because he was Jewish. McCoy asking his wife if she'd feel the same way if the victim was Jewish. Of course she wouldn't. Would so many people be fighting to get them off for their crime if they had been Muslim or another religion? Nope. Also, as McCoy points out all any criminal would have to do is claim to be Christian and get away with their crime. 

 

Good post. I agree that the guy in In God We Trust should’ve come forward if he was really remorseful, instead he waited for years until the detectives were on to him to confess. I liked both the reactions of the father of the victim and of the victim’s girlfriend/killer’s sister, both of whom wanted him in prison. I liked McCoy’s arguments in the episode a lot while Borgia just pissed me off by acting like the defense had merit and that someone converting to Christianity should have an impact on their sentence, I liked how McCoy responded “and for those of us that don’t believe in Christ?”. 

Back to Good Faith, I loathed both Melnick and her client, her client was a complete nutjob who was terrorizing his daughter and who tried to use his faith to get off the hook for a murder, even though he killed the guy thinking he was sleeping with his daughter. And Melnick saying it was the “right principle” what principle was that, that religious fanatics should get a free pass for murder? Melnick was so incredibly self righteous and always acted like she had the moral high ground, she really pissed me off, like I’ve said before, she shoud’ve been disbarred and maybe jailed for her actions in Open Season and I hated that McCoy went to bat for her, Melnick was self serving, smug and self righteous. 

[Cobalt Stargazer]

On 10/8/2020 at 7:41 PM, Xeliou66 said:

Good post. I agree that the guy in In God We Trust should’ve come forward if he was really remorseful, instead he waited for years until the detectives were on to him to confess. I liked both the reactions of the father of the victim and of the victim’s girlfriend/killer’s sister, both of whom wanted him in prison. I liked McCoy’s arguments in the episode a lot while Borgia just pissed me off by acting like the defense had merit and that someone converting to Christianity should have an impact on their sentence, I liked how McCoy responded “and for those of us that don’t believe in Christ?”.

In the episode Bad Girl, there was a similar occurrence, where a police officer is shot and killed and the murderer has a last minute conversion to Christianity, but doesn't try to stop her execution. I liked Jamie pointing out to Jack that if he thought that the killer shouldn't be put to death because she was 'cute and cuddly' he was admitting that capital punishment was unfairly applied.

"You're enjoying this, aren't you?"

"You're the one with the crisis of conscience."

Hee.

[Xeliou66]

I watched season 19/episode 4 Falling tonight, good episode, it’s one of the rare cases where the original case (the crane collapse) morphs into another case. I strongly disagreed with Cutter trying to block the Talbot’s from doing the procedure on their daughter, I had no objections to what they wanted to do myself, and I thought Cutter crossed the line trying to attach an illegal stipulation to the plea agreement, and McCoy was right to pull the plug on it, and Judge Bradley was correct in his ruling that the procedure wasn’t a crime IMO. I loved them referencing the case from the season 5 episode Precious where McCoy tried to get the woman who was killing her babies sterilized, and it was interesting how McCoy admitted he was wrong to do that. However I’ve always been puzzled by McCoy’s remark that he wished someone was there to yank his leash, because both Adam Schiff and Arthur Branch “yanked his leash” multiple times, so that was puzzling to me. I can think of multiple incidents where Schiff or Branch overruled McCoy. But yeah I sided with McCoy in this episode, Cutter was out of line.

On the other hand, I thought Mrs Talbot should’ve served some prison time for the assault, as a result of her assault a woman was in a coma never to wake up, she should’ve gone to prison for a few years so I thought they should’ve pushed for a harsher sentence.

[Katy M]

6 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

watched season 19/episode 4 Falling tonight, good episode, it’s one of the rare cases where the original case (the crane collapse) morphs into another case. I strongly disagreed with Cutter trying to block the Talbot’s from doing the procedure on their daughter, I had no objections to what they wanted to do myself, and I thought Cutter crossed the line trying to attach an illegal stipulation to the plea agreement, and McCoy was right to pull the plug on it, and Judge Bradley was correct in his ruling that the procedure wasn’t a crime IMO. I

I think the procedure was probably wrong, but I don't think it's up to anybody else to decide as long as it was legal.  They were in a tough situation and I think Cutter was being super-judgey.  Now, of course what happened at the pool was another story.

Edited October 15, 2020 by Katy M

[BW Manilowe]

On 9/22/2020 at 5:14 PM, shapeshifter said:

Later the detectives find the missing cross (a different cross, right??) at the apartment of the Bad Girl’s abusive father, where he yanks it off of his girlfriend.

No, it was the cross which belonged to the dead police officer. Jamie (I’m pretty sure it involved Jamie anyway) retrieved it from Monica Johnson’s father, who bought it from Monica & gave it to his girlfriend. I think she had to promise him a reward that was being offered for info in the case, but she got it.

[Xeliou66]

10 hours ago, Katy M said:

I think the procedure was probably wrong, but I don't think it's up to anybody else to decide as long as it was legal.  They were in a tough situation and I think Cutter was being super-judgey.  Now, of course what happened at the pool was another story.

I understood why the Talbot’s wanted to have the procedure done, and I thought Judge Bradley was right to rule that it wasn’t a crime. Cutter was really crossing the line and I’m not sure why he was being so judgmental, he irritated me in this episode, and I completely agreed with McCoy pulling the plug on him.

What’s very puzzling to me is McCoy’s comment that no one was there to yank his leash, because both Schiff and Branch did.

There was a funny line earlier in the episode when Bernard told Van Buren that as nice as she was he doesn’t see her paying for his wife’s hospital bills, and Van Buren replies “who said I was nice?”. 

[BW Manilowe]

On 10/1/2020 at 1:14 PM, shapeshifter said:

9.14 "Sideshow" just aired on Bounce, in which 

Maybe it's because of all the strife lately, or maybe it's just the skill of the actor and the writing, but I have finally watched a portrayal of a character who I really detested.
Here's the dialogue that makes fictional William Dell so odious to me:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0629422/characters/nm0372493

I felt the same way as you about William Dell, because of the very dialogue you quoted. I wanted to smack him, badly! 
I also felt pretty much the same about Judge Hellman, from The Hellman Commission in the episode where it turns out 1 of Lennie’s old friends/partners from the 27th is majorly corrupt & smarmy, & threatens Rey & Lennie for looking into his cases when Rey twigs onto he’s probably corrupt (it was just on 1 of the channels that carries the show, like, last week I think), for the same reason—he wanted to probe people’s sex lives & he called Lennie’s (ex) lover, who took it upon herself to testify to something that would help negate something the corrupt cop said about Lennie, a slut because she’d slept with someone outside her marriage twice, she said. He wanted to discuss sleaze more than the truth.

[shapeshifter]

21 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

season 19/episode 4 Falling

3 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I understood why the Talbot’s wanted to have the procedure done, and I thought Judge Bradley was right to rule that it wasn’t a crime. Cutter was really crossing the line and I’m not sure why he was being so judgmental,

It's been at least a month since I last saw "Falling," but maybe Cutter was concerned about it being a slippery slope? I seem to recall being a little confused about Cutter's issue with the parents' choice. 

 

[laredhead]

I've been recording and rewatching all of the episodes, and tonight I watched Couples from 2003, Season 13, episode 23.  It was the episode with 3 unrelated murders, and no courtroom scenes, other than a bail hearing.  The writers packed a lot of action and characters into this one.  I really enjoyed it.   

[Xeliou66]

16 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

It's been at least a month since I last saw "Falling," but maybe Cutter was concerned about it being a slippery slope? I seem to recall being a little confused about Cutter's issue with the parents' choice. 

 

Yeah I was unsure of why Cutter was being so judgmental to the point where he was willing to put an illegal stipulation into a plea bargain, Cutter was way out of line and I was glad McCoy stopped him. 

16 hours ago, laredhead said:

I've been recording and rewatching all of the episodes, and tonight I watched Couples from 2003, Season 13, episode 23.  It was the episode with 3 unrelated murders, and no courtroom scenes, other than a bail hearing.  The writers packed a lot of action and characters into this one.  I really enjoyed it.   

Couples was a unique episode - there was one other episode like it - Mayhem from season 4, where it was all about the detectives dealing with several cases and very little legal stuff. Both episodes had some humor sprinkled in as well, Couples moreso while Mayhem ended on a tragic note. 

17 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

I felt the same way as you about William Dell, because of the very dialogue you quoted. I wanted to smack him, badly! 
I also felt pretty much the same about Judge Hellman, from The Hellman Commission in the episode where it turns out 1 of Lennie’s old friends/partners from the 27th is majorly corrupt & smarmy, & threatens Rey & Lennie for looking into his cases when Rey twigs onto he’s probably corrupt (it was just on 1 of the channels that carries the show, like, last week I think), for the same reason—he wanted to probe people’s sex lives & he called Lennie’s (ex) lover, who took it upon herself to testify to something that would help negate something the corrupt cop said about Lennie, a slut because she’d slept with someone outside her marriage twice, she said. He wanted to discuss sleaze more than the truth.

Agreed about both Dell and Hellman, Hellman especially pissed me off, I loved when Briscoe went after Hellman in the bathroom, he was ready to fight him. I like that episode a lot, I liked seeing the interactions between the various characters.

[shapeshifter]

On 10/14/2020 at 11:41 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I strongly disagreed with Cutter trying to block the Talbot’s from doing the procedure on their daughter, I had no objections to what they wanted to do myself, and I thought Cutter crossed the line trying to attach an illegal stipulation to the plea agreement, and McCoy was right to pull the plug on it, and Judge Bradley was correct in his ruling that the procedure wasn’t a crime IMO.

9 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

On 10/15/2020 at 9:24 PM, shapeshifter said:

It's been at least a month since I last saw "Falling," but maybe Cutter was concerned about it being a slippery slope? I seem to recall being a little confused about Cutter's issue with the parents' choice. 

Yeah I was unsure of why Cutter was being so judgmental to the point where he was willing to put an illegal stipulation into a plea bargain, Cutter was way out of line and I was glad McCoy stopped him. 

I thought I recalled Cutter questioning the possibility of a future cure for the child's condition, but I just looked through the script, and that never came up. Maybe a different case?
Anyway, Cutter argued the procedures were purely for the convenience of the parents and did not see an improved quality of life for the child based upon that "convenience."
But maybe Cutter just wanted to see the mother pay a price for pushing the caretaker into the pool when they argued about the procedure, which resulted in the caretaker's death? I can't really determine that from just reading the lines. 
It's a complicated episode, and disturbing to me in so many ways. I mean, "removing breast buds" does not seem necessary if they were going to prevent her from maturing by hormone treatments, and I don't see how those treatments would keep her "small." I wonder if the writers made up disturbing, non-science-based procedures just for drama.

[shapeshifter]

10.20 "Untitled" aired 20 years ago, in which "Briscoe and Green learn that a murdered woman was not only a patron of the arts, but that an artist she supported created a painting similar to the crime scene." 
To me, this is an example of a plot that doesn't read 20 years later the way it did when it first aired. 
The "offensive" painting that the crime scene resembles is this:

It seemed that everyone in the episode agreed that the painting was offensive, especially to women, but I kept waiting for someone to explain that it represented the historical silencing and disempowerment of women. If the episode was written today, I would expect it to be done by a female artist as a form of protest and/or expression of the #MeToo movement.

Edited October 19, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Xeliou66]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

10.20 "Untitled" aired 20 years ago, in which "Briscoe and Green learn that a murdered woman was not only a patron of the arts, but that an artist she supported created a painting similar to the crime scene." 
To me, this is an example of a plot that doesn't read 20 years later the way it did when it first aired. 
The "offensive" painting that the crime scene resembles is this:

It seemed that everyone in the episode agreed that the painting was offensive, especially to women, but I kept waiting for someone to explain that it represented the historical silencing and disempowerment of women. If the episode was written today, I would expect it to be done by a female artist as a form of protest and/or expression of the #MeToo movement.

Interesting post - I think the thing was is that the artist just wanted to shock people and create the most shocking imagery he could think of, he didn’t mean for it to represent the historical sexism/silencing of women. 

I like the episode a lot, the trial scenes were great, I loved McCoy’s closing argument and his strong defense of free speech and freedom of expression, and how he pointed out that it was the defendant who actually went out and killed and dismembered a woman all because he didn’t like the art she supported, he claimed to be so disturbed and upset by the painting that he had diminished capacity, yet he actually committed murder and dismemberment. I was glad the jury convicted him of 1st degree murder and sent him away for life. 

I liked how McCoy didn’t want to make a deal because he didn’t like the precedent it would set, and he wanted to stand up for free speech/expression. Schiff’s reaction “can’t you see the little picture for once?” was amusing, but I agreed with Jack. 

I also remember Skoda being asked to leave the courtroom, that was quite memorable.

The investigation was good as well, I remember we saw Lamotte searching the killer’s apartment with Briscoe, I liked that, usually Lamotte just had a background role at the station. 

[BW Manilowe]

On 10/17/2020 at 1:36 AM, shapeshifter said:

I thought I recalled Cutter questioning the possibility of a future cure for the child's condition, but I just looked through the script, and that never came up. Maybe a different case?
Anyway, Cutter argued the procedures were purely for the convenience of the parents and did not see an improved quality of life for the child based upon that "convenience."
But maybe Cutter just wanted to see the mother pay a price for pushing the caretaker into the pool when they argued about the procedure, which resulted in the caretaker's death? I can't really determine that from just reading the lines. 
It's a complicated episode, and disturbing to me in so many ways. I mean, "removing breast buds" does not seem necessary if they were going to prevent her from maturing by hormone treatments, and I don't see how those treatments would keep her "small." I wonder if the writers made up disturbing, non-science-based procedures just for drama.

The caretaker in the episode didn’t die, as I remember (though she might as well have). She was left in a persistent vegetative state (irreversible coma).

[shapeshifter]

10.24 "Vaya Con Dios" (aired May 24, 2000) is on Bounce right now.
I happened to glance up in time to recognize a 26-year-old Michael Ealy in his first TV bit role, according to IMDb. He hasn't changed, heh.

[shapeshifter]

And this morning I looked up in just in time to see 20-year-younger Mayor Rudy Guliani plant a kiss on the cheek of Interim D.A. Nora Lewin (Dianne Wiest) in 11.1 "Endurance" (October 18, 2020). Guliani doesn't look that much different either, but he never was a Michael Ealy, heh (https://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/images8/2007_12_16_Leahy_HowHe_ph_Rudy_Giuliani.jpg).

[shapeshifter]

At the end of 9.11 "Hubris" 

Quote

A charming conman acts as his own defense during his murder trial. During the trial, he deliberately tries to taint the jury by flirting with the forewoman.

after the killer got off,  the jury forewoman goes to the DAs and admits to having had dinner with the killer during the trial and having influenced a not-guilty verdict, which she realizes was what he was manipulating her to do after he dumps her 2 days after he is acquitted.
But then the detectives are called to the scene of the killer's stabbing death on the kitchen floor of the the jury forewoman, who has markings of a garrote around her neck,  with which she claims he tried to strangle her by sneaking up behind her while she was at the sink washing dishes, but she managed to stab him in the neck with a knife she was washing at that moment. 
When asked, Lennie says no, she's not a "collar," and they close the case. 
Are we supposed to think she lured him there to kill him and planted the garrote, or...?

Edited October 27, 2020 by shapeshifter

[Xeliou66]

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

At the end of 9.11 "Hubris" 

after the killer got off,  the jury forewoman goes to the DAs and admits to having had dinner with the killer during the trial and having influenced a not-guilty verdict, which she realizes was what he was manipulating her to do after he dumps her 2 days after he is acquitted.
But then the detectives are called to the scene of the killer's stabbing death on the kitchen floor of the the jury forewoman, who has markings of a garrote around her neck,  with which she claims he tried to strangle her by sneaking up behind her while she was at the sink washing dishes, but she managed to stab him in the neck with a knife she was washing at that moment. 
When asked, Lennie says no, she's not a "collar," and they close the case. 
Are we supposed to think she lured him there to kill him and planted the garrote, or...?

I think the ending of Hubris was left ambiguous as to whether it was murder or self defense. It is an interesting episode, I haven’t seen it in a while. I wondered just how the defendant initiated contact with the forewoman, did he approach her outside the courthouse or something? 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

I think the ending of Hubris was left ambiguous as to whether it was murder or self defense. It is an interesting episode, I haven’t seen it in a while. I wondered just how the defendant initiated contact with the forewoman, did he approach her outside the courthouse or something? 

That was ambiguous too, but my understanding was that he manipulated her in the courtroom via eye contact and then later she said they first went for dinner during the trial after the judge had ordered the cops to stop following him. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

He got her attention by flirting with her during the trial. Something Abbey caught and pointed out to Jack; and they took it to the judge, who waved it off; then Jack had the cops put a tail on him, and that's how it was discovered they "went out" to dinner. They were totally having an affair.

And after he was acquitted, she came running to Abbey about how she pressured the jury to acquit. And Abbey was like "how long before he dumped you?" I think it was like, 10 minutes.

So I think she probably called him on some pretext, AND that he probably was on the way to kill her--loose ends and all. So each of their actions cancelled each other out.

[shapeshifter]

46 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

So I think she probably called him on some pretext, AND that he probably was on the way to kill her--loose ends and all. So each of their actions cancelled each other out.

That does make sense. 
Even if she did fake-garotte herself, likely he would have tried to killer her sooner or later--which is what I like to imagine Abby was thinking at that point. 😉

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

He got her attention by flirting with her during the trial. Something Abbey caught and pointed out to Jack; and they took it to the judge, who waved it off; then Jack had the cops put a tail on him, and that's how it was discovered they "went out" to dinner. They were totally having an affair.

And after he was acquitted, she came running to Abbey about how she pressured the jury to acquit. And Abbey was like "how long before he dumped you?" I think it was like, 10 minutes.

So I think she probably called him on some pretext, AND that he probably was on the way to kill her--loose ends and all. So each of their actions cancelled each other out.

Except they didn’t know they went out to dinner until the forewoman came to Jack and Abbie after the trial. They suspected the 2 were having an affair but it wasn’t confirmed until after the trial, had it been confirmed that they were seeing each other during the trial, a mistrial would’ve been declared. They only went out to dinner after the cops stopped tailing the perp, I just wonder how he first approached her, I guess outside the courthouse, after they had been flirting during the trial.

About the ending, I do wonder if she called him and got him to come to her house or if he just came uninvited, phone records would show if there had been any contact that day, but I think it was self defense, he found out she went to the DA’s and he might be retried so he went to kill her.

[Katy M]

2 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I just wonder how he first approached her, I guess outside the courthouse, after they had been flirting during the trial.

IIRC, he walked up to her on the sidewalk after court one day.

[Xeliou66]

47 minutes ago, Katy M said:

IIRC, he walked up to her on the sidewalk after court one day.

I don’t think it was ever specifically said, but you could be right, maybe I just don’t remember, it’s been a long time since I’ve caught that episode.