Law & Order Discussion Topic (2019 - 2021)

[Scarlett45]

On 7/7/2021 at 9:50 AM, ifionlyknew said:

Her bad choices included facilitating a rape.  Her daughter was comatose so she could not consent. That is rape. Just because the daughter was unaware of what was happening shouldn't be waved away as her mother making a bad choice.  She might have been grieving the loss of her daughter and unborn grandchild but that doesn't mean what she did isn't a crime.  

 

On 7/8/2021 at 6:14 AM, Ailianna said:

Not just a rape. She knew the pregnancy would most likely kill her daughter. She planned a horrible violation that would also result in death. That's not just "a bad choice."

 

On 7/8/2021 at 6:43 AM, Spartan Girl said:

And the fact that the daughter was brain dead and never going to recover makes it even more of a violation. No amount of grief and pain can justify paying someone to basically desecrate your daughter’s corpse.

I agree. 
 

Also the forced breeding thing is incredibly violating. Her daughter didn’t and couldn’t consent to procreating with that man. (Or anyone). To me that’s more disturbing than the rape, I would be equally disturbed if she had hired someone to artificially inseminate her daughter. (A tiny bit less disturbed if she had harvested her daughter’s eggs, used a surrogate and did in vitro- but still very disturbed!)
 

What didn’t understand is did she not think the medical staff would notice? Did she not think they would DNA test all the men that worked there (and the woman’s father or any other male visitors)? I think the paternal grandfather could’ve likely raised the child, and maybe the paternal grandparents could have visitation. I don’t assume they were horrid people because their son did something horrific. He was an adult with agency.

[Xeliou66]

24 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

 

 

I agree. 
 

Also the forced breeding thing is incredibly violating. Her daughter didn’t and couldn’t consent to procreating with that man. (Or anyone). To me that’s more disturbing than the rape, I would be equally disturbed if she had hired someone to artificially inseminate her daughter. (A tiny bit less disturbed if she had harvested her daughter’s eggs, used a surrogate and did in vitro- but still very disturbed!)
 

What didn’t understand is did she not think the medical staff would notice? Did she not think they would DNA test all the men that worked there (and the woman’s father or any other male visitors)? I think the paternal grandfather could’ve likely raised the child, and maybe the paternal grandparents could have visitation. I don’t assume they were horrid people because their son did something horrific. He was an adult with agency.

Yeah I don’t know what kind of parents the parents of Harding, the guy who impregnated the comatose girl, were, they weren’t necessarily bad just because their son did something fucked up, but that child doesn’t belong anywhere near the fruit loop maternal grandmother - and I didn’t get the impression that the maternal grandfather was going to leave his wife even after he found out what she had done. So that’s why I think the paternal grandparents would be a better fit to raise the child, because the child didn’t belong anywhere near grandma fruit loop. Just my take on it. 

[Scarlett45]

10 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah I don’t know what kind of parents the parents of Harding, the guy who impregnated the comatose girl, were, they weren’t necessarily bad just because their son did something fucked up, but that child doesn’t belong anywhere near the fruit loop maternal grandmother - and I didn’t get the impression that the maternal grandfather was going to leave his wife even after he found out what she had done. So that’s why I think the paternal grandparents would be a better fit to raise the child, because the child didn’t belong anywhere near grandma fruit loop. Just my take on it. 

The wife was going to prison for a good bit of time.

I think the maternal grandfather was in shock and maybe wasn’t planning out a divorce. 

[Xeliou66]

51 minutes ago, Scarlett45 said:

The wife was going to prison for a good bit of time.

I think the maternal grandfather was in shock and maybe wasn’t planning out a divorce. 

He was in shock, but I didn’t take it that he would leave her. If he did leave her, then he might be the most fit guardian of the kid. If he didn’t, he shouldn’t have custody as the kid doesn’t belong anywhere nearly the loony maternal grandma. 

[Xeliou66]

I just watched License to Kill and I have to say I have mixed feelings about this episode, as in I’m not sure if the jury got the right verdict or not - I thought the defendant was somewhat sympathetic and wasn’t trying to hurt anyone but he might not have been thinking clearly, I thought Jack was a bit harsh about him, while Borgia was somewhat whiny and overly sympathetic towards him. I thought he deserved some form of punishment for his reckless actions, but I’m not sure if he belonged in prison. I didn’t think Jack’s closing argument was very strong, calling the defendant a phony, I didn’t think the defendant was phony or was trying to be a hero, I think he was doing what he thought was best, but his actions were reckless. It’s an interesting and thought provoking episode. 

As a football fan, I loved Arthur’s line “if folks had been a little more vigilant, maybe September 11 would still be known as Bear Bryant’s birthday” Arthur had some colorful one liners. 

[balmz]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:19 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I just watched License to Kill and I have to say I have mixed feelings about this episode, as in I’m not sure if the jury got the right verdict or not - I thought the defendant was somewhat sympathetic and wasn’t trying to hurt anyone but he might not have been thinking clearly, I thought Jack was a bit harsh about him, while Borgia was somewhat whiny and overly sympathetic towards him. I thought he deserved some form of punishment for his reckless actions, but I’m not sure if he belonged in prison. I didn’t think Jack’s closing argument was very strong, calling the defendant a phony, I didn’t think the defendant was phony or was trying to be a hero, I think he was doing what he thought was best, but his actions were reckless. It’s an interesting and thought provoking episode. 

As a football fan, I loved Arthur’s line “if folks had been a little more vigilant, maybe September 11 would still be known as Bear Bryant’s birthday” Arthur had some colorful one liners. 

reminds me of two things similar to this

 

from the og powerpuff girls episode town and out which is infamous in the fandom,

the girls were chasing bank robbers and blew up a bridge to stop them

Citiesville Mayor: (quietly, sternly) Let me tell you some words. At what point did it seem like a good idea to blow up the Cityville Bridge?

Blossom: Uh…

Citiesville Mayor: No! Do you realize the two crooks that you caught stole approximately four hundred dollars? (with intensifying rage) Do you realize that you did over three MILLION DOLLARS IN PROPERTY DAMAGE TO THAT BRIDGE?!?! 

Citiesville Mayor: IT’S NOT REPLACEABLE! Also, that bridge is — or was — a historical landmark. I mean, it’s on our flag, for Pete’s sake! It’s also the main thoroughfare into the city! (dropping flag) Nobody actually lives in Citiesville! (sobbing) They commute!

from tv tropes

Real Life, such things as "Good Samaritan" Laws exist to help people prevent from getting sued if they have to help with an emergency — but only within reason. Not getting sued if you hurt someone while applying the Heimlich Maneuver is "within reason". Demolishing five city blocks while pursuing a criminal as a vigilante is not. And also needs be said — Good Samaritan Laws don't force you to help.

[Xeliou66]

I watched Competence tonight, this is a great episode - such a good feature for Van Buren, who is awesome, she’s one of my favorites and I always liked when she took center stage, she was really good in this episode. Very compelling story - and I found it interesting how Logan immediately defended Van Buren and worked hard to clear her name, while Briscoe was more skeptical, this was interesting since Logan and Van Buren clashed more while she had a better relationship with Briscoe usually.

McCoy skirted the line in this one where he didn’t turn over potentially exculpatory evidence, and Claire clearly disagreed with him, ultimately I agreed with the judge that while McCoy skirted the line he didn’t do anything worthy of sanctions. I found it interesting seeing McCoy question Van Buren before the grand jury, I didn’t think Jack went after her particularly hard the way Claire thought, he was just doing his job.

Overall this is a really good episode, I remember having discussions with some people who thought season 5 was a bit below average for L&O, and while it did have some cases that were a bit unusual/different from the usual formula, including Competence, I think it is a pretty strong season on the whole - Jack was awesome from his first episode and I liked all of the main characters.

[shapeshifter]

12 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I found it interesting seeing McCoy question Van Buren before the grand jury, I didn’t think Jack went after her particularly hard the way Claire thought, he was just doing his job.

Was this where McCoy outed Van Buren's cancer? If so, I get her outrage. I was open about mine, but there are many reasons for people not to be.

Claire was basically the Jiminy Cricket on McCoy's shoulder.

[Xeliou66]

10 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

Was this where McCoy outed Van Buren's cancer? If so, I get her outrage. I was open about mine, but there are many reasons for people not to be.

Claire was basically the Jiminy Cricket on McCoy's shoulder.

Van Buren didn’t get cancer until season 20, this was 15 years earlier in season 5. And McCoy never outed Van Buren’s cancer, it was Mike Cutter who did that, in the episode Immortal, and I agree she had the right to be pissed at him. 

[shapeshifter]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:19 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I just watched License to Kill and I have to say I have mixed feelings about this episode, as in I’m not sure if the jury got the right verdict or not - I thought the defendant was somewhat sympathetic and wasn’t trying to hurt anyone but he might not have been thinking clearly, I thought Jack was a bit harsh about him, while Borgia was somewhat whiny and overly sympathetic towards him. I thought he deserved some form of punishment for his reckless actions, but I’m not sure if he belonged in prison. I didn’t think Jack’s closing argument was very strong, calling the defendant a phony, I didn’t think the defendant was phony or was trying to be a hero, I think he was doing what he thought was best, but his actions were reckless. It’s an interesting and thought provoking episode. 

As a football fan, I loved Arthur’s line “if folks had been a little more vigilant, maybe September 11 would still be known as Bear Bryant’s birthday” Arthur had some colorful one liners. 

I just happened to catch the last 10-15 minutes of this episode and agree with everything you said. 
The writers chose to show the defendant making excuses rather than regret, which is often the case IRL. 

[ML89]

13 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I watched Competence tonight, this is a great episode - such a good feature for Van Buren, who is awesome, she’s one of my favorites and I always liked when she took center stage, she was really good in this episode. Very compelling story - and I found it interesting how Logan immediately defended Van Buren and worked hard to clear her name, while Briscoe was more skeptical, this was interesting since Logan and Van Buren clashed more while she had a better relationship with Briscoe usually.

Love this one - the bits with Van Buren, Logan and Briscoe are top notch and I love Mike and Lennie with Gwen, especially the finding the gun scenes. They were great with kids. And wow, too bad Mike didn't slug the Chief of Ds, who was a complete jerk - that would have been a better way to go out to Staten!

Edited July 16, 2021 by ML89

[Katy M]

On 7/12/2021 at 7:19 PM, Xeliou66 said:

I just watched License to Kill and I have to say I have mixed feelings about this episode, as in I’m not sure if the jury got the right verdict or not - I thought the defendant was somewhat sympathetic and wasn’t trying to hurt anyone but he might not have been thinking clearly, I thought Jack was a bit harsh about him, while Borgia was somewhat whiny and overly sympathetic towards him. I thought he deserved some form of punishment for his reckless actions, but I’m not sure if he belonged in prison. I didn’t think Jack’s closing argument was very strong, calling the defendant a phony, I didn’t think the defendant was phony or was trying to be a hero, I think he was doing what he thought was best, but his actions were reckless. It’s an interesting and thought provoking episode. 

As a football fan, I loved Arthur’s line “if folks had been a little more vigilant, maybe September 11 would still be known as Bear Bryant’s birthday” Arthur had some colorful one liners. 

I just saw this one today and I think this episode is one of the better ones for really getting you to think. It's definitely not an open-and-shut case.  I think Jack was right that he had better options. But, in the "heat of the moment" is it a punishable crime not to think of them?  I think Jack at one point wanted to go with murder, but I definitely think that would have been an overrreach and that manslaughter would have been the correct charge.  What would I have done on that jury?  I can't say. I see both sides.

[shapeshifter]

24 minutes ago, Katy M said:

I just saw this one today and I think this episode is one of the better ones for really getting you to think. It's definitely not an open-and-shut case.  I think Jack was right that he had better options. But, in the "heat of the moment" is it a punishable crime not to think of them?  I think Jack at one point wanted to go with murder, but I definitely think that would have been an overrreach and that manslaughter would have been the correct charge.  What would I have done on that jury?  I can't say. I see both sides.

But the jury acquitted him of manslaughter, right? 
Anyway, I think Jack was particularly unsympathetic to the guy’s choices because the guy showed no real remorse. However, maybe he was remorseful and didn’t want to admit it or even show it because that would be like admitting guilt, which could land him in jail, and he hadn’t intended for the boy to die; he wanted to save the boy. 
But I also think the guy was a bit puffed up with self-importance in his efforts that can be dangerous and even cause vigilantes to harm innocents whom the vigilantes have already tried, convicted, and sentenced in their minds. 
I mean, what if the kidnapper turned out to be someone hired to save the boy from an abusive cult? Then how would the jury have voted? And yet the guy’s thoughts and actions would have been the same. 

[Katy M]

26 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

But the jury acquitted him of manslaughter, right? 

Yes, they did.

 

26 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

But I also think the guy was a bit puffed up with self-importance in his efforts that can be dangerous and even cause vigilantes to harm innocents whom the vigilantes have already tried, convicted, and sentenced in their minds. 

Oh definitely.

 

27 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I mean, what if the kidnapper turned out to be someone hired to save the boy from an abusive cult? Then how would the jury have voted? And yet the guy’s thoughts and actions would have been the same. 

And that's the danger with vigilanteism.  Although, to be fair, this guy was trying to stop an active crime, not get revenge on a crime already committed. Or at least, partially.  he did start out chasing him just from the woods shooting if I understood correctly.  I missed the first 5 minutes or so and came in when the detectives were talking to the kid in the hospital.

Your question reminds me of an episode of CHiPs I saw as a child. There was a group of people, which I'm thinking was all women, but that's not really important.  They were basically civilians patrolling the highways like the cops did. Ponch was against them.  They pulled someone over for erratic driving and it turned out that instead of being a bad driver, he was having a heart attack.  My mom and I couldn't figure out how that made it bad to pull him over.  I thin they actually saved his life, and maybe the lives of others, but they got reprimanded for it.  I don't know why your question reminded me of that, other than maybe something is either right or it's not right and perception and motive don't have much to do with it.

[Xeliou66]

22 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I just happened to catch the last 10-15 minutes of this episode and agree with everything you said. 
The writers chose to show the defendant making excuses rather than regret, which is often the case IRL. 

I think the defendant was somewhat remorseful about what happened but I don’t think he believed he did anything wrong. Like I say, it’s a difficult case and I’m really unsure how I would’ve voted if I was on the jury, I think the defendant’s intentions were good but he didn’t really think his actions through, I think he deserved some form of punishment but whether or not he belonged in jail I don’t know. I just didn’t find McCoy’s closing argument convincing because I didn’t think the defendant was someone seeking media glory or a “fake hero”. 

21 hours ago, ML89 said:

Love this one - the bits with Van Buren, Logan and Briscoe are top notch and I love Mike and Lennie with Gwen, especially the finding the gun scenes. They were great with kids. And wow, too bad Mike didn't slug the Chief of Ds, who was a complete jerk - that would have been a better way to go out to Staten!

Agreed, I love this episode as well, it was a great episode for Van Buren and I liked the scenes with Briscoe and Logan as well. Burnett, the higher up investigating Van Buren, was a smug prick. It was very interesting to me seeing Logan strongly stand up for Van Buren given they had a rocky relationship at times.

[Xeliou66]

I watched The Family Hour tonight - very entertaining episode, and I think the Bailey’s take the cake as the most dysfunctional family in L&O history, every one of them was really screwed up.

I was conflicted as to whether Jack or Arthur was right about what to do with Rodgers error, I think Jack was probably right ethically but I understood where Arthur was coming from as well. The one thing I’ve always wondered about is how no one caught Rodgers error - the defense attorney apparently didn’t double check, the Senator, who was a crime fiction fan, apparently didn’t know Rodgers got the book wrong, and given the publicity of the trial it seems like someone in the media/audience would know Rodgers screwed up and would say something. So that seemed a bit odd to me - and I wondered if the Senator would have grounds for an appeal once Rodgers error was discovered.

I liked seeing Connie give the closing argument - she’s perhaps my favorite of the ADA’s, and it was nice for her to get in the spotlight. 

I liked the final scene between Jack and Arthur, Arthur was clearly already planning to step down I think and had Jack in mind as his replacement.

It was really weird seeing Jeremy Sisto as the defense lawyer Glover, since he joined the show as Lupo in the next episode.

Speaking of the next episode, I think the show kind of got a fresh rebirth in season 18, with Lupo and Cutter joining and Jack sliding into the DA role, L&O slipped a bit in seasons 15-17 IMO, it was still a great show but not as great as it was in the years before that, and season 18 shook things up some and gave the show new life. I liked how Lupo was brought on, I didn’t mind him getting some personal stuff in his first episode and I liked how he had a previous relationship with Van Buren, they always got along very well and Van Buren thought highly of Lupo. Cutter’s introduction was really smooth as it was clear everyone already knew him and he slid into the lead prosecutors slot easily, and while I missed Jack in the courtroom he was great in the DA role as well. 

[Xeliou66]

I just watched Green’s last episode, Burn Card - I have mixed feelings about this episode, I kind of wish Green had gone out on a higher note, and I still wonder what happened to Green after this episode and what he went on to do, he’s a great character and one of my favorite detectives. But the episode had some nice moments and I really liked Green’s final scenes with Van Buren and Lupo, I particularly liked where he thanked Lupo for being a good cop at the end after Lupo had gotten to the bottom of the case. I also liked how Green mentioned Briscoe and how he returned to gambling after Lennie’s death.

I thought Cutter was a bit harsh on Green, but he made some valid points that if it was a cop they didn’t know they would be suspicious as well, and Green just didn’t do himself any favors by not telling the truth about what happened.

It was an interesting start to the Lupo/Bernard partnership as well, I liked seeing them work together at the end to get to the bottom of the case and I thought they worked well together even if they were unsure of what to think of each other at the start. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

I still wonder what happened to Green after this episode and what he went on to do, he’s a great character and one of my favorite detectives.

Why, doncha know, he became a police captain and father-in-law of The Flash, heh:   arrow.fandom.com/wiki/Joe_West

[balmz]

here's a fun question based off some of our and others discussions,

 

do you think you could ever be a prosecutor why or why not? 

 

for me i know i couldn't be one, i have too many personal issues that would cause too many issues with dealing with cases

[Katy M]

8 hours ago, balmz said:

here's a fun question based off some of our and others discussions,

 

do you think you could ever be a prosecutor why or why not? 

 

for me i know i couldn't be one, i have too many personal issues that would cause too many issues with dealing with cases

that's actually what I wanted to be back in high school.  But, I knew I wasn't smart enough.  So, yeah, I could be one, if I were smarter:)

[shapeshifter]

10 hours ago, balmz said:

do you think you could ever be a prosecutor why or why not? 

No, for many reasons, but there have been moments when I would have relished that position.

But I would have been a really great courtroom sketch artist back in the day (my day!) when such jobs were common.
In an alternate universe I am/was a court sketch artist. And in another I am/was a weather girl. And...

[Xeliou66]

Sundance has been showing the early episode during the afternoon and I’ve really enjoyed them, season 1 is really good for the most part, a lot of really compelling episodes, they just finished season 1 today - the final episode of season 1, The Blue Wall, was a bit different from the norm with the episode opening with the DA’s office losing a fraud case and then Cragen coming under investigation for evidence tampering - really good episode with the detectives and DA’s getting to the bottom of the situation and nice focus for Cragen who rarely got an episode in the spotlight. Then the next episode was where Greevey was murdered and Logan forced his killer to confess at gun point, and Cerreta came on board as Logan’s partner, this was a great episode as well, really compelling and I liked everyone’s reactions to Greevey’s death and I like how Ceretta joined, he’s an underrated character IMO. This was also the first appearance of Dr Olivet, where she counseled Logan after Max’s death.

I love these early seasons and wish they were shown more often - the characters were great, I love Stone and Robinette and of course Schiff, Cragen, Logan, I’m not a huge Greevey fan but he’s grown on me some and I like Cerreta. The cases were really good as well, there were some differences such as longer openings the early seasons but the cases were compelling and there are some memorable lines and moments. I know that McCoy and Briscoe are kind of the faces of L&O and sometimes people forget about the years before they came on, but the early episodes were excellent. 

[Ailianna]

On 7/29/2021 at 10:48 PM, balmz said:

here's a fun question based off some of our and others discussions,

 

do you think you could ever be a prosecutor why or why not? 

 

for me i know i couldn't be one, i have too many personal issues that would cause too many issues with dealing with cases

I have been a NY prosecutor for almost 20 years. For me, its the best job in the world, but it definitely isn't for everyone. Even some attorneys who really want it aren't always cut out for it.  It's not like any other job.

[Xeliou66]

Season 20 is on tonight - the final season is really good IMO, almost all of the episodes were really good. I just watched Brilliant Disguise, which was a really good episode with a lot of interesting parts, I always liked episodes with courtroom intrigue and the jury tampering aspect of it was memorable, also, I laughed when McCoy asked Skoda how many boxes on the scale Cutter checked off, after Skoda was talking about the killer being on a scale for psychopathy, because while I like Cutter, he did have a very large ego and would go to great lengths to win, and I loved how Jack pointed that out in this episode, also I love seeing Skoda and I’m glad he appeared 3 times in the final season after not appearing since season 15.

Next episode was Innocence, where Cutter went up against his old law professor Emily Ryan, I found her very unlikable and her going after Cutter’s law license was a low blow. McCoy and Cutter clashed more in this episode than in any other I believe, although McCoy did go to bat for Cutter in the episode. This episode was different in that it started with Lupo and Bernard arresting the killer and focused a lot more on the legal side of things than on the police investigation. I loved Cutter’s cross of the killer’s mom where he lures her into exposing her homophobic beliefs after she said she was a good role model for her son, that was a really good cross.

Season 20 had a slew of really good episodes - on one hand it’s a shame the Mothership get the record and SVU did because the Mothership was of so much higher quality than modern day SVU, but on the other hand I’m glad the Mothership went out on a really high note while the show was really strong.

Edited August 3, 2021 by Xeliou66

[shapeshifter]

14 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

…Mothership was of so much higher quality than modern day SVU, but on the other hand I’m glad the Mothership went out on a really high note while the show was really strong.

IDK. I don’t think the mothership’s quality would’ve dropped, just the ratings demographics.

[Xeliou66]

13 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

IDK. I don’t think the mothership’s quality would’ve dropped, just the ratings demographics.

Yeah I agree, but I’m still glad the Mothership went out on a very high note, instead of becoming anywhere near the shitshow modern day SVU is. 

[WendyCR72]

2 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Season 20 is on tonight

And WE will then begin at Season 1 again, which I'm glad for. Not that I hate the later seasons, but it seems like, with so many seasons/episodes, the early years seem to be barely shown, so I'm always happy when they roll around.

[Xeliou66]

22 minutes ago, WendyCR72 said:

And WE will then begin at Season 1 again, which I'm glad for. Not that I hate the later seasons, but it seems like, with so many seasons/episodes, the early years seem to be barely shown, so I'm always happy when they roll around.

Agreed the early seasons aren’t shown nearly as much as the rest of the seasons and they are very good as well. I’ve been enjoying Sundance showing them in the afternoons and I’m glad WE will be showing them tomorrow. 

[Door County Cherry]

19 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Season 20 is on tonight - the final season is really good IMO, almost all of the episodes were really good.

One thing I really liked about the last season was how often Anita was in on conversations with the district attorneys.  Jack and Anita had a great dynamic and there was just something so watchable and comfortable watching them. 

19 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

IDK. I don’t think the mothership’s quality would’ve dropped, just the ratings demographics.

The mothership's quality did dip.  But then it recovered.  So it might have dipped again but overall, I have faith in the show.

SVU just got worse and worse because it centered around the personal lives and motives of the cops too much.  It's also why I found Organized Crime almost unwatchable. 

[Xeliou66]

16 minutes ago, Door County Cherry said:

One thing I really liked about the last season was how often Anita was in on conversations with the district attorneys.  Jack and Anita had a great dynamic and there was just something so watchable and comfortable watching them. 

The mothership's quality did dip.  But then it recovered.  So it might have dipped again but overall, I have faith in the show.

SVU just got worse and worse because it centered around the personal lives and motives of the cops too much.  It's also why I found Organized Crime almost unwatchable. 

Van Buren had some really good episodes in season 20, I liked how they increased her role, I didn’t mind that they gave her the cancer storyline because it was minor and didn’t detract from the episodes, Van Buren played a big role in some episodes in season 20, I loved the way she handled the whole situation in Four Cops Shot with emotions running high everywhere for example, that was a great episode for her, and I agree about her dynamic with McCoy, I always liked that relationship and dynamic, I loved the scene at the end of Fed when McCoy came to Van Buren’s office and made peace with her after they clashed over the case.

I liked how it seemed like the police and prosecutors worked together more in the last couple of seasons and had more scenes together than they usually did. The entire cast of the final seasons had great chemistry, one reason I love the last couple of seasons. 

[andromeda331]

Watching the pilot episode the defense attorney keeps pointing out during the trial that the defendent went to Harvard and asking witnesses where they went to college. Its common throughout the series. But does that really work with the jury? Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Its annoying when someone can't stop talking about going to Harvard and considering most of the jury probably wouldn't be able to go to there but to other colleges.

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Watching the pilot episode the defense attorney keeps pointing out during the trial that the defendent went to Harvard and asking witnesses where they went to college. Its common throughout the series. But does that really work with the jury? Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Its annoying when someone can't stop talking about going to Harvard and considering most of the jury probably wouldn't be able to go to there but to other colleges.

I can’t recall right now other specific episodes with this tactic used by an attorney with the jury, but in this case, in which the defendant was a hospital doctor, name-dropping Harvard seems like a way to build up the character of a defendant for whom it would be difficult to find compelling character witnesses, but also, the point of asking where the witness doctor went to school was seemingly to cast suspicion on his credentials from out of the country (University of Peshawar) and perhaps stimulate any xenophobic feelings among the jury and so cast doubt on his testimony.

But I am assuming by “pilot episode” you mean "Prescription for Death,” and not the “real” pilot, “Everybody's Favorite Bagman” (wikipedia.org/wiki/Prescription_for_Death):

Quote

…"Prescription for Death" is the first episode of the long-running crime drama television series Law & Order.[2] It aired on September 13, 1990. Although it was the first episode of the series to air, it is not the pilot. The pilot episode, "Everybody's Favorite Bagman", which was filmed two years prior to the rest of the first season, aired as the sixth episode. "Prescription for Death" is based upon the death of Libby Zion.[3]…

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

Watching the pilot episode the defense attorney keeps pointing out during the trial that the defendent went to Harvard and asking witnesses where they went to college. Its common throughout the series. But does that really work with the jury? Wouldn't it have the opposite effect? Its annoying when someone can't stop talking about going to Harvard and considering most of the jury probably wouldn't be able to go to there but to other colleges.

No. That ass only asked the Pakistani doctor where he got his medical degree. Not the other doctors/residents.

Yes, that tactic would work as a lot of people think the only medical degree is the one from the Ivy League colleges in the U.S. or Europe.

[Xeliou66]

Yeah in Prescription for Death the defense attorney was trying to make Dr Auster look good by bringing up his Harvard degree, and he asked the doctor from Pakistan where he went to school trying to play to the jurors biases that someone who went to Harvard would be more competent than someone who went to school overseas.

Prescription for Death is a great episode, the show was obviously still figuring out it’s formula but overall it was really good and had some memorable lines - I loved the ME who responded that death rays from Mars could’ve killed the victim, I wonder if he was going to be a recurring character, they didn’t have a regular ME early on, Rodgers first appeared in season 2.

I love the early seasons - most of the episodes are really compelling, even if the show was still figuring out its formula, and the characters were great.

Edited August 4, 2021 by Xeliou66

[shapeshifter]

3 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Prescription for Death is a great episode, the show was obviously still figuring out it’s formula but overall it was really good and had some memorable lines - I loved the ME who responded that death rays from Mars could’ve killed the victim, I wonder if he was going to be a recurring character, they didn’t have a regular ME early on, Rodgers first appeared in season 2.

"It's possible that death rays from Mars killed her, but I don't think so" is probably  one of my all time favorite lines anywhere. Did Rodgers have a similar line at some point, or am I just conflating my love of the line with my love of her portrayal as the medical examiner?

[Katy M]

32 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

"It's possible that death rays from Mars killed her, but I don't think so" is probably  one of my all time favorite lines anywhere. Did Rodgers have a similar line at some point, or am I just conflating my love of the line with my love of her portrayal as the medical examiner?

I feel like I recently saw her say something to that effect. Not death rays from Mars, but that something unlikely was possible.

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

the defense attorney was trying to make Dr Auster look good by bringing up his Harvard degree, and he asked the doctor of Arabic ethnicity where he went to school trying to play to the jurors biases

He was from Pakistan--so not of Arabic ethnicity.

38 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

"It's possible that death rays from Mars killed her, but I don't think so" is probably  one of my all time favorite lines anywhere. Did Rodgers have a similar line at some point, or am I just conflating my love of the line with my love of her portrayal as the medical examiner?

No, Rodgers did not. This was by the medical examiner played by the Awesome Daniel Benzali.

[Xeliou66]

49 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

"It's possible that death rays from Mars killed her, but I don't think so" is probably  one of my all time favorite lines anywhere. Did Rodgers have a similar line at some point, or am I just conflating my love of the line with my love of her portrayal as the medical examiner?

Rodgers never had a similar line I don’t think although she did have many great moments - one great moment she had on the stand was in Progeny when she pretty much demolished defense attorney Charles Garnett’s questions about autopsying pregnant women and if the fetus could die at a different time and she tore apart his question and said that she’s seen plenty of cases where different parts of the body die at different times and then bluntly said something like “your question is moot, sir”. I love ME Rodgers, she was a colorful character, and along with Skoda she’s favorite of the prominent recurring characters.

[shapeshifter]

16 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

He was from Pakistan--so not of Arabic ethnicity.

No, Rodgers did not. This was by the medical examiner played by the Awesome Daniel Benzali.

Yes, but in one of Rodgers' episodes, didn't she have a similar response in court?  

ETA:

1 minute ago, Xeliou66 said:

Rodgers never had a similar line I don’t think although she did have many great moments - one great moment she had on the stand was in Progeny when she pretty much demolished defense attorney Charles Garnett’s questions about autopsying pregnant women and if the fetus could die at a different time and she tore apart his question and said that she’s seen plenty of cases where different parts of the body die at different times and then bluntly said something like “your question is moot, sir”. I love ME Rodgers, she was a colorful character, and along with Skoda she’s favorite of the prominent recurring characters.

Maybe that's what I'm recalling that elicited the same emotion from me as a viewer.

Edited August 4, 2021 by shapeshifter

[WendyCR72]

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah in Prescription for Death the defense attorney was trying to make Dr Auster look good by bringing up his Harvard degree, and he asked the doctor from Pakistan where he went to school trying to play to the jurors biases that someone who went to Harvard would be more competent than someone who went to school overseas.

Prescription for Death is a great episode, the show was obviously still figuring out it’s formula but overall it was really good and had some memorable lines - I loved the ME who responded that death rays from Mars could’ve killed the victim, I wonder if he was going to be a recurring character, they didn’t have a regular ME early on, Rodgers first appeared in season 2.

I love the early seasons - most of the episodes are really compelling, even if the show was still figuring out its formula, and the characters were great.

Of note, in "Prescription For Death", the actor playing the dead woman's father was the late actor, John Spencer, who would later become better known as Leo McGarry on The West Wing. (Of which Allison Janney, who also appeared in Ben Stone's final episode, also starred in.)

[Chyromaniac]

L&O always had great guests.  I was astounded that in one S1 episode from earlier this week, they had a relatively laid back Sam Jackson as a defense attorney, and an uncredited Phillip Seymour Hoffman as a lowlife perp.

[Xeliou66]

Season 7 is on tonight and I honestly think this season had the best cases of any L&O season - almost every episode was terrific. Not a big Rey Curtis fan but I love the rest of the cast and the cases were great.

I saw Matrimony, which is a really entertaining case - very compelling characters involved in the story and I loved the courtroom battle between McCoy and Arthur Gold, Gold was a smug lawyer, but in this case he was right and his client, the wife of the victim/daughter of the killer, was innocent. Did anyone else get the impression that Gold might’ve been sleeping with her though? I wondered about that. I liked the final confrontation between the daughter and mom where they get the mom to confess. I laughed when the victim’s wife casually called the detectives “Leonard” and “Rey” when they came to question her, it was so out of nowhere and odd. Great episode.

Next up was Working Mom, another terrific episode, about the housewives from Mt Kisco that were moonlighting as hookers. Great investigation by Briscoe and Curtis to get to the bottom of the case, and excellent courtroom drama as well. I didn’t buy the defense’s claim of rape at all, there was zero proof the defendant had been raped and the victim wasn’t violent, he was a blackmailer, I thought Jack gave an excellent closing about how this was a case of a woman executing her blackmailer not defending herself and I’m glad they found her guilty.

[ifionlyknew]

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Season 7 is on tonight and I honestly think this season had the best cases of any L&O season - almost every episode was terrific. Not a big Rey Curtis fan but I love the rest of the cast and the cases were great.

Season 7 is one of my favorite seasons. There was only a couple episodes that I thought were average.

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I saw Matrimony, which is a really entertaining case - very compelling characters involved in the story and I loved the courtroom battle between McCoy and Arthur Gold, Gold was a smug lawyer, but in this case he was right and his client, the wife of the victim/daughter of the killer, was innocent. Did anyone else get the impression that Gold might’ve been sleeping with her though? I wondered about that. I liked the final confrontation between the daughter and mom where they get the mom to confess. I laughed when the victim’s wife casually called the detectives “Leonard” and “Rey” when they came to question her, it was so out of nowhere and odd. Great episode.

Didn't the mother (hello Sharlene from Another World) say her daughter was dumb as a box of hair?

8 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Next up was Working Mom, another terrific episode, about the housewives from Mt Kisco that were moonlighting as hookers. Great investigation by Briscoe and Curtis to get to the bottom of the case, and excellent courtroom drama as well. I didn’t buy the defense’s claim of rape at all, there was zero proof the defendant had been raped and the victim wasn’t violent, he was a blackmailer, I thought Jack gave an excellent closing about how this was a case of a woman executing her blackmailer not defending herself and I’m glad they found her guilty.

And the hooker was a pre Desperate Housewives Felicity Huffman.  Law & Order had so many guest stars that became bigger stars after being on this show.  

 

[GHScorpiosRule]

Just now, ifionlyknew said:

And the hooker was a pre Desperate Housewives Felicity Huffman.  Law & Order had so many guest stars that became bigger stars after being on this show.  

This was Felicity's second guest appearance. She first appeared in "Helpless" as Elizabeth's patient, who she had referred to the rapist OBGYN.

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

Season 7 is one of my favorite seasons. There was only a couple episodes that I thought were average.

Didn't the mother (hello Sharlene from Another World) say her daughter was dumb as a box of hair?

And the hooker was a pre Desperate Housewives Felicity Huffman.  Law & Order had so many guest stars that became bigger stars after being on this show.  

 

Agreed about season 7 - I loved almost every episode - I don’t care for Mad Dog, other than that I liked pretty much every episode of the season.

Yes the mom told the daughter she was dumb as a sack of hair and went on a rant during her confession, it made me laugh when she said something like “what are we going to do, move back to Arkansas and become the dancing naked idiot family!!”.

[shapeshifter]

7 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yes the mom told the daughter she was dumb as a sack of hair and went on a rant during her confession, it made me laugh when she said something like “what are we going to do, move back to Arkansas and become the dancing naked idiot family!!”.

That was a great line. I'd love to know how the writer came up with it.

[ifionlyknew]

40 minutes ago, Xeliou66 said:

I don’t care for Mad Dog, other than that I liked pretty much every episode of the season.

I liked Mad Dog. It was a change of pace episode which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.  

 

33 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

That was a great line. I'd love to know how the writer came up with it.

I have heard dumb as a box of rocks before but never hair.  LOL

[Ailianna]

1 hour ago, ifionlyknew said:

I liked Mad Dog. It was a change of pace episode which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.

I like Mad Dog too. Its different, but well structured, written and acted, and it makes you think beyond just getting the original conviction.

[Xeliou66]

3 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I liked Mad Dog. It was a change of pace episode which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't.  

 

I have heard dumb as a box of rocks before but never hair.  LOL

I don’t like Mad Dog because it’s the one time I really felt McCoy was in the wrong, I felt he was letting a personal vendetta get in the way of his objectivity. Usually I agreed with Jack when he did something controversial or at least got where he was coming from but in this one he was way out of bounds and I was pleased Schiff finally talked sense into him and ordered him to call off the dogs. So because I strongly disliked Jack in this one I’m just not a big fan of the episode.

The rest of season 7 is great though - a slew of fantastic episodes.

[wknt3]

19 hours ago, ifionlyknew said:

I liked Mad Dog. It was a change of pace episode which sometimes works and sometimes doesn't. 

 

15 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

I don’t like Mad Dog because it’s the one time I really felt McCoy was in the wrong, I felt he was letting a personal vendetta get in the way of his objectivity. Usually I agreed with Jack when he did something controversial or at least got where he was coming from but in this one he was way out of bounds and I was pleased Schiff finally talked sense into him and ordered him to call off the dogs. So because I strongly disliked Jack in this one I’m just not a big fan of the episode.

 

I understand where you're coming from, but one of the things that I liked about the series was that it's characters could be clearly in the wrong sometimes while remaining good people overall, I prefer that to approach other procedurals take where the stars are right even when they are wrong, or the opposite approach that so many "serious" police dramas take where the protagonists are either anti-heroes or their flaws are focused on too much while their good qualities are ignored.