Law & Order Discussion Topic (2019 - 2021)

[Xeliou66]

Yeah Frank didn’t care, but there was no real evidence pointing to him as the killer. It seemed to me like they wanted him to be guilty because he was sleazy, it irritated me that they cut a plea deal with Arlene when I thought Arlene was the killer, it was like they wanted Frank to be guilty in spite of the evidence, it irritated me. 

[GHScorpiosRule]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yeah Frank didn’t care, but there was no real evidence pointing to him as the killer. It seemed to me like they wanted him to be guilty because he was sleazy, it irritated me that they cut a plea deal with Arlene when I thought Arlene was the killer, it was like they wanted Frank to be guilty in spite of the evidence, it irritated me. 

Oh, no doubt. Frank was sleazy and what he “promised” Arlene was illegal. But there was no evidence or motive for him to kill. Unlike Arlene, who had motive, means, AND opportunity.

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Oh, no doubt. Frank was sleazy and what he “promised” Arlene was illegal. But there was no evidence or motive for him to kill. Unlike Arlene, who had motive, means, AND opportunity.

Exactly, and that’s why it pissed me off that they made a deal with Arlene. They wanted Frank to be guilty because of his sleaziness and because they didn’t want him to gain custody of the baby. Episodes where it seemed like the main characters want someone to be guilty in spite of the evidence always piss me off, fortunately there aren’t many of those on the Mothership, SVU has a lot of them though.

[Waterston Fan]

Gunshow.... I really don't like judge Wright even if he may or not be right about what he did. 

Killerz... do you wish there was an updated episode to this? But then, it would show that Skoda/Olivet were wrong. 

EDIT: I"m tired of some episodes from season 8 where there is a crime but then, you don't know who did it since it went somewhere else. 

Edited June 17, 2019 by Waterston Fan

[Xeliou66]

Yes I wish there had been a follow up to Killerz, the ending to that episode really pissed me off, Skoda was right, Olivet was soft, Jenny was a total sociopath and a danger to the public, and Jenny’s mother especially pissed me off, begging the court not to take her away because she was her “best friend”, she totally ignored the fact that her “best friend” murdered a boy and had no regrets about it. It enraged me that Jenny basically got away with killing a child and I have no doubt she would do it again.

[andromeda331]

1 hour ago, Xeliou66 said:

Yes I wish there had been a follow up to Killerz, the ending to that episode really pissed me off, Skoda was right, Olivet was soft, Jenny was a total sociopath and a danger to the public, and Jenny’s mother especially pissed me off, begging the court not to take her away because she was her “best friend”, she totally ignored the fact that her “best friend” murdered a boy and had no regrets about it. It enraged me that Jenny basically got away with killing a child and I have no doubt she would do it again.

You summed it up very well. I hate that episode for all those reasons. Skoda was right, Olivet and the Judge were both so wrong letting Jenny off the hook and basically crossing their fingers and hoping for the best even though she already killed someone. And her mother. What exactly about her suggested she was going to d a better job as mother to her "best friend" who already killed someone on her watch. Jenny gets to off and kill again. 

[Halting Hex]

RE: "Ain't No Love"

So…Jack was just with Serena (she tells Arthur that he's already left) and Arthur has already discussed firing Serena with Jack (he tells her that Jack supports his decision*, which is when Serena twigs that her fate has already been decided), and yet Jack lets Serena walk into the ambush completely unaware, no "you need to mend some fences with Arthur, he's talking about letting you go" heads-up?  For his colleague of three-and-a-half years?  Asshole.

Hmm, maybe it is because Serena's a lesbian, after all.  I mean, if Jack thought he had a chance of making her notch #5 on his belt (after his ex-wife, Diana Hawthorn, Sally Bell, and Claire), he might have done her a basic courtesy.  But if he's got no chance, she gets no warnings, I guess.

(About the only thing I've ever liked about Abby was the way she made me certain that if Jack ever tried anything even resembling a move on her, she'd break his dick off.  She may be an idiotic fascist [and 23-year-old Angie Harmon ludicrously miscast, given that Abby was supposed to have graduated law school, worked in the Houston D.A.'s office, moved to New York and spent four years in Special Narcotics prosecutions before we meet her], but she wouldn't need a #MeToo to tell Jack "hell, no", thankfully.)

*-ETA:  Arthur also tells Serena that Jack does not feel the same way (that Serena should be fired), but he's simply deferring to Arthur's wishes.  So Jack knows his (AFAWK) longest-serving #2 is going to get the axe, does not think this is the right decision, and yet he doesn't warn Serena, give her a chance to make amends/her case?  Perhaps less "asshole" than "moron", then. 

(Although there's no reason he can't be both, I suppose.)

Edited June 17, 2019 by Halting Hex

[shapeshifter]

28 minutes ago, Halting Hex said:

So…Jack was just with Serena (she tells Arthur that he's already left) and Arthur has already discussed firing Serena with Jack (he tells her that Jack supports his decision*, which is when Serena twigs that her fate has already been decided), and yet Jack lets Serena walk into the ambush completely unaware, no "you need to mend some fences with Arthur, he's talking about letting you go" heads-up?  For his colleague of three-and-a-half years?  Asshole.

 Hmm, maybe it is because Serena's a lesbian, after all.  I mean, if Jack thought he had a chance of making her notch #5 on his belt (after his ex-wife, Diana Hawthorn, Sally Bell, and Claire), he might have done her a basic courtesy.  But if he's got no chance, she gets no warnings, I guess.

Hah! But seriously. Maybe this was supposed to be the implication of that line. Mystery solved?

[Halting Hex]

Well, technically Serena would still be incorrect, as she asked Arthur (not Jack) whether her sexuality factored into his decision.  But it's a possible contributing factor, I could argue.

Maybe if she'd spoken Danish to him?  Some guys find that hot, I bet.

[wknt3]

5 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

RE: "Ain't No Love"

So…Jack was just with Serena (she tells Arthur that he's already left) and Arthur has already discussed firing Serena with Jack (he tells her that Jack supports his decision*, which is when Serena twigs that her fate has already been decided), and yet Jack lets Serena walk into the ambush completely unaware, no "you need to mend some fences with Arthur, he's talking about letting you go" heads-up?  For his colleague of three-and-a-half years?  Asshole.

Hmm, maybe it is because Serena's a lesbian, after all.  I mean, if Jack thought he had a chance of making her notch #5 on his belt (after his ex-wife, Diana Hawthorn, Sally Bell, and Claire), he might have done her a basic courtesy.  But if he's got no chance, she gets no warnings, I guess.

*-ETA:  Arthur also tells Serena that Jack does not feel the same way (that Serena should be fired), but he's simply deferring to Arthur's wishes.  So Jack knows his (AFAWK) longest-serving #2 is going to get the axe, does not think this is the right decision, and yet he doesn't warn Serena, give her a chance to make amends/her case?  Perhaps less "asshole" than "moron", then. 

(Although there's no reason he can't be both, I suppose.)

You're assuming that Arthur talked to Jack before the decision was made. It's more likely that he told Jack that he was firing her as a courtesy very shortly before he told Serena without any sort of consultation, they went back and forth a bit, Arthur told him he might sound like a poor country lawyer, but he was a high powered corporate attorney and politician and knew what he was doing and would brook no dissent, then sent him out and called Serena in shortly after. Given what we know of Branch, it's not likely he sought Jack's opinion or gave him any sort of notice before the decision had been made and the only thing that McCoy would have gotten by telling Serena ahead of time was to lose Arthur's trust and maybe follow her out the door.

5 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

Hah! But seriously. Maybe this was supposed to be the implication of that line. Mystery solved?

Nah. No mystery - the writers wanted to pull off another big reveal a la Kincaid and didn't quite land it. Assuming that there was some sort of hidden subtlety there or that it reveals something about Jack's character is a dead end. The writers were more concerned with shock value and cleverness than anything else and we shouldn't assume there was anything more there.

[Halting Hex]

47 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

It's more likely that he told Jack that he was firing her as a courtesy very shortly before he told Serena without any sort of consultation,

Arthur hardly characterizes his conversation with Jack that way.  And even so, that still means that Jack knew, Jack had the opportunity to tell Serena (she opens her conversation with Arthur by informing him that Jack has gone home, implying they'd been working together), and he chose not to do so.  Thus hanging her out to dry.

50 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

the only thing that McCoy would have gotten by telling Serena ahead of time was to lose Arthur's trust and maybe follow her out the door.

Jack's been willing to risk that before, though.  He sabotages the entire US judicial system to win his case in "DWB", anticipating that Adam will fire him. (As well he should.  How many murderers will walk because Jack wrecked every Grant of Immunity that's on record?  Even if the government wins all the retrials, the cost is so prohibitive that it would preempt other necessary prosecutions.)

If Jack's so in fear of his job that he can't give a colleague a basic courtesy, maybe he shouldn't have his job.  And besides, how tough is it to say "Don't let Arthur know I told you; I don't need him on my case, too"?  If Serena comes in apologetic rather than "well, we got the right guy and that's the important thing", is Arthur really likely to be "dammit, Jack snitched!" instead of "I'm glad the bimbo saw sense, at last"?  I doubt it.

56 minutes ago, wknt3 said:

The writers were more concerned with shock value and cleverness than anything

Well, duh. But that's outside the story.  Seeing the authorial hand is never good, IMO.

[GHScorpiosRule]

9 minutes ago, Halting Hex said:

Arthur hardly characterizes his conversation with Jack that way.  And even so, that still means that Jack knew, Jack had the opportunity to tell Serena (she opens her conversation with Arthur by informing him that Jack has gone home, implying they'd been working together), and he chose not to do so.  Thus hanging her out to dry.

We don't know that Jack knew. Just because Foghorn Leghorn said the firing was with Jack's approval doesn't make it true. If I didn't see it onscreen, then it didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

[andromeda331]

8 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

We don't know that Jack knew. Just because Foghorn Leghorn said the firing was with Jack's approval doesn't make it true. If I didn't see it onscreen, then it didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

We really don't we didn't see that conversation. Arthur says he's talked to Jack and Jack disagreed. But the decision was Arthur's. For all we know Jack did argue for keeping Serena but Arthur had already decided but didn't tell Jack because of Jack's habit of arguing to the bitter end and because he didn't want Jack to tell Serena. For all we know Arthur just mentioned he was thinking of letting Serena go and Jack did argue like he usually does and Arthur told him he'd think about it and did before deciding to fire her or let Jack think he won while still planning on firing Serena. He didn't really care that Jack disagreed with him with his whole "my office my decision" comment. 

[Halting Hex]

19 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Just because Foghorn Leghorn said the firing was with Jack's approval doesn't make it true.

Arthur's my least-favorite Manhattan DA…but I have a hard time imagining him just making shit up.  Especially as he could just as easily have said "my office, my rules", to quote the next poster.

3 minutes ago, andromeda331 said:

But the decision was Arthur's. For all we know Jack did argue for keeping Serena but Arthur had already decided but didn't tell Jack

No, Arthur says that Jack supports his "decision" and his use of the word "decision" is what lets Serena knows her fate has been…decided.  I mean, some bosses might throw one subordinate under the bus to cover their image with another, but we haven't seen Arthur do anything like this before.

And what should Arthur care what Serena thinks?  She's out of here; he never has to see her again.  OTOH, if Serena calls Jack and screams at him for letting her get ambushed, and Jack's all "What?  I never gave him my 'support'!  That lying cracker bastard!", that would damage his relationship with Jack, whom Arthur has (I believe) called his best ADA, and whom Arthur will later personally designate as his successor.  Hardly seems prudent.  But JMO.

[andromeda331]

20 minutes ago, Halting Hex said:

Arthur's my least-favorite Manhattan DA…

Nora's my least favorite because she was so weak, always seemed so shocked that they were charging criminals and way too soft on murderers while never really seeming to carry her shock to the crimes they committed or feeling sorry for the victims and their families. If they kept her the way she was in the episode where she ends up choosing the death penalty for the boy who murdered the Chinese delivery man then she would have been more interesting. She was against it personally, she looked through the law books to find a solution, and listened to reports and Jack on the murderer before realizing the murderer did deserve the death penalty. That really was her best episode and made her so interesting. She listened to all the facts and research the law herself before making her decision. Had they done that with her in every episode or most of them. she would have been a great DA and she probably would be higher on my list.

I was happy that Serena was fired. But really she should have been fired at the end of Smoke after defending the parents who let their son be molested for money. Not only is that disgusting and horrifying, that's not someone you want prosecuting child molesters. There were other episodes that made more sense for her to be fired. I don't like her in last episode mostly because she was right for the wrong reasons. After talking to all his friends and  family, Serena decided he couldn't have committed the crime based on what they said and how they spoke of him. But so many friends and family do say that when their friend/love one is arrested but that doesn't mean their still not a murderer.  But I'm not sure that was a reason for her to be fired. 

[Halting Hex]

1 hour ago, andromeda331 said:

After talking to all his friends and  family, Serena decided he couldn't have committed the crime based on what they said and how they spoke of him.

It wasn't just that; it was that given what they knew about Stephen and his friend Anthony "Psycho" Harrison (whom the detectives in the Queens precinct were sure had killed and robbed that drug dealer), it seemed far more likely that Psycho was the shooter and Stephen was the one who attempted CPR on the victim, rather than the reverse.  They didn't have forensics to prove one over the other, and it was Stephen who had the primary motive, but him as the shooter didn't pass the smell test.

There are many episodes where various detectives and ADAs work to get to the truth, not believing the case against one suspect because they think another is the more-likely perpetrator.  Claire disbelieved Jack on multiple occasions, IIRC.  In "Humiliation", she wants to prosecute the plastic surgeon when Jack doesn't think she has a strong enough case, and then, after she wins the conviction, she goes against his advice and tears it down, because the wife's far-too-convenient "choke" on the stand tripped her bullshit detector.  (And besides, men never kill the mistress;  that's a rule on this show.  Right up there with "the teenage daughter always did it".)  But somehow it's wrong for Serena to follow her instincts, because she's an unpopular character and because the producers have an agenda.  Feh.

(Btw, I'm building a "permanent collection" in my DVR, episodes that I always want to rewatch [well-written plots without excessive prosecution bullying/cheating/miracle confessions/defense attorneys falling down on the job/right-wing political agendas] and "Humiliation" is an easy keep, both for Claire being right where Jack is wrong and for the final confrontation with Dr & Mrs. Danforth in Jack's office.  But it does have an egregious plot hole…if the reason Mrs. Danforth "fails" as an alibi witness is because she could only account for having spent $800 of the $2000 in supposed blackmail money the murdered Gwyn George had in her possession, well, that's still $800.  How does Gwyn have the $2000, whether from Dr. or Mrs. Danforth, if there's verifiable records that $800 was spent at the antiques market, exactly?  But I can live with it, just as I can live with the obvious double-jeopardy issues in "Corpus Dilecti", because I like the rest of the episode so much.)

As for Nora v. Arthur, Nora was often less-than-compelling, and her bloodthirsty moods seemed to come out of nowhere, since they were against the character as generally written.  (At least when Adam was harsher than might be expected, he had the excuse of "this is a political office".  Nora never even once spoke of running for a full term, so that's out the window.)  But Arthur was not only a ridiculous bit of casting (FDT played him well enough, but that accent wouldn't get him elected in NYC once, much less twice), but he had an agenda so right-wing it even shocked Jack.  I mean, if that "original intent" nonsense about the Constitution was true, we'd still have slavery. 

Thank Zod Abby was gone before Arthur got back from possum hunting;  I seriously doubt I could have taken those two at the same time.

[Waterston Fan]

Does it seem like Adam doesn't say make a deal as much as he did when Ben was the ADA? 

[Halting Hex]

Good question.  Somebody should keep a tally.

I kind of want to tally up all the bad searches/interrogations that get kicked, just so I can wonder how any of those cops still have a job.  I mean, screwing up like this once should get you a major reprimand, and there must be nearly a dozen per season.  It's like Lenny always having a smart-ass quip when he arrests someone…even if it's the third different arrest he's made in the case.  Self-awareness, bro…look it up.

Quote

ED:  You like the husband [as the murderer].

LENNY:  I always like the husband.

-"Floater"

And that's why you're a hack, Lenny.  Sigh. 

(Btw, it wasn't the husband.  But it should have been…because that guest actor reeked.  Couldn't do a decent line reading if you put a gun to his head.  Ugh.)

My current "favorite" for "they really should lose their shields over this" would be "School Daze", where Lenny won't wait 15 minutes for Ed to get a subpoena for the school psychiatrist's records, even though Ed is already on the phone, this is the third different suspect they've had for the shooter (one of which wasn't even going to the school any longer, it turned out), and the kid isn't doing anything more than sitting at home.  But Lenny scares the shrink into breaking confidentiality…and of course Jamie (in a guest spot as defense attorney) has such an easy time at the suppression hearing that she's practically yawning, and all the evidence gets tossed.  Way to go, guys.  Sheesh.

[wknt3]

On 6/17/2019 at 8:03 AM, Halting Hex said:

Quote

It's more likely that he told Jack that he was firing her as a courtesy very shortly before he told Serena without any sort of consultation, 

Arthur hardly characterizes his conversation with Jack that way.  And even so, that still means that Jack knew, Jack had the opportunity to tell Serena (she opens her conversation with Arthur by informing him that Jack has gone home, implying they'd been working together), and he chose not to do so.  Thus hanging her out to dry.

23 hours ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

We don't know that Jack knew. Just because Foghorn Leghorn said the firing was with Jack's approval doesn't make it true. If I didn't see it onscreen, then it didn't happen, as far as I'm concerned.

23 hours ago, andromeda331 said:

We really don't we didn't see that conversation. Arthur says he's talked to Jack and Jack disagreed. But the decision was Arthur's. For all we know Jack did argue for keeping Serena but Arthur had already decided but didn't tell Jack because of Jack's habit of arguing to the bitter end and because he didn't want Jack to tell Serena. For all we know Arthur just mentioned he was thinking of letting Serena go and Jack did argue like he usually does and Arthur told him he'd think about it and did before deciding to fire her or let Jack think he won while still planning on firing Serena. He didn't really care that Jack disagreed with him with his whole "my office my decision" comment. 

23 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

Arthur's my least-favorite Manhattan DA…but I have a hard time imagining him just making shit up.  Especially as he could just as easily have said "my office, my rules", to quote the next poster.

No, Arthur says that Jack supports his "decision" and his use of the word "decision" is what lets Serena knows her fate has been…decided.  I mean, some bosses might throw one subordinate under the bus to cover their image with another, but we haven't seen Arthur do anything like this before.

I doubt we're going to agree on this, but it may be useful to go back to the source and see the exact words at issue here. I've bolded a few of the points of contention.

From https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=law-and-order-1990&episode=s15e13

Quote

Jack's already left.
Yeah, I know.
I'm glad you called. You know, l thought that we could use the tampering charge as leverage to get Foreman to tell the Queens grand jury what he knows about the Villanueva murder.
Well, he'll be out soon, making records. And the Caldwell murder will go into the books without a conviction.
Well, it's not a perfect resolution. But, you know, Anthony Harrison is looking at a life sentence in Queens. And as for Foreman, you've known my position all along.
Yeah, well, actually that's why I called. You know, Serena, if you were right, you were right for the wrong reasons.
Meaning?
Emotion, not facts. What was it you said? Everyone that you talked to said that he couldn't have killed that man?
My emotional responses make me...
An advocate. You're a superb attorney and you ought to be involved with cases that feed your passion. Well, that would be wonderful. But Serena, you must know that will not happen in this office. It can't. Now, a prosecutor can be zealous, but not passionate. Advocacy is warm-blooded. Enforcement's gotta be cold-blooded. And blind and even handed.
Does Jack feel as strongly about this as you do?
No, but it's my office and my decision and he accepts that.
A decision. You've already made a decision?
Yes. I have. You're fired.
(SIGHS) Is this because I'm a lesbian? No. Of course not. No.
Good. Good.
 

First off there is nothing definitive here to say that Jack talked to Serena after Arthur told him of his decision. In fact given that Arthur knows Jack went home already it's equally or more plausible that after he called Jack in to his office he told him to go home and he would handle things personally and Jack's assistant told Serena he had gone home.

Secondly there is no indication that he supports the firing - all that Branch says is that Jack accepts that the DA has the right to make the decision even if he feels differently. Which is a rather different thing from support. Basically he does say "my office my rules" and McCoy's feelings aren't important.

I fully admit that multiple readings of this are possible, but I can't see chosing to make Jack into a bad guy here given that we can all agree that this was not a moment that was particularly organic or grounded in character.

Edited June 18, 2019 by wknt3
missed an important word

[Ailianna]

5 hours ago, Halting Hex said:

Good question.  Somebody should keep a tally.

I kind of want to tally up all the bad searches/interrogations that get kicked, just so I can wonder how any of those cops still have a job.  I mean, screwing up like this once should get you a major reprimand, and there must be nearly a dozen per season.  It's like Lenny always having a smart-ass quip when he arrests someone…even if it's the third different arrest he's made in the case.  Self-awareness, bro…look it up.

And that's why you're a hack, Lenny.  Sigh. 

(Btw, it wasn't the husband.  But it should have been…because that guest actor reeked.  Couldn't do a decent line reading if you put a gun to his head.  Ugh.)

My current "favorite" for "they really should lose their shields over this" would be "School Daze", where Lenny won't wait 15 minutes for Ed to get a subpoena for the school psychiatrist's records, even though Ed is already on the phone, this is the third different suspect they've had for the shooter (one of which wasn't even going to the school any longer, it turned out), and the kid isn't doing anything more than sitting at home.  But Lenny scares the shrink into breaking confidentiality…and of course Jamie (in a guest spot as defense attorney) has such an easy time at the suppression hearing that she's practically yawning, and all the evidence gets tossed.  Way to go, guys.  Sheesh.

This show isn't particularly good about suppression issues, often inventing issues that don't exist in the real world, or throwing out evidence that would be admitted in the real world because it ups the stakes and drama.  Just because the plot says the cops screwed up doesn't mean they did, or that the defense attorneys are some sort of star hot shot lawyers because they got something thrown out.

[Halting Hex]

Well, we already knew Jamie was a "hot shot" defense attorney:  7 trials, 7 acquittals, if you'll recall.

And doctor-patient confidentiality is pretty well established.  You might find a judge who would let the cops skate, anyhow…but that hardly means the judge would be right to do so.

The show does a pretty good job of letting the prosecutors call bs when they get a bad suppression ruling.  (What episode is it where Adam is all "can somebody explain this ruling"? I can hear Hill saying it, but I can't place it offhand. ) When Jack (or whoever)'s reaction is "what were the police thinking?", I think it's a fair cop (pun) to say the cops screwed up.  Which, as I say, IMO they seem to do rather more often than they should.  

Although, admittedly, we see the same cops working a lot of cases.  If we followed Profaci and LaMont every now and then, maybe we'd see them blow cases by not waiting for warrants and such.  But who knows?

[Waterston Fan]

On the part of Serena's firing.... I was thinking that maybe Arthur told Jack not to say anything so he did what Arthur told him to since he has to work for him still. Only thing I can think of as to Jack not saying anything. 

That was just a weird ending for sure and I think they were just trying to get ratings. 

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, Waterston Fan said:

That was just a weird ending for sure and I think they were just trying to get ratings. 

Well, we are still talking about it, LOL.

[Spartan Girl]

You all can say what you want about Abby but her ice-cold pitiless treatment of the stupid slut jurywoman that helped the killer in "Hubris" get off was fantastic. "How long after the trial did he dump you?"

[Waterston Fan]

Just finished watching Criminal Law.... 

So, what reason do you think Robert would have in killing his dad? Just wanted it all to go away and didn't want to relive the trial again?

Shame we don't get to see Jack wearing the fedora often enough. 

[Spartan Girl]

1 hour ago, Waterston Fan said:

Just finished watching Criminal Law.... 

So, what reason do you think Robert would have in killing his dad? Just wanted it all to go away and didn't want to relive the trial again?

Shame we don't get to see Jack wearing the fedora often enough. 

I think it was because he killed his mom, turned his brother into his own personal hitman, and he was about to walk for all those crimes.

Just a guess...

[blondiec0332]

15 hours ago, Spartan Girl said:

You all can say what you want about Abby but her ice-cold pitiless treatment of the stupid slut jurywoman that helped the killer in "Hubris" get off was fantastic. "How long after the trial did he dump you?"

One of my favorite episodes.  So many great lines.  

[Waterston Fan]

I watched Acid and dang, Anita blew Jack's case and I don't think they could have charged him later as I could see a lawyer saying he was set up. 

I don't care if it was water, what the sister did was still assault. I can't remember what it was, I thought it was like vanilla or something that would not hurt him. I don't think they had a reason to spy on him other than Anita just wanted to get him.  

[Xeliou66]

8 hours ago, Waterston Fan said:

I watched Acid and dang, Anita blew Jack's case and I don't think they could have charged him later as I could see a lawyer saying he was set up. 

I don't care if it was water, what the sister did was still assault. I can't remember what it was, I thought it was like vanilla or something that would not hurt him. I don't think they had a reason to spy on him other than Anita just wanted to get him.  

I dislike Acid because of the “deus ex machina” ending, it was ridiculous and unrealistic, and any lawyer with a functioning brain cell would get the confession tossed at the end saying that someone working for the police assaulted him and entrapped him. It was a stupid ending. 

The episodes in seasons 15-17, season 17 especially, just weren’t quite as good as usual for the most part, there were some good episodes and moments but overall the quality was just a bit below normal in one way or another. 

[Waterston Fan]

Law question from an episode that I have watched called Panic. 

Dean Tyler takes the rap for murder since he shot and killed Haas and accidentally hit PK Todd. 

Wouldn't a judge normally not accept the plea or does the DA really have to withdraw the murder charges? I wold think a lawyer would not allow his client to take a plea either. 

In previous episodes I seem to remember Jack telling a defendant that he cannot accept a false plea for someone who didn't do it. 

[Xeliou66]

21 hours ago, Waterston Fan said:

Law question from an episode that I have watched called Panic. 

Dean Tyler takes the rap for murder since he shot and killed Haas and accidentally hit PK Todd. 

Wouldn't a judge normally not accept the plea or does the DA really have to withdraw the murder charges? I wold think a lawyer would not allow his client to take a plea either. 

In previous episodes I seem to remember Jack telling a defendant that he cannot accept a false plea for someone who didn't do it. 

There was no way of proving for sure who did the murder, it looked like the daughter did it and the father was covering for her but they couldn’t be sure so they were forced to accept the dad’s guilty plea.

[Waterston Fan]

16 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

There was no way of proving for sure who did the murder, it looked like the daughter did it and the father was covering for her but they couldn’t be sure so they were forced to accept the dad’s guilty plea.

Right. But can that situation happen in real life? 

[GHScorpiosRule]

7 minutes ago, Waterston Fan said:

Right. But can that situation happen in real life? 

Yes. And it has.

[shapeshifter]

Note to self and anyone watching L&O on ION and/or Bounce,
According to TitanTV:

• ION: Wednesdays and Thursdays, 6-10am CDT, 3 episodes
  (currently season 11, but Titan TV isn't quite listing the right ones)
  On Mondays and Tuesdays, it's L&O: CI, currently season 1
   
• Bounce: Monday-Friday, 10-12 or 1 CDT, 2-3 episodes (currently season 11)
   

[shapeshifter]

Love the Lennie-isms in the intros.

From 11.11 "Sunday in the Park with Jorge":

[FEMALE WITNESS] Is it possible to keep my full identity out of this? 
[MALE WITNESS] Strictly speaking, we're being naughty. Officially, she's still married to another individual.
[LENNIE] Did she murder him? 
[FEMALE WITNESS] God, no.
[LENNIE] Oh, see, we're Homicide.
               Anything else, you have to take up with the adultery squad.

  
  

ETA:
At the beginning of this episode there is one of those disclaimers indicating that it is based on real events but is fiction. 

I was wondering if it was based on the Central Park Five.

At about the half-way point they through around the term "wilding," so, yes.
 

Edited June 28, 2019 by shapeshifter

[Xeliou66]

1 hour ago, shapeshifter said:

Love the Lennie-isms in the intros.

From 11.11 "Sunday in the Park with Jorge":

[FEMALE WITNESS] Is it possible to keep my full identity out of this? 
[MALE WITNESS] Strictly speaking, we're being naughty. Officially, she's still married to another individual.
[LENNIE] Did she murder him? 
[FEMALE WITNESS] God, no.
[LENNIE] Oh, see, we're Homicide.
               Anything else, you have to take up with the adultery squad.

  
  

ETA:
At the beginning of this episode there is one of those disclaimers indicating that it is based on real events but is fiction. 

I was wondering if it was based on the Central Park Five.

At about the half-way point they through around the term "wilding," so, yes.
 

It was closely based on incidents that happened at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June 2000 where people were assaulted and robbed at the park. The episode was controversial and it wasn’t aired on reruns for a while as some Puerto Rican groups were offended, NBC actually issued an apology for the episode, which pissed off Dick Wolf and the L&O people.  

I didn’t think the episode was all that memorable, I thought the detectives and prosecutors work was weak as they initially charged the wrong guy and I found the killer to be a pathetic, spineless piece of crap. The episode could’ve been interesting but it just lacked drama IMO.

[andromeda331]

4 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

It was closely based on incidents that happened at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June 2000 where people were assaulted and robbed at the park. The episode was controversial and it wasn’t aired on reruns for a while as some Puerto Rican groups were offended, NBC actually issued an apology for the episode, which pissed off Dick Wolf and the L&O people.  

I didn’t think the episode was all that memorable, I thought the detectives and prosecutors work was weak as they initially charged the wrong guy and I found the killer to be a pathetic, spineless piece of crap. The episode could’ve been interesting but it just lacked drama IMO.

That's right. I forgot about that.

[shapeshifter]

5 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

6 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I was wondering if it was based on the Central Park Five.

At about the half-way point they through around the term "wilding," so, yes.

It was closely based on incidents that happened at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June 2000 where people were assaulted and robbed at the park

So I guess the term "wilding" got legs after it was "heard" in relation to the 80s Central Park case? —mostly rhetorical question unless it is brought up in other L&O episodes.

[Spartan Girl]

23 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

It was closely based on incidents that happened at the Puerto Rican Day Parade in June 2000 where people were assaulted and robbed at the park. The episode was controversial and it wasn’t aired on reruns for a while as some Puerto Rican groups were offended, NBC actually issued an apology for the episode, which pissed off Dick Wolf and the L&O people.  

I didn’t think the episode was all that memorable, I thought the detectives and prosecutors work was weak as they initially charged the wrong guy and I found the killer to be a pathetic, spineless piece of crap. The episode could’ve been interesting but it just lacked drama IMO.

Uggggh, tell me about it. Him whining on the stand about he "didn't mean to do it" but "she was stronger than I was and she was hurting me" pissed me off. Fuck him, and fuck his sister who was carrying on about he was "really sweet" just stupid. GIMME A BREAK.

To quote Jack, stupid isn't a motive to murder. The turd deserved everything he got.

[Spartan Girl]

Yay, WE is starting over from the beginning again!

Say what you want about Max but he was on his A-game with "Perscription for Death". Loved how when Mike expressed his concern that this was turning into a witch hunt against doctors and that the doctor might not have been that drunk, Cragen opened up about how Max helped him with his drinking problem and how they knew from experience not "acting" drunk didn't mean he wasn't drunk.

That doctor was an asshole. Lots of alcoholics who wind up hurting people have the decency to at least feel bad. But he wound up killing two people -- one of them a child -- through malpractical negligence and not one shred of remorse.

Edited June 30, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[GHScorpiosRule]

1 hour ago, Spartan Girl said:

Yay, WE is starting over from the beginning again!

Please do not rub it in!😭😭

Max: “Now you know that looking and acting drunk don’t mean squat.” to a smiling Cragen.

Mike looks lost and asks to be let in on the joke, and Cragen tells him the story of how he nearly shot someone because he didn’t feel drunk. Great scene.

I just love how Mike explains how conflicted he is because his “old Man” now has a “new ticker” because of doctors. And Max says he’s not saying ALL doctors are bad—most are good, except for that 1 or whatever percent-which Oster falls under.

Edited June 30, 2019 by GHScorpiosRule

[Xeliou66]

Yeah I saw Prescription for Death as well, it’s a good episode and I agree that Greevey was good in this one. It was Stone who stood out in this episode the most IMO, he was at his best prosecuting the case against Auster, I love his methodical, by the book, ultra serious nature. And yes Auster was a massive asshole, he was an egomaniac who believed he was some kind of god. 

I have to say, I’m not as big of a fan of season 1 as others are. It’s good, but there’s something about some of it that is just “off”, there is a lot of off topic discussion and meandering in scenes where it takes longer to get to the actual point, there are the long openings that take up valuable time, as a result the episodes sometimes feel rushed or that they didn’t have enough investigation/trial in them, also for example in Prescription for Death there were witnesses testifying out of order with the prosecution and defense seeming to alternate in calling witnesses, it was a glaring error.

I like season 1 and find a lot of the stories compelling, but the show was still finding its footing and had some issues, it’s still very good though.

[Spartan Girl]

54 minutes ago, GHScorpiosRule said:

Please do not rub it in!😭😭

Sorry, didn't mean to!

Edited June 30, 2019 by Spartan Girl

[Waterston Fan]

Watching season 18 on Sundance and I like some of the episodes so far. 

I do like Linus Roache and think he's a good addition. 

Mike's office, is it because the door is closed, that it just looks different? Just seems like the office is different. 

The picture cards they use every year, I like the one with Jack, it just looks so different and cool, too bad he wasn't wearing a fedora when they took that picture. 

[LennieBriscoe]

I am TIVOing every single frickin' episode! Thank you, WE (but ya coulda played them all straight through, instead of interspersing other and lesser shows,  haha!)!

Doink doink!

[Waterston Fan]

Why is the setting in the courtroom so different with Mike as the ADA? I just noticed the prosecutor table is on the right side with the jury? 

EDIT: It was one episode that I noticed so far. 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Waterston Fan

[balmz]

anyone remember what episode this is

some priest is with some teen boys and then anita comes in and asks, excuse me sir are you a lawyer? the priest then says no and she tells him to leave the room

i also think the case involved a rape and was before svu

[Waterston Fan]

1 hour ago, balmz said:

anyone remember what episode this is

some priest is with some teen boys and then anita comes in and asks, excuse me sir are you a lawyer? the priest then says no and she tells him to leave the room

i also think the case involved a rape and was before svu

Do you remember who the detectives were? 

EDIT: Was it a crossover with SVU?

Edited July 3, 2019 by Waterston Fan

[balmz]

2 hours ago, Waterston Fan said:

Do you remember who the detectives were? 

EDIT: Was it a crossover with SVU?

it wasn't a crossover, don't remember the detectives sorry

[Waterston Fan]

17 hours ago, balmz said:

it wasn't a crossover, don't remember the detectives sorry

Was Jack the ADA or Mike or Ben?