S20.E14: Part 33

[tinkerbell]

I hate that all the players had to base what they thought about the current case, on their own experiences and feelings about previous cases.  

TOO MUCH DRAMA!   I laughed at Benson talking about her experience, acting out "praying", to make her point that "nobody should have to live like that."  Get some therapy, your personal stuff is spilling over into your job.

[Fellaway]

11 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I think it was in character for Rollins as much as that description applies at all this season. She has been a mess, and her attitude towards victims, witnesses, and perps  has been all over the map.

I agree.  Rollins has always had a callous/judgmental/doubting side.  Way back in Season 16, casting all kinds of doubt that Sonny's brother-in-law was raped and, in my view, not seeming to care if he was.  Last season, being unprofessional with that escort to a point where I would've booted her off SVU, because Dr. Al cheated on her with escorts.  Rollins' behavior in this episode was well within her character.  All about the empathy, my Aunt Fanny.  

11 hours ago, wknt3 said:

I think with a few tweaks of the script ( I would have loved to have seen them talking about the wife reporting spousal abuse to the NYPD and how much the record could be trusted and some more about the victim's history with Carisi) and better direction (it wasn't just Mariska overacting this week and we've already discussed the extremely questionable way they went with Annabeth in the courtroom) it could have been a real standout although I'm sure it would have been controversial like any departure from the formula is for a procedural.

I agree with you that this was a bottle episode and showing more of what we normally see, i.e. the lawyers lawyering, the detectives detecting, doctors doctoring, obviously wouldn't have worked with what they were going for here, the extreme focus on our squad members and the moral debate within each and between them.  It might've been more effective, though, if they'd pulled the focus back just a bit and, through our squad members arguing in this room, given a more detailed look into Annabeth's life, given us a stronger reason to care one way or another for her based on our feelings and not just theirs. 

9 hours ago, ChristiKRN said:

Did Benson admit to being raped by Lewis or someone else when she whispered about "hoping he didn't climb on top of her again"?  

I've watched the ep twice now and totally missed this line both times.  I have a hard time watching MH these days when she's getting all emotional, she's gotten so bad at it.  My thinking is, if they're saying he did now, it's a retcon.  Benson has always been so adamant in the past that he did not, and, as she's said numerous times, lying doesn't work for her even when it would've made her life easier, like hiding that Johnny D. was Noah's bio dad would've done.  

ETA:  Thinking on it a little more, I hope this is not a retcon they've chosen to do.  For me, Olivia choosing to hide being raped, especially when William Lewis was alive and could've been tried, would irrevocably undermine the characterization we've spent 20 seasons watching.

7 hours ago, amsomething said:

I can't understand why AI and Michael C. have such an obsession with the character of Peter Stone. Their infatuation is getting old. I have nothing against Peter Winchester,  for he seems to be a likeable guy, but I absolutely abhor the character of Peter Stone.  Perhaps had Stone been eased into storylines rather than completely thrown in, even being the focus of numerous episodes, I'd feel differently,  but MC and AI so aggressively forced Stone on fans that I was completely turned off.

I have wondered at the fascination they seem to have with this character, too.  I just find him so incredibly bland.  Of course, for me, they unblanded him in this ep but not in a way that made the character likeable, not by a long shot.  And what are the chances it'll go back to normal in the next ep, like he never said those words?

Edited February 11, 2019 by Fellaway

[amsomething]

44 minutes ago, Fellaway said:

I have wondered at the fascination they seem to have with this character, too.  I just find him so incredibly bland.  Of course, for me, they unblanded him in this ep but not in a way that made the character likeable, not by a long shot.  And what are the chances it'll go back to normal in the next ep, like he never said those words?

I get it that Stone was the lead on Chicago Justice, but it is still weird that the writers are so infatuated with him that they felt it would be appropriate to make so many episodes of SVU so focused on Stone. 

Fin has been a character on the show for 19 years, yet we know very little about him, and very few episodes have been focused on him. Rollins has been a character for 7 years, and Carisi for over 5 years, yet they haven't been the focus of as many episodes as Stone has in the nanosecond of time he's been on the show. 

Again, I have nothing against Peter Winchester; I'm just completely annoyed by his character, who thus far is quite unlikeable. 

[Gigi43]

There was no actual evidence of verbal abuse right? I mean I know that can be hard to prove but the closest thing to confirmation the guy was a dick was that he rubbed Carisi the wrong way. The rest was all just the word of a woman who killed her husband. The husband wasn't around ton give his side. Maybe, just maybe, the wife didn't have friends was because she was unstable. 

Carisi yelled he knew the law better than anyone, yet, Rollins was the one correct about the legal standard of self defense. They didn't have kids together. I am sorry for women in those situations but I don't like this heavy handed justification that death is acceptable for verbal abuse. I do feel in real life we're headed that way when I've heard stories of kids who lash out at others who make fun of them or cyber bully as they get a sympathetic case made for them. Bullying is awful and can have lasting damage but death is as permanent as it gets. There's a reason the law is "physical threat of yourself or some one else" because verbal could be anything. Like having your dinner mocked.

Stone works best when he's dealing with his job vs police. What I saw of Chicago Justice he was best when hating evidence came from Voights unit because they aren't credible. Benson and Carisi were weighing purgering because of how they view the case and that is wrong. Plain and simple. You give FACTS to the jury and then they decide. Not St. Liv. If Carisi is going to keep being in favor of purgery then he should burn the law degree. This is twice now. 

One point for Rollins with "Don't go all Liv on us." 

I think they will always keep the Lewis rape claim a pocket cards to play with when the story fits which is so stupid because they said over and over he didn't and what Liv went through was bad and brutal enough. Stop, Show! 

Edited February 11, 2019 by Gigi43

[Monkeybball]

I think this episode would have worked better if they so clearly hadn’t given us what was Right To Think. If they had truly considered what Rollins and Stone were saying, instead of writing it off like “pssssh.” Making it a real, true debate like they used to do in the older days (Doubt, for example). They were just hitting us over the head here that Benson and Carisi were in the right.

i also don’t think it was perfectly in character for Rollins and carisi to take the positions that they did, but some of you have made good points about that.

you tell the truth and let the jury decide. Not the cops.

[MrsRafaelBarba]

14 hours ago, amsomething said:

I think (at least) one of the WRITERS is having a hard time separating the actor from the character. 

Many viewers were angered by the line "That's not rape, " a line that made them despise the character of Stone even more, but they have nothing against the actor portraying him. Allison I., one of the writers and producers, jumped in to defend Peter Winchester when the criticism is of the character.  

I can't understand why AI and Michael C. have such an obsession with the character of Peter Stone. Their infatuation is getting old. I have nothing against Peter Winchester,  for he seems to be a likeable guy, but I absolutely abhor the character of Peter Stone.  Perhaps had Stone been eased into storylines rather than completely thrown in, even being the focus of numerous episodes, I'd feel differently,  but MC and AI so aggressively forced Stone on fans that I was completely turned off. It isn't PW's fault that his character has been written to be somewhat of an overpowering SOB. 

MC was the Showrunner for Chicago Justice, probably was involved with creation of Peter Stone.

As for AI, she might be one of the main writers for that character.

[gesundheit]

Okay. You don't get 20 seasons for experimenting.  Stick to your damn formula.

That was embarrassing. I'm so glad the forums are back.

[DARKastheRAIN]

Olivia exonerated herself for me a little at the end of the episode when she decided to tell the truth after all.

I was on Rollins's side until she started spewing all that "He's a cop!" nonsense, as though that's somehow supposed to make a difference.

A lot of people seem to think Finn was the sane one, but for me him telling Olivia to go ahead and lie at the end was the worst offense committed by any of them.

I liked Stone in this episode (I like him in most episodes) and don't entirely get what the huge deal about him saying "That's not rape" is. It wasn't what I was expecting him to say, (I was expecting something along the lines of "I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you the right to shoot your husband,") but I wasn't sent reeling by it either. I also have trouble seeing how it can be considered rape if she never in any way, shape or form expressed that she didn't want to do it.

Quote

When Olivia was testifying at the end and Annabeth looked at her all betrayed - Bitch what?! She’s a cop - you didn’t expect her to lie for you did you?

I know, right? I was like "What part of 'anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law' didn't you understand?"

Quote

... she sees every woman as a victim and every male as bad because of her own experiences.

I like Olivia in general, but I'm getting sick of every single woman in the show always being portrayed as a victim in some way or other. I'm starting to question why I keep watching a show that has me yelling at the screen almost every week "WOMEN AREN'T INCAPABLE OF THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!!!" It's like the show's motto has become "Behind every erring woman is a man who made her do it".

[tennisgurl]

On 2/11/2019 at 3:18 AM, Fellaway said:

Way back in Season 16, casting all kinds of doubt that Sonny's brother-in-law was raped and, in my view, not seeming to care if he was.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. Not a great look, Rollins, especially for an SVU detective. Way to go, Captain Empathy. Of course, there are also episodes when she does seem to be all about the victims, and Sonny is the one playing devils advocate, so who knows what we get week to week I guess? It is nice to remember a time not too long ago when all victims didnt have to be pretty young white women.

So, did we or did we not get in confirmed that Olivia was raped? Did they just decide on that, or were they holding onto it to play at the most dramatic time possible?

[dttruman]

On 2/10/2019 at 10:09 PM, amsomething said:

I think (at least) one of the WRITERS is having a hard time separating the actor from the character. 

Many viewers were angered by the line "That's not rape, " a line that made them despise the character of Stone even more, but they have nothing against the actor portraying him. Allison I., one of the writers and producers, jumped in to defend Peter Winchester when the criticism is of the character.  

Where did this come from? Because I think whoever writes these characters are put into terrible positions. Trying to transition these characters from emotional state to another in unrealistic situations and making it believable must be very tough. Was this on twitter or something?

[dttruman]

8 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

So, did we or did we not get in confirmed that Olivia was raped? Did they just decide on that, or were they holding onto it to play at the most dramatic time possible?

Some of our people here with photographic memories pointed out that there never was any rape concerning Billy Lewis, but the final say is still left up to the writers (or MH).

[Xeliou66]

13 hours ago, DARKastheRAIN said:

Olivia exonerated herself for me a little at the end of the episode when she decided to tell the truth after all.

I was on Rollins's side until she started spewing all that "He's a cop!" nonsense, as though that's somehow supposed to make a difference.

A lot of people seem to think Finn was the sane one, but for me him telling Olivia to go ahead and lie at the end was the worst offense committed by any of them.

I liked Stone in this episode (I like him in most episodes) and don't entirely get what the huge deal about him saying "That's not rape" is. It wasn't what I was expecting him to say, (I was expecting something along the lines of "I'm sorry, but that doesn't give you the right to shoot your husband,") but I wasn't sent reeling by it either. I also have trouble seeing how it can be considered rape if she never in any way, shape or form expressed that she didn't want to do it.

I know, right? I was like "What part of 'anything you say or do can and will be used against you in a court of law' didn't you understand?"

I like Olivia in general, but I'm getting sick of every single woman in the show always being portrayed as a victim in some way or other. I'm starting to question why I keep watching a show that has me yelling at the screen almost every week "WOMEN AREN'T INCAPABLE OF THINKING FOR THEMSELVES!!!" It's like the show's motto has become "Behind every erring woman is a man who made her do it".

Agreed 100% with this post, except for liking Olivia in general. I used to like Benson fine, but she’s become unbearable in recent seasons. 

They will never show a truly evil female perp anymore, every time they have a female perp, it turns out they were a victim before they were a perp. It’s all because Mariska wants to push a “female empowerment” agenda and promote her foundation, she’s hijacked the show and turned it into her personal pulpit. 

I was irritated with Fin at the end as well, up until then he had been the only rational SVU member and then he became all supportive of the defense and was fine with Benson lying. 

And yes I didn’t get why Annabeth was acting so surprised Benson was telling the truth. It was done for dramatic effect but it was strange. 

[MrsRafaelBarba]

3 hours ago, dttruman said:

Where did this come from? Because I think whoever writes these characters are put into terrible positions. Trying to transition these characters from emotional state to another in unrealistic situations and making it believable must be very tough. Was this on twitter or something?

Yes, it was on Twitter.

[rfeliciat]

I've logged in to say this:

1 - For the couple of posters asking about the Peter Stone angle/focus: Peter Stone is Ben Stone's son. Ben Stone is from the original Law and Order.  Before ADA Jack McCoy, there was ADA Ben Stone for about 3 seasons. He was mentioned in Chicago Justice and mentioned again in the first episode Peter Stone appeared in, in SVU. It was to remind Law and Order veterans about Ben Stone. So I'm pretty sure that's the reason for the focus since they transferred Peter from Chicago to New York.

2 - Regarding Olivia's whispered line 'please don't let him climb on top of me again.' I don't believe the writers are retconning(?) anything. We've seen Lewis climb on top of her, several times, to threaten rape (and other bodily harm). We never actually saw it (not that NBC would show that). She's always maintained to everyone, including her therapist that Lewis did not rape her. I think that line was just what she knew could have happened to her and also her years of hearing victims' statements. I don't think this was her admitting that Lewis actually raped her.

That is all.

[dttruman]

7 hours ago, MrsRafaelBarba said:

Yes, it was on Twitter.

I stay away from twitter, when it comes to stuff like this. You say something critical about MH and her rabid fans go nuts. I even got some of that when I posted a comment on Youtube.

Edited February 13, 2019 by dttruman

[lucindabelle]

That was AWFUL.

did not feel like SVU. 

Did not BELIEVE the contrived arguments- everyone was a mouthpiece for positions that were alreadybold in 1999. The concept of psychological abuse is NOT NEW.

and I agree with all who found absence of any psych implausible.

and ending before a verdict?

all felt like a Very Special Episode.

awful!

who wrote this pile of crap?

[gesundheit]

I just don't get why they write Amanda as NEVER believing victims are victims. She thought her mother was weak, she thinks sex workers deserve to die...I get that they're trying to cover multiple points of view, but why would she go into this line of work if she thinks victims just deserve to suffer?

That said, I do think it's hilarious that Liv tells Fin about his "BS"

[spunky]

On 2/9/2019 at 8:50 PM, Fellaway said:

Yeah, I've been completely indifferent to Stone (other than resenting the amount of screentime he's been given), so far, neither liking nor hating him.  For me, he's too bland for either.  But when he said "That's not rape."?  Wow.  What were they trying to show there?  That he's a win at any cost kinda guy?  The ends justify the means?  He truly doesn't know what rape is?  He's just that much of an ass?  I dunno, but they may have just dropped me on the side of the fence that hates him.

I've disliked Stone since his Chicago Justice days. At first I thought it was just the writing, but it's also the actor. He's always portrayed Stone as a pompous, arrogant, know it all, who does whatever possible to get the win.  I also agree that he's hogging screen time, when we have Ice-T who is a veteran of the show and barely gets any airtime.   

[Fellaway]

18 hours ago, gesundheit said:

I just don't get why they write Amanda as NEVER believing victims are victims.

I don't think she always disbelieves victims.  There have been times when she's shown real empathy for victims and even gone the extra mile for them, i.e. that video blogger raped by the actor and his sidekick, Esther from last season, but there are times where she seems to not have any cares at all for the victim of the week, i.e. Tommy, that escort.  If we went back, maybe we'd find some pattern that would explain why and when the callous, judgmental Amanda reigns, i.e. something going on with her personally, but I, for one, am not up for that research project.  And, likely, it's more about inconsistent characterization than any thought out plan.

12 hours ago, spunky said:

I've disliked Stone since his Chicago Justice days. At first I thought it was just the writing, but it's also the actor. He's always portrayed Stone as a pompous, arrogant, know it all, who does whatever possible to get the win.  I also agree that he's hogging screen time, when we have Ice-T who is a veteran of the show and barely gets any airtime.   

And Carisi, who's in his fifth season on the show, and he still goes begging for story since Leight left.

I haven't watched any of the Chicago franchise.  I'm not into doctor or fire shows, and I was not impressed with the P,D, actors who've appeared on SVU.  And I really, really disliked Voight.  I wanted to give Justice a try, but didn't after reading some reviews.  They were tepid at best, and some pointed to PW as a weak spot in the show.  Still, I was willing to give Stone a chance.  I loved Barba, but have never felt the show sinks or swims with him,  A year in, though, and I still find Stone boring, and it is partly on the actor.  These people who blame the actor for the character's actions are beyond the pale, though.  Definitely not cool.

[Xeliou66]

Rollins’ characterization has always been inconsistent and all over the map, sometimes she is a smart detective, other times she’s a moron, sometimes she believes victims, other times she doesn’t, her relationships with the rest of the squad have been very inconsistent as well, her relationship with Fin has been the only consistent relationship she’s had.

I don’t like how few storyline Carisi has as well, but given that they usually make the characters look bad when they give them focus, so maybe that’s for the better.

I like Peter Stone a lot, I like his by the book, unemotional, serious nature, it’s what SVU needs in an ADA, I loved Barba but it was time for a change and I like how Peter Stone has shook things up some. I liked Stone on CJ as well, the show was just average, I hate the other Chicago shows, Med and Fire mine as well be afternoon soaps and PD is nauseating with its endorsement of police brutality, and it was weird having Justice side by side with PD, but I liked Stone there and I like him on SVU.

[Fellaway]

Looks like Nicholas Turturro mostly got deleted.  Still seemed a waste of a name actor.

[CrystalBlue]

11 hours ago, Fellaway said:

Looks like Nicholas Turturro mostly got deleted.  Still seemed a waste of a name actor.

I'd much rather see Amanda and Frank than Amanda and Dr. Al.  I could go there with this as a romance.  I already caught the chemistry between them before Frank proposed a relationship.

[SarahPrtr]

On 2/7/2019 at 10:43 AM, Xeliou66 said:

I have a feeling Benson will have the exact same attitude that being victimized gives you the right to break the law, and I’m afraid it will end with her being right as always.

Unfortunately I think we will have more super mommy drama with Benson and Rollins based on the promo pics, this show sometimes seems more like a Hallmark channel movie than a police procedural.

Yep, it's gone that way.  Benson stopped being a professional maaaaany seasons ago.  She's acting more like a vigilante do-gooder civilian who thinks that she knows what to do because she "knows in her heart" that she's right, rather than a police officer who has rules, procedures and the LAW to follow.

Don't get me started on her effing whispering!!!

On 2/9/2019 at 6:22 PM, Fellaway said:

Funniest line of the episode, hey, funniest line of the season, from Rollins:  "I'm all about empathy."  I hope she was being sarcastic because, otherwise, I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.

Absolutely inconceivable!!!  Maybe it was half a sentence, like, "I'm all about empathy (that other people have), but I don't really have any."

[SarahPrtr]

On 2/10/2019 at 4:55 PM, Iguessnot said:

I was wishing both Benson and Carisi would jump off a bridge. Mariska should win an Emmy for the best impression of Cujo. Benson has been bullying every women to come forward and press charges because it's their only path to sanity, yet she is becoming more stark raving mad with each episode.

Just like the health professionals can't bully the patients to take medication or go through with procedures/operations, you can't bully the victims to come forward.  What kind of cop are you?!!!

On 2/11/2019 at 12:43 PM, tennisgurl said:

So, what we get from this episode is that if you go to the cops, what actually happened to you or what you actually did wont really matter because they're all super fucked up by their own experiences and will just lie to make themselves feel better? 

Well, almost lie. Glad that Olivia told the truth, although I do think that the dead husband was abusive and its horribly hard to get out of situations like that, especially if the spouse is someone in authority like a cop. 

Uh, hello???  Have they never heard of Drew Peterson?  He killed TWO of his wives.  He was a cop and every time his wife called the police after he abused her, he talked them out of arresting him.  Then he killed her AND his next wife.  Good job.

On 2/13/2019 at 9:49 AM, tennisgurl said:

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about that. Not a great look, Rollins, especially for an SVU detective. Way to go, Captain Empathy. Of course, there are also episodes when she does seem to be all about the victims, and Sonny is the one playing devils advocate, so who knows what we get week to week I guess? It is nice to remember a time not too long ago when all victims didnt have to be pretty young white women.

So, did we or did we not get in confirmed that Olivia was raped? Did they just decide on that, or were they holding onto it to play at the most dramatic time possible?

You expect certain amount of something from different groups of people.  From cops who work with sex abuse victims, you expect them to be sensitive and show compassion, NOT that trying-to-be-tough-as-nails bullshit Amanda is showing.  Get your shit together!!

No, Olivia was not raped, it was mostly psychological torture.  If they try to change that just so that Olivia will have more 'credit' for 'having been a victim of rape',  I'm definitely going to stick more pins all over the MH voodoo doll.

On 2/13/2019 at 11:24 AM, Xeliou66 said:

Agreed 100% with this post, except for liking Olivia in general. I used to like Benson fine, but she’s become unbearable in recent seasons. 

They will never show a truly evil female perp anymore, every time they have a female perp, it turns out they were a victim before they were a perp. It’s all because Mariska wants to push a “female empowerment” agenda and promote her foundation, she’s hijacked the show and turned it into her personal pulpit.

This is where they get it wrong, every time.  A woman who is actually empowered would never ever make herself the victim.  Actually, the woman who did that was in Info Wars.  That episode was so politically one-sided, I almost broke the damn TV.  She's a right-winger, so they didn't even give a shit that she was raped.  But she didn't keep crying victim.  She kept going and kept doing what she was doing. 

I was abused for many years of my life, including all of my childhood, and if I had someone talk to me like Benson does to her victims, I would want to punch her face.  It's so patronising, I can't even tell you.  It's like she WANTS you to stay a meek little victim.  There's no empowerment there at all.  The worst part is that she thinks she's helping.  Dumbass.

In keeping with the childish views of the cast and the crew - MH, you SUCK!!!

[MrsRafaelBarba]

On 2/16/2019 at 4:45 AM, Fellaway said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Looks like Nicholas Turturro mostly got deleted.  Still seemed a waste of a name actor.

Never cared much for  Little Bro Tuturro, as far back as his work with Spike Lee and NYPD Blue.

[Joe Hellandback]

Okay, liked this one, this mid season is really giving us some memorable eps. 

1. Firstly we at last have some decent Stone time and some genuine disagreement between him and the team, would like to see if things were still strained next week rather than the auto-reset too many series prefer. 

2. This would have been a great ep for the whole 'L&O; You Decide' idea, out it up to the public vote as to whether she gets found guilty or innocent (or not guilty by reason of insanity or manslaughter). Personally I'd have voted guilty or anyone with a tumultuous marriage would be allowed to kill their spouse. 

3. How come this was an SVU investigation at all, it surely doesn't fit into their remit? Also should Carisi not have made it clear that he knew and disliked the victim?

4. Really liked Rollins in this one, she was very much the voice of reason although the 'you're the best person I know' line to Liv was a bit much. Interesting she tells her she loves her, must have pleased the shippers. But her telling Benson that 'Sometimes you see victims where there are none' was long overdue. Not sure what to make of Fin's fishing story although nice to see he has some life outside the Job.  

5. I thought they were going to have Liv take the stand then hit the credits, leaving us in the dark as to what she was going to say but they bit the bullet. We still of course don't know the verdict, it could go either way. 

6. $80,000 a year? That's seems very good money? Carisi's musings on the power they have was interesting, again something that should have been addressed long ago. 

All told, really like this one, 8/10

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 7:22 AM, Fellaway said:

Thank you PreviouslyTV folks for all your hard work!  Things are looking mighty pretty around here!

Okay, I... liked this ep.  It is one I am going to rewatch, and I haven't been saying that much the last few seasons.

Was that giant bag Rollins was carrying to hide this ep might've been filmed when she was still pregnant?  Otherwise, that was one huge bag for some snacks.

I didn't even recognize Nicholas Turturro.  I love how Rollins gets on his case for not warning her the coffee was extra hot, then she promptly forgets to warn Fin.

Funniest line of the episode, hey, funniest line of the season, from Rollins:  "I'm all about empathy."  I hope she was being sarcastic because, otherwise, I don't think that word means what she thinks it means.

Best line of the season, hands down, from Carisi:  "I know the law better than anybody else in this room."  Thank you, Show, for finally remembering he's a lawyer!

The biggest flaw for me is that all these arguments should've been worked out with the lawyers before the case got to court because that's what they normally do.  That aside, I do appreciate, a lot, that they tried something different with this episode.  I give big points to a show when they do that because most don't.  

I know this episode was inspired by Twelve Angry Men, one of my favorite movies, and I can see it.  A group of people, who have power over someone else's life, arguing over what they're gonna do and what they should do, and how their own ish affects it all.  They even did the overheated room thing, to reflect the inner heat, natch.  Yeah, none of it's original, but I think they did a good job of reflecting who these people are.  Fin was Fin, not judging.  Of course, we all judge, but it's what we do with it that counts, and Fin just focusing on his donuts?  That's Fin.  Carisi, of course, is the one all about empathy, and I loved him facing down Stone in the court room. Liv, of course, is all about the victim, and relating her own experiences with William Lewis, etc., and the terror she felt then to Annabeth's, when talking to Rollins, is natural for her, as, unfortunately, is her acting like she has the patent on terror.  We get it, Show.  She's a martyr and a saint, but, Liv, I think Rollins knows a thing or two about that subject, too.

Rollins, good golly, Miss Molly...  I'm not even a Rollins hater, but at this point I gotta ask the writers, are we supposed to like this character?  Because, increasingly, over the last couple seasons, that has been real hard to do.  She was ugly in this episode (and I think KG was overselling), and all that stuff about her family history doesn't explain it, not for someone who's been on SVU as long as she's been.  (Have we even heard of the abusive father before?)  Anybody who sees things with the total lack of empathy she showed towards Annabeth, anyone who sees things in only black and white, should not be an SVU detective.

And, Stone, if you're gonna be an SVU ADA, you need to study up on what rape is.

I continue to be mystified how MH's acting skills are degrading these last few years.  Most people get better.  I think there's nobody around anymore to save her from her worst instincts.

Yeah, it wasn't until I saw his name in the credits that I realised who it was. Stone's rape interpretation was a very deliberate ploy on his part, he had to make the jury understand this wasn't a woman killing her rapist. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 11:44 AM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

Really missed this forum, especially when this episode was on.

Finally some courtroom drama and Stone actually doing his job.

Highlights for me, Carisi vs. Stone tho I hope their budding friendship doesn't suffer.

Stone reading Benson for the filth, hope that sinks the BenStone ship for good.

Now about those three words he said.

Soon as Stone let it fly, me and my sister actually said Oh Shit out loud.

Judging   from PW's Twitter page, this character has polarized fans even more.

Also many people still have trouble separating a fictional character from the actor who portrays him.

With MH that just may be the case. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎2‎/‎9‎/‎2019 at 10:30 PM, HunterHunted said:

When Benson was starting her "you don't know what it's like speech," I wanted to shake her. William Lewis was a serial rapist and killer. There wasn't a question about if he was going to go off; it was a matter of when. This is unlike the deceased husband who spent years terrorizing his wife, but there was no evidence that he might have turned physically violent. He seemed to be very much the type of person who got off on his emotional manipulation, coercion, and terrorism.

Secondly, Olivia needs to shut up pontificating about her trauma. No one gets to win the misery Olympics around here. Both she and Rollins had enormously screwed up upbringings. The fact that Rollins continues to engage in a bunch of self-destructive behaviors including gambling and continuously dating dirtbags should tell Olivia that Rollins was really screwed up from her childhood. She's so afraid that the guy she'll come to rely upon is a secretly abusive douche that she only picks unreliable guys so she knows to never rely on a guy. Whereas Olivia mostly dates decent guys.

What this episode signified to me is how little respect the show has for psychologists, lawyers, and even cops. This would have been a perfect case to have dueling psychologists with Huang or Skoda and a defense expert. It would have been a perfect episode to have the various members of the SVU, DA, and experts debating all of nuances in the squad room. Furthermore, this episode demonstrated that the show thinks very little of the DA's Office and Stone. Carisi's bullshit attempt to manipulate the outcome of the trial deserved a smackdown by Stone. Carisi claimed that he had a better understanding of the law than anyone there, but it's clear he doesn't as violated a number of nearly sacred tenents of American criminal law.

Stone should have been given a scene to explain that there's no need to shade testimony the way Carisi did because we have various mechanisms to guarantee civil rights protections for defendants. We have the Miranda warning, the right to counsel, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a trial by jury, the right to a jury of our peers, the right to cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, the right to present a defense argument, and the right to appeal. It's ultimately terrible for the show to pretend like defendants have no other recourses than having police perjure or spin their testimony.

Serena Southerlyn was fired for displaying 20% of the obvious bias Olivia displays on a regular basis.

Serena wasn't the star/producer. 

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 12:08 AM, Monkeybball said:

Guys, I was literally SCREAMING at the tv during this episode. I could not wait to get on here and complain to you all, AND THEN THE FORUMS WERE DOWN! 😩 UGH!

this was literally the WORST episode of SVU i have ever seen.

Your avatar would denote otherwise. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 11:12 AM, amsomething said:

I get it that Stone was the lead on Chicago Justice, but it is still weird that the writers are so infatuated with him that they felt it would be appropriate to make so many episodes of SVU so focused on Stone. 

Fin has been a character on the show for 19 years, yet we know very little about him, and very few episodes have been focused on him. Rollins has been a character for 7 years, and Carisi for over 5 years, yet they haven't been the focus of as many episodes as Stone has in the nanosecond of time he's been on the show. 

Again, I have nothing against Peter Winchester; I'm just completely annoyed by his character, who thus far is quite unlikeable. 

Perhaps because he's the new guy there's storylines to be explored, with the others what more is there to say?

On ‎2‎/‎11‎/‎2019 at 3:33 PM, Gigi43 said:

There was no actual evidence of verbal abuse right? I mean I know that can be hard to prove but the closest thing to confirmation the guy was a dick was that he rubbed Carisi the wrong way. The rest was all just the word of a woman who killed her husband. The husband wasn't around ton give his side. Maybe, just maybe, the wife didn't have friends was because she was unstable. 

Carisi yelled he knew the law better than anyone, yet, Rollins was the one correct about the legal standard of self defense. They didn't have kids together. I am sorry for women in those situations but I don't like this heavy handed justification that death is acceptable for verbal abuse. I do feel in real life we're headed that way when I've heard stories of kids who lash out at others who make fun of them or cyber bully as they get a sympathetic case made for them. Bullying is awful and can have lasting damage but death is as permanent as it gets. There's a reason the law is "physical threat of yourself or some one else" because verbal could be anything. Like having your dinner mocked.

Stone works best when he's dealing with his job vs police. What I saw of Chicago Justice he was best when hating evidence came from Voights unit because they aren't credible. Benson and Carisi were weighing purgering because of how they view the case and that is wrong. Plain and simple. You give FACTS to the jury and then they decide. Not St. Liv. If Carisi is going to keep being in favor of purgery then he should burn the law degree. This is twice now. 

One point for Rollins with "Don't go all Liv on us." 

I think they will always keep the Lewis rape claim a pocket cards to play with when the story fits which is so stupid because they said over and over he didn't and what Liv went through was bad and brutal enough. Stop, Show! 

I would have liked some testimony from the party guests, they could have fleshed this out a bit. 

[Joe Hellandback]

On ‎2‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 9:45 AM, Fellaway said:

Looks like Nicholas Turturro mostly got deleted.  Still seemed a waste of a name actor.

I wish they'd left that in, he strikes me very much as the beaten down veteran detective. Maybe he could join  the SVU and be that naysayer character so many of us want. 

[Fellaway]

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

3. How come this was an SVU investigation at all, it surely doesn't fit into their remit? Also should Carisi not have made it clear that he knew and disliked the victim?

I wondered about that, too, at first, but after some thought, I figured it was because she stabbed him in the crotch.  (Or shot him.  I don't remember.)  They've had cases like that before with that type of injury to a man.  Good point about Carisi letting Benson know he knew the victim.  He may have and we just didn't see it - They love to delete Carisi scenes - or, I suppose, we could assume he did, if we want, even if he didn't necessarily tell Rollins before.  It's ambiguous enough.

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

6. $80,000 a year? That's seems very good money?

That's in line with some research I did on the subject awhile back.  Manhattan SVU detectives actually make more than ADAs, though I"d imagine time in the job makes a difference when, say, comparing first year Carisi with multi-year Barba.  I'm assuming Barba got raises, at least when he wasn't killing babies.  

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

Perhaps because he's the new guy there's storylines to be explored, with the others what more is there to say?

I think there's plenty to say for Carisi.  Man hasn't had story since Season 17.  We're lucky he's got lines the last two seasons.  Even Eid, in 18, at least gave him a scene, here and there, that was about him.  

1 hour ago, Joe Hellandback said:

Maybe he could join  the SVU and be that naysayer character so many of us want. 

I'd say Rollins has that job.

[wknt3]

14 hours ago, Joe Hellandback said:

I wish they'd left that in, he strikes me very much as the beaten down veteran detective. Maybe he could join  the SVU and be that naysayer character so many of us want. 

13 hours ago, Fellaway said:

I'd say Rollins has that job.

Acrually I'd say Fin fills the role as much as anyone can. Rollins will argue, but Fin is the voice of skepticism and the one who calls out BS (Benson Sermons). Fin is the one who will suggest that maybe they need to wait to wait for backup before going into a potential shoorout/hostage situation, or that they need to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that maybe being a scumbag isn't something that they can arrest someone for. We see a lot of Fin as the voice of the audience, but it's easy to forget as he is a professional team player who raises objections, but then follows orders as opposed to an emotional roller coaster who shouldn't be trusted with office supplies much less a gun and a badge. There is a difference between a skeptical naysayer and randomly insulting victims, witnesses, and suspects in way that makes the late Baer period Stabler look like a model of stability and dispassionate professionalism.

[Fellaway]

9 hours ago, wknt3 said:

Acrually I'd say Fin fills the role as much as anyone can. Rollins will argue, but Fin is the voice of skepticism and the one who calls out BS (Benson Sermons). Fin is the one who will suggest that maybe they need to wait to wait for backup before going into a potential shoorout/hostage situation, or that they need to wait for evidence before reaching a conclusion, or that maybe being a scumbag isn't something that they can arrest someone for. We see a lot of Fin as the voice of the audience, but it's easy to forget as he is a professional team player who raises objections, but then follows orders as opposed to an emotional roller coaster who shouldn't be trusted with office supplies much less a gun and a badge. There is a difference between a skeptical naysayer and randomly insulting victims, witnesses, and suspects in way that makes the late Baer period Stabler look like a model of stability and dispassionate professionalism.

I guess it depends on where the OP was going with "naysayer."  My mind automatically went to Rollins and her too often disbelief in victims.  But you raise good points about Fin.  I don't necessarily agree 100% that he fulfills those roles - He is the man who kidnapped a suspect from Cuba, after all.  Don't get me started on the absurdity of how that all played out. - but I do think he is the one most grounded and most in a position to call Benson out.  I think Carisi is just as grounded, but less willing on the latter.

I had been thinking that Rollins' skepticism with victims so often was more a recent seasons thing, but I was watching a Season 13 episode the other day and, nope, it goes all the way to back then.  The ep was Educated Guess, where the young woman in the psychiatric hospital is raped by her uncle and it turns out he's been raping her since she was fourteen.  Rollins immediately starts on the "she's a psych patient, possibly on meds, yadda yadda" doubt train, even though she and Benson had just come from a completely rational conversation with her.  Benson, on the other hand, immediately believes her, though it doesn't come from the "Men bad, women good" place she comes from these days, but from a place of years' worth of experience with victims, i.e. noticing the woman's hypervigilance.  We still have that same old Rollins, but, geeze, I wish we had that same old Benson, too.

[Norma Desmond]

When I think I couldn't hate Benson more, the writers prove me wrong. What an insufferable A-hole she is. And Carisi, too.

[MarylandGirl]

Very late to the party here, but I agree with those who thought this was an over-the-top, overacted episode.

It occurred to me how it would have been very different had it been in the earlier days of SVU. Olivia and Fin still would have been there, of course, but she wouldn't have been in Saint Olivia mode. Seeing Munch and Elliott in that scenario could have been interesting. Perhaps Huang, too? And the writing would have been better.

[UnoAgain]

Even later to the party..but man, what Even was this? I don't even mind st. Olivia doing St. Olivia things but we need not just an opposing view which we had from Rollins,but someone actively asking. WTF do you mean in your gut, and even if she was right how is that a pass on what she did. I've been re-binging and I don't think I ever actually saw the remember me episode, so I honestly was thinking Olivia was just playing along to diffuse the situation. I mean I could tell the girl had been traumatized but I had no way, and was shown no evidence that led me to believe the guy was the guy..except that of course he was. It's the only way you can even try to excuse any of the  behavior because dude was a monster..but she caved that other guy's head in. And Olivia just zoomed past that and started talking cartels. I'm good with characters having biases and blind spots...being over zealous at times as long as it's addressed