S20.E20: The Good Girl

[dttruman]

50 minutes ago, Fellaway said:

Not trying to sound like @Fellaway here, but there should have been more of him this week.

50 minutes ago, Fellaway said:

::more Carisi more Carisi more Carisi::

Are you saying I'm not subtle?  ☺️

Would you guys quit beating around the bush. If you can't be more direct, then we'll expect more supportive comments about Benson.

[EtheltoTillie]

And as for the LGBTQ plot, wasn't it weird how the teacher's boyfriend just showed up and started talking to Carisi?  The guy must have been distraught, but he seemed to matter of fact.

[dttruman]

1 hour ago, GussieK said:

I think they covered this.  They did not DNA test the fetus.  She could not be forced to take the DNA test on the fetus to solve a crime because they were not sure a crime was committed.  It might not have been a crime, because she'd had sex with another middle schooler, it would not have been statutory rape because of the Romeo and Juliet laws--they don't criminalize sex between two minors of a certain age. (Also, they probably could not force someone to take a DNA test on a fetus.  They'd have to wait till the baby was born.

Shouldn't the step-father have demanded a DNA test when he was told she was pregnant or the teacher got Mackenzie pregnant? Then when he killed the teacher, I think the court would have demanded  a DNA test for sure, so they knew exactly what they were dealing with and decide on what course of action to take.

Edited April 12, 2019 by dttruman

[EtheltoTillie]

13 minutes ago, dttruman said:

Shouldn't the step-father have demanded a DNA test when he was told she was pregnant or the teacher got Mackenzie pregnant? Then when he killed the teacher, I think the court would have demanded  a DNA test for sure, so they knew exactly what they were dealing with and decide on what course of action to take.

That should have been a clue that he was hinky.  He was enforcing/supporting her right/desire to be left alone--which really meant his right not to have has misdeeds discovered.  They kept saying she was covering for someone, but they couldn't figure who or why.  To get a test on her, they'd have had to get court approval, which they didn't want to do at that point for some reason.  To advance the idiot plot, no doubt. 

[preeya]

2 hours ago, wknt3 said:

And another episode ending with St. Benson blessing and absolving the hurt woman - yuck. Hey Mariska - enough with the whispered words of wisdom. Let it be.

↑↑↑ THIS ↑↑↑

[preeya]

Is it a real thing that 13-year-olds can be married (legally) in Missouri?

[EtheltoTillie]

7 minutes ago, preeya said:

Is it a real thing that 13-year-olds can be married (legally) in Missouri?

Apparently yes, (see link)  https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

But if you read this it's quite a stretch.   Ages 15 to 18 can get married with parental consent.  Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant.  BUT, if you read it, the red flags should have simply had the stepfather arrested for statutory rape instead of letting him marry the victim to "protect the young family."  Harrumph. 

[ECM1231]

11 hours ago, MrsRafaelBarba said:

Well, Stone looked hot.

I will miss looking at Phillip Winchester.

Is he leaving the show?

[preeya]

44 minutes ago, preeya said:

Is it a real thing that 13-year-olds can be married (legally) in Missouri?

34 minutes ago, GussieK said:

Apparently yes, (see link)  https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

But if you read this it's quite a stretch.   Ages 15 to 18 can get married with parental consent.  Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant.  BUT, if you read it, the red flags should have simply had the stepfather arrested for statutory rape instead of letting him marry the victim to "protect the young family."  Harrumph. 

I just read this:  In July 2018 a bill was signed into law by the Governor of Missouri, to implement an absolute minimum age of 16 and to ban people over 21 years old marrying people under the age of 18. The law went into effect on August 28, 2018.

[dttruman]

2 hours ago, GussieK said:

He was enforcing/supporting her right/desire to be left alone--which really meant his right not to have has misdeeds discovered. 

Now did he know he was the father and he was trying to hide it  and he killed the teacher only because he thought the teacher raped her or did he actually think the teacher raped her and got her pregnant?

Edited April 12, 2019 by dttruman

[dttruman]

59 minutes ago, preeya said:

1 hour ago, preeya said:

Is it a real thing that 13-year-olds can be married (legally) in Missouri?

1 hour ago, GussieK said:

Apparently yes, (see link)  https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

But if you read this it's quite a stretch.   Ages 15 to 18 can get married with parental consent.  Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant.  BUT, if you read it, the red flags should have simply had the stepfather arrested for statutory rape instead of letting him marry the victim to "protect the young family."  Harrumph. 

I just read this:  In July 2018 a bill was signed into law by the Governor of Missouri, to implement an absolute minimum age of 16 and to ban people over 21 years old marrying people under the age of 18. The law went into effect on August 28, 2018. 

Thank you for the research information!!

[preeya]

35 minutes ago, dttruman said:

Now did he know he was the father and he was trying to hide it  and he killed the teacher only because he thought the teacher raped her or did he actually think the teacher raped her and got her pregnant?

Good questions, to which we will never know the answers

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, dttruman said:

3 hours ago, GussieK said:

. . . Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant. . . . 

Thank you for the research information!!

but now:

2 hours ago, preeya said:

I just read this:  In July 2018 a bill was signed into law by the Governor of Missouri, to implement an absolute minimum age of 16 and to ban people over 21 years old marrying people under the age of 18. The law went into effect on August 28, 2018.

more:
"Missouri — long the easiest state in the nation for 15-year-olds to wed — has outlawed the practice." (Missouri governor signs law banning marriage of 15-year-olds, Kansas City Star, July 13, 2018)
and more:
"This act raises the minimum age of marriage to 16 and removes the discretion for the court to issue a license to anyone under the minimum age" (senate.mo.gov/18info/BTS_Web/Bill.aspx?SessionType=R&BillID=69471940)

However, from the episode's caption script: 
"The marriage license was duly recorded in a courthouse in Caruthersville, Missouri, on August 27, 2018."

So: Whoops?

Maybe the background research for this episode was done last spring?

[Xeliou66]

2 hours ago, dttruman said:

Now did he know he was the father and he was trying to hide it  and he killed the teacher only because he thought the teacher raped her or did he actually think the teacher raped her and got her pregnant?

Or did he kill the teacher because he thought the teacher knew about him being the father of his step daughter’s baby? 

And why exactly did they go to the hospital in the first place, it didn’t look like either McKenzie or Garrett were hurt, and the whole conversation at the start between them now seems off given that they weren’t stepfather/stepdaughter but lovers. The more I think about it, the less this episode makes sense.

[EtheltoTillie]

Great that they eliminated that exception. 

[DesertCyclist]

A really stupid episode.  I have nothing new to add to the discussion, but I'll join the chorus by stating that the girl looked at least 18 (an actual 13 year old would have better served the episode), and the stepfather inadvertently opened up a whole can of worms by killing the drama teacher.  What a dumbass.

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, DesertCyclist said:

the stepfather inadvertently opened up a whole can of worms by killing the drama teacher.  What a dumbass.

At least he stayed in (dumbass) character throughout, right? *rolleyes*

[kicotan]

I am so not trying to be a shit starter right now, and if I’m stepping over a line I don’t see, I apologize and please delete this post, however

Observation #1: If she had decided to have an abortion, no parental consent would have been necessary as well as no dna test to determine the father would have been required.  In New York, she had up until week 24 to make that decision.  So, technically they jumped the gun.

Observation #2:  Does Benson ask and receive consent before she puts her hands on people or hugs them?  If not, why not?  Are women in law enforcement immune from that basic practice?

[dttruman]

18 minutes ago, kicotan said:

I am so not trying to be a shit starter right now, and if I’m stepping over a line I don’t see, I apologize and please delete this post, however

Observation #1: If she had decided to have an abortion, no parental consent would have been necessary as well as no dna test to determine the father would have been required.  In New York, she had up until week 24 to make that decision.  So, technically they jumped the gun.

Observation #2:  Does Benson ask and receive consent before she puts her hands on people or hugs them?  If not, why not?  Are women in law enforcement immune from that basic practice?

Criticize or commend all you want, just be honest and objective about it. Like someone said before, opinions are welcome here. We hold no grudges. Some of us have preferences, but it seems like the one thing we all agree on (or want) is a good realistic story told.

[RedheadZombie]

9 hours ago, GussieK said:

I think they covered this.  They did not DNA test the fetus.  She could not be forced to take the DNA test on the fetus to solve a crime because they were not sure a crime was committed.  It might not have been a crime, because if she'd had sex with another middle schooler, it would not have been statutory rape because of the Romeo and Juliet laws--they don't criminalize sex between two minors of a certain age. (Also, they probably could not force someone to take a DNA test on a fetus.  They'd have to wait till the baby was born.)

Once the accused father was murdered, it should have been automatic to text the fetal DNA.

7 hours ago, GussieK said:

Apparently yes, (see link)  https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

But if you read this it's quite a stretch.   Ages 15 to 18 can get married with parental consent.  Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant.  BUT, if you read it, the red flags should have simply had the stepfather arrested for statutory rape instead of letting him marry the victim to "protect the young family."  Harrumph. 

These laws have sheltered statutory rapists and forced rapists of uderaged girls who get pregnant for decades.  Just marry the victim and you're fine!  Parents and the law actually thought this was a way for men to "make it right".

[dttruman]

3 minutes ago, RedheadZombie said:

These laws have sheltered statutory rapists and forced rapists of uderaged girls who get pregnant for decades.  Just marry the victim and you're fine!  Parents and the law actually thought this was a way for men to "make it right". 

Some laws are a little ambiguous to me, so I am at odds about giving a definite opinion. But here, I think a few of them need some updating.

[JTM]

ENOUGH, two weeks in a row, of emotionally manipulative "babies are magical" barely veiled anti-choice rhetoric. Two weeks in a row, Benson provocatively sentimentalizing pregnancies that are inherently fraught in ways that simply erases their fraughtness, automatically privileging fetus over mother.

This is not a critique of one side or the other of a deeply emotional issue. I would be just as angry if St. Benson was provocatively challenging these women "are you SURE you want carry that baby, what with the RAPE and all???"

This is a critique of the show for deliberate exploitation, via inserting emotional propaganda that does not belong there into a program that is theoretically about characters' engagement with police and the legal system. There could easily be a storyline that challenges current laws, if for whatever reason the producers wanted there to be. This emotional exploitation instead is cheap and it's disgusting. 

[MrsRafaelBarba]

7 hours ago, ECM1231 said:

Is he leaving the show?

He was fired two weeks ago.

[wknt3]

11 hours ago, Fellaway said:

Why, whatever do you mean?  

::more Carisi more Carisi more Carisi::

Are you saying I'm not subtle?  ☺️

Not at all. You are very subtle by SVU standards...

9 hours ago, GussieK said:

Apparently yes, (see link)  https://statelaws.findlaw.com/missouri-law/missouri-marriage-age-requirements-laws.html

But if you read this it's quite a stretch.   Ages 15 to 18 can get married with parental consent.  Under 15 can get married with parental consent and special circumstances, e.g., having girl pregnant.  BUT, if you read it, the red flags should have simply had the stepfather arrested for statutory rape instead of letting him marry the victim to "protect the young family."  Harrumph.  

1 hour ago, RedheadZombie said:

These laws have sheltered statutory rapists and forced rapists of uderaged girls who get pregnant for decades.  Just marry the victim and you're fine!  Parents and the law actually thought this was a way for men to "make it right".

Yeah in some ways this was a throwback to classic SVU as far as ripping from the headlines and going about as extreme as you can and getting a few details wrong. There was even the classic exposition info dump from Carisi!

[Ms Blue Jay]

I still really like the show.  I've been liking it all season, in fact.  Much more than previous recent seasons.

[Kel Varnsen]

Man for an elite squad of detectives they sure sucked at detecting this week. They didn't find out the murder victim (who they thought was a rapist) was gay until after he was dead and his partner came forward. And they didn't find out about the marriage until it was revealed during the trial. 

Also as far as the whole family court thing why did they not bring up that the bio dad was a possible drug addict? I would think that would make any legal documents he signed a lot more questionable. I am just glad they didn't o the Lemony Snicket route though and have the step dad sign the mareiage certificate as the girls guardian or something.

[dttruman]

11 hours ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Man for an elite squad of detectives they sure sucked at detecting this week. They didn't find out the murder victim (who they thought was a rapist) was gay until after he was dead and his partner came forward.

Most of the time, the writers come up with flimsy excuses for why things turn out, but not finding out the teacher was gay until after he was killed, IMO is a legit reason. They were trying to hide it because he worked at a Catholic school. When the teacher is killed, doesn't it make sense and necessary to have the DNA test, so the ADA can decide how to prosecute? I don't see how a judge would deny an order for a DNA test here after a killing.

[hookedontv]

This episode was infuriating to watch for many reasons that everyone seemed to have covered but in Typical SVU fashion, I will beat you over the head with it again:

1. Beginning scene, I thought the people fighting were a couple, only to find out at the hospital the woman was 13. I looked up the actress-she is around 13 but poor casting by the show as to me she looked at least early 20’s. 

2. Ridiculous “police work” investigating the drama teacher. And I love Stone, but teacher’s fiancé came in to talk to him and he doesn’t take down a name, contact info, family members’ info? Maybe Stone’s admin did, but can we get a little dose of reality here and some actual police work? 

3. Could we have please focused on the actual MURDER? This poor guy was clocked over the head by a bowling trophy, seemed like a stand up guy, and the only thing the show pushed on us was the pregnancy/you better keep your baby message/St. Benson knows best. So frustrating with the continued pregnancy crap. 

4. So sick of Benson stalking these victims at the end of each episode and shoving herself in their faces and bullying them to see things the way she sees them. Stop calling victims sweetheart, invading their personal space. I would have slapped Benson’s hand off Of me faster than I could say “ I need more Finn & Carisi!”

End rant. 

[Fellaway]

On 4/12/2019 at 11:53 AM, dttruman said:

Now did he know he was the father and he was trying to hide it  and he killed the teacher only because he thought the teacher raped her or did he actually think the teacher raped her and got her pregnant?

My takeaway, after that one conversation between the girl and Benson in the grocery store, was that stepdad/husband killed the teacher because the girl had confided in him (the teacher) about her relationship with her stepdad.  At the time he killed the teacher, their relationship was still a secret and stepdad/husband wanted it kept that way.  I don't think stepdad/husband ever thought the girl (Sorry, never did catch her name!) had been raped by him.

That brings up another point.  I was thinking that the teacher (Sorry, didn't catch his name either.) was a really good friend to the girl.  He could've outed her relationship with stepdad when he was brought in under suspicion himself, but didn't.  But now I don't know that he was such a good friend, after all.  I don't know at what point he knew they were married, but regardless of that ickiness, he did know about their sexual relationship.  Aren't teachers mandatory reporters?

But, who knows?  Maybe the girl was flat out lying about that, too.  She was cagey enough throughout this ep that I'd not take anything she said at face value.  Maybe she hated the guy and wanted him dead.  It's not like the writers filled in much of the details.  I guess they ascribe to the Angela Kang style of writing, that filling in the details would be going "into the weeds."

23 hours ago, Xeliou66 said:

And why exactly did they go to the hospital in the first place, it didn’t look like either McKenzie or Garrett were hurt, and the whole conversation at the start between them now seems off given that they weren’t stepfather/stepdaughter but lovers. The more I think about it, the less this episode makes sense.

Didn't the uni at the beginning say he made the decision to bring them in and let SVU sort it out, as one of the involved was a minor?

Yeah, that fight, in hindsight...  I guess married life wasn't all rainbows and unicorns for them. 

21 hours ago, DesertCyclist said:

the stepfather inadvertently opened up a whole can of worms by killing the drama teacher.  What a dumbass.

Seriously.  Because I think that girl could've continued to lie about the circumstances of her pregnancy indefinitely.  And that teacher didn't say anything about the girl's relationship with her stepdad when he was hauled in for rape himself, so...  Even if he had, stepdad could've just whipped out the marriage certificate, so, yeah.  Whole lot of stupid going on in this episode.

21 hours ago, kicotan said:

Observation #2:  Does Benson ask and receive consent before she puts her hands on people or hugs them?  If not, why not?  Are women in law enforcement immune from that basic practice?

Perhaps in an upcoming episode, Benson will be accused of sexual harassment?  Hee!  Because, yes, she is crossing over the line.

18 hours ago, wknt3 said:

Not at all. You are very subtle by SVU standards...

LOL!  Well, low bars and all.

18 hours ago, wknt3 said:

There was even the classic exposition info dump from Carisi!

Whereupon he retreated to his darkened corner to twiddle his thumbs.  We were both right!

1 hour ago, hookedontv said:

I would have slapped Benson’s hand off Of me faster than I could say “ I need more Finn & Carisi!”

LOL.  "I need more Fin and Carisi" has become the coda of every episode this season.  

[wknt3]

3 hours ago, hookedontv said:

I looked up the actress-she is around 13 but poor casting by the show as to me she looked at least early 20’s.

Didn't care enough to look up anybody, but it's not necessarily bad casting, although given that I felt it was a rare poor performance from an SVU guest actor I would probably call it bad casting. It could also be bad direction, not telling the crew what they want so they end up going for a more adult look. In the words of a better L&O episode;

How old would you say she is?
Maybe 30?
Try 16.
They do her hair and make-up, she looks 30.

It could also be that they chickened out and didn't want to us to really viscerally experience and adult man with a 13 year old girl who actually looked underage. Or that they conceived it as her deliberately looking and acting older to try to replace her dead mother and fulfill creepy stepdad's desires, but couldn't be bothered to actually put that onscreen, because the time needed for a psych expert to weigh in, or even experienced elite detectives to talk about how there is something hinky in her affect would take away from Benson's ode to motherhood. Which is even more disappointing than what I thought which is that they cast a 18 year old so that they didn't have to worry about dealing with a minor playing such a large role.
 

4 hours ago, hookedontv said:

 4. So sick of Benson stalking these victims at the end of each episode and shoving herself in their faces and bullying them to see things the way she sees them. Stop calling victims sweetheart, invading their personal space. I would have slapped Benson’s hand off Of me faster than I could say “ I need more Finn & Carisi!”

Me too. Or maybe that should be #MeToo?

[Kel Varnsen]

6 hours ago, dttruman said:

Most of the time, the writers come up with flimsy excuses for why things turn out, but not finding out the teacher was gay until after he was killed, IMO is a legit reason. They were trying to hide it because he worked at a Catholic school. When the teacher is killed, doesn't it make sense and necessary to have the DNA test, so the ADA can decide how to prosecute? I don't see how a judge would deny an order for a DNA test here after a killing.

The way I saw it, early on the teacher was a suspect in the rape of a minor. There was enough suspicion to haul him to the station. They couldn't get a dna sample from the girl to confirm so I would think at that point you do a deep dive into the guys personal life. 

[dttruman]

5 hours ago, Fellaway said:

 At the time he killed the teacher, their relationship was still a secret and stepdad/husband wanted it kept that way.  I don't think stepdad/husband ever thought the girl (Sorry, never did catch her name!) had been raped by him.

When Mackenzie went to see Benson and Rollins, she told them that she told Garrett that the teacher was the father. Now from that point,  I figure Garrett killed the teacher because of that. At the end in Stone's office ( and I watched this a few times), Garrett confesses that he had to kill the teacher (this is premeditation) because he was afraid the teacher would tell. Now did he do that on purpose to keep her out of prison, I just don't know what the real reason was?

[shapeshifter]

20 hours ago, dttruman said:

At the end in Stone's office ( and I watched this a few times), Garrett confesses that he had to kill the teacher (this is premeditation) because he was afraid the teacher would tell. Now did he do that on purpose to keep her out of prison, I just don't know what the real reason was?

Well, the captioning script includes:

• [STEPDAD] I killed Dreyfus. I had to.
• [MACKENZIE] No, you didn't! He wasn't going to say anything! 
• [STEPDAD] You should never have told him about us.
• [MACKENZIE] He was my friend. After the cops talked to him, they told him I was pregnant. He came to me, he was worried about me, but he promised not to say anything.
• [STEPDAD] I lost your mother. I couldn't take the chance that anyone would find out about us.
• [SVU] But your marriage was legal.

So, yeah, it seems like they left it vague on purpose--especially if you watched it "a few times,"  @dttruman, and still didn't get anything definitive.
  
  
  

Edited April 14, 2019 by shapeshifter
formatting for clarity

[ECM1231]

On 4/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

He was fired two weeks ago.

Thanks for the reply.

Whoa, how did I miss this news? 

[Sake614]

When did Lt Benson, a police detective, become a social worker? Who the hell is she to counsel a victim after the fact? And placing her hand on the pregnant belly of a teenager?????? Encouraging said teenager to have a baby that she clearly isn’t prepared for? How about counseling her to seek counseling from an actual therapist?

i just can’t with her anymore. Talk about unprofessional!

[atlantaloves]

And why force a possibly mentally ill 13 year old to have a child Benson? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  I am sorry you are child of rape, but frankly I just don't care any more. 

[dttruman]

21 hours ago, Sake614 said:

When did Lt Benson, a police detective, become a social worker? Who the hell is she to counsel a victim after the fact? And placing her hand on the pregnant belly of a teenager?????? Encouraging said teenager to have a baby that she clearly isn’t prepared for? How about counseling her to seek counseling from an actual therapist?

2 minutes ago, atlantaloves said:

And why force a possibly mentally ill 13 year old to have a child Benson? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?  I am sorry you are child of rape, but frankly I just don't care any more. 

For some reason they don't want to bring in an extra character, representing a social worker or a shrink to explain these complicated situations to the victims. It has to be "Benson to the Rescue", that only her delusional fan club believe is best for the victims.

I'll bet there are rape victims in New York City right now that would rather talk to Mariska Hargitay than the police and rape crisis counselors.

[dttruman]

On 4/14/2019 at 3:34 PM, ECM1231 said:

On 4/12/2019 at 6:38 PM, MrsRafaelBarba said:

He was fired two weeks ago.

Thanks for the reply.

Whoa, how did I miss this news? 

I didn't know he was fired? I thought he had other offers (like going back to one of the Chicago shows) or they were just putting him on a long hiatus.

[DangerousMinds]

4 hours ago, dttruman said:

I didn't know he was fired? I thought he had other offers (like going back to one of the Chicago shows) or they were just putting him on a long hiatus.

It's all speculation.

[observer]

Is it just me, or has Olivia developed a permanent stank face?