I only half-watched this episode--I was working--but I was NOT liking the premise either ('cause it's one thing to split up the team and it's something else entirely to turn them against each other). I don't think that Keppler is IA, but I *do* think that he's trouble. Grissom, come home soon, PLEASE!
I'm trying to decide if I should ask you if they had to let the actual killer walk or not (again with the not-really-paying-attention). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had to, but I'm not certain that's what happened. Ah well, it'll rerun this summer (if not before). Maybe I'll see it then.
I don't think Keppler is I.A. either. We usually get the CSIs as good guys versus the higher-ups (Ecklie, the sheriff, etc.), so I like having this darkish ambiguous CSI character and definitely find him interesting, though I doubt I'll be sad to see Grissom back.
I won't tell you the ending of the episode if you don't want me to.
Short answer, yes. :D Long answer, eh -- I'm trying to mature & lose a little bit of the hater thing, but this episode does illustrate why I can't stand Catherine. Lke you said, she had choices along the way. (And as the reverse forensics thing began to unravel, she should've come clean because she made it that much worse by trying to keep covering things up. And after all the trouble she's been through in the past, she knew bloody well better than to do things like tamper with evidence & go it alone.) I think the whole plot device was rather stupid, really -- they could've tried him in absentia & got him for both murders (real life example: Andrew Luster). But that would defeated the whole purpose of the episode. :P
Glad to hear you're attempting to mature out of the haterness :)
I was struck by what a shitty liar Catherine was throughout the whole thing. I'll accept the argument that her heart really wasn't in it, but still.
I validated that they wanted Simon to come out of hiding (getting a conviction means far less if you can't actually punish him). You can try someone in absentia? Doesn't that violate habeas corpus? I know so little about legal stuff I really should just look this up, but I'm tired at the moment.
Yeah, I don't know if Catherine expected it to fail or just wanted it to, but she's a better actress than was evident in this whole fiasco. And taking Keppler's advice over her own instincts was just silly; it's been proven that the guys can keep secrets, so why not just tell them behind Keppler's back? Ack, too much thinking. What happened happened & I think the ramifications of it are going to be around for awhile. (And I'm completely opposite of you; I was happy to see some reaction from Nick in this way. I'm not sure why, but I just know that I'm interested in seeing where they take this.)
Hmm. Obviously my brain is taking a vacation. I do think you're right about habeas corpus; I think in absentia only applies after a trial has started & the suspect/defendant has fled (at least here in the US). Legalities have never been a bright spot for me (and research, it seems, as well).
Re: Where you first saw "redrum" (from widipedia)hermionesviolinJanuary 29 2007, 04:39:12 UTC
My train of thought actually went: 1. see "Redrum" in list of upcoming CSI episodes: recognize word as from The Shining 2. see ads for said episode with "reverse forensics": recall that "redrum" is "murder" spell backwards
Comments 7
I don't think that Keppler is IA, but I *do* think that he's trouble. Grissom, come home soon, PLEASE!
I'm trying to decide if I should ask you if they had to let the actual killer walk or not (again with the not-really-paying-attention). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if they had to, but I'm not certain that's what happened. Ah well, it'll rerun this summer (if not before). Maybe I'll see it then.
Reply
I won't tell you the ending of the episode if you don't want me to.
Reply
Long answer, eh -- I'm trying to mature & lose a little bit of the hater thing, but this episode does illustrate why I can't stand Catherine. Lke you said, she had choices along the way. (And as the reverse forensics thing began to unravel, she should've come clean because she made it that much worse by trying to keep covering things up. And after all the trouble she's been through in the past, she knew bloody well better than to do things like tamper with evidence & go it alone.) I think the whole plot device was rather stupid, really -- they could've tried him in absentia & got him for both murders (real life example: Andrew Luster). But that would defeated the whole purpose of the episode. :P
Reply
I was struck by what a shitty liar Catherine was throughout the whole thing. I'll accept the argument that her heart really wasn't in it, but still.
I validated that they wanted Simon to come out of hiding (getting a conviction means far less if you can't actually punish him). You can try someone in absentia? Doesn't that violate habeas corpus? I know so little about legal stuff I really should just look this up, but I'm tired at the moment.
Reply
Hmm. Obviously my brain is taking a vacation. I do think you're right about habeas corpus; I think in absentia only applies after a trial has started & the suspect/defendant has fled (at least here in the US). Legalities have never been a bright spot for me (and research, it seems, as well).
Reply
Reply
1. see "Redrum" in list of upcoming CSI episodes: recognize word as from The Shining
2. see ads for said episode with "reverse forensics": recall that "redrum" is "murder" spell backwards
Reply
Leave a comment