I was so tired last night I couldn't even stay awake for CSI so will have to catch the repeat tonight
Saw bits of it, and if Grissom taught Catherine that people didn't look above then why on earth didn't she do so the first time around. That did happen right, or did I dream it
Saw bits of it, and if Grissom taught Catherine that people didn't look above then why on earth didn't she do so the first time around. That did happen right, or did I dream it
Obviously, he didn't teach her that in her first 18 months as a CSI so she didn't know it on her first 'solo' case.
Saw bits of it, and if Grissom taught Catherine that people didn't look above then why on earth didn't she do so the first time around. That did happen right, or did I dream it
I thought perhaps it was something he'd taught her since her first solo assignment.
I liked last night's episode overall, but there was one big thing I didn't like. They find the fingerprint on the rock and a different set of fingerprints on the hammer. This fitted in with Jeremy Kent's story of what he said had happened. So on the surface, it looks like the evidence is leading them elsewhere. The CSI's have no other evidence to suggest that Jeremy Kent did it (this is before the back-track of the phonecall has been correctly analysed). The hammer seems to say that someone else did it. Despite that, they still try and make the evidence fit the theory that he did it. Because Catherine can't be wrong, even though the evidence that he was convicted on in the first place was not conclusive.
Now obviously we find out that he did do it. But as soon as they found the other fingerprint on the hammer, it wasn't not a case of 'Someone else was there, their fingerprints are on the weapon, it fits with what Jeremy Kent told us, he said he didn't do it, so this other person must have killed him' (as logic would have suggested), but instead it's 'Well Catherine thinks this fella did it, so he must have done it'.
Now, okay, they didn't ignore the evidence so to speak, but they tried to fit it around the fact that he did it, even though they had nothing else telling them he was there other than the rock, which he had explained. They should follow the evidence, not stick with the suspect they want (which would have ultimately led them back to Jeremy Kent yeah but still...).
I liked last night's episode overall, but there was one big thing I didn't like. They find the fingerprint on the rock and a different set of fingerprints on the hammer. This fitted in with Jeremy Kent's story of what he said had happened. So on the surface, it looks like the evidence is leading them elsewhere. The CSI's have no other evidence to suggest that Jeremy Kent did it (this is before the back-track of the phonecall has been correctly analysed). The hammer seems to say that someone else did it. Despite that, they still try and make the evidence fit the theory that he did it. Because Catherine can't be wrong, even though the evidence that he was convicted on in the first place was not conclusive.
Now obviously we find out that he did do it. But as soon as they found the other fingerprint on the hammer, it wasn't not a case of 'Someone else was there, their fingerprints are on the weapon, it fits with what Jeremy Kent told us, he said he didn't do it, so this other person must have killed him' (as logic would have suggested), but instead it's 'Well Catherine thinks this fella did it, so he must have done it'.
Now, okay, they didn't ignore the evidence so to speak, but they tried to fit it around the fact that he did it, even though they had nothing else telling them he was there other than the rock, which he had explained. They should follow the evidence, not stick with the suspect they want (which would have ultimately led them back to Jeremy Kent yeah but still...).
It would never have happened in Grissom's day!
I agree with this, it was a bit lets find a theory thats proves Katherine was right. This didnt sit well with me. I did apart from this enjoy the episode...it was something different.
I agree with this, it was a bit lets find a theory thats proves Katherine was right. This didnt sit well with me. I did apart from this enjoy the episode...it was something different.
Substitute Catherine with Horatio Caine and you have many early episodes of CSI: Miami.
That's why I went off Miami early on. It was more about Horatio's hunch being right than about the evidence and that wasn't what CSI was about (not Vegas anyway).
Until last night. Grissom would be turning in his jungle.
I am not enjoying CSI as much any more, I never thought I would end up enjoying New York more than the original but ove rthe last few weeks that has been the case
I miss Grissom
I agree totally Chocolate Monke, last nights episode left a nasty taste in my mouse, the deliverate looking for further evidence to implicate Jeremy Kent was more to exonerate Catherine than to solve the crime
ANd another thing why was the evidence still available after 18 years on a solved case
Substitute Catherine with Horatio Caine and you have many early episodes of CSI: Miami.
That's why I went off Miami early on. It was more about Horatio's hunch being right than about the evidence and that wasn't what CSI was about (not Vegas anyway).
Until last night. Grissom would be turning in his jungle.
Agree about Miami, however Miami in a sense isnt as serious as Las Vegas and New York. You have to take Miami with a fistful of salt.
The plots in Miami tend to have big holes, big enough to land a plane in. Las Vegas and New York, tend to be a lot tighter. Excluding the hologram autopsy thingy in New York .
I am not enjoying CSI as much any more, I never thought I would end up enjoying New York more than the original but ove rthe last few weeks that has been the case
I miss Grissom
I agree totally Chocolate Monke, last nights episode left a nasty taste in my mouse, the deliverate looking for further evidence to implicate Jeremy Kent was more to exonerate Catherine than to solve the crime
ANd another thing why was the evidence still available after 18 years on a solved case
I bet your mouse wasnt happy...they dont like a nasty taste in the mouth
I must admit I've lost my love for CSI, I watch it still but this season really sucks, I still watch just in case of a good episode. I haven't caught up on the boxsets yet but I'm not buying this season, screw it.
I'm sticking with the other two formats which are still entertaining me but CSI Miami better watch it, went thru a dodgy patch.
Comments
Saw bits of it, and if Grissom taught Catherine that people didn't look above then why on earth didn't she do so the first time around. That did happen right, or did I dream it
Obviously, he didn't teach her that in her first 18 months as a CSI so she didn't know it on her first 'solo' case.
I thought perhaps it was something he'd taught her since her first solo assignment.
As I said I was asleep at the time
Now obviously we find out that he did do it. But as soon as they found the other fingerprint on the hammer, it wasn't not a case of 'Someone else was there, their fingerprints are on the weapon, it fits with what Jeremy Kent told us, he said he didn't do it, so this other person must have killed him' (as logic would have suggested), but instead it's 'Well Catherine thinks this fella did it, so he must have done it'.
Now, okay, they didn't ignore the evidence so to speak, but they tried to fit it around the fact that he did it, even though they had nothing else telling them he was there other than the rock, which he had explained. They should follow the evidence, not stick with the suspect they want (which would have ultimately led them back to Jeremy Kent yeah but still...).
It would never have happened in Grissom's day!
I agree with this, it was a bit lets find a theory thats proves Katherine was right. This didnt sit well with me. I did apart from this enjoy the episode...it was something different.
Substitute Catherine with Horatio Caine and you have many early episodes of CSI: Miami.
That's why I went off Miami early on. It was more about Horatio's hunch being right than about the evidence and that wasn't what CSI was about (not Vegas anyway).
Until last night. Grissom would be turning in his jungle.
I miss Grissom
I agree totally Chocolate Monke, last nights episode left a nasty taste in my mouse, the deliverate looking for further evidence to implicate Jeremy Kent was more to exonerate Catherine than to solve the crime
ANd another thing why was the evidence still available after 18 years on a solved case
Agree about Miami, however Miami in a sense isnt as serious as Las Vegas and New York. You have to take Miami with a fistful of salt.
The plots in Miami tend to have big holes, big enough to land a plane in. Las Vegas and New York, tend to be a lot tighter. Excluding the hologram autopsy thingy in New York
I bet your mouse wasnt happy...they dont like a nasty taste in the mouth
I'm sticking with the other two formats which are still entertaining me but CSI Miami better watch it, went thru a dodgy patch.
Maybe not killed, maimed will do
Nobody saw anything, he did nothing. A big boy done it and ran away:D:D
Yep, I can vouch for the above M'lud
NY is my new favourite (Danny is gorgeous!) and I quite like Miami even tho it can be a bit dodgy... what with Horatio and his Sunglasses of Justice
I agree with everything you just said, especially the Danny. he aint no Warwick but he will do