Please don’t read this unless you’ve watched Season 13, episode 18. Recent law shows have become more complex, intriguing, and even sometimes confusing, a change I attribute to competition by other video media. In our typical example here described by Wiki:
Quote:A rape investigation is set into motion after a husband sees his wife (Chloë Sevigny) being attacked while video chatting. The kidnappers demand ransom, and Detectives Benson, Amaro, Rollins, and Tutuola are on the scene when the missing housewife arrives to pick up the money. She frantically tells the detectives about her ordeal, but Benson grows suspicious of her story. The SVU squad and Assistant District Attorney Casey Novak (Diane Neal) dig deeper to find out who the real victim is in this increasingly complicated case. Meanwhile Detective Nick Amaro's wife Marie (Laura Benanti) comes home and is presenting some very strange and even sneaky behavior.
Owing to her apparent enthusiastic affairs with three other men, one such incident videotaped, as well as the fact that it was she who picks up the ransom money it seem obvious that she’s guilty as hell; the real victim here of course her husband
It’s declared a mistrial with little hope for retrial owing to a single juror holdout, even with the suggestion that he and she made frequent eye contact, even meeting in a stairwell between sessions to share a smoke
Throughout however her expression is perfectly innocent
Most such stories end in justice being done but this one leaves you wondering just what to think. However other anomalies anomalies persist; for instance how could her husband possibly believe her
So I’m interested in your reaction
Incidentally I sometimes wonder about the value of a distracting and unconnected side issue such as the strange behavior of the detective’s wife contributes anything at all in stories like this one, so wonder if you might agree
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace