Like last week, not much to say about the storylines themselves.
Fairly forgettable, but there were some good character moments in last night's show. Here are some thoughts — as forgettable as they might be as well.
CATHERINE'S COLD CASE: • The voice-overs at the beginning were different than anything else we've "seen" on "CSI." The set-up was very similar to "Cold Case."
• Tess, I too expected the CSIers to find more evidence to uphold what Catherine found originally. Not terribly surprising. At least there was some of that "keeping a guessing" going on as more results were revealed. That at least kept me guessing on what actually went down.
• What did the inmate think he actually would get out of not narking on his accomplice? I agree with Brass: Why wouldn't he reveal his co-defendant if he knew he was already going to the big house? I can partially see where he was looking out for/thinking about the future of his son, but it would bother me that someone who helped me commit the crime hadn't been charged while my sorry tail sat behind bars. What good would that do?
I don't think there's any honor among thieves. As my (fictional) man Bruce Wayne once said, "Criminals are a cowardly and superstitious lot." (Emphasis is mine.)
• The what-criminals-choose-to-reveal-when topic reminds me of the local Kurtis DeWitt case. What possessed him to basically confess to the Kaiser-Wells pharmacy robbery during his sentencing hearing on an unrelated case?
Think about this: DeWitt saw photographer Lou Reda and me there in the jury box before the hearing started. So he asked a woman sitting in the public seating whom I assume was his mom who we were; once she said it was "the press," he told her he didn't care who it was.
When I started filming the proceedings, I saw him duck his head when I pointed the point-and-shoot camera his way, as if he were trying to avoid the camera. DeWitt had to know what I was recording would be used for my story (which I did, of course!).
BUT he still went on to say he committed the robbery in the midst of talking about his ongoing drug problems.
And I don't buy that he was so overwhelmed with emotion that he didn't keep track of what he was saying. His cracking voice was all for show. His expression returned to "normal" within a very few minutes after he sat down and Judge Jim Conway started talking.
THE RABIES EPISODE: • The trailer last week for this show actually tricked me. I thought the focus would be on Catherine.
I expected it to be "a very special CSI" in which Catherine would be the victim. Gladly, that didn't happen. They'd already done that with the drugged rape case. •
What a slimey retired coroner.
• "I was good at my job, just not good enough." What's scary is there are people working ("practicing") in the medical field who were less than stellar students. I want the person who handles my meds to have been at least close to top of his or her class.
• Death by a bone to the neck during a food fight? Oh-KAY.... That's a new one on me!
• The quick edits between the interviewees were well done. The producers have done that a lot. They have to be careful not to do that too much. It helps move the stories along, but could become a "CSI" cliche soon.
• Enjoyed the repartee between Dr. Robbins and Langston, or as Nick called them "Smokey and the Bandit." Good stuff! Langston sharing his encyclopedia-like knowledge of the blues with a fellow blues man was a nice touch. (Fans do have those types of conversations; trust me!)
• I didn't quite get the ending scene between Robbins and Catherine. I'm guessing he was trying to make up for her being assaulted since he was on the phone and didn't accompany her to do the "knock and talk." Why were they there in the first place?
• Have you noticed the writers have stopped doing the "just-before-blackout-zingers" now that Grissom's gone? I don't miss those; they were getting quite old. Guess the producers figure they worked with Grissom, but would be forced with someone else. I wholeheartedly agree.