Not related to the base show but has any of our members up north watched L&O Toronto CI? Looks to be a new series this year. Curious if it's worth searching out the episodes.

Camryn Manheim is leaving after this season

X - Formerly Twitter

Bring back Van Buren! Nah, I know Merkerson is on one of the 17 Chicago shows NBC airs on Wednesday.

Eriq LaSalle of ER fame directed last night's episode. The court case reminded me of an early episode where Denis O'Hare played an unstable man that ADA Kincaid had pled down recently, then goes out and kills someone. I thought she should have recused herself from the trial, but after asking a law-talkin' guy I know, he said it wasn't an absolute requirement.

Oh wow, that is a surprise! I haven't seen her doing much so I figured this was a perfect place for her to park herself for the next 10 seasons. She's not my favorite actress but does a decent job. At least this offers the show a chance to bring in someone who can inject some energy into things.

Funny how much cast turnover there has been for a show only on for 2 seasons so far.

Maura Tierney is the new Lt.

I liked the premiere. Really like Maura Tierney's character already, especially that she's a master of "tells" when interrogating a suspect. A little meta too, since I've seen Tierney on those "Celebrity Poker" tournaments.

Only gripe is that they added a political theme to it, a thinly veiled reference to the Trump trial, when it wasn't needed for the story. Will anyone get the reference 5 years from now when watching the episode on a Sunday marathon on Sundance channel?

Yes, I do think the criminal trial of a former president will be remembered for a long, long time.

That he was tried? Certainly.

But on the show last night they didn't mention him by name, or even talk about "the president". They just said the Brooklyn DA was indicting a federal figure and that some people though it was purely politically motivated. Pretty obvious what the reference is, but if you think people will remember little details like that in the future, there's a bridge to that borough I'd like to sell you.

Well, I think you're naive if you think people are going to forget about these trials in five years. I mean, if we're living in a post-Trump apocalypse, sure. But if democracy continues as usual, people will notice subtle references like this their whole lives, just like how subtle references to Watergate or Monica Lewinsky are still easy understood by people that lived through those events.

Great to see Maura Tierney back on TV again. This show can't seem to find the right ensemble. They keep swapping people out. Tony Goldwyn and Maura are definite keepers and I hope they stick around for a while.

There is such an economy to these episodes by the writers! Not one word is wasted, every scene counts. I know its because they have to solve the crime in 22 minutes so they can spend the other 22 dealing with the 'order' side but it would be great if we got episodes that were longer and more involving. Some of the storylines are so compelling I'm sure they could spin them out to 2 hour shows.

I for one would definitely watch. There is very little of value left on network TV these days so I'd rather get a quality episode of one of the good shows like this one.

They need to bring back Criminal Intent.

They tried doing longer running storylines with the early seasons of Organized Crime but people complained about it. Now the Organized Crime team are supercops that only need 2 episodes to stop major criminals that have been plaguing the city for years.

That's why the best cop show ever was, and always will be, Hill Street Blues. Some cases went through several episodes, while there was usually another one that was completed just in a single episode for closure. You had beat cops, detectives, undercovers, SWAT teams, hostage negotiators, and departmental politics with the captain, chief of police, and higher ups. You had the DA and public defender. It was the complete package.

Probably the only show I've watched the entire run of, several times over (even if it did lose a little steam the last season or two)

Terrible episode this week. Shoehorned in Israel and Palestinians when it had almost zero importance to the story. I feel like they had the bones of the story then just slapped a current political topic on top of it.

That's been my one complaint all season, like in the premiere where they referenced a DA that "tried a federal figure for political reasons", a thinly veiled reference to the Trump trial, and ultimately had no bearing on the story itself. They've got some good story ideas, but then they throw in a "current" issue to stay topical. And I stand by my comment I made back then that a lot of these things won't be remembered 5 years from now. Israel/Palestine conflict, sure, that'll most likely still be going on, but by then it'll be some other terrorist attack or war action that everyone will be upset about.

I'm also not a fan but don't really mind when they use topical situations in their episodes. This one was strange because it was so in your face from second 1 but ended up being completely irrelevant to the murder they were solving.

The Israel/Palestinian conflict was the motive for the murder. The pro-Israel judge retaliates against the student. The student retaliates in kind with the murder. Back and forth, just like with Israel and Palestinians.
The student from Venezuela, who is on Palestinian side, is forced to testify and gets deported for it, while the judge gets out of it. This is a metaphor for the unequal power that Israel has over the Palestinians. It's not fair.
Sam and Nolan have the argument over the unfairness of making her testify. Nolan says it's her own fault, she knew the rules and broke them and has to face the consequences. In other words, it's not fair what's happening in Gaza, but Palestinians attacked on Oct.7 and now are paying the consequences.
Even the DA thought it was unfair but the the judge had a greater power in her corner, the mayor (ie. U.S. Government). It all plays out under the guise of "the greater good" (ie. defeat terrorism)
Each character had a specific role
Venezuelan student - innocent Palestinian
Student that committed murder - Hamas
Judge - Israel
Mayor - Biden/U.S. Government
The DAs - our conscience
All the criminals that would get released if judge's cases get overturned - terrorists

At least the writers tried giving us a red herring in the intro scene. I agree the whole ep just didn't come off well.

One positive I thought was the actress playing the judge, Michaela Watkins, who I thought did a lot with her scenes. Some great acting.

Really love the addition of Maura Tierney, she is such a natural actress she makes it look effortless. She's been away for too long and it's great to see her on a weekly show again. Between her and Tony Goldwyn joining, this show has evolved to have one of the best casts on right now.

It really wasn't, though. The motive for the killing was being fired from his job. They could have written any reason for the kid to get fired by the judge. Tying that reason to the conflict was not a necessary part of the story other than to make it topical. The crux of the story was the reasoning the judge wouldn't help the cops, not why the kid went to the house and ended up killing the husband. She could have fired him for being late every day and the story could have played out exactly the same.

They could have done it that way but they didn't. The crux of the story was about destroying the lives of innocent people in order to get the guilty party. Is it worth it? The DAs have this discussion among themselves in the episode. They decide it is ok to destroy the lives of the female student and the judge in order to convict the kid. The judge escapes this fate through the intervention of higher powers. The student doesn't. Friends in high places. The female student who gets deported being pro-Palestine, and the judge pro-Israel is no coincidence. It's a metaphor for what's going on in mid-east. Just like Star Trek: Wrath of Khan is really Moby Dick.

Up to interpretation certainly, but I think you're reading too much into that. I thought it was more just a case of the poor student of color gets the shaft, the rich white judge gets a pass.

But if you want to discuss whether or not the Coens' Miller's Crossing is a metaphor for the US' policies on Israel, I'm more than open for that convo.

This week's episode was a "ripped from the headlines" story based on the Luigi Mangione case, and it bugged the crap out of me when they interviewed the coffee shop girl that gave him food and saw his face, and how they just walked off when she sassed them about not helping the police. She was technically aiding and abetting (a crime), but they just walked off. Then minutes later they arrested the guys in the park that were dressing like the shooter. Why not arrest the person that had information that could actually help them find the shooter? She said that she didn't want to help them find him, but she seemed like the type that after sitting for an hour in holding and being shown the video footage any counsel would probably advised her to tell them what she knows to avoid the A&B charge.

I have not watched the episode, but I imagine they told the story that way to make a point.

In real life, the McDonalds where LM was identified came under attack for having employees who were snitches. In fiction, they have the person who won't help the police come off like an asshole, which places the IRL people who identified LM in a positive light.

On the show, if they had squeezed the witness for information that would have just made that character a larger and more important part of the story. They're saying to the audience, look, these are the kind of assholes the police have to deal with, but they just brush it off and still go out and get the job done.

Which they kind of did immediately afterwards when the police arrested the people in the park that were dressing as the shooter to distract the police.

I will say that the back half of the episode did a better job with dealing with public opinion being against the insurance exec while still having to argue that killing him was a justifiable crime. I will also add that L&O shows having ads from insurance companies during their episodes also mean that the show will have a certain bias during episodes like this.

The bias that premeditated murder is illegal? I think that's consistent over the entire run of the series.