Who killed Gordon Pratt?
Richard Rees Jones
I'm one of the English viewers currently enjoying the reruns of season 3 on
the Hallmark Channel (although judging by Hallmark's latest listings we may
not be enjoying it for much longer). I just wanted to know if we ever find
out who killed Gordon Pratt and I hope some kind US viewer can help me out -
inserting some appropriate spoiler space of course for the benefit of those
Englih viewers who may not want to know :)
thanks very much
Richard
Shel
Ah, Richard, you ask one of the most controversial questions known to
Homicide:Life on the Street fans.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The writers claim they didn't have anyone in mind as the guilty
culprit when they wrote the episodes, so the official answer to your
question would be no, we never find out who killed Gordon Pratt.
However, Richard Belzer, who plays Munch, is convinced that Munch did
it. In the Homicide movie, the audience learns that Bayliss thinks
Munch did it.
Some people think Munch, some Beau, some people swear it was Gee, some
Mitch, some a uniformed officer. It was even proposed that Bayliss
himself murdered Gordon Pratt.
A police officer who once and still occasionally frequents this
newsgroup stated unequivocally that obviously Pratt committed suicide.
Who do you think killed Pratt?
--
Shel
Munch did it, dammit.
Alina Holgate
Now you've done it. Remember that scene in Lord of the Rings
where they start hearing the noises of the terrible monsters waking
up? That's what you've just started. We never officially got to
know who killed Gordon Pratt, though in The Movie Frank gives
his opinion that he always thought he was killed by a cop. However
there have been heated debates around here as to the most likely
suspect. You will find that myself and morpheus have the most
sensible theory - that Beau killed Pratt. Some posters have the
delusional belief that Munch killed Pratt, but they are obviously
just plain wrong, wrong, wrong - as wrong as a bagful of very
wrong things.
Shel
<hol...@deakin.edu.au> wrote:
>Now you've done it. Remember that scene in Lord of the Rings
>where they start hearing the noises of the terrible monsters waking
>up? That's what you've just started. We never officially got to
>know who killed Gordon Pratt, though in The Movie Frank gives
>his opinion that he always thought he was killed by a cop. However
>there have been heated debates around here as to the most likely
>suspect. You will find that myself and morpheus have the most
>sensible theory
Ffffffffffftttttttttpppppppp!
> - that Beau killed Pratt. Some posters have the
>delusional belief that Munch killed Pratt, but they are obviously
>just plain wrong, wrong, wrong - as wrong as a bagful of very
>wrong things.
Oh, feh. Of course Munch killed Pratt. I'll buy that Beau, like
Munch, had the moral ambiguity to kill Pratt, but he wasn't in any
shape at the time to march over there and do it. Not only that, Beau
lacked the finesse needed to get away with such a high-profile crime.
Bayliss was right. You notice that Munch didn't deny it.
Next you'll be trying to tell me that Naomi killed Pratt.
Although, I admit I did like Jamie's suicide hypothesis.
--
Shel
Petey Blue
>suspect. You will find that myself and morpheus have the most
>sensible theory - that Beau killed Pratt. Some posters have the
>delusional belief that Munch killed Pratt, but they are obviously
>just plain wrong, wrong, wrong - as wrong as a bagful of very
>wrong things.
Munch would have angsted endlessly over such an act - he's ruled out. Beau
had motive - his partner was shot and so was he - but he would have been too
likely a suspect. The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
name. Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
Pete
David A McIntee
episodes.
My money's on Mitch, who conveniently disappeared from the guest star list
after that episode.
But I wouldn't put it past Lewis or even Gee.
(I reckon that the ambiguity over it is maybe what led TPTB to do the whole
resolution to the Internet Killer, and say that <spoiler> did it)
--
--
"Oh go away, repress someone else."
http://www.btinternet.com/~david.mcintee
Redemption 03- Blake's 7/Babylon 5 convention. 21-23 February 2003
http://www.smof.com/redemption
Vote Baal in 03, and let every serpent have a paradise.
This month's guest quote: "You want to go home and rethink your life." (Obi
Wan Kenobi)
Alina Holgate
> Alina Holgate wrote:
> >suspect. You will find that myself and morpheus have the most
> >sensible theory - that Beau killed Pratt. Some posters have the
> >delusional belief that Munch killed Pratt, but they are obviously
> >just plain wrong, wrong, wrong - as wrong as a bagful of very
> >wrong things.
>
> Munch would have angsted endlessly over such an act - he's ruled out.
Agreed. He don't have the cojones for it neither.
> Beau
> had motive - his partner was shot and so was he - but he would have been too
> likely a suspect.
Like, who's going to investigate?
> The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
> name.
The new, young, idealistic guy who knows shit about nothing.
> Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
> shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
Nah, Gee's a by-the-book guy. My supervisor maintains
that a fundamental distinction can be made between people's
essential fears in that some fear absolute order and some fear
total chaos. I reckon Gee fears chaos and is motivated to
ensure that order is maintained. Beau fears order and
positively foments chaos. Whoever killed Pratt is comfortable
with chaos.
Petey Blue
>Beau fears order and positively foments chaos. Whoever killed Pratt is
comfortable
>with chaos.
OK - let's go give his skull fragments the third degree to see if they crack
. . . (-:
There's some merit to your hypothesis. I'll have to watch that whole arc
again as if I were Monk, divining clues from drapes and paying
ultra-complete attention to details. I though Beau had a good alibi for the
time of the shooting. I'll bet the clues are all there and we've just not
been observant enough to find them.
Pete
La Reina
>Petey Blue wrote:
>
>> Alina Holgate wrote:
>> >suspect. You will find that myself and morpheus have the most
>> >sensible theory - that Beau killed Pratt. Some posters have the
>> >delusional belief that Munch killed Pratt, but they are obviously
>> >just plain wrong, wrong, wrong - as wrong as a bagful of very
>> >wrong things.
>>
>> Munch would have angsted endlessly over such an act - he's ruled out.
>
>Agreed. He don't have the cojones for it neither.
Right.
>
>> Beau
>> had motive - his partner was shot and so was he - but he would have been
>too
>> likely a suspect.
>
>Like, who's going to investigate?
Right, plus Beau could hardly hobble around his hospital room.
>
>> The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
>> name.
>
>The new, young, idealistic guy who knows shit about nothing.
And Timmy never would have tried to hard to solve the case if he'd done it. And
remember, he was always a bad liar.
>
>> Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
>> shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
>
>Nah, Gee's a by-the-book guy. My supervisor maintains
>that a fundamental distinction can be made between people's
>essential fears in that some fear absolute order and some fear
>total chaos. I reckon Gee fears chaos and is motivated to
>ensure that order is maintained. Beau fears order and
>positively foments chaos. Whoever killed Pratt is comfortable
>with chaos.
>
If Gee feared chaos, he never would have spent so much time leaking stories to
the press.
Besides, Gee isn't a strictly by-the-book guy. He's known to bend the rules,
sometimes twisting them to his own advantage against the Doublemint Twins and
others.
Gee did it.
Reina De Paréntesis
Diane
<PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote:
<snip theories>
>The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
>name.
<snip>
No. This is often cited as evidence for some theory or another, but
the caller (the owner of the hotel) asked for Pembleton OR Bayliss,
"and since Pembleton isn't around..." (Naomi).
Unless Naomi's in on it.
Diane
Petey Blue
><snip theories>
>>The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
>>name.
><snip>
>
>No. This is often cited as evidence for some theory or another, but
>the caller (the owner of the hotel) asked for Pembleton OR Bayliss,
>"and since Pembleton isn't around..." (Naomi).
>
>Unless Naomi's in on it.
Sorry - a caller asking for both is twice as queer. The fact that some
citizen caller off the street knew *both* their names makes it even *harder*
to swallow than a cold caller just knowing Tim's name alone. It literally
screams that an *insider* was involved in steering the case to Bayliss.
IIRC it was the end of the shift - Gee could have easily determined that
Bayliss was still at the station house, totally zonked and that Frank
wasn't. Asking for either Frank or Tim at the point would just be a ruse -
he knew who would catch the case.
Think about it - the writers made a very deliberate point of Bayliss being
called by name by someone allegedly at the scene who shouldn't know
*anyone's* name at the PD. The case was deliberately steered to
sleep-deprived rookie Tim. Who could manage that without arousing very much
suspicion - especially in Tim's mind? Gee. That's who.
Does anyone recall way Bayliss pulled an all-night shift? Did Gee set that
up?
Something's rotten in Eromitlab!
Pete - still thinks all the clues needed to solve the crime are there. We
just haven't assembled them properly.
Petey Blue
>Right, plus Beau could hardly hobble around his hospital room.
Yes - then there's that issue to consider.
>And Timmy never would have tried to hard to solve the case if he'd done it.
And
>remember, he was always a bad liar.
It could never have been Timmy, not at that point.
>>> Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
>>> shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
>>
>>Nah, Gee's a by-the-book guy. My supervisor maintains
>>that a fundamental distinction can be made between people's
>>essential fears in that some fear absolute order and some fear
>>total chaos. I reckon Gee fears chaos and is motivated to
>>ensure that order is maintained. Beau fears order and
>>positively foments chaos. Whoever killed Pratt is comfortable
>>with chaos.
>>
>
>If Gee feared chaos, he never would have spent so much time leaking stories
to
>the press.
Excellent point - Gee was a total pragmatist and would do whatever it took
to get the job done. He could have easily involved Naomi by explaining to
her that they could both get out from under the mistake about the address if
Timmy caught the case and bumbled it like he did the Adena case. He would
never have to let on to her that Gee himself was the killer. And I am sure
Gee had a great deal of guilt over the mistake and wanted to see it
disappear, which it would do if Pratt never came to trial. He had, in fact,
several juicy motives to kill Pratt - coverup of his own error, revenge
against the man who decimated his squad and the need to get cop killers off
the street - permanently.
>Gee did it.
>Reina De Paréntesis
Gee did it.
Petey Blue
David A McIntee
"Petey Blue" <PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote
<snip>
No conspiracy needed- the guy making the call was the building
owner/supervisor, and Pembleton and Bayliss had introduced themselves to him
when he tried to get through the police line when the pair were first
investigating the shooting.
Obviously they were the only two he knew by name
La Reina
>
>Sorry - a caller asking for both is twice as queer. The fact that some
>citizen caller off the street knew *both* their names makes it even *harder*
>to swallow than a cold caller just knowing Tim's name alone. It literally
>screams that an *insider* was involved in steering the case to Bayliss.
>IIRC it was the end of the shift - Gee could have easily determined that
>Bayliss was still at the station house, totally zonked and that Frank
>wasn't. Asking for either Frank or Tim at the point would just be a ruse
>-
>he knew who would catch the case.
>
>Think about it - the writers made a very deliberate point of Bayliss being
>called by name by someone allegedly at the scene who shouldn't know
>*anyone's* name at the PD. The case was deliberately steered to
>sleep-deprived rookie Tim. Who could manage that without arousing very
>much
>suspicion - especially in Tim's mind? Gee. That's who.
Further evidence to support me Gee did it theory! Thanks, Pete.
>
>Does anyone recall way Bayliss pulled an all-night shift? Did Gee set that
>up?
I thought he just stopped in to pick up a duffle bag or something after
drinking at the Waterfront? Didn't he tell Russert something like, "You know
the best part of owning a bar? Free beer." I always figured he was tipsy, not
sleep-deprived, and wondered who decided to give him the keys to a Cav.
Reina De Paréntesis
PaulJ
> Alina Holgate wrote:
>
> Munch would have angsted endlessly over such an act - he's ruled out.
After the fact, maybe. But the guy's got a temper on him, right
enough.
Beau
> had motive - his partner was shot and so was he - but he would have been too
> likely a suspect. The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
> name. Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
> shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
>
> Pete
What about Pembleton? Pratt beat him in the Box, which Frank does not
forgive, he finally snaps right after that, shoving Munch across the
Coffee Room, and then leaves the building. His alibi "I went to get
some, um...gasoline" or words to that effect, is pathetic, and his
absolute moral certainty, that execution is okay because "We're the
good guys" (and take a look at his face after he says that to Tim,
once he's alone) makes him a very likely suspect IMO.
Bear in mind also that, in "Life Everlasting", he is not especially
bothered that Tim killed Rylands - coming up with all sorts of
rationalisations and excuses for the act - merely angry that his
ex-partner is forcing him to turn him in.
(I haven't seen "Fallen Heroes", so I've no idea of his response to
Kellerman's shooting of Mahoney...anybody?)
Could be Russert, of course, if only on the basis that this
possibility is never discussed. :-)
Petey Blue
>
>"Petey Blue" <PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote
>
><snip>
>
>No conspiracy needed- the guy making the call was the building
>owner/supervisor, and Pembleton and Bayliss had introduced themselves to
him
>when he tried to get through the police line when the pair were first
>investigating the shooting.
It's been a long time since I've seen that episode so I'm at a disadvantage
but the conspiracy element seemed sort of obvious to me. The regular
police were definitely conspiring NOT to to respond the the 911 calls
eventually leading the case into Tim's lap. I can't recall for sure if the
man making the call was the owner, whether they were the only cops he had
talked to (it seems there were many, many more on scene than just
Frankentim) and whether it's likely he would remember their names.
I don't recall hearing the owner's voice or seeing a cutaway shot to him
talking to Naomi. We are lead to assume that's what happened but that's
exactly how magicians work - leading their audience through false
assumptions and redirections. I recall there are a lot of evidentiary gaps.
It would be as easy for Gee and Naomi to set that all up so that Tim would
catch the case. Althought it was a long time since I saw that episode I
still remember quite clearly how queer it seemed that someone asked for him
by name and that he caught the case, with Gee's blessing, even though he was
the least likely candidate for it. Despite how tired and ill-suited he was
to catch that case that morning Naomi seemed determined that he take that
call.
Pete - still thinks Gee did it and apologize if my recollection of details
is weak. I'll certainly know what to watch for the next time I see it.
Petey Blue
>What about Pembleton? Pratt beat him in the Box, which Frank does not
>forgive, he finally snaps right after that, shoving Munch across the
>Coffee Room, and then leaves the building. His alibi "I went to get
>some, um...gasoline" or words to that effect, is pathetic, and his
>absolute moral certainty, that execution is okay because "We're the
>good guys" (and take a look at his face after he says that to Tim,
>once he's alone) makes him a very likely suspect IMO.
Too much of a Jesuit. He had trouble firing his gun when it was in
legitimate self-defense. No, I can't see Frank as the hitman.
>Bear in mind also that, in "Life Everlasting", he is not especially
>bothered that Tim killed Rylands - coming up with all sorts of
>rationalisations and excuses for the act - merely angry that his
>ex-partner is forcing him to turn him in.
I thinking he was looking for "legal" outs like self-defense. He couldn't
work his way around the execution-style aspects of the shooting.
>(I haven't seen "Fallen Heroes", so I've no idea of his response to
>Kellerman's shooting of Mahoney...anybody?)
He thought it was a heinous criminal act because the gun was lowered at one
point. That's not our stone-cold bad guy killer.
>Could be Russert, of course, if only on the basis that this
>possibility is never discussed. :-)
Well, it's possible. Maybe that's why she went to France - to join Roman
Polanski in exile!
Pete
La Binsk
Yes, Jamie's theory had a certain irresistable charm. Fortunately, I
managed to resist it <g>.
I also liked Jim King's assertion that it was Tom Fontana who killed
Pratt. :P
La Binsk
*Munch* did it. Definitely. I have no doubts.
PaulJ
> after that episode.
>
IIRC, Mitch has the best alibi of the lot - he's out of town, visiting
his granchildren at the time of the shooting.
David A McIntee
"PaulJ" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a6e1460a.02071...@posting.google.com...
Says who? Himself?
I bet nobody ever checked up on that...
snarkygirl
>PaulJ wrote in message ...
>>(I haven't seen "Fallen Heroes", so I've no idea of his response to
>>Kellerman's shooting of Mahoney...anybody?)
>
>He thought it was a heinous criminal act because the gun was lowered at one
>point.
It was? <g>
I figured Mitch, but a good case has been made for Gee. I think I'll
watch the episodes again this weekend.
snarkygirl
not wishing to resurrect a dead horse
Diane
<PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote:
>David A McIntee wrote in message ...
>>
>>"Petey Blue" <PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote
>>
>><snip>
>>
>>No conspiracy needed- the guy making the call was the building
>>owner/supervisor, and Pembleton and Bayliss had introduced themselves to
>him
>>when he tried to get through the police line when the pair were first
>>investigating the shooting.
>
<snip>
> I can't recall for sure if the
>man making the call was the owner, whether they were the only cops he had
>talked to (it seems there were many, many more on scene than just
>Frankentim) and whether it's likely he would remember their names.
>
>I don't recall hearing the owner's voice or seeing a cutaway shot to him
>talking to Naomi. We are lead to assume that's what happened but that's
>exactly how magicians work - leading their audience through false
>assumptions and redirections.
<snip>
<Bayliss is virtually out the door, a knock against the
directed-to-him-personally theory--10 more seconds and he was gone.>
Naomi: Bayliss!
Bayliss: Hmm...
Naomi: Line one.
Bayliss: Oh no, I work the night shift. This is the day shift; so
you get someone else to take the call, OK?
Naomi: They asked for you.
Bayliss: They asked for me?
Naomi: Yes, they asked for Pembleton or Bayliss, so pick it up, will
ya? <I obviously butchered this quotation earlier.>
Bayliss: All right.
<skipping "Love it here" stuff>
Tim Bayliss, Homicide.
<pause>
Mr. Leibowitz? <as credited in the ep guide>
<pause>
Really?
<pause>
No--um--ah, I'll be right there.
<Cut to front entrance of hotel, Bayliss meeting Leibowitz, the owner
of the hotel>
Bayliss: Called the cops?
Leibowitz: Three times!
Bayliss: Ah...You dialed 911?
Leibowitz: Yes, yes and yes. Each time, the operator told me someone
was on the way.
Also, I think it's a reasonable conjecture that even if Leibowitz
didn't remember Frankentim's names, he would have their cards.
Diane
PaulJ
> "PaulJ" <pg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:a6e1460a.02071...@posting.google.com...
> > > My money's on Mitch, who conveniently disappeared from the guest star
> list
> > > after that episode.
> > >
> >
> > IIRC, Mitch has the best alibi of the lot - he's out of town, visiting
> > his granchildren at the time of the shooting.
>
> Says who? Himself?
>
Says Bayliss.
> I bet nobody ever checked up on that...
>
In point of fact, the only alibi which Bayliss is not able to confirm
in "Law & Disorder" is Munch's (although Gee is neither asked for, nor
offers, an alibi).
That episode's recap sequence also focuses almost exclusively upon
Munch's response to the Pratt affair, which seems pretty suggestive to
me...
PaulJ
> still remember quite clearly how queer it seemed that someone asked for him
> by name and that he caught the case, with Gee's blessing, even though he was
> the least likely candidate for it. Despite how tired and ill-suited he was
> to catch that case that morning Naomi seemed determined that he take that
> call.
If Gee (or whoever), had wanted to rig matters so that the case would
not be solved, then why not leave it in the hands of Russert's (by all
accounts deeply incompetent) shift?
Why give it to Bayliss at all? Okay, so he's still a little wet behind
the ears, but he's been on the job for three years and you <know> that
he never lets go...
Nope: the conspiracy stuff just doesn't quite ring true for me.
Petey Blue
>If Gee (or whoever), had wanted to rig matters so that the case would
>not be solved, then why not leave it in the hands of Russert's (by all
>accounts deeply incompetent) shift?
Because he wouldn't have direct control of the investigation and Russert
could hire a new hot-shot like Falsone who could crack thirty-year-old cases
while eating a peach. Gee's too smart for that. He wanted it buried and
the best way to do that was to get the case in the hands of someone he could
monitor closely and overwhelm with other work any time Tim appeared to be
getting too close. IIRC, that's sort of what ending up happening, isn't it?
>Why give it to Bayliss at all? Okay, so he's still a little wet behind
>the ears, but he's been on the job for three years and you <know> that
>he never lets go...
Control. He could maneuver Bayliss easily. Who's the person most likely to
set the tone for a detective's devotion to a case? His boss. Gee.
>Nope: the conspiracy stuff just doesn't quite ring true for me.
So who do you think was making the decisions for sector cars not to respond?
The 911 dispatcher? The beat cops themselves? Their sergeant? Their watch
commander? It's hard for me *not* to see conspiracy when three different
calls on a high profile murder lead to no cop appearing on the scene and for
the intake to then go to a homicide detective who's drunk?
Again, these are just my recollections. I haven't seen that episode in two
years. It should be repeating here in the states in a two weeks so I'll try
to catch it then. I still think all the clues are there and that we just
haven't pieced them together. I'll be sure to watch with all of the issues
we've discussed in mind.
Pete
Petey Blue
>>I don't recall hearing the owner's voice or seeing a cutaway shot to him
>>talking to Naomi. We are lead to assume that's what happened but that's
>>exactly how magicians work - leading their audience through false
>>assumptions and redirections.
><snip>
>
><Bayliss is virtually out the door, a knock against the
>directed-to-him-personally theory--10 more seconds and he was gone.>
>Naomi: Bayliss!
>Bayliss: Hmm...
>Naomi: Line one.
>Bayliss: Oh no, I work the night shift. This is the day shift; so
>you get someone else to take the call, OK?
>Naomi: They asked for you.
>Bayliss: They asked for me?
>Naomi: Yes, they asked for Pembleton or Bayliss, so pick it up, will
>ya? <I obviously butchered this quotation earlier.>
>Bayliss: All right.
><skipping "Love it here" stuff>
> Tim Bayliss, Homicide.
> <pause>
> Mr. Leibowitz? <as credited in the ep guide>
What do you mean "as credited?" Credited as the man making *that* phone
call or as the man who owned the building? I maintain we're still not sure
we know who Tim's talking to on the phone.
> <pause>
> Really?
> <pause>
> No--um--ah, I'll be right there.
><Cut to front entrance of hotel, Bayliss meeting Leibowitz, the owner
>of the hotel>
>Bayliss: Called the cops?
>Leibowitz: Three times!
>Bayliss: Ah...You dialed 911?
>Leibowitz: Yes, yes and yes. Each time, the operator told me someone
>was on the way.
More than one person has been known to call in a crime. We can assume
that it was this guy, but we can't say for sure. But it brings up an
interesting question. Why did the cops not show up? Was it a "blue flu"
reaction that said "we don't work hard to solve the murders of cop
shooters?" Was someone at HQ maneuvering the situation so that the
investigation would fall to Bayliss? We don't know that, either - but we do
know that someone was unusual with the lack of response, something that
completely bypassed the normal way cases are handed out.
>Also, I think it's a reasonable conjecture that even if Leibowitz
>didn't remember Frankentim's names, he would have their cards.
I not quite so sure that cops distribute cards at a crime scene quite the
way Lt. Colonel William 'Bill' Kilgore did with 7th Air Cavalry playing
cards in "Apocalypse Now" but it's possible. What troubles me is that if
it's critical to the plot, there always seems to be a business card scene
where the detective says "if you think of anything else." Now sometimes the
recipient tears it up right then and there but sometimes not. Absent that
sort of scene we can't really be sure it's him. If they gave out their
cards might they not have given them out to *all* the residents? Might not
any one of them called 911 because the wanted the body removed before they
had to step over it to get to work? Conjecture can bring in a whole
universe of "what if's" that broaden, not narrow, the playing field.
Detectives want the latter.
While there are lots of opportunities for all sorts of supposition I'm
trying to constrain myself to what we are told and know for certain. And
the one thing that sticks strongly in my mind is that we get very specific
information as to who has an alibi and who doesn't. That's a pretty big
clue. From there you work it like a straight-up murder and you ask: who has
motive - who has opportunity - all the usual questions of the usual
suspects.
I'll be certain to keep all the points brought up in this thread for my next
viewing of that arc. I think the writer(s) always knew who did it and even
if they didn't intend to ever tell us, they left evidence.
Pete
Petey Blue
>In point of fact, the only alibi which Bayliss is not able to confirm
>in "Law & Disorder" is Munch's (although Gee is neither asked for, nor
>offers, an alibi).
>
>That episode's recap sequence also focuses almost exclusively upon
>Munch's response to the Pratt affair, which seems pretty suggestive to
>me...
There's no doubt that there are some significant clues that point to the
Munchkin (including the talk he had with Bayliss in the movie). But I have
basic problems with his character being able to commit cold-blooded murder.
A good case could be made for a Munch/Gee conspiracy, though . . .
Pete
Shel
<PETEY...@YAH00.C0M> wrote:
>There's no doubt that there are some significant clues that point to the
>Munchkin (including the talk he had with Bayliss in the movie). But I have
>basic problems with his character being able to commit cold-blooded murder.
>A good case could be made for a Munch/Gee conspiracy, though . . .
Sure! After all, to whom did Munchkin turn when dismayed by a
de-miserabled Stanley? There's a history of mayhem and conspiracy
between the two.
--
Shel
PaulJ
> PaulJ wrote in message ...
>
> >What about Pembleton? Pratt beat him in the Box, which Frank does not
> >forgive, he finally snaps right after that, shoving Munch across the
> >Coffee Room, and then leaves the building. His alibi "I went to get
> >some, um...gasoline" or words to that effect, is pathetic, and his
> >absolute moral certainty, that execution is okay because "We're the
> >good guys" (and take a look at his face after he says that to Tim,
> >once he's alone) makes him a very likely suspect IMO.
>
> Too much of a Jesuit. He had trouble firing his gun when it was in
> legitimate self-defense. No, I can't see Frank as the hitman.
>
>
> >(I haven't seen "Fallen Heroes", so I've no idea of his response to
> >Kellerman's shooting of Mahoney...anybody?)
>
> He thought it was a heinous criminal act because the gun was lowered at one
> point. That's not our stone-cold bad guy killer.
>
Hmmm... Not sure about this. My reading of Frank is that he sees the
law as a means towards vengeance. I suspect part of his problem with
the Mahoney shooting was that Lewis, Kellerman and Stivers had him
bang to rights, and buggered up what should have been a perfectly
competent arrest. His attitude to Pratt, on the other hand, seems to
be: let the system do its work, and if that fails, and you know your
suspect to be guilty, then go right ahead and mete out justice
yourself. This is certainly backed up his justification to Bayliss of
the Pratt murder - "We're the good guys".
Not that I'm selling Frank as the killer here - really, I'm just
playing devil's advocate, and I still Munch is the guy - but I do feel
that Frank would be able to make a distinction between the two
killings with which he would feel comfortable and upon which he could,
just possibly, act.
Pre-stroke, at any rate.
Shel
<snip>
>Not that I'm selling Frank as the killer here - really, I'm just
>playing devil's advocate, and I still Munch is the guy - but I do feel
>that Frank would be able to make a distinction between the two
>killings with which he would feel comfortable and upon which he could,
>just possibly, act.
Later evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't want to give away
any spoilers if you haven't seen the movie.
>Pre-stroke, at any rate.
In the long run the stroke became a non-issue.
--
Shel
PaulJ
> On 26 Jul 2002 23:28:08 -0700, pg...@hotmail.com (PaulJ) wrote:
>
>
> <snip>
>
> >Not that I'm selling Frank as the killer here - really, I'm just
> >playing devil's advocate, and I still Munch is the guy - but I do feel
> >that Frank would be able to make a distinction between the two
> >killings with which he would feel comfortable and upon which he could,
> >just possibly, act.
>
> Later evidence suggests otherwise, but I wouldn't want to give away
> any spoilers if you haven't seen the movie.
Well, I don't have an R1 DVD player, and it's unlikely ever to get a
screening here, but I have read a version of the script and, although
I don't know how Braugher plays this scene, one possible <reading> of
it is that Frank is chiefly angry at having to be the one who takes
Tim in. After all, what he does is, first, to offer Tim a variety of
excuses for the Ryland shooting, and then try to pass the buck for
arresting Bayliss, who clearly is not going to take "no" for an
answer, onto Lewis.
On the strength of the script, therefore, I have no way of knowing
whether or not Frank is angry over the fact that his ex-partner took
the law into his own hands.
And, anyway, why shouldn't he be? He prays in "Fallen Heroes", he's
now teaching in a seminary: maybe he's had some sort of rapprochement
with God, and has changed his views slightly in accordance with that.
He ain't absolving people (which he offers to do in "Mercy") any more,
that's for certain, so maybe he no longer believes that just being one
of "the good guys" confers the right to kill.
But he sure as Hell does in "Endgame".
PaulJ
> But he sure as Hell does in "Endgame".
Or, even, "Law & Disorder". Sorry.
"Once a rookie, always a rookie", I suppose.
Shel
<snip>
>And, anyway, why shouldn't he be? He prays in "Fallen Heroes", he's
>now teaching in a seminary: maybe he's had some sort of rapprochement
>with God, and has changed his views slightly in accordance with that.
>He ain't absolving people (which he offers to do in "Mercy") any more,
>that's for certain, so maybe he no longer believes that just being one
>of "the good guys" confers the right to kill.
Nice theory, PaulJ, but...er, what's your position on spoilers? You
seen season six yet?
--
Shel
PaulJ
Not for a while, no, and "Fallen Heroes" not at all - I'm going on
what I've read/been told, as I say.
And, where spoilers are concerned: bring 'em on.
morph
PaulJ wrote:
>
> Okay: Seasons 1 - 3. About 1/3 of S4. S5 excluding the opening and
> closing two parters and Deception, S6 up to Finnegan's Wake. The
> Movie.
>
noted. thanks. s6 up to finn wake? you made that up didn't ya? you have no idea what in season 6 or 7 you
have seen!!!!
morph- sorry pj11, i had to. nothin personal. i'm a bit cynical. nice has to be smushed in my face before
i entertain trusting it. have some patience with me, please?
PaulJ
> PaulJ wrote:
>
> >
> > Okay: Seasons 1 - 3. About 1/3 of S4. S5 excluding the opening and
> > closing two parters and Deception, S6 up to Finnegan's Wake. The
> > Movie.
> >
>
> noted. thanks. s6 up to finn wake? you made that up didn't ya? you have no idea what in season 6 or 7 you
> have seen!!!!
Hmmm... Old Irish cop...Adena Watson references...John Seda <singing>.
Yup - fairly sure I've seen it. And I have a very good idea what i've
seen of S7: zero.
>
> morph- sorry pj11, i had to. nothin personal. i'm a bit cynical. nice has to be smushed in my face before
> i entertain trusting it. have some patience with me, please?
Okey-dokey.
Patrick
>I'm jes havin a tough time translating your points on Pratt to
>Ryland. The 2 situations are distinctly different to me.
Of course they're different. Bayliss killed Ryland and Munch killed
Pratt. -.-
>I'll reiterate that with the supposition that Frank wouldn't mind if Tim killed Pratt as much as he
>minds that Tim killed Ryland. With Pratt, he would've shaken Tim's hand. with ryland, it was just
>mr. jones is a vigilante, which Frank cannot accept and never will.
I never thought about it much until I saw this post, but exactly what
*are* the differences between the Pratt killing and the Ryland killing
that might have been relevant from Frank's point of view in excusing
the former but not the latter? The facts can be divided into three
groups: those that might make the Pratt killing seem more excusable,
those that might make the Ryland killing seem more excusable, and
those that don't cut clearly either way. Here's what I come up with:
Don't cut clearly either way: (1) both Pratt and Ryland were clearly
guilty; (2) the criminal justice system had taken a shot at nailing
each of them legitimately and had failed; (3) both had pretty much
taunted the detectives in one way or another; (4) neither was
apparently doing anything immediately threatening when killed.
Pratt killing seems more excusable: (1) the people Pratt attacked were
detectives while those Ryland attacked were civilians; (2) Pratt
himself forced his release by asking for an attorney, thus terminating
Frank's interrogation, while Ryland just sat there as Danvers screwed
up; (3) much less time passed between Pratt's release and his murder
than with Ryland, so Pratt's murder, while probably premeditated,
could be viewed as more a "heat of passion" act.
Ryland killing seems more excusable: (1) Ryland actually killed his
victims, while Pratt only attempted to kill the detectives; (2) Ryland
instigated his attacks without any apparent provocation, while Pratt
at least believed (mistakenly) that he was being cornered when he
attacked; (3) Ryland was making plausible threats to kill more people
in the future when he was taken out.
Now all these classifications are open to dispute and I might have
overlooked some relevant facts that could go into the "Pratt
excusable" category (please point them out). I invite further
analysis along these lines. But at the moment, the more I think about
it the more the balance tips in favor of the Ryland killing being more
excusable (more precisely, less inexcusable) than the Pratt killing.
While the first two reasons I've listed for excusing the Pratt killing
might be persuasive from Frank's particular point of view, neither is
objectively very compelling. And Ryland, while hard to take seriously
as a character for many reasons, was, taken at face value, a much more
menacing dude than Pratt.
So, assuming (as I think the evidence supports) that Frank would have
viewed the Pratt killing as excusable and the Ryland killing as
inexcusable, do you think it's just because of Frank's personal issues
(Pratt shot detectives Frank knew and worked with, and Pratt beat
Frank in the box to win his release)?
Ponderingly, Patrick
Kayleigh19
>morph <oneir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm jes havin a tough time translating your points on Pratt to
>>Ryland. The 2 situations are distinctly different to me.
>
>Of course they're different. Bayliss killed Ryland and Munch killed
>Pratt. -.-
Watch out -- soon, Morph will be editing your dreams for *that* crack!
>>I'll reiterate that with the supposition that Frank wouldn't mind if Tim
>killed Pratt as much as he
>>minds that Tim killed Ryland. With Pratt, he would've shaken Tim's hand.
>with ryland, it was just
>>mr. jones is a vigilante, which Frank cannot accept and never will.
>
>I never thought about it much until I saw this post, but exactly what
>*are* the differences between the Pratt killing and the Ryland killing
>that might have been relevant from Frank's point of view in excusing
>the former but not the latter? The facts can be divided into three
>groups: those that might make the Pratt killing seem more excusable,
>those that might make the Ryland killing seem more excusable, and
>those that don't cut clearly either way. Here's what I come up with:
Interesting query, and one that I never really thought about until it was
mentioned herer, eye-ther....
>Don't cut clearly either way: (1) both Pratt and Ryland were clearly
>guilty; (2) the criminal justice system had taken a shot at nailing
>each of them legitimately and had failed; (3) both had pretty much
>taunted the detectives in one way or another; (4) neither was
>apparently doing anything immediately threatening when killed.
I agree with all but #4 -- Ryland, while not threatening anyone *at that
particular second* had, most assuredly, threatened the women of whatever
locality he was moving to directly to Tim. Now, while that wasn't an
"immediate danger" situation, Tim knew that Ryland fully intended to make good
on that promise, so yes -- there was *some* threat involved in that case.
>Pratt killing seems more excusable: (1) the people Pratt attacked were
>detectives while those Ryland attacked were civilians; (2) Pratt
>himself forced his release by asking for an attorney, thus terminating
>Frank's interrogation, while Ryland just sat there as Danvers screwed
>up; (3) much less time passed between Pratt's release and his murder
>than with Ryland, so Pratt's murder, while probably premeditated,
>could be viewed as more a "heat of passion" act.
Well, I could argue that both killings had "heat of passion" elements to them
-- Munch killed Pratt in the heat of the moment as retribution for his
coworkers getting shot, while Tim killed Ryland in the heat of the moment,
seeing justice go blind in this case, knowing full well Ryland intended to kill
again.
>Ryland killing seems more excusable: (1) Ryland actually killed his
>victims, while Pratt only attempted to kill the detectives; (2) Ryland
>instigated his attacks without any apparent provocation, while Pratt
>at least believed (mistakenly) that he was being cornered when he
>attacked; (3) Ryland was making plausible threats to kill more people
>in the future when he was taken out.
Again, all agreed points.
>Now all these classifications are open to dispute and I might have
>overlooked some relevant facts that could go into the "Pratt
>excusable" category (please point them out). I invite further
>analysis along these lines. But at the moment, the more I think about
>it the more the balance tips in favor of the Ryland killing being more
>excusable (more precisely, less inexcusable) than the Pratt killing.
>While the first two reasons I've listed for excusing the Pratt killing
>might be persuasive from Frank's particular point of view, neither is
>objectively very compelling. And Ryland, while hard to take seriously
>as a character for many reasons, was, taken at face value, a much more
>menacing dude than Pratt.
Well, Pratt, though bumbling, would have been one of those subversives that
would chip away at his targets (ie, police, banking, whatever...) little by
little, while Ryland would just plain kill. It's not that one was more
menacing than the other, it was that Pratt was more likely to screw up, or lose
his nerve. Ryland had already killed, and liked it.
>So, assuming (as I think the evidence supports) that Frank would have
>viewed the Pratt killing as excusable and the Ryland killing as
>inexcusable, do you think it's just because of Frank's personal issues
>(Pratt shot detectives Frank knew and worked with, and Pratt beat
>Frank in the box to win his release)?
I think that Frank would never see either killing as "excusable", but would
understand how they could have happened. I think the main reason that he tried
to give Bayliss an out was because he always thought that Tim didn't have the
killer instinct, and to find that Tim *did* have the killer instinct after all
really threw his perceptions out of whack. Tim was the last person that Frank
ever expected to go off the deep end, and to admit that Tim was capable of a
stone-cold murder would make Tim like all the other mokes they'd hoisted down
to the station all those years.
>Ponderingly, Patrick
Interestedly,
KLee
Petey Blue
> Hmmm... Not sure about this. My reading of Frank is that he sees the
> law as a means towards vengeance. I suspect part of his problem with
> the Mahoney shooting was that Lewis, Kellerman and Stivers had him
> bang to rights, and buggered up what should have been a perfectly
> competent arrest. His attitude to Pratt, on the other hand, seems to
> be: let the system do its work, and if that fails, and you know your
> suspect to be guilty, then go right ahead and mete out justice
> yourself. This is certainly backed up his justification to Bayliss of
> the Pratt murder - "We're the good guys".
I don't think he would have reacted any differently to Tim's killing Ryland
than he would to Tim's killing Pratt (for the sake of argument). I can
easily see him helping Bayliss out of the rap *through the law* but refusing
to absolve him, which has strong religious connotations, at least in his
lapsed-Catholic mind.
We know he turned Bayliss in, but he had to in order to save his life and
allow Tim to come to grips with what he had done. He knew him well enough
to know such a secret would have eaten away his soul. And it would have
eaten away angsting Munch, the existentialist worry-wart. It's got to be
Gee because of the motive - it was Gee's mistake on the warrant that got his
detectives shot. He was quaking with rage at Pratt at one point. And then
he got all cold smiles and friendly and insisted that Bayliss work the case
without assistance.
, I'm just
> playing devil's advocate, and I still Munch is the guy - but I do feel
> that Frank would be able to make a distinction between the two
> killings with which he would feel comfortable and upon which he could,
> just possibly, act.
I don't think so - and his willingness to arrest the euthanizing doctor in
"I've Got a Secret" confirms that he's pretty rigid about what is murder and
what happens to people who commit it or anything that looks like it.
> Pre-stroke, at any rate.
Mebbe.
Pete
morph
Kayleigh19 wrote:
> Patrick had some insightful discourse:
>
> >morph <oneir...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I'm jes havin a tough time translating your points on Pratt to
> >>Ryland. The 2 situations are distinctly different to me.
> >
> >Of course they're different. Bayliss killed Ryland and Munch killed
> >Pratt. -.-
>
> Watch out -- soon, Morph will be editing your dreams for *that* crack!
>
sadly, that day is jes bout upon us. if any of y'all get a midmorning call from
patrick and he's ranting loony-tunes and says the world is coming to an end in 5
minutes.....just say ya told him so and hang up. actually, members of this group is
well-advised to inch there way into his will now. cuz patrick has some problems
coming up. major problems. suicidal problems. godlet problems!!!!! :)
> >>I'll reiterate that with the supposition that Frank wouldn't mind if Tim
> >killed Pratt as much as he
> >>minds that Tim killed Ryland. With Pratt, he would've shaken Tim's hand.
> >with ryland, it was just
> >>mr. jones is a vigilante, which Frank cannot accept and never will.
> >
> >I never thought about it much until I saw this post, but exactly what
> >*are* the differences between the Pratt killing and the Ryland killing
> >that might have been relevant from Frank's point of view in excusing
> >the former but not the latter? The facts can be divided into three
> >groups: those that might make the Pratt killing seem more excusable,
> >those that might make the Ryland killing seem more excusable, and
> >those that don't cut clearly either way. Here's what I come up with:
>
> Interesting query, and one that I never really thought about until it was
> mentioned herer, eye-ther....
>
seriously here, i am a bit surprised at both of ya. Frank reacted diffly to both
scenarios. that is the given. wondering why that happened is supposed to be an
instinct. of course, diff writing and diff cast and diff approach to show etc
etc...but to define pembleton's char, I'd thinik it natural to examine the
differences(i can spell the word, it's just too frikkin long!) between the
shootings.
>
> >Don't cut clearly either way: (1) both Pratt and Ryland were clearly
> >guilty; (2) the criminal justice system had taken a shot at nailing
> >each of them legitimately and had failed; (3) both had pretty much
> >taunted the detectives in one way or another; (4) neither was
> >apparently doing anything immediately threatening when killed.
>
> I agree with all but #4 -- Ryland, while not threatening anyone *at that
> particular second* had, most assuredly, threatened the women of whatever
> locality he was moving to directly to Tim. Now, while that wasn't an
> "immediate danger" situation, Tim knew that Ryland fully intended to make good
> on that promise, so yes -- there was *some* threat involved in that case.
that is a taunt. not a threat.
>
> >Pratt killing seems more excusable: (1) the people Pratt attacked were
> >detectives while those Ryland attacked were civilians; (2) Pratt
> >himself forced his release by asking for an attorney, thus terminating
> >Frank's interrogation, while Ryland just sat there as Danvers screwed
> >up; (3) much less time passed between Pratt's release and his murder
> >than with Ryland, so Pratt's murder, while probably premeditated,
> >could be viewed as more a "heat of passion" act.
ketchup, you are such a lawyer. which we need and i adore mind ya, but it's
tunnelling yer vision here. i mean, i think it is.
my thinkin goes the opposite direction, in frank's mind as you will sorta.
> >So, assuming (as I think the evidence supports) that Frank would have
> >viewed the Pratt killing as excusable and the Ryland killing as
> >inexcusable, do you think it's just because of Frank's personal issues
> >(Pratt shot detectives Frank knew and worked with, and Pratt beat
> >Frank in the box to win his release)?
yes and no. In franks mind, he is the only one who can pass judgement there because
he is the always the last one to pass judgement. Him being beat in the box is a
greater offense to him than Tim being beat. That is true. It has little to do with
the problem.
frank didn't kill Pratt. and yet frank lost to him in the box(franks area of
expertise). So tim has no justification to kill ryland-who beat tim and taunted
him. Frank would have rathered Kay or Beau or Mikey had killed Ryland, than Tim. He
sees it as a weakness of giving into a revenge thing as opposed to the greater good
thing. Frank is above killing Pratt, but would understand if any other detective
killed him, because it was a cop.
Frank thinks Tim killed him umm, well, it gets messy here. Frank aknowledges the
searching for identity crisis Bayliss is undergoing, but does not ACCEPT sloppy
police work, or blatant revenge disguised as vigilante justice.
>
> I think that Frank would never see either killing as "excusable", but would
> understand how they could have happened. I think the main reason that he tried
> to give Bayliss an out was because he always thought that Tim didn't have the
> killer instinct, and to find that Tim *did* have the killer instinct after all
> really threw his perceptions out of whack. Tim was the last person that Frank
> ever expected to go off the deep end, and to admit that Tim was capable of a
> stone-cold murder would make Tim like all the other mokes they'd hoisted down
> to the station all those years.
>
> >Ponderingly, Patrick
>
yeah? 57? ponder on this why don't ya!!!! hmmm. waita2nd. i agree with this
paragraph. damn. i had some good insults lined up also! drat drat and ehhhh
doubledrat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Interestedly,
> KLee
Frank turned Tim in for this unforgivable but excusable killing because.....Frank
never wanted to work with Tim in the 1st place. The whining, the sexual phobias,
the religious meanderings, the religiousness of sexual meanderings.....lets face
it, tim was a friggin mess! AND, he wasn't even that cute!!! how doya like them
apples? Mikey was cuter. I think frank could forgive Mikey for Lut...waita2nd.
Frank didn't forgive that did he?
morph- frank was hoping Tim was above the act, and was greatly disappointed. again.
so he did his job.
Patrick
>seriously here, i am a bit surprised at both of ya.
I was a bit surprised at myself. 8^)
>Frank reacted diffly to both
>scenarios. that is the given. wondering why that happened is supposed to be an
>instinct. of course, diff writing and diff cast and diff approach to show etc
>etc...but to define pembleton's char, I'd thinik it natural to examine the
>differences(i can spell the word, it's just too frikkin long!) between the
>shootings.
>
>yes and no. In franks mind, he is the only one who can pass judgement there because
>he is the always the last one to pass judgement. Him being beat in the box is a
>greater offense to him than Tim being beat. That is true. It has little to do with
>the problem.
I think that's right.
>frank didn't kill Pratt. and yet frank lost to him in the box(franks area of
>expertise). So tim has no justification to kill ryland-who beat tim and taunted
>him. Frank would have rathered Kay or Beau or Mikey had killed Ryland, than Tim. He
>sees it as a weakness of giving into a revenge thing as opposed to the greater good
>thing. Frank is above killing Pratt, but would understand if any other detective
>killed him, because it was a cop.
Isn't there a difference between understanding a killing and
justifying it? Frank probably understood most of the killers he
busted -- that's why he was so good in the box -- but he didn't think
they were justified so he busted them anyway. I get that Frank would
have been more surprised and personally disappointed by Tim's killing
of Ryland, but I still don't get why Frank would *not* have wanted to
see, say, Beau Felton or John Munch busted for killing Pratt. I don't
think it was just because it wasn't Frank's case.
>Frank thinks Tim killed him umm, well, it gets messy here. Frank aknowledges the
>searching for identity crisis Bayliss is undergoing, but does not ACCEPT sloppy
>police work, or blatant revenge disguised as vigilante justice.
I agree that Frank ordinarily wouldn't accept those things, but I
don't think it's just a Tim thing; I think he wouldn't accept them
from anyone. So why the exception in the Pratt case?
--Patrick
Alina Holgate
> Isn't there a difference between understanding a killing and
> justifying it? Frank probably understood most of the killers he
> busted -- that's why he was so good in the box -- but he didn't think
> they were justified so he busted them anyway. I get that Frank would
> have been more surprised and personally disappointed by Tim's killing
> of Ryland, but I still don't get why Frank would *not* have wanted to
> see, say, Beau Felton or John Munch busted for killing Pratt. I don't
> think it was just because it wasn't Frank's case.
But Frank never took the outcome personally because he
was professional in the execution of his duties. There's
some speech Frank made somewhere (I'm not making this
up, OK) where he made this very point. That all he could
do was do his job. He could not concern himself with
what the justice system subsequently made of the case
because that was outside of his control and concerning
himself with this was not part of his role. His job was to
get people to crack in the box and make a good case.
And he performed his link in the chain very well, regardless
of what the justice system subsequently made of it. When
he was given the task of cracking Kellerman he did it.
Regardless of outcome. If he had been given the task of
cracking Munch or Beau for the Pratt killing he would have
executed his role properly.
That's why the cases where Frank became personally
involved in the judicial outcome came as such a shock.
The cases I can think of are: the early one where he warns
the kid not to trust anyone in prison; JMJ; the girl who
killed her father and Tim. In 3 of these cases the
commonality is that you have very vulnerable perps. who
won't survive prison.
So I'm basically arguing that Frank wasn't concerned
about breaking whoever killed Pratt because it wasn't
his job (but if it were his job then he would have done
it properly) and that under ordinary circumstances he
had learned to be indifferent to what the justice system
made of his cases. It was only cases where he was
personally invested in thinking about the judicial
consequences of the case that he got bent out of shape.
jeffreyza...@gmail.com
Robert Green
had motive - his partner was shot and so was he - but he would have been too
likely a suspect. The caller that reported the murder asked for Bayliss by
name. Who could set that all in motion? Whose mistake led to them getting
shot? Who's part Italian and knows the code of silence? Gee.
<jeffreyza...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c2cd9364-a6fb-4060...@googlegroups.com...
