Review of "The Brotherhood" (Wednesday, September 29, 2004 NBC Episode)
Walt Parker
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Interesting opening sequence where a couple with the woman in labor
discover the dead body, especially where the woman rushed her to call
911, with her first thinking it was for the her soon-to-be born child
rather than the dead body. Also, nice touch with the body turning out
to be an ex-prisoner, who was drunk, and suffering a skull fracture.
It looked at first like the killer was a man who "stuck him up" and
forced the victim (Billy Trammell) to spend time upstate for robbery
in Queens. After going to him and a woman who noted that Billy was
harrassing her and telling her boyfriend about that, Joe and Ed first
look for him at his job, where they find picks circled on a racing
page and realize he was at the OTB where they arrest him (Note: They
seemed to film that scene at the OTB that runs from Park Place to the
other end of the block west of Church Street, also, anyone notice how
they used NBC footage from a Kentucky Derby telecast in all
likelyhood?). The boyfriend is cleared because he was at Foxwoods (an
Indian Gaming and Hotel complex in Connecticuit about two hours from
New York) at the time the killing of Trammel happened).
Like the way Joe and Ed get down to what really happened, with two
prisoners being accusing a Corrections Officer (John Worley) of
beating Trammell. Nice dance-around by John and his drinking buddy
(Palmer), especially when it's noted that the CO's believe that it
actually was members of a Group called "The Brotherhood", headed by
Kyle Mardzen who planted drugs with John's son Sean. You could tell it
was going this route as soon as you saw John changing paths on the
story he told Joe and Ed with his wife and Sean present. John is then
scared he'd be killed if he was then locked up in jail.
Like how when Serena then talked to Palmer how that John had been
threatened by Marzden and others and then after Jack and Serena talk
to Marzden they offer Man 1. John's attorney (Rodney Fallon) then
declines, noting how his client is in fear for his life, and after
arguing with Jack in front of the Judge (played by Candace Bergen),
she says this would go to trial.
Like the way at trial how the Prison Warden notes how Worley was
doing his job, and that how it has been dangerous and that other
"Brotherhood" members had killed a CO a year earlier and this year had
stabbled three others in New York State. Nice job later on how a woman
suddenly left a note and walked out, with it threatening the Judge.
Also like how the Judge stuck up and didn't recuse herself, telling
Arthur such, and then how Kyle Marsden while testifying threatened the
Judge.
We then see John Worley testify as to how he and his family was
threatened by Trammell, admitting he then killed Trammell out of fear
for his life. Jack's cross noted how John nor his family was not in
any immediate danger when he killed Trammell, and he does a great job
of pointing out how Trammell could have been put back in jail for
violating his parole.
Nice round of closing arguments by both Fallon and Jack noting the
different sides of the argument, with it ending in a hung jury.
The end had Serena walking in, finding out that John's wife Dina was
missing at the end.
A great episode to which there might be another part to?
Walt
Wade and April
> To all (see below):
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
(Snip some stuff)
> The end had Serena walking in, finding out that John's wife Dina was
> missing at the end.
>
Thank you Walt! I was watching this episode tonight with the sound muted
because I was trying to put a baby to sleep. The closed captioning had
Serena coming in saying "We've just got a call" and then it stayed there and
there were no other captions! I would have had a hard time getting to sleep
tonight....
Wade
MarcColten
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> O
>>
>> I
>>
>> L
>>
>> E
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> A
>>
>> C
>>
>> E
>
>
>A few things:
>
>1) Why was Candice Bergen's voice dubbed? Sometimes it was very obvious.
>
Isn't there a lot of that in TV and movies? I'd always assumed that voices
were recorded as they filmed, but then I heard that they aren't.
>2) I wonder why Worley's wife went missing. Maybe she fled in fear for
>her life? Maybe she was going to kill some Brotherhood herself?
>
She's dead - if she's lucky. As for someone else who asked if there will be
another part - that's unlikely. The same thing happened to other people in
shows from years ago and they were never mentioned again.
>3) Any other 'Boomtown' regulars ever appear on L&O (besides Gary
>Basaraba, who played Worley)?
>
He's apparently part of the repetoirie company. He was on SVU as the guy whose
wife turned out to be her sister.
GBlueOwl
(MarcColten) writes:
>>1) Why was Candice Bergen's voice dubbed? Sometimes it was very obvious.
>>
>
>Isn't there a lot of that in TV and movies? I'd always assumed that voices
>were recorded as they filmed, but then I heard that they aren't.
>
It's often done in movies -almost all of the dialouge (& all the rest of the
sound) of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy was dubbed in post-production, largely
because many of the New Zeland locations in which they shot were actually right
next to airports & such, and the noises of modern day planes, trains &
automobiles was constantly in the background as they were filming. But a
weekly television series wouldn't have time to in effect have everyone re-do
their entire part in a recording studio and then edit it in unless they
absolutely had to to correct a technical problem. I would speculate that
perhaps Ms. Bergen had a cold or something like that durring the week they were
shooting, and as a result some of her lines came out unclear. But after her
cold cleared up they couldn't just dub over the one or two lines that were a
problem because her voice now sounded completely different, so she now had to
redo *all* her dialouge to make it match.
Brian
William December Starr
"Wade and April" <wa...@mchsi.com> said:
spoiler space...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
> Thank you Walt! I was watching this episode tonight with the sound
> muted because I was trying to put a baby to sleep. The closed
> captioning had Serena coming in saying "We've just got a call" and
> then it stayed there and there were no other captions! I would
> have had a hard time getting to sleep tonight....
Huh. I taped the show and watched it later, and thought that the
closed-captioning problems I had were an artifact of problems with my
tape. It got so bad that I turned the CC off about midway through.
As for that ending... aargh. Right from the declaration of the
mistrial, we all just _knew_ that there was going to be an
Announcement Of A Tragic Development in the last ten seconds of the
show, didn't we? I was hoping against hope that they'd surprise us
and _not_ sink into cliche like that, but no such luck. Melodrama,
melodrama, melodrama...
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Jon Sledge
the week they were shooting, and as a result some of her lines came out
unclear. >>
An addiction to hootch will do that too. Maybe she has that "Jack Daniels"
voice?
Jon Sledge
>
What can you expect from any show that has an old queen like "Jack" as the
voice of Morality? Might as well used a Catholic Priest since that is
basically the role of "Jack" on that show. I never watch it past the point
where the Detectives arrest the criminals and the trial begins. I cannot
stand that prissy little bastard.
Brett A. Pasternack
> mistrial, we all just _knew_ that there was going to be an
> Announcement Of A Tragic Development in the last ten seconds of the
> show, didn't we?
Honestly, I had the Announcement Of A Tragic Deveolpment (tm) pegged
well before the end of the trial.
MarcColten
I think we all knew, a lot earlier, that someone was gonna end up dead. The
only question was who.
Walt
>>As for that ending... aargh. Right from the declaration of the mistrial, we
all just _knew_ that there was going to be an Announcement Of A Tragic
Development in the last ten seconds of the show, didn't we? I was hoping
against hope that they'd surprise us and _not_ sink into cliche like that, but
no such luck. Melodrama, melodrama, melodrama...>>
That was somewhat expected by me, especially since Candice Bergen was playing a
role we will see her in periodically in "Trial By Jury." I'm suspecting they
are setting this up to where we have a follow-up episode to "The Brotherhood"
as an early episode of "TBJ" later this season, or even perhaps on the original
as Serena's exit episode.
Walt
E-mail me at: Free...@juno.com
Check out a great web-based "Law & Order" Message board at:
http://www.alhenastar.net/forums/index.php where you can also discuss many
non-"L & O" topics.
Walt
>>I think we all knew, a lot earlier, that someone was gonna end up dead. The
only question was who.>>
They specifically said she was "missing." It's quite possible that later she
winds up dead, but there could also be a follow-up on perhaps "SVU" where she
is actually found raped for instance.
They did leave it open to go another way at some point.
T. G.
> To all (see below):
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
> Nice job later on how a woman
> suddenly left a note and walked out, with it threatening the Judge.
> Also like how the Judge stuck up and didn't recuse herself, telling
> Arthur such, and then how Kyle Marsden while testifying threatened the
> Judge.
I was curious about something related to this. The witness who seemed
to not care if he was found in contempt. What could the judge do to
that guy?
> The end had Serena walking in, [after] finding out that John's
> wife Dina was missing at the end.
Yes. I guess we were supposed to draw our own conclusions as to why.
But how well was this handled? Did the CO and his wife just go their
seperate ways after the trial? Seems more likely they would have
stayed together for a while.
And what about the son who presumably got set up? A line about Jack
or Serena having a word with the prosecutor in the case might have
been nice. But given that the son was probably set up, wouldn't the
whole lot of problems have come to light earlier. Wouldn't the CO
have told the prosecutor and the probably also the LEOs in the case
about his problems. Wouldn't they have been a little bit more excited
about getting The Brotherhood on conspiracy charges of some kind,
rather than the A student son of a CO with a good record?
While I believe that prison gangs are a real danger, the whole thing
seemed somewhat contrived.
Hey Walt, thanks for another good review.
Theget
Peachy Ashie Passion
I don't know. I thought it was sort of important to show that
the guy was so in the wrong. His claim that killing the bad guy was
the only way to protect his family was wrong headed from the start,
and proved to be completely ineffective. He killed the bad guy, and
all he did was start a war with a gang.
--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler
JD Leewong
>
>>3) Any other 'Boomtown' regulars ever appear on L&O (besides Gary
>>Basaraba, who played Worley)?
>>
>
>He's apparently part of the repetoirie company. He was on SVU as the guy
>whose
>wife turned out to be her sister.
>
>
Laurie
William December Starr
bret...@erols.com said:
> Honestly, I had the Announcement Of A Tragic Deveolpment (tm)
> pegged well before the end of the trial.
I figured that if the guy was convicted they'd leave the tragedy --
his suffering what comes normally in prison plus the infinite
compounding that would be laid on by the Brotherhood -- as inevitable
but not immediate.
Rick and Sue Deschene
>
> Honestly, I had the Announcement Of A Tragic Deveolpment (tm) pegged
> well before the end of the trial.
I figured what would happen is that the defendant would be found guilty
and sent to jail . . . which was exactly what the gang was hoping for.
But the wife's nearly constant "deer caught in the headlights" should
have telegraphed her as the ultimate target. Though the thing I can't
figure out is why the prison guard thought killing the guy would solve
all his problems (unless, of course, it's as Jack pointed out, that the
real motive was revenge, not fear of some imminent threat). After all,
it seems to me that there were plenty of guys ready to come out of the
woodwork; it didn't have to be this one person. So didn't he realize
that rather than solving his problem, killing the guy only escalated it?
Sue
GBlueOwl
the...@bigmailbox.net (T. G.) writes:
>Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message
>news:<45f2bb53.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> To all (see below):
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> O
>>
>> I
>>
>> L
>>
>> E
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> A
>>
>> C
>>
>> E
>
>
>While I believe that prison gangs are a real danger, the whole thing
>seemed somewhat contrived.
>
Yes, I just can't buy that a prison gang can pose *that much* of an ominous,
constant danger outside the prison. These are not highly organized,
diciplined, well-connected Mafia types, they're violent thugs who really can't
even function in outside society. If they're on the outside, they're on
parole. How hard would it really be to find the guys who are harrassing this
family and put them away? A huge, tattooed thug with no education or social
skills is not going to just disapear into the woodwork, they're going to be
hanging out in the parts of town that the cops know well When they find them,
even if the cops can't imediately tie them directly into the harrasement, just
tossing them will inevitablly turn up a weapon, drugs, or an association with a
known felon that would be enough to violate their parole and get them off the
streets.
Brian
David / Amicus
wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
address the latter as "sir" once.
The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several life
terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert priveleges? No
more tattoos for a year?
MarcColten
>Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message
>news:<45f2bb53.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> To all (see below):
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> O
>>
>> I
>>
>> L
>>
>> E
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> A
>>
>> C
>>
>> E
>I was curious about something related to this. The witness who seemed
>to not care if he was found in contempt. What could the judge do to
>that guy?
The was exactly the point. The reason these guys are so terrifying is that
there isn't much you can do to them. When a guy is serving 5 consecutive life
sentences, you can hardly give him 30 days for contempt.
>While I believe that prison gangs are a real danger, the whole thing
>seemed somewhat contrived.
Hardly. I recently read an article, in the New Yorker I think, about The Order
(on which The Brotherhood was obviousy based). There's nothing "contrived"
about it.
jack
> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
> address the latter as "sir" once.
I thought just the opposite. When he came into the cell didn't he say
"I don't speak to [mumbled something like 'five-oh']," and Ed Green raised
his eyebrows in response?
>
> The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several life
> terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert priveleges? No
> more tattoos for a year?
There's a lot to do, like put you in solitary with one-hour a day breaks
and no socializing with anyone except the immediate lawyer. It was
obvious that the Sing Sing administration was aware of what was going on
inside, and while they might not be willing or able to crack down on it
all they could set an example with a few prisoners.
---jack
Rick and Sue Deschene
> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
> address the latter as "sir" once.
>
I interpreted that as thinly veiled sarcasm.
Sue
Noahproblem
> As for that ending... aargh. Right from the declaration of the
> mistrial, we all just _knew_ that there was going to be an
> Announcement Of A Tragic Development in the last ten seconds of the
> show, didn't we? I was hoping against hope that they'd surprise us
> and _not_ sink into cliche like that, but no such luck. Melodrama,
> melodrama, melodrama...
I wonder if the wife would have wound up missing no matter the outcome
(hung jury, acquittal or conviction) - if Worley was convicted, 1) the
rest of the family would be much easier to harass, given that the
husband would be no longer around to protect them, and 2) what
"better" way to string along and torture Worley (before, presumably,
killing him) by messing with his family while there was nothing he
could do about it?
I know the leader of the Brotherhood said the "contract" was off the
table once Worley was arrested and possibly coming upstate to him
gift-wrapped, but, among other things, I'd hardly rely on his word on
anything...
fishfry
gblu...@aol.com (GBlueOwl) wrote:
Well like a lot of people around here I get my knowledge about criminal
gangs from what I see on tv and in the movies. But, do you recall a
great movie with Edward James Olmos called American Me? It makes the
point pretty strongly that the Mexican gangs (which, by the way, pretty
much run most of the prisons in California, in real life) are basically
the same inside or outside of the wall. The gang transcends the prison
boundary.
fishfry
Keeper of the Purple Twilight <n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
> On 2004-09-30 15:45:00 -0500, jack <jr...@columbia.edu> said:
>
> >
> >> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
> >> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
> >> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
> >> address the latter as "sir" once.
> >
> > I thought just the opposite. When he came into the cell didn't he say
> > "I don't speak to [mumbled something like 'five-oh']," and Ed Green
> > raised his eyebrows in response?
>
> I thought the "5-0" was a dig at Fontana's age. Fontana was the first
> one to speak to the con.
5-0 means cops. Like Hawaii 5-0.
I also was surprised at how polite all the Aryan Brotherhood dudes were
around Ed. I thought it was just a matter of the writers not wanting to
persue the race angle.
fishfry
"Jon Sledge" <sle...@hammer.com> wrote:
She seemed to have a sh*t-eating grin most of the time too. Maybe it was
just me, but I thought she just totally phoned her performance in, and
seemed to be acting in a different show.
fishfry
"Jon Sledge" <sle...@hammer.com> wrote:
Well he's way better in that regard than Ben Stone. Stone was a true
moralist. Jack only uses morality as a tool in his arsenal. Jack is all
about winning. He'll trample all over morality if it means a win.
Freezer
>> The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several
>> life terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert
>> priveleges? No more tattoos for a year?
>
> There's a lot to do, like put you in solitary with one-hour a day
> breaks and no socializing with anyone except the immediate lawyer.
> It was obvious that the Sing Sing administration was aware of what
> was going on inside, and while they might not be willing or able to
> crack down on it all they could set an example with a few prisoners.
I got the impression that they'd already tried all that on him and it
didn't change a thing.
It also seemed to me to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your
face: he seemed more concerned with scaring everyone in sight than
actually seeing the guard put away. He had to have realized that toning
down the evil bastard routine would do more to further his goal of
getting Worley behind bars than the scare tactics.
Or maybe he just isn't that smart?
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
(MSTings and other assorted brain droppings)
mmw...@webtv.net
in the ratings this week by CSI:NY, worse than last week, I believe.
We've talked about this before. The old "ripped from...blah, blah"
formula is just that. First half is this, last half is that, yawn. No
punch, so what if someone is missing at the end. So what? Gotta have
some juice in the middle, there's nahthing. Switched back and forth
with On Demand, I missed the 1st half of "Dead Like Me" on Sunday, was
way better. I go back a long way with L & O, but it's no longer "must
see" for me, way too tedious, become a chore. Sorry.
Brett A. Pasternack
Yeah, but I didn't think he would be convicted.
Brett A. Pasternack
Not to mention that it was likely to land him in jail, which he was so
scared of.
MarcColten
>> that rather than solving his problem, killing the guy only escalated it?
>
>Not to mention that it was likely to land him in jail, which he was so
>scared of.
That would be true is he thought he'd be caught. No one ever does apparently.
Pope Joseph
true moralist. >>
Stone had a pragmatic attitude, and he would look at the big picture and
Justice a lot more than Jack does.
>>Jack only uses morality as a tool in his arsenal. Jack is all
about winning. He'll trample all over morality if it means a win.>>
But that is what makes him so much like a hypocritical Priest. Jack will
carry the Bible with him as long as he can use it, and then he will walk
around like Holier Than Thou telling everyone how he is doing some kind of
Great Deeds. Regardless of what Jack is pursuing, he always looks at himself
as the annointed son of Jesus and the Pope. His attitude is very annoying to
me, having seen a lot of self-serving Priests and Holy Roller types. I would
like to see him get caught in a real scandal some time.
Ursula
> Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message
> news:<45f2bb53.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>> To all (see below):
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> O
>>
>> I
>>
>> L
>>
>> E
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> A
>>
>> C
>>
>> E
>
>
>
>> Nice job later on how a woman
>> suddenly left a note and walked out, with it threatening the Judge.
>> Also like how the Judge stuck up and didn't recuse herself, telling
>> Arthur such, and then how Kyle Marsden while testifying threatened the
>> Judge.
>
> I was curious about something related to this. The witness who seemed
> to not care if he was found in contempt. What could the judge do to
> that guy?
>
>
Nothing. Normally, for contempt, the punishment would be either fines or
imprisonment. This guy was already in prison, so that wouldn't work. And
I doubt he had any money to pay fines. So being held in contempt was an
empty threat.
>
>> The end had Serena walking in, [after] finding out that John's
>> wife Dina was missing at the end.
>
> Yes. I guess we were supposed to draw our own conclusions as to why.
> But how well was this handled? Did the CO and his wife just go their
> seperate ways after the trial? Seems more likely they would have
> stayed together for a while.
>
The implication was that someone from the gang had kidnapped her. There
is no reason to believe she and her husband were going to split up.
> And what about the son who presumably got set up? A line about Jack
> or Serena having a word with the prosecutor in the case might have
> been nice. But given that the son was probably set up, wouldn't the
> whole lot of problems have come to light earlier. Wouldn't the CO
> have told the prosecutor and the probably also the LEOs in the case
> about his problems. Wouldn't they have been a little bit more excited
> about getting The Brotherhood on conspiracy charges of some kind,
> rather than the A student son of a CO with a good record?
>
I think that the son being set up was supposed to be ambiguous. Was the
gang really so powerful as to be able to set someone up, manipulating the
whole justice system? Or was the guard so paranoid, that he assumed his
son was being set up? Or so blind that he couldn't see what his son was
doing?
Ursula
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Ursula
> If I don't respond to this jack post, the terrorists win.
>
>>> The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several
>>> life terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert
>>> priveleges? No more tattoos for a year?
>>
>> There's a lot to do, like put you in solitary with one-hour a day
>> breaks and no socializing with anyone except the immediate lawyer.
>> It was obvious that the Sing Sing administration was aware of what
>> was going on inside, and while they might not be willing or able to
>> crack down on it all they could set an example with a few prisoners.
>
> I got the impression that they'd already tried all that on him and it
> didn't change a thing.
>
> It also seemed to me to be a case of cutting off your nose to spite your
> face: he seemed more concerned with scaring everyone in sight than
> actually seeing the guard put away. He had to have realized that toning
> down the evil bastard routine would do more to further his goal of
> getting Worley behind bars than the scare tactics.
>
> Or maybe he just isn't that smart?
>
From the gang's point of view, it may not have mattered if the guard was
convicted or not. In or out of prison, they could still go after him and
his family. On the other hand, enhancing their reputation as a powerful
gang, to be feared and obeyed, would be useful. And media reports of this
type of brazenness would help intimidate others in the future.
T. G.
> >While I believe that prison gangs are a real danger, the whole thing
> >seemed somewhat contrived.
>
> Hardly. I recently read an article, in the New Yorker I think, about The Order
> (on which The Brotherhood was obviousy based). There's nothing "contrived"
> about it.
I didn't mean to imply that The Brotherhood was contrived. But that
the story that was woven around them was. Some things just seemed
farfetched to me. For example, how did the wife go missing?
Theget
T. G.
I thought he was channeling MM.
Theget
Peachy Ashie Passion
Why is that at all far fetched?
Someone took her. Where is the question here?
--
Having a great deal of time on their hands, and being a relatively
closed society, all vampires were natural gossips. ~ Slayer, Karen
Koehler
Sparky
> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
> address the latter as "sir" once.
This guy was no mindless Nazi skinhead - if he picked his attorney it
shows cunning on his part to go for a black guy, like the racist James
Earl Jones defended one time, or a female attorney representing an
accused rapist.
> The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several life
> terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert priveleges? No
> more tattoos for a year?
That was his point, wasn't it? Some criminals are so hardened and so
criminal that they flout society's laws even to a judge's face in her
courtroom.
This is an interesting question - just what can society do with
criminals this him?
I sure hope if this guy (Marsden?) ever gets out they place Serena in
witness relocation ASAP.
Sparky
> On 2004-09-30 15:45:00 -0500, jack <jr...@columbia.edu> said:
>
>>
>>> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
>>> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
>>> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
>>> address the latter as "sir" once.
>>
>> I thought just the opposite. When he came into the cell didn't he say
>> "I don't speak to [mumbled something like 'five-oh']," and Ed Green
>> raised his eyebrows in response?
>
> I thought the "5-0" was a dig at Fontana's age. Fontana was the first
> one to speak to the con.
"5-0" means the cops, as in "Hawaii 5-0". There was a scene in "New Jack
City" (IIRC) where somebody learns that a fellow gangster is an
undercover cop - he yells to his buds "he's 5-0, man, 5-0".
Does anyone know how "5-0" came to mean the cops?
Sparky
As Marsden said, when a CO is sent to prison it's the gift that keeps on
giving.
I think I'd shoot myself first, preferring a quick & relatively painless
death to a lingering one with pain maximized at the hands of those sadists.
Sparky
Marilyn Monroe?
Marilyn Manson?
Mighty Mouse?
Michael Moore?
Mr. Mustard?
Sparky
Wouldn't be hard to set up a teenager - hide some drugs in his car and
tip off the cops. I don't remember anything suggesting that the kid was
actually using or dealing.
Rick and Sue Deschene
I suspect it's slang derived from the "Hawaii Five-O" series, and it's
hung on as a cultural reference ever since. According to Wikipedia,
"Hawaii Five-O centers around a fictional state police force of the same
name — in honor of Hawaii's status as the 50th state":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawaii_Five-0
Sue
JD Leewong
>
>>
>> The judge charged the con with contempt. As he's serving several life
>> terms what more can be done to him? Take away his dessert priveleges? No
>> more tattoos for a year?
>
>There's a lot to do, like put you in solitary with one-hour a day breaks
>and no socializing with anyone except the immediate lawyer. It was
>obvious that the Sing Sing administration was aware of what was going on
>inside, and while they might not be willing or able to crack down on it
>all they could set an example with a few prisoners.
>---jack
>
they are beyond the jurisdiction of the judge who is trying to control her
courtroom. Her arsenal is prob limited to fines and jail for contempt, neither
one of which would be helpful here.
Laurie
JD Leewong
>>
>> I didn't mean to imply that The Brotherhood was contrived. But that
>> the story that was woven around them was. Some things just seemed
>> farfetched to me. For example, how did the wife go missing?
>>
>> Theget
>
> Why is that at all far fetched?
>
> Someone took her. Where is the question here?
>
only to find that the gang is bigger than any individual member and if they
decide to get you or your family, they will get you. In this way the ep is
reminiscent of "Prince of Darkness" involving Colombian drug cartel.
Laurie
Ursula
But we only heard the story from the point of view of the father. And he
has a deep emotional interest in _not_ believing that his son is a
criminal, and and believing that the the gang was a great, all-powerful
threat. (Justifying his subsequent act of murder.) It was, essentially,
a self-serving allegation, to be taken for what its worth.
If he was set up, there would presumably be ways to check on what
happened. Assume he was found with drugs in his car. Were his
fingerprints on the drugs? Was there evidence of the car being broken
into? Can we find out where or from whom the drugs came from before him?
I would think that the investigating officers would be sympathetic to a
story of a corrections officer's son being set up by a prison gang as
revenge, and would have investigated accordingly. After all, they know
about the tension between corrections officers and inmates, and the desire
many inmates have for revenge on their keepers. If the boy was being
prosecuted, then there probably was no evidence to support the story of a
set up.
Sparky
So it doesn't pre date the TV show?
Rick and Sue Deschene
Not as far as I know.
Sue
MarcColten
>the story that was woven around them was. Some things just seemed
>farfetched to me. For example, how did the wife go missing
People are kidnapped all the time. Sometimes it's a crime of opportunity - so
it's a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. But if someone in
particular is targeted - all you have to do it follow them and take them when
they are vulnerable.
David / Amicus
In theory couldn't the governor of the state grant him a pardon?
Theoretically speaking isn't the right of the governor to pardon
absolute or are there restrictions?
Ursula
Theoretically, yes. But pardons are very rare. For all practical
purposes, he'll never get out.
Sparky
> On 2004-10-01 11:13:22 -0500, Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> said:
>
>> I sure hope if this guy (Marsden?) ever gets out they place Serena in
>> witness relocation ASAP.
>
>
> Marsden is serving five life sentences, so he'll never get out.
Not legally, that is.
William December Starr
Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> said:
>> I thought he was channeling MM. [T. G.]
>
> Marilyn Monroe?
> Marilyn Manson?
> Mighty Mouse?
> Michael Moore?
> Mr. Mustard?
Michael Moriarty, as Ben Stone, the master of making "Sir" into a
deadly verbal attack.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
Amy Gray
could be overturned, or he could escape from prison.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
T. G.
I guess that it seemed to me that this took place very soon after the
trial. I would have thought that the husband and wife would have
stayed close by each other so soon after such traumatic event.
If they said that she had been kidnapped, it would have answered this
question for me. But they said that she was missing.
Am I splitting hairs?
Theget
T. G.
> On 30 Sep 2004 05:29:51 -0700, T. G. <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message
> > news:<45f2bb53.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >> wife Dina was missing at the end.
> >
> > Yes. I guess we were supposed to draw our own conclusions as to why.
> > But how well was this handled? Did the CO and his wife just go their
> > seperate ways after the trial? Seems more likely they would have
> > stayed together for a while.
> >
>
> The implication was that someone from the gang had kidnapped her. There
> is no reason to believe she and her husband were going to split up.
I was too slow to see that implication. Why didn't they simply say
that explicitly? Also, I seem to have worded my question in a
particularly bad way. I didn't mean to imply that they were going to
seperate as in dissolve their marriage, but rather, I thought they'd
be likely to stay physically close together after that particular
experience. So I wondered about the word "missing".
>
> > And what about the son who presumably got set up? A line about Jack
> > or Serena having a word with the prosecutor in the case might have
> > been nice. But given that the son was probably set up, wouldn't the
> > whole lot of problems have come to light earlier. Wouldn't the CO
> > have told the prosecutor and the probably also the LEOs in the case
> > about his problems. Wouldn't they have been a little bit more excited
> > about getting The Brotherhood on conspiracy charges of some kind,
> > rather than the A student son of a CO with a good record?
> >
>
> I think that the son being set up was supposed to be ambiguous. Was the
> gang really so powerful as to be able to set someone up, manipulating the
> whole justice system?
I don't think the gang could manipulate the entire system, and that's
what made the whole thing so unlikely to me. A kid who has a good rep
and is the son of a CO. Wouldn't the CO have a talk with the
prosecutors office about what he suspected. Wouldn't the prosecutor
be likely to think twice about the case? etc.
> Or was the guard so paranoid, that he assumed his
> son was being set up? Or so blind that he couldn't see what his son was
> doing?
I recall that it wasn't just the one guard. Fontana and Green
interviewed another guard who felt the same way.
Theget
Peachy Ashie Passion
I think so.
Stay very close is one thing.. but you know, run out to the store
to pick up milk, stuff like that.. you either drag the whole family
along, or else one parent stays home with the kids while one runs
out quick to get the milk.
David Johnston
<JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>><<Marsden is serving five life sentences, so he'll never get out.>>
>Of course that means he could be released on parole, his conviction
>could be overturned, or he could escape from prison.
Only the last is true, provided that the 5 sentences are consecutive.
Amy Gray
I would point out he could be out tomorrow if his conviction is
overturned or if he escapes.
As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid things.
As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling yourself that
especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV for his
parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon even though
he says if released he will kill again.
Nelson Lu
Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid things.
Not *that* stupid. When was the last time you've read about someone like that
getting paroled.
>As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling yourself that
>especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV for his
>parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon even though
>he says if released he will kill again.
I'll believe it when I see it, and you are intentionally ignoring the fact that
at the time Manson was convicted, California law did not provide for life
without possibility of parole.
MarcColten
It's more terrifying than kidnapped.
MarcColten
His five terms are "consecutive". Even if he were to get a parole on the first
sentence - after 20 or 30 years, he would then begin serving his 2nd sentence
and have to wait to be eligible for parole on that one. He'd have to do that
five times. That could be 100 years right there.
David Johnston
<JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:38:32 GMT, rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David
>Johnston) wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:52:56 -0400, Amy Gray
>><JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>><<Marsden is serving five life sentences, so he'll never get out.>>
>>>Of course that means he could be released on parole, his conviction
>>>could be overturned, or he could escape from prison.
>>
>>Only the last is true, provided that the 5 sentences are consecutive.
>I would point out he could be out tomorrow if his conviction is
>overturned
I believe he was supposed to be in on multiple convictions.
or if he escapes.
>
>As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid things.
It doesn't matter what parole boards do. People with five consecutive
life sentences don't get to see parole boards.
>As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling yourself that
>especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV for his
>parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon even though
>he says if released he will kill again.
Why will he get paroled? It certainly can't be because a parole board
will parole him. They turn him down every time. There's just
something about having a swastika carved into your head that turns off
even the most devout bleeding heart.
Rick and Sue Deschene
> Ursula <uleu...@buffalo.edu> wrote in message news:<opse645wjlsowx7o@uleubner>...
>
>>On 30 Sep 2004 05:29:51 -0700, T. G. <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message
>>>news:<45f2bb53.04092...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>>> The end had Serena walking in, [after] finding out that John's
>>>> wife Dina was missing at the end.
>>>
>>>Yes. I guess we were supposed to draw our own conclusions as to why.
>>>But how well was this handled? Did the CO and his wife just go their
>>>seperate ways after the trial? Seems more likely they would have
>>>stayed together for a while.
>>>
>>
>>The implication was that someone from the gang had kidnapped her. There
>>is no reason to believe she and her husband were going to split up.
>
>
> I was too slow to see that implication. Why didn't they simply say
> that explicitly? Also, I seem to have worded my question in a
> particularly bad way. I didn't mean to imply that they were going to
> seperate as in dissolve their marriage, but rather, I thought they'd
> be likely to stay physically close together after that particular
> experience. So I wondered about the word "missing".
>
>
>
I think the reason they chose this wording is simply because the wife
disappeared for unexplained reasons. I inferred from this that she was
either kidnapped or murdered . . . or both. The fact that she's missing
means they don't know whether she's dead or alive, just that she's gone.
Sue
William December Starr
Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> said:
> As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid
> things. As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling
> yourself that especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV
> for his parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon
> even though he says if released he will kill again.
Here is a hint: you're making stuff up.
Amy Gray
Starr) wrote:
You've never watched Court TV and to see these people
on the parole board bending over backwards to
give him parole?
Mason is saying if he is released he will kill again and
the parole board is ignoring him on that point.
David Johnston
<JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 2 Oct 2004 21:31:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
>Starr) wrote:
>
>>In article <n1mtl01is7chheqn4...@4ax.com>,
>>Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid
>>> things. As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling
>>> yourself that especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV
>>> for his parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon
>>> even though he says if released he will kill again.
>>
>>Here is a hint: you're making stuff up.
>You've never watched Court TV and to see these people
>on the parole board bending over backwards to
>give him parole?
Bullshit. If the parole board was bending over backwards to give him
parole, then they would have already just given him parole. All they
have to do is vote "yes" after all.
Ursula
<JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 Oct 2004 21:31:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
>> In article <n1mtl01is7chheqn4...@4ax.com>,
>> Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>> As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid
>>> things. As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling
>>> yourself that especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV
>>> for his parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon
>>> even though he says if released he will kill again.
>>
>> Here is a hint: you're making stuff up.
> You've never watched Court TV and to see these people
> on the parole board bending over backwards to
> give him parole?
>
> Mason is saying if he is released he will kill again and
> the parole board is ignoring him on that point.
>
>
Hardly. It is there job to give him a proper parole hearing, and they do
so. But giving him a proper parole hearing has nothing to do with
"bending over backwards to give him parole."
They haven't given him parole, and I doubt they ever will.
What they do, if anything, is to bend over backwards to be absolutely
correct in the form of a full parole hearing, before denying him as a
matter of course. By being correct in the form of the parole hearing,
they cut off potential criticism about prejudice, or bias, or refusal to
consider parole seriously (as is there job.)
What makes you think that the parole board is ignoring him when he says
they have killed again?
David / Amicus
ep of "NYPD Blue". A woman married a man in prison who had a life term
thinking that he would never get out. However he saved a guard's life
and was rewarded with parole. The wife was not happy!
Rick and Sue Deschene
> On 2 Oct 2004 21:31:11 -0400, wds...@panix.com (William December
> Starr) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <n1mtl01is7chheqn4...@4ax.com>,
>>Amy Gray <JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid
>>>things. As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling
>>>yourself that especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV
>>>for his parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon
>>>even though he says if released he will kill again.
>>
>>Here is a hint: you're making stuff up.
>
> You've never watched Court TV and to see these people
> on the parole board bending over backwards to
> give him parole?
>
> Mason is saying if he is released he will kill again and
> the parole board is ignoring him on that point.
>
>
Court TV Verdicts: Charles Manson
http://www.courttv.com/archive/verdicts/manson_092498.html
"Not only has the heinous nature of Manson's murders made his chances of
ever leaving prison very slim, but his behavior behind bars has made it
impossible. According to [prosecutor Stephen] Kay, Manson has committed
13 serious violations since his 1992 parole hearing. Kay also has a
psychiatric report that says Manson is a sociopath and a serious threat
to society. Manson collected his 13 violations by threatening to murder
a peace officer, threatening staff members, illegally possessing a
stabbing instrument and narcotics, and assaulting a staff member.
Through the years, he has also been known to spit, hit and pour hot
coffee on prison guards."
If, as you claim, the parole board were "ignoring" the threat he poses
to society, they would've voted to release him on parole. They didn't.
In fact, they've denied him parole 10 times (this story says nine, but I
believe he had another hearing in 2002 . . . and was denied again).
Doesn't sound like anyone's in a rush to change that situation.
Sue
Nelson Lu
Sparky
> In article <ytf7d.19701$kq6.11...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>,
> Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> said:
>
>
>>>I thought he was channeling MM. [T. G.]
>>
>>Marilyn Monroe?
>>Marilyn Manson?
>>Mighty Mouse?
>>Michael Moore?
>>Mr. Mustard?
>
>
> Michael Moriarty, as Ben Stone, the master of making "Sir" into a
> deadly verbal attack.
Of course! <smacks forehead - I really should have picked up on that>
Sparky
> On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 15:38:32 GMT, rgorma...@telusplanet.net (David
> Johnston) wrote:
>
>
>>On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 09:52:56 -0400, Amy Gray
>><JudgeAmyG...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>><<Marsden is serving five life sentences, so he'll never get out.>>
>>>
>>>Of course that means he could be released on parole, his conviction
>>>could be overturned, or he could escape from prison.
>>
>>Only the last is true, provided that the 5 sentences are consecutive.
>
> I would point out he could be out tomorrow if his conviction is
> overturned or if he escapes.
>
> As far as being out on parole? Parole boards do some stupid things.
> As far as the person not getting parole.....keep telling yourself that
> especially when you see Charles Manson on Court TV for his
> parole hearing. Here is a hint: he will get parole soon even though
> he says if released he will kill again.
There's always the possibility, especially in the L&O universe, that the
DA who prosecuted him or the judge who heard his case will be found
guilty of some infraction, thus calling into question all the cases they
participated in.
Nelson Lu
Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> wrote:
>There's always the possibility, especially in the L&O universe, that the
>DA who prosecuted him or the judge who heard his case will be found
>guilty of some infraction, thus calling into question all the cases they
>participated in.
Not a fat chance in the real world. In our county, a judge was removed a
couple years ago for fixing tickets. Arguments made to the appellate courts
that judgments that he imposed should be vacated went nowhere.
David Johnston
>There's always the possibility, especially in the L&O universe, that the
>DA who prosecuted him or the judge who heard his case will be found
>guilty of some infraction, thus calling into question all the cases they
>participated in.
Unless that infraction was "practicing law without a law degree", not
likely.
T. G.
Nevertheless, your suggestions were still thought provoking.
Theget
Sparky
IIRC we saw that last season (the dead ADA who had copped someone else's
ID).
Brandon K.
> Marc wrote in part:
> >
> >>3) Any other 'Boomtown' regulars ever appear on L&O (besides Gary
> >>Basaraba, who played Worley)?
> >>
> >
> >He's apparently part of the repetoirie company. He was on SVU as the guy
> >whose
> >wife turned out to be her sister.
> >
> >
> Which episode was that?
> Laurie
The episode's name was "Parasites" from season 2.
David Johnston
Well actually I don't think it would be a problem with a prosecutor.
In theory all that would mean is that a larger proportion of the
people he was prosecuting would get off but double jeopardy would
still attach. But a defense attorney would instantly give all of his
convictees grounds for appeal on the grounds of incompetent
representation. Judges...I don't know. It wasn't too long ago that
you didn't even need a law degree to be a judge.
Brian Bedard charter.net>
news:2004093016165750073%no@spaminvalid:
> On 2004-09-30 15:45:00 -0500, jack <jr...@columbia.edu> said:
>
>>
>>> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
>>> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
>>> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
>>> address the latter as "sir" once.
>>
>> I thought just the opposite. When he came into the cell didn't he
say
>> "I don't speak to [mumbled something like 'five-oh']," and Ed Green
>> raised his eyebrows in response?
>
> I thought the "5-0" was a dig at Fontana's age. Fontana was the first
> one to speak to the con.
>
5-0 is slang for cops, hence the sixties-seventies cop show Hawaii 5-0.
Brian.
David Johnston
<n...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>On 2004-09-30 15:45:00 -0500, jack <jr...@columbia.edu> said:
>
>>
>>> The Brotherhood was based on the racist gang the Aryan Brotherhood
>>> wasn't it? I was surprised how well-behaved the con was to a Black
>>> detective and a Black defense attorney. I thought I even heard him
>>> address the latter as "sir" once.
>>
>> I thought just the opposite. When he came into the cell didn't he say
>> "I don't speak to [mumbled something like 'five-oh']," and Ed Green
>> raised his eyebrows in response?
>
>I thought the "5-0" was a dig at Fontana's age.
It wasn't. It's just slang for "the cops". And relatively polite
slang at that.
Beetl...@msn.com
> To all (see below):
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> E
>
> Interesting opening sequence where a couple with the woman in labor
> discover the dead body, especially where the woman rushed her to call
> 911, with her first thinking it was for the her soon-to-be born child
> rather than the dead body. Also, nice touch with the body turning out
> to be an ex-prisoner, who was drunk, and suffering a skull fracture.
>
> It looked at first like the killer was a man who "stuck him up" and
> forced the victim (Billy Trammell) to spend time upstate for robbery
> in Queens. After going to him and a woman who noted that Billy was
> harrassing her and telling her boyfriend about that, Joe and Ed first
> look for him at his job, where they find picks circled on a racing
> page and realize he was at the OTB where they arrest him (Note: They
> seemed to film that scene at the OTB that runs from Park Place to the
> other end of the block west of Church Street, also, anyone notice how
> they used NBC footage from a Kentucky Derby telecast in all
> likelyhood?). The boyfriend is cleared because he was at Foxwoods (an
> Indian Gaming and Hotel complex in Connecticuit about two hours from
> New York) at the time the killing of Trammel happened).
>
> Like the way Joe and Ed get down to what really happened, with two
> prisoners being accusing a Corrections Officer (John Worley) of
> beating Trammell. Nice dance-around by John and his drinking buddy
> (Palmer), especially when it's noted that the CO's believe that it
> actually was members of a Group called "The Brotherhood", headed by
> Kyle Mardzen who planted drugs with John's son Sean. You could tell it
> was going this route as soon as you saw John changing paths on the
> story he told Joe and Ed with his wife and Sean present. John is then
> scared he'd be killed if he was then locked up in jail.
>
> Like how when Serena then talked to Palmer how that John had been
> threatened by Marzden and others and then after Jack and Serena talk
> to Marzden they offer Man 1. John's attorney (Rodney Fallon) then
> declines, noting how his client is in fear for his life, and after
> arguing with Jack in front of the Judge (played by Candace Bergen),
> she says this would go to trial.
>
> Like the way at trial how the Prison Warden notes how Worley was
> doing his job, and that how it has been dangerous and that other
> "Brotherhood" members had killed a CO a year earlier and this year had
> stabbled three others in New York State. Nice job later on how a woman
> suddenly left a note and walked out, with it threatening the Judge.
> Also like how the Judge stuck up and didn't recuse herself, telling
> Arthur such, and then how Kyle Marsden while testifying threatened the
> Judge.
>
> We then see John Worley testify as to how he and his family was
> threatened by Trammell, admitting he then killed Trammell out of fear
> for his life. Jack's cross noted how John nor his family was not in
> any immediate danger when he killed Trammell, and he does a great job
> of pointing out how Trammell could have been put back in jail for
> violating his parole.
>
> Nice round of closing arguments by both Fallon and Jack noting the
> different sides of the argument, with it ending in a hung jury.
>
> The end had Serena walking in, finding out that John's wife Dina was
> missing at the end.
>
> A great episode to which there might be another part to?
>
> Walt
I would have LOVED to have seen a second part to this episode. I did some research, and thought I actually did find a part 2 on SVU, strangely enough entitled, Brotherhood. But no such luck. I have gotten accustomed to an epiode ending in what seemed to be the middle of a story line, but usually on L & O they tie up most if the loose ends. Does it bother anyone else when this happens?