Review of "Doubt" (Tuesday, November 23, 2004 NBC Episode of "SVU")
Walt
First, a reminder that this episode will repeat on Sunday, December 5, at
11:00 PM ET/PT on USA Network. See below for more:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
This episode opened with a woman looking very sad and then acting very
psychotic, including throwing a bottle at a cab driver who then appeared to
attempt to run her over, claiming she was raped. An early surprise came when a
man came down (Ron Polikoff, Billy Campbell), who tells Elliot and Olivia that
the woman (Myra Denning) was going to claim that he raped her.
We next see Eliott and Olivia with Myra heading for the ER as Ron follows her,
then talking with Elliot. Ron then agrees to take a test to show he didn't rape
her while they do a rape kit on Myra. Both talk, given Elliot and Olivia
respectively conflicting reports on what happened. Quite interesting to see
both of them talking about what happened, with both claiming they were all over
the other, with each finding fluid on them. It was really turning into a
classic case of "he said, she said." Loved the line that Ron gave Elliot about
being "in control", saying he was not, setting it up perhaps where Elliot may
eventually have some problems with Kathy. At the same time, we see Myra in a
some pain as she goes through the test. Elliot after that then offers to take
Myra home and helps her upstairs, only she falls into his arms before he she
gets up and into her apartment. That would come back to haunt Elliot later.
Like how back at the SVU we then see Elliot and Olivia talking about how much
pain Myra was in when it was discovered that she had two blood types on her
"teddy", suggesting she entertained two men and possibly had been raped earlier
that night. Myra is then told about the two samples, and while that's going on,
Ron's attorney (Donna Emmett, Viola Davis) came in with evidence of her having
sex with several men and other incidents. The first one on that list they talk
to was Justin Wexler, who noted he last slept with Myra three nights ago, with
Justin then saying how Ron Polikoff apparently found himself with more women.
Elliot and Olivia then find out that Myra's roomate (Jenny) told Ron about her
having several sexual partners, as Jenny hated the fact Ron was sleeping with
Myra.
Quite a conflict between Elliot and Olivia that included a heated argument
about Myra, before Cragen calls them in, noting that Lorna Scarry (Mariette
Hartley) was in Cragen's office, with Myra then filing a complaint against
Stabler (predictable given the earlier scene), with the bombshell that Kathy
and Elliot had separated and Kathy had taken the kids and moved in with her
mother. Elliot then reveals to Olivia that Kathy indeed had separated from
Elliot (something that a lot of fanfic writers have been wanting to see for a
long time). We next see Elliot on the roof of SVU headquarters with Don, who
notes he had to ask Elliot about what happened, noting that Elliot failed to
follow proceedure, with Elliot noting she truly had been dead on her feet.
Like next how we next see Liz Donnelly tell Casey to do a "X" indictment, with
Casey talking with Olivia when Myra comes in with a death threat on her
computer about what happened, noting the computer was one that many people
used. It turns out that Ron was fired from his job (Professor at City Arts),
and it was possibly that his daughter Sophie may have sent the E-mails, as she
had signed in to use them. Sophie was very nervous when Olivia showed Sophie
the threatening E-mail in question, with Ron noting that Sophie did send the
E-mail with Ron taking responsibility. At that point, Casey and Olivia go to
Myra's apartment to tell her they had an indictment against Ron. After getting
no awnser and starting to leave when at her apartment, the tenant below her
bangs on her door because of water coming down on the ceiling, with Olivia
banging down the door and the ladies finding Myra attempting to kill herself
having overdosed on sleeping pills and was in a tub full of water. That was a
somewhat predictable, yet surprising at the same time.
We next see Elliot with Olivia at the hospital, with it turning out that Myra
knew that Olivia was coming, as she had called the SVU to find out on the
indictment, with Myra upset about having to re-live what happened to her at
trial.
It was a bit predictable how in court how Ron's attorney brought up how Myra
accused Elliot of sexually harrassing her, with Myra breaking down on the stand
before a recess. Like how after Ron talked about how he made mistakes about
letting Myra in, Casey showed pictures of her bruises as a result of what
happened there.
We next see Elliot and Olivia talking about what happened on the case, and
Elliot then noting that Kathy left him because of the job becoming too much.
Like how in closing arguments Casey reminded the jurors that Myra would not
have put herself through hell if she had not been raped.
This time around, the verdict is being decided by the viewers, as obviously,
two endings were shot that will be seen later. It will be interesting to see
which verdict the viewers choose for this episode.
Yet another excellent episode even if it wasn't as good as last week.
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.
Sparky
Just checked the NBC.COM site. The votes for the verdict are:
Guilty 18%
Innocent 66%
Need more evidence 16%
I'm surprised it's so lopsided.
David / Amicus
Guilty 18%
Innocent 66%
Need more evidence 16%>>
I'm surprised that one of the choices is "innocent" rather than "not
guilty". There is a difference!. The thing I've learned from watching
the L&Os is that justice is not the ultimate goal of our legal system
but rather the outcome of who wins - the defense or the prosecution and
to heck with whether the person charged actually commited the crime.
Thus innocence i.e. whether the person did the crime or not is
irrelevant.
William December Starr
Sparky <ne...@moon.sun.edu> said:
> Just checked the NBC.COM site. The votes for the verdict are:
>
> Guilty 18%
> Innocent 66%
> Need more evidence 16%
>
> I'm surprised it's so lopsided.
Innocent???? What the fsck? Wasn't anybody who has even the vaguest
knowledge of criminal justice involved in designing the poll? The
choices in a trial aren't "Guilty" or "Innocent," they're "Guilty"
or "Not Guilty."
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
barry
why? but maybe it'd have been better to have categorized it as 'not
guilty; if you factor in:
- the account of the fake 'dead grandmother';
- myra not responding while in elliott's arms on the stairs &
subsequent accusal of harassment;
- myra's "suicide" knowing olivia would be there in time to revive
her;
that to me provides enough basis for reasonable doubt - she's a known
drama queen who needs the attention (which explains her willingness to
go through the trial) & her behavior has been inconsistent enough to
create doubt - even though he may have done it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and now we have an idea of why elliott's seemed so much on the edge
lately.
zero...@goodmedia.com
> Casey reminded the jurors that Myra would not
> have put herself through hell if she had not been raped.
This would only be a valid argument if she was indeed
raped. If she was lying about it, then it's in her interest
to appear distraught about the entire thing, and feign
indignance in order to have the guy falsely convicted.
f-erenc szabo, smartypants
zero...@goodmedia.com
zero...@goodmedia.com
> I'm surprised that one of the choices is "innocent" rather than "not
> guilty". There is a difference!.
What's the difference between a person who is not guilty
of a crime versus innocent of a crime?
f-erenc szabo, smartypants
zero...@goodmedia.com
David / Amicus
versus innocent of a crime?>>
A person may in fact and deed be guilty of a crime but for some reason
perchance a technicality of some sort may be found not guilty thus they
are not innocent of actually not commiting the crime but are not
convicted of it.
DevilsPGD
<zero...@goodmedia.com> wrote:
>> I'm surprised that one of the choices is "innocent" rather than "not
>> guilty". There is a difference!.
>
>What's the difference between a person who is not guilty
>of a crime versus innocent of a crime?
The difference is "found not guilty" and "innocent"
If you did the crime you're not innocent, but you can still be found not
guilty.
--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear
bright until you hear them speak...
DevilsPGD
December Starr) wrote:
>> Just checked the NBC.COM site. The votes for the verdict are:
>>
>> Guilty 18%
>> Innocent 66%
>> Need more evidence 16%
>>
>> I'm surprised it's so lopsided.
>
>Innocent???? What the fsck? Wasn't anybody who has even the vaguest
>knowledge of criminal justice involved in designing the poll? The
>choices in a trial aren't "Guilty" or "Innocent," they're "Guilty"
>or "Not Guilty."
Unless it was done intentionally -- We could be deciding whether or not
he did it, not how the jury voted.
Hunter
Under our adversary system of justice we have inherited from Great
Britian (Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and other
members of the British Dominion have inherited this same system to one
extent or another) the burden of proof is on the State. It is a burden
set deliberately set high to try to avoid innocent people being sent
to prison or death. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" by a unanimous vote by
the jury in a criminal case is the standard. To put a number on it
"reasonable doubt" is supposed to be around 98-99% certainty. Note it
is not beyound ALL doubt, it is only in around the last ten years or
so with the technological advancements in forensics that significant
number of cases can be said to be beyound all doubt (and even then
forensics can be wrong due to error), but even today, they are far,
far from the majority.
Most cases are like the one depicted in the Law & Order:SVU fictional
"Date Rape" story or in real life, its inspiration, the Kobe Bryant
case. That is evidence that is murky, can be looked at from different
angles and with that same evidence and intelligent people can come to
different conclusions, as did Stabler and Benson did investigating the
case. The prosecution has the burden to overcome this uncertainty
beyond a reasonable doubt because of past injustice going back
thousands of years. The Salem Witch trials of 1692 is probably the
most famous. Nineteen men and women were put to death on what we
regard to day as scant and spurious evidence on charges of traffiking
with the devil by performing witchcraft. These and other outrages,
right up to the present day with all the post conviction DNA
exonerations has shown us that if we are to deprive someone of
freedom, let alone life, it must be on evidence that will show guilt
beyound the doubt of reasonable thinking people. To parapharase, It is
better to let 100 guilty men go free than one innocent to be falsely
imprisoned and/or put to death. With such a burden, a lot of genuienly
innocent people will be spared, but so would a lot of truly guiltly
ones. Therefore, a "Not Guilty" verdict, which is a vote to say that
the state did not meet the burden of proof, not that the accused is
innocent as a certain fact. One would hope that the vast majority of
the time that a verdict of not guilty would be conveyed on a person
who is truly innocent, but not always unfortunately. The State treats
that person as innocent by restoring his liberty and his civil rights
(to vote, to serve on juries themselves, etc). in the case that he
really is innocent, but it is a reality that not all are.
So as a result there is a statue difference between "Not Guilty" and
what is called "Factual Innocence". In the last ten years or so a lot
of wrongly convicted people, mostly for crimes such as rape, murder,
rape/murder and child molestation has been found "Factually Innocent"
due to post conviction DNA testing, often 10,15,20, 30 after the
initial, tragic wrongful conviction. But even then a "Factual
Innocence" verdict is hard to comeby (partly due to judges not truly
understanding the power of DNA evidence, partly due to Cops and
prosecutors stubbornly refusing to admit a mistake on their parts). A
judge, to his/her satisfaction must render it. It is a high burden for
the CONVICT to meet, for after conviction, to burden switches. A
person has to prove his innocence beyond ALL doubt to get a finding of
Factual Innocence. Often, even DNA exonerations don't meet this
standard (often prosecutors fight that finding even after DNA proves
they got the wrong guy). There is a chance that he MIGHT had done it
after all, but a reasonable look at the new evidence shows that the
new evidence shows overwhelmingly that he did not do it, so they
release him (despite what some hard headed cops and prosecutors may
say).
So that is the legal and moral difference between "Not Guilty" and
"Innocent" as me, a layman understands it. There are other things like
"Alford Pleas" were the accuse maintains his innocence but concedes
that the evidence at trail would most likely put him im prison for a
harsher sentence, so he gives in an submits to punishment, and a lot
of miscarriges of justice happeneds with that, but that is another
story.
----->Hunter
krej...@yahoo.com
> > I'm surprised that one of the choices is "innocent" rather than "not
> > guilty". There is a difference!.
>
> What's the difference between a person who is not guilty
> of a crime versus innocent of a crime?
>
>
Think OJ Simpson...he was found NOT GUILTY, that in no ways means he
was innocent, just that the prosecution had not established he was
guilty.
David / Amicus
in.
Hunter
I wouldn't be surprised if it was because the accuser accused Eliott
of sexual harasment, that is what decided for me to think he was not
guilty. If she didn't do that it would had been more of an even split.
----->Hunter