SVU: "Mercy": Was that the right verdict?
James
I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea Brown
killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged mainly on
Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
Do you think that was the fair verdict? Maybe she should have pled to a lower
charge. One of the interesting topics SVU grapples with which the other two L&O
shows don't is the win-at-all-costs mentality and the consequences which can
arise.
The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish that
had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats to
Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a point?
I haven't seen Andrea's defense attorney (Viola Brown) in many other projects,
but she was superb. I wish L&O could hire her to replace Elisabeth Rohm.
Connemara
"James" <tvfan...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030131230546...@mb-fv.aol.com...
> Spoiler space:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea Brown
killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged mainly
on Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
==> Even Alex felt uncomfortable with the sentence, however, not with the
judgement. She was guilty of second degree murder. One could even have
said it was first degree murder--since she planned it. Certainly, there
were extenuating circumstances, but that does not make the baby any "less
dead". Andres killed the baby and then disposed of her in a cooler in the
river--almost makes one question how much she really loved the baby--to
dispose of the baby that way.
> Do you think that was the fair verdict? Maybe she should have pled to a
lower charge. One of the interesting topics SVU grapples with which the
other two L&O shows don't is the win-at-all-costs mentality and the
consequences which can arise.
==> I do think the verdict was fair--although perhaps there should have been
some request for special consideration on the sentence. It is not a win at
all costs mentality--it is a belief that the child has been harmed (or the
victim) and they are due justice. Unlike the other two shows which spend
more time making deals.
> The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish
that had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats
to Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a
point?
==> Of course there was a point. They were trying to find the parent of
the dead infant. The original thought was a single mother who would have
gotten rid of the baby because her family would not have approved. They did
not know the child had an abortion--and because she was a minor they could
not question her without her parents. As far as the interaction between
Elliot and the father--it showed that Elliot takes his job in SVU seriously.
Domestc violence is not acceptable--and he wanted the father to know that if
anything happened to the child--or the mother--he would be certain to make
the father's life hell. He was protecting the child before she left the
station and the father had a chance to beat the hell out of her.
> I haven't seen Andrea's defense attorney (Viola Brown) in many other
projects, but she was superb. I wish L&O could hire her to replace Elisabeth
Rohm.
==> She was good, but more Röhm bashing??? Give it up!
==> All in all, I liked the episode. I think the little twist of the
husband being a convert was well done. I had wondered why the parents would
not have had genetic testing done prior to having a child. I know many
people, who because of the probability of illnesses due to their heritages,
will not consider getting married and/or pregnant until they are positive
they do not carry a deadly genetic combination. So,it seemed odd that they
had not been previously tested before the baby was born.
Michelle
--
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
There are far too many people in the world....
And NOT enough HUMAN BEINGS!!
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
William L. Schart
This indeed is a tricky issue and I an not entirely sure how I feel.
Legally, she was guilty of murder. The thing about the affair was, I
think, a tactic. Even though she was guilty, the jury could have
nullified this by voting her not guilty if they found her sympathetic.
This is an issue that has been alluded to, at least, in the original L&O:
a sympathetic defendant may be aquitted even though technically guilty.
Turning it around, the defense often tries to get off by painting the
victem in an unfavorable light.
Jacquilynne Schlesier
> Spoiler space:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish that
> had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats to
> Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a point?
>
Yes.
The point, as I saw it, was to show *why* invading the privacy of the
women who had been to the Hudson U clinic was wrong and bad. I honestly
thought that would be the whole point of the episode and that there
would be some real fallout from it (perhaps that the kid who had the
abortion would commit suicide or be murdered by her asshole of a
father). There were really two entirely different issues being addressed
in this episode, and I think that's too bad, both were worthy of a
standalone episode, but the subplot was not, in my opinion, overwrought
or pointless.
Jacquilynne
James
>> Spoiler space:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>==> Of course there was a point. They were trying to find the parent of
>the dead infant. The original thought was a single mother who would have
>gotten rid of the baby because her family would not have approved. They did
>not know the child had an abortion--and because she was a minor they could
>not question her without her parents. As far as the interaction between
>Elliot and the father--it showed that Elliot takes his job in SVU seriously.
>Domestc violence is not acceptable--and he wanted the father to know that if
>anything happened to the child--or the mother--he would be certain to make
>the father's life hell. He was protecting the child before she left the
>station and the father had a chance to beat the hell out of her.
I would have understood all of that, but then they went into all these comments
about how
>==> She was good, but more Röhm bashing??? Give it up!
Give what up? Having an opinion? You make it sound like I'm conducting an
anti-Elisabeth Rohm campaign all over the Internet. For over a year I actually
defended Elisabeth because I hoped the writing would improve or she would
improve. And now I make ONE comment, one damn comment in this thread, which
wasn't very insulting (all I said is that Viola would be a better fit for the
part) and you go crazy. It makes zero sense to me. If you have that much of a
problem with Rohm criticism, then maybe you shouldn't even be in the newsgroup
at all, because you're going to see far uglier remarks than I made.
James
>
>> Spoiler space:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>
>Yes.
>
>The point, as I saw it, was to show *why* invading the privacy of the
>women who had been to the Hudson U clinic was wrong and bad. I honestly
>thought that would be the whole point of the episode and that there
>would be some real fallout from it (perhaps that the kid who had the
>abortion would commit suicide or be murdered by her asshole of a
>father). There were really two entirely different issues being addressed
>in this episode, and I think that's too bad, both were worthy of a
>standalone episode, but the subplot was not, in my opinion, overwrought
>or pointless.
None of what you described had to do with the various threats about golfing
buddies and Elliott falling on the abusive home. That's when the story began to
veer into pointless/overwrought territory for me. If they'd left it only up to
the interrogation room scene, the subplot may have worked better.
Connemara
"James" <tvfan...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
Let's just say there has been enough Röhm bashing on this newsgroup to last
a millenium. One poster will pick up everytime anyone says something as
mild as your post to point out that she has an internet web site to sign a
petition--which is actually funny because many of the signers have actually
signed "in support of Ms. Röhm"--but the poster only quotes how many people
have signed--so obviously she has not read the responses.
I don't think you can't have an opinion, but every post about a L&O episode
does not need to reference replacing Röhm--especially when we are discussing
a show where she is NOT even a character. Had you wanted to discuss
replacements for Ms. Röhm in another thread that readers could have avoided,
it would have been fine. I was responding to an SVU post, not a post about
getting rid of an actress from the mothership.
Blessed be,
Robin
"James" <tvfan...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> Spoiler space:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea Brown
> killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged
mainly on
> Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
>
I was glad to see the verdict. The mother planned a murder and carried it
out (at least it was humane). She then horribly disposed of the body. I
felt she met the criteria for first degree murder and believe the sentence
she got was appropriate. I don't think that because the child was sick, not
even showing signs of the disease, was any type of mitigating factor.
Euthanasia does not mean the taking of a life just because you are going to
die sometime in the future. Hell, we are all going to die sometime in the
future.
Robin
RWGibson13
>Let's just say there has been enough Röhm bashing on this newsgroup to last
>a millenium. <
You obviously weren't here during Harmon's run on the series <g> Or Bratt's
before that. My suggestion is that you'd better just get used to it because
it's not going away.
RWG (and you'll probably just encourage 'em :-)
Now I've seen the light and I've heard the word
And I'm stayin' away from that nasty Thunderbird
Word came from heaven, ready to find
And now all I drink is Communion wine...
...six days a week.
The Late, Great Townes Van Zandt
Connemara
"RWGibson13" <rwgib...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030201084018...@mb-fx.aol.com...
> >
> >Let's just say there has been enough Röhm bashing on this newsgroup to
last
> >a millenium. <
>
> You obviously weren't here during Harmon's run on the series <g> Or
Bratt's
> before that. My suggestion is that you'd better just get used to it
because
> it's not going away.
I missed the Bratt stuff--which I probably would have agreed with, actually.
I heard some of the Harmon stuff, I was here for part of that.
Actually, I think what agravated me the most is we were discussing SVU--not
even a show Röhm is on--so it was not necessary for it to be brought up.
(Kind of like hearing Walt bring up Holly Marie Combs continually!) I can
understand bashing her on the mothership, but talking about replacing her
when the program being discussed has never featured her, is a bit out in
left field.
It would be akin to the New York Times writing a story about the resignation
of Ted Turner from AOL-Time-Warner and speculating on someone to replace the
CEO of CBS News in the article. since the journalist had a long standing
dislike of the head of the CBS News division. The two are linked only by
subject matter, but they are not the same story.
It is not that I can't handle the bashing--I know most of the regular
bashers--and I skip their posts; it is just that it seemed out of place in
an SVU post--and I was extremely tired last night. This morning, I am into
analysing things....... ;-)
Michelle
--
"I don't know why we are here, but I'm pretty sure that it is not in order
to enjoy ourselves.
- Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951)
kelly
--
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
I agree, but it would make a very interesting bridge to another episode.
The father looked familiar... but the young girl was just SO compelling, I
hope she has a long and great acting future ahead of her. Who was she,
anyway???
>
> The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish
that
> had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats to
> Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a
point?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.449 / Virus Database: 251 - Release Date: 1/27/2003
kelly
> Legally, she was guilty of murder. The thing about the affair was, I
> think, a tactic. Even though she was guilty, the jury could have
> nullified this by voting her not guilty if they found her sympathetic.
THis is why I'm seldom chosen for jury duty. When they do public voir dire
in the jury assembly room about "is there anyone who feels they cannot
serve, state your name and reason," if it's a criminal case I'll say right
outright, "Yes, I believe in jury nullification." I'm not only excused
immediately, I'm VERY rapidly excused from the room. (I don't excuse
myself from civil cases, but I don't have the short term memory capability
to be part of sending someone possibly innocent (probably so, since I'm in
Illinois...) to prison or worse.)
I was hoping for this jury verdict in the show, but it does point out the
"neutrality" (or "heartlessness") of the justice system, sometimes.
Kelly
Schmoopie
> news:20030201040337...@mb-fv.aol.com...
>
>> >"Connemara" justice_...@spam.medscape.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>
>> >> Spoiler space:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>
>>
>
>> >
>> >==> Of course there was a point. They were trying to find the parent of
>> >the dead infant. The original thought was a single mother who would have
>> >gotten rid of the baby because her family would not have approved. They
>
> did
>
>> >not know the child had an abortion--and because she was a minor they
>
> could
>
>> >not question her without her parents.
I felt sorry for the girl and thought they could have questioned her
briefly, privately, without bringing in the parents. No? because she's a
minor they had to have the parents?
Schmoopie
I thought everything turned when the info about the affair came out. She
looked sympathetic before then, but after the news, she looked more like
she was trying to protect herself and her secret.
Also, it could have been the perfect crime (heartless as that sounds).
The doc was helping her. All she had to do was proceed with the funeral
and bury the baby.
Connemara
"Schmoopie" <Schm...@domain.net> wrote in message
news:3E3BEF26...@domain.net...
==> If she had been questioned without her parents, and she had been
guilty--anything they obtained from that interview would not have been
admissible in court. A judge would have thrown all of it out. In addition,
any evidence they might have collected based on that information could have
been thrown out--fruit from the poisonous tree, so to speak. So to be
certain they did everything kosher, they had to have the parents
there--perhaps they could have only had one parent, but given the way the
father was with the family--completely domineering--it is doubtful he would
have allowed that.
Michelle
Jacquilynne Schlesier
>>Jacquilynne Schlesier jacqu...@canada.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>>Spoiler space:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> buddies and Elliott falling on the abusive home. That's when the story began to
> veer into pointless/overwrought territory for me. If they'd left it only up to
> the interrogation room scene, the subplot may have worked better.
In order to establish that the invasion of privacy thing was a big
mistake, they had to establish that it was going to seriously mess up
the kid's life. Not just Daddy saying, 'Oh, daughter, how could you,
you're grounded.', but potentially cause even more violence. All of that
'overwrought' stuff went to show the abusiveness of the father,
abusiveness that could easily be turned on the daughter.
Elliot's reaction was perfectly in character. They had brought this down
on that girl, and he was owning up to his part in it. Recognizing that
if harm came to the girl, it would likely be as a result of his own
investigation, he was taking some responsibility for the situation long
term.
I think the subplot deserved to be a plot on its own, but as long as it
was relegated to being a sub, I'm glad it got a reasonable level of
attention to the issues.
Jacquilynne
David Johnston
>Spoiler space:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea Brown
>killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged mainly on
>Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
>
>Do you think that was the fair verdict?
Yes. She was guilty. Even for someone who believes in mercy-killing,
it seems a bit much to kill the baby before the baby is even in pain.
Preventative euthanasia puts us all on the chopping block.
Maybe she should have pled to a lower
>charge.
Yes. Was she offered one? I forget.
One of the interesting topics SVU grapples with which the other two
L&O
>shows don't is the win-at-all-costs mentality and the consequences which can
>arise.
>
>The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish that
>had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats to
>Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a point?
Without it they wouldn't have had a full hour. It might be
interesting if a later episode revisits that situation. Even if they
don't, occasionally it is nice to be reminded of the reason why
medical confidentiality exists.
David / Amicus
get the disease and as the father was a convert there really was no need
for them (at least the mother) to be tested. It was only because she was
unfaithful that the situation arose.
I'm not a Munch fan but I'd liked his stand against infanticide.
Infanticide is Nazi stuff and for a Jewish physician to be an enabler is
especially heinous . Nothing was said about what would happen to him.
Lose his licence at the very least?
To me it is incredible that what we hung people for at Nuremberg almost
50 years ago is now accepted and defended!
Ipsa Conteret
David Johnston
I don't recall anyone being hung at Nuremberg for killing the terminal
ill or even the disabled.
David / Amicus
ill or even the disabled.>>
I thought the Nazis were well known for such crimes as euthanasia, all a
part of crimes against humanity.
David Johnston
Amicus) wrote:
><<I don't recall anyone being hung at Nuremberg for killing the terminal
>ill or even the disabled.>>
>
>I thought the Nazis were well known for such crimes as euthanasia,
No. They were well known for executing people for eugenic reasons.
There's a difference. And they still weren't executed at Nuremberg
for killing the terminally ill.
Walt
>> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea Brown
>killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged mainly
>on Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
To which Michelle replied:
>==> Even Alex felt uncomfortable with the sentence, however, not with the
>judgement. She was guilty of second degree murder. One could even have
>said it was first degree murder--since she planned it. Certainly, there
>were extenuating circumstances, but that does not make the baby any "less
>dead". Andres killed the baby and then disposed of her in a cooler in the
>river--almost makes one question how much she really loved the baby--to
>dispose of the baby that way.
Exactly.
>> Do you think that was the fair verdict? Maybe she should have pled to a
>lower charge. One of the interesting topics SVU grapples with which the
>other two L&O shows don't is the win-at-all-costs mentality and the
>consequences which can arise.
>
>==> I do think the verdict was fair--although perhaps there should have been
>some request for special consideration on the sentence. It is not a win at
>all costs mentality--it is a belief that the child has been harmed (or the
>victim) and they are due justice. Unlike the other two shows which spend
>more time making deals.
I think the last scene between Alex and Munch at the end said it all about the
verdict, especially where Munch said if it had been his child, he would have
done ANYTHING to keep that kid alive no matter what (or course, saying that,
would Munch hold on to that belief if he were dealing with the same emotions as
the woman?).
>> The young girl who had an abortion was an overwrought subplot and I wish
>that had been taken out. Not to mention her abusive father and his threats
>to Elliott seemed to belong in an entirely different episode. Was there a
>point?
>
>==> Of course there was a point. They were trying to find the parent of
>the dead infant. The original thought was a single mother who would have
>gotten rid of the baby because her family would not have approved. They did
>not know the child had an abortion--and because she was a minor they could
>not question her without her parents. As far as the interaction between
>Elliot and the father--it showed that Elliot takes his job in SVU seriously.
>Domestc violence is not acceptable--and he wanted the father to know that if
>anything happened to the child--or the mother--he would be certain to make
>the father's life hell. He was protecting the child before she left the
>station and the father had a chance to beat the hell out of her.
Exactly. Had Elliott not done what he did in that scene, I suspect we would
have seen the younger girl for sure, and possible the older daughter in college
back in the "SVU" complaining about being attacked or even worse.
>> I haven't seen Andrea's defense attorney (Viola Brown) in many other
>projects, but she was superb. I wish L&O could hire her to replace Elisabeth
>Rohm.
>
>==> She was good, but more Röhm bashing??? Give it up!
He was just observing that he though the woman who played the defense attorney
here would be a good replacement for Ms. Rohm on the original "L & O." She
would be good there or perhaps if they decided to expand the DA's role on
"Criminal Intent" down the road as an assistant to Ron Carver. Courtney B.
Vance is really underused in that role, and arrogant or not he does play that
kind of ADA very well, and I could actually see him down the road perhaps
replacing Sam Waterston as the EADA on "the mothership."
>==> All in all, I liked the episode. I think the little twist of the
>husband being a convert was well done. I had wondered why the parents would
>not have had genetic testing done prior to having a child. I know many
>people, who because of the probability of illnesses due to their heritages,
>will not consider getting married and/or pregnant until they are positive
>they do not carry a deadly genetic combination. So,it seemed odd that they
>had not been previously tested before the baby was born.
That is very true, and I should have realized myself earlier, and especially
after where we find out Andrea wanted the doctor's help without her husband
knowing.
This was not as good as the last two episodes (as those in my opinion were
intensely written trying to get Chris Meloni and Mariska Hartigay Emmy
nominations), but this was still an excellent episode nonetheless.
Walt
E-mail me at: Free...@juno.com
Maggie
>husband being a convert was well done. I had wondered why the parents would
>not have had genetic testing done prior to having a child. I know many
>people, who because of the probability of illnesses due to their heritages,
>will not consider getting married and/or pregnant until they are positive
>they do not carry a deadly genetic combination. So,it seemed odd that they
>had not been previously tested before the baby was born. >>
***That was bothering me from the first--what Jewish couple *doesn't* get
tested for the Tay-Sachs gene before they conceive? Obviously, it all made
sense in the end--although one wonders how she was absolutely convinced there
was no chance the baby was her husbands. Must have meant she told the husband
about the affair pretty much immediately upon becoming pregnant (I can't
remember, did she?). Otherwise, I would think he'd want them to be tested.
And, FWIW, I've known only one couple who had a Tay-Sachs baby and neither of
them was Jewish.
Maggie
"Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the
experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to
do so."--Douglas Adams.
Getteur
>> killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged
>mainly on
>> Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
>>
>
>
>I was glad to see the verdict. The mother planned a murder and carried it
>out (at least it was humane). She then horribly disposed of the body. I
>felt she met the criteria for first degree murder and believe the sentence
>she got was appropriate.
the verdict didn't ring true with me.
After all the sympathetic testimony for the mother, the myopic jury ignored it
all and based its decision on a flimsy, purely hypothetical, with nothing
offered in evidence during the trial to support it theory of the prosecution.
> I don't think that because the child was sick, not
>even showing signs of the disease, was any type of mitigating factor.
You must have missed something. there was overwhelming evidence that the child
had the disease.
>Euthanasia does not mean the taking of a life just because you are going to
>die sometime in the future. Hell, we are all going to die sometime in the
>future.
>
>Robin
Again, you appear to have missed the point. It wasn't the dying, but the four
or five years of life spent in nothing but total and excruciating pain and
suffering over the entire period.
How would you like that kind of short exceedingly miserable life for yourself,
or someone you love dearly and deeply?
Gary
Getteur
>looked sympathetic before then, but after the news, she looked more like
>she was trying to protect herself and her secret.
>
>Also, it could have been the perfect crime (heartless as that sounds).
>The doc was helping her. All she had to do was proceed with the funeral
>and bury the baby.
And in the real world, that's probably exactly what would have transpired. But
then that wouldn't have presented the material for an SVU episode. <g>
Gary
Kimberly Murphy-Smith
<justice_...@spam.medscape.com> wrote:
>> Spoiler space:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>==> All in all, I liked the episode. I think the little twist of the
>husband being a convert was well done.
This twist I saw coming a mile away; I knew we were going to find out
he wasn't the real father and that he was most likely not born Jewish.
The only part I missed was that I thought we were going to find out
the doctor was the father. I thought we were perfectly set up for
it--she called him "Judah" a couple of times, he wrote her
prescription in her maiden name, each was protecting the other early
on in their interactions with the police. When she called him "Judah"
on the stand, I thought for sure we were going to find out he was the
father. I know the story was tht he'd been her doctor since she was a
child and he'd been like a father to her, but I've known my G.P. for
years and he is the one person I would trust with absolutely anything
I ever needed and I would STILL never even DREAM of calling him by his
first name. Heck, my mom's been with the same gentleman companion for
over 3/4 of my life and it took almost 15 years before I dared call
him anything other than "Mr. James".
Kimberly Murphy-Smith -- kamu...@ix.netcom.com
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy/
Kimberly's Barbie Collection:
http://members.aol.com/kimmurphy/barbies.html
Robin
"Getteur" <get...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030201215220...@mb-cv.aol.com...
> >> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea
Brown
> >> killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged
> >mainly on
> >> Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
> >>
> >
> >
> >I was glad to see the verdict. The mother planned a murder and carried
it
> >out (at least it was humane). She then horribly disposed of the body. I
> >felt she met the criteria for first degree murder and believe the
sentence
> >she got was appropriate.
>
> the verdict didn't ring true with me.
> After all the sympathetic testimony for the mother, the myopic jury
ignored it
> all and based its decision on a flimsy, purely hypothetical, with nothing
> offered in evidence during the trial to support it theory of the
prosecution.
I didn't think the mothr was sympathetic at all. Had the baby been in
distress, had been symptomatic, maybe. To kill the child because the
course the illness would take, not because the child was hurting, to me was
not rational.
>
> > I don't think that because the child was sick, not
> >even showing signs of the disease, was any type of mitigating factor.
>
> You must have missed something. there was overwhelming evidence that the
child
> had the disease.
I think that you missed something in my post. I realized the child had the
disease, but was not symptomatic as yet. I am not heartless, and I can only
imagine the hell that parents would go through with the kind of death
sentence hanging over the child. But I can't belive that truly loving
parents would not try to enjoy what momemts they could.
>
> >Euthanasia does not mean the taking of a life just because you are going
to
> >die sometime in the future. Hell, we are all going to die sometime in
the
> >future.
> >
> >Robin
>
> Again, you appear to have missed the point. It wasn't the dying, but the
four
> or five years of life spent in nothing but total and excruciating pain and
> suffering over the entire period.
> How would you like that kind of short exceedingly miserable life for
yourself,
> or someone you love dearly and deeply?
>
> Gary
Again, I did not miss the point. Later in the disease, I would have had
extreme sympathy for the mother. I would not want that type of life, or
those of my loved ones, but I wouldn't have jumped to murder. Only when
palliative measures could no longer bring about some kind peace could what
the mother did be called euthanasia.
As far as I am concerned, she just didn't want any one to find out about the
affair. I don't think that this was written well into the plot, I think it
should have been brought out as a more sinister motive.
James
>
>Let's just say there has been enough Röhm bashing on this newsgroup to last
>a millenium.
There's been bashing of everyone. I thought some of the Dianne Wiest bashing
was ridiculous and over the line at times, but I didn't start ordering people
around when they were critical of her.
>
>I don't think you can't have an opinion, but every post about a L&O episode
>does not need to reference replacing Röhm--especially when we are discussing
>a show where she is NOT even a character. Had you wanted to discuss
>replacements for Ms. Röhm in another thread that readers could have avoided,
>it would have been fine. I was responding to an SVU post, not a post about
>getting rid of an actress from the mothership.
All of the shows are connected, and have crossed over in the past. I see
absolutely nothing wrong with discussing Elisabeth Rohm in an SVU comment. I
think it's somewhat unrealistic to expect people to follow strict guidelines
about what not to discuss in a thread when this newsgroup is for all 3 L&O
series.
I mentioned Viola Brown replacing Rohm because a) I don't think Rohm has
chemistry with those around her and the writers clearly don't care about
writing for her in a way that makes any sense, and b) I think that Viola could
be an interesting foil for Jack and Branch, whereas Serena tends to fade into
the background or simply stands around trying to play the moral conscience. I
connected the two in my mind as soon as I saw Viola's courtroom scenes. I don't
make it a practice to discuss L&O or CI when I'm talking about SVU, but I can't
say that it will never happen again. So if you want to safeguard against it,
you'll have to killfile me.
NameLite
>***That was bothering me from the first--what Jewish couple *doesn't* get
>tested for the Tay-Sachs gene before they conceive? Obviously, it all made
>sense in the end--although one wonders how she was absolutely convinced there
>was no chance the baby was her husbands. Must have meant she told the
>husband
>about the affair pretty much immediately upon becoming pregnant (I can't
>remember, did she?). Otherwise, I would think he'd want them to be tested.
He told the detectives that she didn't tell him about the affair until after
she was arrested. My interpretation of all this is that she was convinced that
the baby was her husband's (since she only slept with the coworker once), and
therefore didn't think there was a need for testing. Then, when the baby was a
month old and she found out that it did have Tay-Sachs, she did tell her
husband about the Tay-Sachs, but counted on him not knowing that since he was
very unlikely to be a carrier of the gene, and that therefore that the baby
wasn't his. McCoy claimed the mother killed the baby before it started
experiencing Tay-Sachs symptoms in order to keep her husband from focusing on
the possibility of the child not being his, but this seems kind of far-fetched,
since was he knew about the conditon, he knew enough to do further research if
he wanted to. If the mother had killed the child BEFORE telling her husband
about the Tay-Sachs (and the doctor hadn't todl him either), and then had
dumped the body in the river to make sure there was no autopsy, then maybe that
the "she killed it just to cover up the affair" scenario would work. IMHO.
NameLite
>Infanticide is Nazi stuff and for a Jewish physician to be an enabler is
>especially heinous . Nothing was said about what would happen to him.
>Lose his licence at the very least?
The doctor was charged with murder, along with the mother. But after he found
out that the husband hadn't known about the mother's plan to kill the baby, he
took a plea of 10-15 years in prison, if I recall correctly (presumably he took
the plea because he realized the mother wasn't looking good to the jury, and he
didn't want to do 25-life with her). I would imagine he also lost his licence.
Getteur
>news:20030201215220...@mb-cv.aol.com...
>> >> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea
>Brown
>> >> killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged
>> >mainly on
>> >> Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >I was glad to see the verdict. The mother planned a murder and carried
>it
>> >out (at least it was humane). She then horribly disposed of the body. I
>> >felt she met the criteria for first degree murder and believe the
>sentence
>> >she got was appropriate.
>>
>> the verdict didn't ring true with me.
>> After all the sympathetic testimony for the mother, the myopic jury
>ignored it
>> all and based its decision on a flimsy, purely hypothetical, with nothing
>> offered in evidence during the trial to support it theory of the
>prosecution.
>
>I didn't think the mothr was sympathetic at all. Had the baby been in
>distress, had been symptomatic, maybe. To kill the child because the
>course the illness would take, not because the child was hurting, to me was
>not rational.
What is rational to you is not necessarily what makes the most sense.
Which makes more sense, to put the child away before it begins to suffer, and
more importantly, before it attains the awareness that makes the siffering all
the worse, or after?
>> > I don't think that because the child was sick, not
>> >even showing signs of the disease, was any type of mitigating factor.
>>
>> You must have missed something. there was overwhelming evidence that the
>child
>> had the disease.
>
>I think that you missed something in my post. I realized the child had the
>disease, but was not symptomatic as yet. I am not heartless, and I can only
>imagine the hell that parents would go through with the kind of death
>sentence hanging over the child. But I can't belive that truly loving
>parents would not try to enjoy what momemts they could.
That is the point! Right there in your own words. For the parents to keep the
child to "enjoy what moments THEY could." That is not loving. Just the
opposite. It would be not loving, but selfish. What would be loving would be
what is best for the child, not whatever enjoyment the parents could squeeze
out of the child's short unfortunate existence.
>> >Euthanasia does not mean the taking of a life just because you are going
>to
>> >die sometime in the future. Hell, we are all going to die sometime in
>the
>> >future.
>> >
>> >Robin
>>
>> Again, you appear to have missed the point. It wasn't the dying, but the
>four
>> or five years of life spent in nothing but total and excruciating pain and
>> suffering over the entire period.
>> How would you like that kind of short exceedingly miserable life for
>yourself,
>> or someone you love dearly and deeply?
>>
>> Gary
>
>
>Again, I did not miss the point. Later in the disease, I would have had
>extreme sympathy for the mother. I would not want that type of life, or
>those of my loved ones, but I wouldn't have jumped to murder. Only when
>palliative measures could no longer bring about some kind peace could what
>the mother did be called euthanasia.
If that were so, but the point was hammered home that there were no palliative
measures known.
>As far as I am concerned, she just didn't want any one to find out about the
>affair. I don't think that this was written well into the plot, I think it
>should have been brought out as a more sinister motive.
It appears to me that you followed the on screen jury that fell for the
prosecution's flimsy, unsupported theory. A theory concocted because it was
all the prosecution could come up with to dissuade the possibility of a
sympathetic verdict.
As we have come to learn about the DA's office, if L&O can be any guide, is
that when someone is killed, they will do just about anything they can come up
with --even if it's intellectually dishonest to the prosecutor himself--to try
and get the perpetrator convicted.
And that's *exactly* what happened in this case.
Gary
Rich Rostrom
>Had Elliott not done what he did in that scene, I suspect we would
>have seen the younger girl for sure, and possible the older daughter in
>college back in the "SVU" complaining about being attacked or even worse.
Unlikely, even if the father did assault the girls. Unless the
father went completely insane and raped them, the case would be
'domestic violence', to be handled by the local precinct.
--
Never consume legumes before transacting whatsoever | Rich Rostrom
even in the outermost courtyard of a descendant of |
Timur the Terrible. | rrostrom@dummy
--- Avram Davidson, _Dr. Bhumbo Singh_ | 21stcentury.net
Maggie
>news:20030201215220...@mb-cv.aol.com...
>> >> I was very surprised at the guilty verdict. The business with Andrea
>Brown
>> >> killing her baby to cover up an affair seemed very flimsy, and hinged
>> >mainly on
>> >> Andrea lying to the doctor about her husband wanting to kill the baby.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >I was glad to see the verdict. The mother planned a murder and carried
>it
>> >out (at least it was humane). She then horribly disposed of the body. I
>> >felt she met the criteria for first degree murder and believe the
>sentence
>> >she got was appropriate.
>>
>> the verdict didn't ring true with me.
>> After all the sympathetic testimony for the mother, the myopic jury
>ignored it
>> all and based its decision on a flimsy, purely hypothetical, with nothing
>> offered in evidence during the trial to support it theory of the
>prosecution.
>
>I didn't think the mothr was sympathetic at all. Had the baby been in
>distress, had been symptomatic, maybe. To kill the child because the
>course the illness would take, not because the child was hurting, to me was
>not rational.
getteur said:
What is rational to you is not necessarily what makes the most sense.
Which makes more sense, to put the child away before it begins to suffer, and
more importantly, before it attains the awareness that makes the siffering all
the worse, or after? >>
***If that's your argument, every baby born should be murdered before they draw
that second breath--there's pain in every life. Do you advocate murdering
one-month olds carrying the Huntington's gene (they usually die in their 40's)?
...kids with cystic fibrosis (average life span--somewhere in their 20's)?
How about a kid with the gene that causes Alzheimer's?
The idea of killing a child before she's even begun to experience any serious
symptoms of her disease is abhorent. What if a cure had been found a month
after the murder?
Getteur
Now, you're just being stupid.
So here ends thef discussion.
Gary
Maggie
>What is rational to you is not necessarily what makes the most sense.
>Which makes more sense, to put the child away before it begins to suffer, and
>more importantly, before it attains the awareness that makes the siffering
>all
>the worse, or after? >>
>
>***If that's your argument, every baby born should be murdered before they
>draw
>that second breath--there's pain in every life.
getteur said:
Now, you're just being stupid.
So here ends thef discussion. >>
***A wise decision on your part. Very smart of you to end the discussion
before you got to my question about what would happen if a cure for the
heretofore healthy baby's future illness was to be found before she developed
irreversible symptoms?
David Johnston
wrote:
><< getteur said:
>>What is rational to you is not necessarily what makes the most sense.
>>Which makes more sense, to put the child away before it begins to suffer, and
>>more importantly, before it attains the awareness that makes the siffering
>>all
>>the worse, or after? >>
>>
>>***If that's your argument, every baby born should be murdered before they
>>draw
>>that second breath--there's pain in every life.
>
>getteur said:
>Now, you're just being stupid.
>So here ends thef discussion. >>
>
>***A wise decision on your part. Very smart of you to end the discussion
>before you got to my question about what would happen if a cure for the
>heretofore healthy baby's future illness was to be found before she developed
>irreversible symptoms?
There's no serious chance of that happening. However most parents
would hold off at least a little bit on the off-chance of divine
intervention.
Paul
You think? I thought the argument that there's always the possibility of a
break-through for a cure at any time very valid. What's stupid about that
concept?
William December Starr
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) said:
> ***A wise decision on your part. Very smart of you to end the
> discussion before you got to my question about what would happen if
> a cure for the heretofore healthy baby's future illness was to be
> found before she developed irreversible symptoms?
That would suck. But I'd still vote to acquit the parent. It's
wrong to subject a child to that kind of terminal suffering just on
the basis of hoping for a miracle.
-- William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
William December Starr
"kelly" <ke...@spamcop.net> said:
> The father looked familiar... but the young girl was just SO
> compelling, I hope she has a long and great acting future ahead of
> her. Who was she, anyway???
The listing at <http://www.tvtome.com/LawandOrderSVU/guide.html>
says:
Heather Goldenhersh (Ellen Swanson) Nathalie Paulding (Patty
Swanson)
...and Patty was the younger sister, right?
It doesn't have a listing for the Swanson father, so presumably he
was either Stephen Schnetzer or Ned Luke, both of whom were listed
as "(unknown)".
Maggie
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) said:
> ***A wise decision on your part. Very smart of you to end the
> discussion before you got to my question about what would happen if
> a cure for the heretofore healthy baby's future illness was to be
> found before she developed irreversible symptoms?
WDS said:
That would suck. But I'd still vote to acquit the parent. It's
wrong to subject a child to that kind of terminal suffering just on
the basis of hoping for a miracle.
>>
***Don't you think it would be wise to require that the parent wait for some
actual suffering before relieving the child of same?
James
>
>It doesn't have a listing for the Swanson father, so presumably he
>was either Stephen Schnetzer or Ned Luke, both of whom were listed
>as "(unknown)".
Stephen Schnetzer was the rabbi/counselor.
Walt
>In order to establish that the invasion of privacy thing was a big
>mistake, they had to establish that it was going to seriously mess up
>the kid's life. Not just Daddy saying, 'Oh, daughter, how could you,
>you're grounded.', but potentially cause even more violence. All of that
> 'overwrought' stuff went to show the abusiveness of the father,
>abusiveness that could easily be turned on the daughter.
>
>Elliot's reaction was perfectly in character. They had brought this down
>on that girl, and he was owning up to his part in it. Recognizing that
>if harm came to the girl, it would likely be as a result of his own
>investigation, he was taking some responsibility for the situation long
>term.
>
>I think the subplot deserved to be a plot on its own, but as long as it
>was relegated to being a sub, I'm glad it got a reasonable level of
>attention to the issues.
It's also possible (though not likely) they could set up a future episode (if
not of "SVU", the original "L & O") by using this sequence. Perhaps down the
road the father, still steaming over what happened here goes over the edge and
takes it out perhaps on one or both girls.
JD Leewong
>=> All in all, I liked the episode. I think the little twist of the
>husband being a convert was well done. I had wondered why the parents would
>not have had genetic testing done prior to having a child. I know many
>people, who because of the probability of illnesses due to their heritages,
>will not consider getting married and/or pregnant until they are positive
>they do not carry a deadly genetic combination. So,it seemed odd that they
>had not been previously tested before the baby was born.
As I understand it, Tay-Sachs disease is only a risk if both parents are
carriers and it virtually always is found in Ashkenazi Jews and as they said,
Cajuns. In this case, the husband was a convert from a different ethnic group
and was highly unlikely to be a carrier. Thus they would not have considered
themselves at risk.
Laurie
William December Starr
maggi...@aol.comSPAMBLOC (Maggie) said:
>>> ...what would happen if a cure for the heretofore healthy baby's
>>> future illness was to be found before she developed irreversible
>>> symptoms?
>>
>> That would suck. But I'd still vote to acquit the parent. It's
>> wrong to subject a child to that kind of terminal suffering just on
>> the basis of hoping for a miracle. [wdstarr]
>
> ***Don't you think it would be wise to require that the parent
> wait for some actual suffering before relieving the child of same?
Given the fact pattern regarding the inevitability and lethality of
the condition that was presented on the L&O episode, no, I don't see
that that should be required.
JD Leewong
>
>As far as I am concerned, she just didn't want any one to find out about the
>affair. I don't think that this was written well into the plot, I think it
>should have been brought out as a more sinister motive.
Also, didn't the husband know about the affair already?
Laurie