Review of "Caviar Emptor" (Wednesday, May 12, 2004 NBC Episode)
Walt Parker
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
The episode opens with a group of people apparently planning for a
party in a townhouse. One person runs from downstairs noting the
victim, Manny Soleimani, was not breathing. Apparently, the wedding
was that of the victim's that had actually taken place the night
before, and the police were called in when the new wife (Yasmin, who
was much younger than the victim) demanded there be no autopsy.
After Serena was able to get an order over the new wife's objections
for an autopsy (after the Judge turned that down first before Serena
pointed out that the marriage had not yet been officially filed, with
the order occuring in home of Judge Arlene Brewer), it turned out it
was a homicide, with Soleimani smothered to death. That probably
explained why the wife didn't want an autopsy, as given what was said
after that, it looked like Soleimani's biggest rival in the Caviar
business, but his rival then said that it was Manny's son Ben was the
one who wanted to "kill the competition."
The evidence on the pillow (the murder weapon) suggested a woman who
had dyed her hair, but had a gray root, with that found in the
daughter's bedroom. Anita spoke to the daughter (Roya Koutal), who
broke down a bit when told the murder weapon was found in her
daughter's room.
It turned out is son-in-law (Asher Koutal) was brought into the
business by his father Manny. It also turned out that Asher and his
wife Roya wanted to have a child, and she was looking with her husband
to adopt a baby from China, only to turn down the adoption because her
father disapproved, and a Rabbi Serena spoke to how the adoption would
have been a major problem in her community. In addition, more evidence
came to Roya being the murderer of her father, when the Rabbi noted
that Roya was being kicked out of the house she lived in all his life
because of his new wife Yasmin. There then were later revalations that
Roya was pressured into jumping horses (a practice of Yasmin's) when
she was considerably younger and she suffered a bad fall that caused
her not to be able to have children.
We then see Roya with Skoda, where she reveals her father was angry
about her adopting the child, because he didn't want to be insulted.
Skoda then tells Jack her being thrown out was equal to that of a wife
being thrown out of a marriage, being replaced by a "trophy" wife who
was actually younger than his daughter. Skoda then testified to that
at trial.
Roya then testified at trial to her indeed being thrown out of the
house by her father. Her husband then testify, and he noted he did
leave Roya to kill Manny himself, claiming he used tanquilizers after
the wedding in his drinks the night before and then the next morning
by smothering him. Jack accuses him of lying. Roya is found not
guilty, and Asher is immediately arrested for murdering his
father-in-law.
Yet another great episode, and I did not see the last part coming at
all.
Walt
Chris
>all.
Weak, weak, weak! The end was no surprise at all. How hard is it to figure out
that the husband would do that? It's been done before in too many episodes. The
episode sucked. I've been watching the first 2 seasons on DVD and seeing this
new episode, and most of the last few seasons, makes me long for the days when
the show had some intense quality to it and wasn't so clearly running on
autopilot. Hopefully if Dennis Farina comes on board, he can bring some much
needed intensity back to this show. Dump Rohm too and bring back Robinette!
Michael J. Bayles
first few seasons. I mean I cant blame them- its hard to come up with
original, new and great story ideas after 13 years. But I mean even the
stupid little things like the court room audiences. In the old days, it
wouldn't be uncommon for the audiences to laugh whenever someone made a
joke- or for their to be intense emotions or outrage at an
acquittal/conviction. How 'bout that Moriarty episode at the bail hearing
where the judge and someone in the audience went back and forth in like a 3
joke quip? But now, in comparison the courtroom is full of a bunch of
Vulcans.
-mike
"Chris" <snug...@aol.comyomama> wrote in message
news:20040513030934...@mb-m03.aol.com...
LB in StL
"Chris" <snug...@aol.comyomama> wrote in message
news:20040513030934...@mb-m03.aol.com...
I totally agree that this was a weak episode. There was no surprise or
interest at the end. When the final credits came on, I was thinking "It's
over??". When the husband confessed on the stand, I thought surely other
things would happen plotwise. I thought they wouldn't have him confess so
long before the end of the show unless there were more twists to follow.
Unfortunately, his confession was the 'twist'. He confessed, the trial went
on, the jury found the wife not guilty, the husband was arrested, the wife
looked pained but said nothing, he was taken away. So, basically after he
confessed, the rest of the story line was meaningless. A real let down.
Tinabuck
Couldn't agree more. The husband "twist" was soooo obvious,
in part because he had absolutely no other reason to exist
other than as a cheap plot device. Even the actors seemed
bored by this lame-o story line. Maybe they're all bummed out
by the demise of "Friends."
Tina
JD Leewong
> It also turned out that Asher and his
>wife Roya wanted to have a child, and she was looking with her husband
>to adopt a baby from China, only to turn down the adoption because her
>father disapproved, and a Rabbi Serena spoke to how the adoption would
>have been a major problem in her community.
Iirc, the problem would have been not the adoption per se, but the defiance of
the patriarch.
Laurie
Felonious Monk
> Roya then testified at trial to her indeed being thrown out of the
>house by her father. Her husband then testify, and he noted he did
>leave Roya to kill Manny himself, claiming he used tanquilizers after
>the wedding in his drinks the night before and then the next morning
>by smothering him. Jack accuses him of lying. Roya is found not
>guilty, and Asher is immediately arrested for murdering his
>father-in-law.
I was a little confused by the ending. When Asher confessed on the
stand, the implication was that he was taking the fall for his wife.
At the end, when Branch, Serena and Jack were doing their closing
scene, the implication was that Asher really did kill the old man. So
Asher really was the killer?
Michael J. Bayles
ultra pissed and upset with the husband.
GBlueOwl
<jfb...@swbell.net> writes:
>"Chris" <snug...@aol.comyomama> wrote in message
>news:20040513030934...@mb-m03.aol.com...
>> >Yet another great episode, and I did not see the last part coming at
>> >all.
>>
>> Weak, weak, weak!
>
>I totally agree that this was a weak episode. There was no surprise or
>interest at the end. When the final credits came on, I was thinking "It's
>over??". When the husband confessed on the stand, I thought surely other
>things would happen plotwise. I thought they wouldn't have him confess so
>long before the end of the show unless there were more twists to follow.
>Unfortunately, his confession was the 'twist'. He confessed, the trial went
>on, the jury found the wife not guilty, the husband was arrested, the wife
>looked pained but said nothing, he was taken away. So, basically after he
>confessed, the rest of the story line was meaningless. A real let down.
>
>
Agree with all of the above, but the biggest problem for me was the "He
confessed, the trial went on" part. Namely, those dramatic "Perry Mason"
witness stand confessions are always pretty cheesy, but whenever they've
happened on L&O before, they were always handled in a *somewhat* realistic way:
As soon as the unexpected confession was made, one of the lawyers, usually the
ADA, would immediately stop the proceedings with a call for a discussion in the
Judges chambers, where he'd throw a fit demanding that the "confession" be
stricken from the record and that the Judge instruct the jury to ignore it,
accuse the defense attorney of suborning perjury, ect., and when the judge
refused, they'd then ask for a continuance while they "looked into" this claim
& whatnot.
But here, the husband made this sudden confession that apparently came as a
complete surprise to *both* McCoy and the Defense Attorney (if no one else),
and not only did neither one call for a recess while they figured out how to
handle this bombshell, they both went right on asking questions pertaining to
this confession, with no idea what the responses would be! I thought the #1
Most Important Rule for any courtroom lawyer was supposed to be "Never ask a
question that you don't know the answer to", yet McCoy gets up and asks "Do you
have any proof of this claim?". What if the guy had been able to offer proof,
or at least evidence, to support his claim? , the bottles of the pills he
slipped the guy with his fingerprints on them, or the name of a friend he'd
confessed to, or something?
But even so, it's McCoy's actions *after* that which really make no sense: he
goes right on prosecuting the wife and giving an impassioned closing statement
as if he honestly believes she's the one responsible for his death, then during
the deliberations he concedes he thinks they probably have reasonable doubt (no
shit) and then gives the odd instruction that *if* the jury comes back with a
not guilty plea, he *then* wants the husband immediately arrested. They do, he
is, and the next thing we see is McCoy & Sereena commenting about what drove
the husband to kill, now clearly believing that he's the killer as the credits
roll. (When the husband was being arrested in court right after the verdict I
was assuming it was to be charged for perjury, but the next scene suggests it
was, indeed, for murder.). It seems to me as if McCoy's own private beliefs on
whether or not he was prosecuting the right person were determined solely be
the jury's verdict. If he had any suspicion at all that the husband might have
been telling the truth he would have halted the trial and tried to look into
that possibility, and would have never let the case go to the jury until he was
satisfied in his own mind, at least. But if he really did believe she was
guilty, a simple "not guilty" verdict by the jury would never have immediately
changed his mind like that and led him to then peruse a case against the
husband without even pausing for a breath.
Brian
KBilier
>all.
>
>>>>Oh I did!!!! As to whether he was lying or not.....would be interesting to
see a show based on that trial. maybe the newTrial by Jury?????Must agree, it
was a very good ep. Reminded of me seasons past.
Nelson Lu
Felonious Monk <bos...@STOPSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>I was a little confused by the ending. When Asher confessed on the
>stand, the implication was that he was taking the fall for his wife.
>At the end, when Branch, Serena and Jack were doing their closing
>scene, the implication was that Asher really did kill the old man. So
>Asher really was the killer?
There is no real way to know, based on how the show left us -- which means, in
my opinion, it was wrong for them to charge Asher. (However, it is arguably
permissible for them to, in this case, charge Asher with murder *and* perjury
and charge Roya with perjury, and force both of them into getting convicted on
something.)
wps
news:45f2bb53.04051...@posting.google.com:
> To all (see below):
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> A
>
> C
>
> After Serena was able to get an order over the new wife's
> objections
> for an autopsy (after the Judge turned that down first before Serena
> pointed out that the marriage had not yet been officially filed,
I thought an autopsy was required by law, except where the deceased has
been under a doctor's care immediately prior to death.
William December Starr
commented on yet, that I really appreciated: the casting of Frank
Converse in a role that turned out to be almost completely
insignificant to the story, upending my expectations that the
character _had_ to turn out to be important.
--
William December Starr <wds...@panix.com>
JD Leewong
>
>There's one element of this episode that no one seems to have
>commented on yet, that I really appreciated: the casting of Frank
>Converse in a role that turned out to be almost completely
>insignificant to the story, upending my expectations that the
>character _had_ to turn out to be important.
>
guilt and turned it around for once.
Laurie
D.F. Manno
wps <my_por...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I thought an autopsy was required by law, except where the deceased has
> been under a doctor's care immediately prior to death.
Exceptions can be made for religious reasons.
--
D.F. Manno
domm...@netscape.net
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Benjamin Franklin)
Maggie
> wps <my_por...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I thought an autopsy was required by law, except where the deceased has
>> been under a doctor's care immediately prior to death.
>
>Exceptions can be made for religious reasons.
>--
>D.F. Manno
***Actually, autopsies are pretty rare these days--they're more the exception
than the rule.
Maggie
"You can't take your eyes off [it]. It's like Donald Trump's Hair." -- Dan
Neil
mary
news:20040513122531...@mb-m03.aol.com:
Have to butt in here ... i'm a (fairly) observant Jew and also have
Persian Jewish friends, and this bit about the Chinese baby being a
problem is bogus. It's NOT consonant with either Jewish or Persian
(Mashadi) Jewish law or custom. The problem is totally with the father
of the family, as Laurie notes.
We were so bothered by this when we watched it that we checked it with
our rabbi when we were hanging out at a bat mitzvah lunch this Saturday.
He confirmed that there is no proscription in Judaism about adopting or
adopting from another country. In fact we have a single woman in our
congregation who adopted a baby from China ~7 years ago and nobody thinks
twice about it.
The Persian Jewish community is really interesting, with a lot of cool,
different customs than your average Ashkenazi (European) community. It's
too bad that the writers had to distort a rich, ancient culture this way
just for a plot twist. Overall, i'm underwhelmed with some of the Jewish
story lines throughout the franchise ... i just think they could do
better than turn the people into cartoonish props.
mary
--
Rich Rostrom
>jdle...@aol.com (JD Leewong) typed in
>> Iirc, the problem would have been not the adoption per se, but the
>> defiance of the patriarch.
>> Laurie
>
>
>Have to butt in here ... i'm a (fairly) observant Jew and also have
>Persian Jewish friends, and this bit about the Chinese baby being a
>problem is bogus. It's NOT consonant with either Jewish or Persian
>(Mashadi) Jewish law or custom. The problem is totally with the father
>of the family, as Laurie notes.
I thought that was clear from the show; Asher and Roya's rabbi knew
about the adoption, and had no problem with it himself.
What would blow up was Roya's open defiance of her father,
not the subject of her defiance.
>We were so bothered by this when we watched it that we checked it with
>our rabbi when we were hanging out at a bat mitzvah lunch this Saturday.
>He confirmed that there is no proscription in Judaism about adopting or
>adopting from another country. In fact we have a single woman in our
>congregation who adopted a baby from China ~7 years ago and nobody thinks
>twice about it.
Well, that's the view of a rabbi who conducts _bat_ mitzvahs.
Not exactly a traditionalist there, I'd say. (Though IANAJ.)
But as I noted, the rabbi in the show didn't seem to have any
objection, and it seems unlikely that Asher and Roya would defy
their whole community.
>The Persian Jewish community is really interesting, with a lot of cool,
>different customs than your average Ashkenazi (European) community. It's
>too bad that the writers had to distort a rich, ancient culture this way
>just for a plot twist.
There's a blogger named Pejman Yousefsadeh who is a Persian-American
Jew (parents immigrated from Iran). I was hoping he'd comment on the
show (he's also a lawyer) but no such luck.
--
Were there eight kings of the name of Henry in England, or were there eighty?
Never mind; someday it will be recorded that there was only one, and the
attributes of all of them will be combined into his compressed and consensus
story. --- R. A. Lafferty, _And Read the Flesh Between the Lines_