Review of "Criminal" (Tuesday, April 20, 2004 NBC Episode of "SVU")
Walt Parker
First, a reminder that this episode will repeat on Sunday, May 2 at
11:30 PM ET/PT on USA Network. See below for more:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
This story opened with what appeared to at first be a crime scene
that wasn't, only it turned out a dead woman had been found there with
her nails clipped after her death. At first, it looked like there
wasn't going to be anything to go on, but it turned out the victim
(Rebecca Wheeler) had been arrested a year earlier for obstruction
when a drug bust happened, but those charges were dropped.
It then looked like they got Rebecca's killer (Rudy Lumke), only to
discover that he was right-handed and the alleged killer (Javier Vega)
was left handed. Don knew it might be Vega because he had collared him
in 1976 when he killed another woman left-handed like Rebecca was.
It was obvious that Cragen believed that Vega killed Rebecca had not
changed at all. It also turned out that Cragen had a long history with
Vega dating back to a Grand Theft Auto collar in 1975 where he had let
him go at the time.
At trial, even after Casey showed mounds of evidence that Vega had
killed Rebecca that he denied it, with Vega found guilty in less than
an hour. It turned out right after that we find out that Rudy Lumke,
who was thought to be a witness before the trial actually thought he
was a snitch. It turned out that Vega did take Lumke to a motel as was
noted earlier, and then it was discovered that it was a differnt car
that happened to be identical to Vega's that was used in the actual
murder.
It then was turned out that someone went to a lot of trouble to frame
Vega for murdering Rebecca, and Vega was released as quickly as
possible. That was no surprise. It didn't surprise me to find out who
the real killer of Rebecca was in Kyle Lurhman, who apparently was
jealous of Vega and Rebecca having a relationship. His daughter then
comes to Cragen to try and help, with Lurhman it turning out also in
love with Rebecca, and Luhrman admitting to such. Lurhman then is
killed in the end after he goes for the gun and tries to shoot.
This was yet another gut-wrenching episode that was well done.
Walt
Liam Devlin
Was I the only one who kept thinking "Vincent Vega"?
PG episode, although I thought it was obvious Vega wasn't the killer.
Hunter
As a cause to compare and contrast NYPD Blue is in the middle of a
three episode story arch about how Andy Sipowitz when he was a new
detective mistakenly arrested a man who was later wrongly convicted
for raping and murdering a 12 year old. He rotted in prison for 18
years (Andy was not the lead detective on the case but junior to a
more seasoned but lazy detective who was his partner back then) He was
cleared by DNA after several years of the falsely convicted man asking
for one. What prompted the state in moving on his request is that a
jailhouse snitch made a deathbed confession that he lied about Peel,
the wronged man's name, confessed to him that he did it (More
importantly Peel's girlfriend lied about the suspect's truthful alibi
that he was with her about the time of the murder. She was afraid that
her father would find out that she was dating a black guy, whom Peel
is). Andy feels guilty but tried to hide behind the "Jury convicted
him" excuse, (but his conscience would not allow it) He even would not
apologize to Peel about arresting him. Contrary to Andy's trying to
fool himself, he did have a hand in the false conviction, namely that
he had Peel "ballpark" his whareabouts about the time of the murder,
even though he said he was not sure and was drunk at the time. Peel
did, Andy took it as a lie and that hurt Peel's crediblity.
In conrast Cragen is broken up about putting the wrong man in jail, as
he should. But unlike Andy Sipowitz's case, Vega was an ex-con who did
murder a woman years ago. All of the evidence matched Vega's old MO
(despite the fact it flys in the face of common sense that a man as
schoold in forensics as Vega was would repeat his old MO to a Tee).
Sipowitz's Peel did not have a criminal record-IIRC-and their was no
forensic evidence liking Peel to the murdered 12 year old girl. And
Gorgen did not illicit questionable evidence in the form of a specious
time line from a disoriented suspect. Still, Capt. Cragen feels guilty
even if it truely was not his fault that Vega was wrongly convicted
for Rebbecca's murder. He was just almost out smarted by Kye Lurman.
Thank God for traffic cameras. It is a contrast between Captain Cragen
and Detective Sipowitz that Cragen had the decency to take
responsiblity for his mistake, even though it was unadviodable while
Sipowitz would try to deny any responsibility for his even though he
had practically help railroad Peel. Andy's old partner is even worse,
he literally feels no responsibilty at all for Peel's suffering.
It is unfortunate that NYPD Blue's depiction of how police react when
they get the wrong man than is L&W:SVU's depiction. I am not saying
that Andy Sipowitz should go into a major depression over this, but a
sincer apology to Peel's face would be in order. If Peel is rightfully
bitter and would not accept it, fine, that is his right; but it is
Andy that has to make the effort. Cragen at least tried even if he had
far less reason to.
---->Hunter
metoo
JMHO,
jo
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:32f29bdf.0404...@posting.google.com...
> -----
<major snippage, sorry>
David Johnston
>Free...@juno.com (Walt Parker) wrote in message news:<45f2bb53.04042...@posting.google.com>...
>> To all:
>>
>> First, a reminder that this episode will repeat on Sunday, May 2 at
>> 11:30 PM ET/PT on USA Network. See below for more:
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> O
>>
>> I
>>
>> L
>>
>> E
>>
>> R
>>
>>
>> S
>>
>> P
>>
>> A
>>
>> C
>>
>> E
>>
>It is unfortunate that NYPD Blue's depiction of how police react when
>they get the wrong man than is L&W:SVU's depiction.
Er...what?
I am not saying
>that Andy Sipowitz should go into a major depression over this, but a
>sincer apology to Peel's face would be in order. If Peel is rightfully
>bitter and would not accept it, fine, that is his right; but it is
>Andy that has to make the effort. Cragen at least tried even if he had
>far less reason to.
The Cragen episode demonstrates why real cops don't apologise to
the people they wrongfully arrest (well apart from real cops tending
to hold to a fixed conviction that the dude did it even if the
witnesses lied). Cragen apologises...even though
let's face it, it was a damn good frameup of a likely suspect, and
he gets a lawsuit for everything he owns, and that apology almost
guarantees that he'll lose.
But what about Stabler and Benson? They were squeezing a confession
out of a guy who was high, even though it was self-evident that the
suspect wasn't together enough to do a decent job of sanitising a
body.
lainiekazan
You could argue that the two detectives were just doing their job on a
routine case, but there were a couple of sloppy things that just
begged the questions:
1.Did no one on the DA's or squad staffs think to confirm the white
Lexus had plates linking it to Vega as the owner? Just to get a
second opinion?
2. Why didn't one of the officers at the spot where the witness (was
that a guy from "Sopranos", by the way?) leaned out his window and saw
the car look *up* and see the traffic camera? And, this is the
scriptwriters' fault -- in NYC "Simpsons" start at 11:30pm; *Seinfeld*
ends at 11:30.
Also, I wish the actors would do better at working with props. In the
elevator scene, they were clearly holding empty, clean coffee cups,
when they were pretending they were full of coffee. What's Florek's
story on this? -- he's a skilled, very well-trained actor with a lot
of stage experience.
lainiekazan
a "spoilers" sign.
If it's any comfort, the episode is pretty interesting, with lots of
switchbacks and details, so it'll still be entertaining, IMO.
Hunter
> :<4086a722...@news.telusplanet.net>
>
> You could argue that the two detectives were just doing their job on a
> routine case, but there were a couple of sloppy things that just
> begged the questions:
>
> 1.Did no one on the DA's or squad staffs think to confirm the white
> Lexus had plates linking it to Vega as the owner? Just to get a
> second opinion?
Everyone assumed. No one thought that there was a traffic camera at
what turned out to be the murder scene. A witness saw the same
description of the car the type Vega own and that was good enough.
This is why you have to have a lawyer fighting for you. The Cops and
the DA often don't go the extra mile for a suspect even if he has no
prior criminal record, never mind a ex con like Vega.
>
> 2. Why didn't one of the officers at the spot where the witness (was
> that a guy from "Sopranos", by the way?) leaned out his window and saw
> the car look *up* and see the traffic camera? And, this is the
> scriptwriters' fault -- in NYC "Simpsons" start at 11:30pm; *Seinfeld*
> ends at 11:30.
He probably forgot it was there. They blend into the background after
awhile.
>
>
> Also, I wish the actors would do better at working with props. In the
> elevator scene, they were clearly holding empty, clean coffee cups,
> when they were pretending they were full of coffee. What's Florek's
> story on this? -- he's a skilled, very well-trained actor with a lot
> of stage experience.
I think you are mixing the plot of the detectives and production too
much. I forgive the minor gaffes in production like the coffe cups and
when The Simpsons come on the New York Fox affiliate in NYC.
----->Hunter