"In a Dark, Dark House" Discussion *SPOILERS*

Thanks for the explanation. Based on this it sounds like Catherine and company never really needed the flex-cuffs to know that Ray had Haskell subdued and could have presented the above to prove that it wasn't self defense. Instead they signed off on the report saying that it was.

 

I'm pretty sure that we're all talking about the actions of the characters here, not the actors or anything. Saying "the writers said it would be this way" doesn't mean we should just overlook characters behaving badly. In order for the show to be believable and engaging, there still has to be some sort of consistency and accountability in what the characters do.

I think there should have been some mention of "suspected" restraints or something in the report. Without the actual cuffs though, all they can say is that the ligature marks are "consistent" with flex-cuffs, not that they were definitely caused by department issue cuffs, such as Ray had on him. Are the marks that distinctive, or could there be other reasonable explanations as to where they came from? Also, I would think that few abrasions on an already beaten up body are more dismissable than a knife or bullet wound (especially if it's CoD) - so the more blatant/deadly injuries would be investigated further even if no obvious weapon was present.

Maybe that's just overly optimistic thinking on my part though, since I really don't want to see the whole cast replaced next season or continue to watch believing that they're all incompetent or criminal. There's no excuse for Ray or Brass, and Robbins is borderline - but the others, I'll give a bit more leeway, for my own peace of mind if nothing else.

 

[spam]

 

The writers wanted this story to haunt us all summer long. Did they accomplish that? Does any of you feel haunted?

Jorja said "All of the characters on the show have to examine or re-examine their beliefs about certain things, their ethics." Yes definitely needs re-examining, Haskell is a psychopath.. he deserved to be killed but he also won he wanted Ray to kill him. Reminds me in season 1 they were talking about murder and whether they would commit it. Sara couldn't, Warrick & Catherine could and Nick's on the fence. Those were the good old days...

The thing that really bugs me is the team's integrity. Technically none of the CSI covered up anything..., just Brass. But would they cover up a murder... I want to say no. Because this is Grissom's team, and there's just no way... please writers just don't go there.. that would ruin CSI for me.

 

[spam]

 

I think Brass's actions in this episode could be seen as the natural consequence of the bad habit he'd fallen into of not letting Ray suffer as the result of displays of Ray's bad temper. In the episode where Ray and Nick chase Jeckyll thru the hospital, Brass convinced the doctor that Ray threw against the wall not to file charges by pointing out the bad publicity the doctor and the hospital would suffer when word got out that nuclear medical equipment had been stolen on the doctor's watch. And I'm pretty sure that there's another episode where Brass got Ray out of trouble caused by Ray's temper.

As I and a lot of others have posted, the collective (with the exception of Sara) complicity of the team can be explained due to Warrick guilt but Brass and Cath might also be having some Keppler guilt. They were the two that grew closest to Keppler and must have wished the most that there was some way for a basically good man to get clear of his troubles.

 

Doesn't matter. It wasn't Ray's or anybody elses decision to choose whether or not Haskell should die rather than being in prison. Ray (presumably) swore to uphold the law when he became a CSI. And he broke it. So this time he killed a man who had indeed caused much damage and destruction. Does that make him any less of a vigilante?

I like to think that I would have more self control than to murder them after they no longer posed an immediate threat. Okay, if Ray had kicked Haskell where he hurt a few times after he'd restrained him, that would have been understandable. Or if he hadn't had a chance to restrain him and had been forced to shove him through the bannisters to end the threat.

But Ray had Haskell restrained and had removed the threat. The only reason he cut the cuffs was so that he could beat him to death and maybe salve his conscience by giving Haskell a tiny 'out'.
That's pre-meditation right there. And it doesn't matter that Ray was so 'traumatized' by what had happened to Gloria. He is lacking in self control and that's what makes him dangerous. Today it's Haskell...tomorrow it'll be something else. Ray is a loose cannon, and while he may indeed be a 'good man', it still doesn't excuse him.

 

Sure they could prove that flex cuffs were used, but who's they were and when they were put on and taken off are two different things. Of course everyone on the team probably has their opinion on what happened, but again you cannot crunch evidence to fit a theory...

 

Brass' daughter was also a victim of a violent crime, so it's also a case of his having empathy with Ray. I'm sure he was thinking that he would have done the same thing as Ray if he could have killed the guy before the guy killed his daughter.

 

Ellie didn't die, did she?

 

And Ray had him cuffed. Then he took those cuffs off and processed to beat him up and toss him over a balcony. NO way is that self-defense at that point. If Haskell's death had occurred during the initial fight, then yes, self-defense could be argued. However, once RAY removed those cuffs, it no longer was self-defense.

Really? They were ALL glad Ray committed murder? I sure didn't see anyone glad. I must have missed the party afterward where everyone was congratulating Ray for a job well done.

 

Good points. This is the kind of progression in Brass's behavior that I asked about earlier. I'd forgotten some of what you mentioned.

 

Agree with what's been said on this episode.

For me it became murder the moment Ray cut the cuffs from Haskell. Here we are with the whole team continuously risking their jobs and reputation for Ray yet he's prepared to throw it all away for the oppurtunity to murder Haskell.

It's like he's used his access as a CSI since he first came on board to go after Haskell.

Brass's actions were disappointing (although again if Ray had any respect for his colleagues Brass wouldn't have been in that situation).

I could care less about the fate of Ray for next season, i'm only interested in how the team will move on from this especially if Ray miraculously remains a CSI.

It's good to see they distanced Nick from Ray, especially after last weeks episode, it allows him to become Supervisor next season without being heavily implicated in the fiasco of this episode.

 

And this kind of goes back to my original question about Haskell somehow managing to get them off himself (there was a knife after all). Actually, this makes me think that if Grissom were still there he'd say "Okay, the flex cuffs are invisible evidence. How do we prove what happened without them."

But it really doesn't matter because the way I see it, if Ray says murder, everyone who signed the report goes down. What they have might not be enough to prove guilt in a court of law (if the DA would even take it to court) but it's enough to be able to tell IAB whether it was murder or self defense.

The difference is with Brass, it's cut and dry. We saw what happened, we know it for a fact (unless the writers were messing with us and not giving us the whole story) and as some are quick to point out, he is now a very bad man. With the CSI's, because it's not so black and white it's easier to say they aren't guilty of anything because the missing piece of evidence isn't there. But to get to that point, they knew what went down and still said it was self defense. I guess it's easier for them to look the other way when they have something like missing evidence to blame.

No, as far as we know, Ellie is alive and still hooking in LA. She just disappeared at the end of S6 and has never been heard from since.