I'm sorry that last line had me in stitches!that made my day! I know it's sick but then I have a morbid sense of humour!
hahah, that's the ultimate CSI-fan humour!
Not sure but I think Ed Gaines was legally sane, but there is debate weather he was a true serial killer...he "only " killed 2 people that was ever proven and they were considered "undesirables" . One was a killer himself and the other was a child abusing domestic prostitute, the characters Dexter, Leather face, and Hannibal lecter were loosely based on him, but Gaines was more of a grave robber. His trophies were from bodies he had stolen from funeral homes cemetaries, and even a morgue. My guess is DJK is a cross between Bundy and Gaines.
yeah, and the killer in Hitchcock's Psycho was based on Ed too. both Ed and Norman Bates had
major mommy issues. i always found Ed Gein more fascinatng than Leatherface or Lecter even. the first was just plain crazy and Ed had a lot more to offer, psychologically-wise.
I get the feeling that he did know right from wrong, based on his comment about the 10 Commandments. I got the impression that the attention was a significant motivation for him. Like Grissom says, he loves to have people listen to him and, as one of the CSIs hypothesized, he was willing to spend more time in jail just to avoid sharing credit for the crimes. Langston definitely made it sound, when he discussed what DJK did wrong, like DJK wanted to get caught, maybe for the attention. I can't say I know very much about serial killers, but I felt like the need for attention was DJK's most notable attribute, and that he is, as a result, most similar to whichever serial killers were similarly motivated.
oooooh, fantastic point! Ted Bundy's motivation was possession, that he could feel like God when he took lives away, and DJK's was attention. Ted Bundy was sinister but the way DJK talks and what he says makes him even more evil, at least from the exerior. i wonder now, what triggered him to start killing. i'm thinking he was probably majorly overlooked by his parents (i'd say both parents, which is why he kills couples). but that's a layman's opinion.
IMO Grissom wants a change for a lot of reasons, and yes Sara may be one of them (as is Warrick), but she's not all of it.
i think so too. but i also think that it's okay if someone sees certain scenes in a shippy way, and somebody else doesn't. the show has had many ambiguous scenes that pertain to CSI's personal lives and one of the reasons for it is that you can interpret it just the way you feel it. you can't make everyone think the same and there is just as many opinions as there is people who watch it.
i, for example, don't think Catherine was dissaproving to Grissom and Heather's relationship. she maybe didn't like the fact that he provided her with an alibi by, what it seemed, sleeping with her in TGTBATD, but in the same episode she praises Heather and says both she and Grissom had chemistry, and it was good for him to find somebody outside work.
but i also agree with
jtd94 that Catherine wants him to be happy and she can see Sara's absence isn't doing him any good. she even tells him he should take a leave and visit her. one of the important things that made Catherine supportive is, imo, Grissom's slip-up in Living Doll that suggested he loves Sara. also the next episode Cath sees how he is worried about her and fights to find her alive. i think Catherine is a good friend who respects his choices and wants him to pursue happiness, no matter what she thinks of office romance, which btw, is not something she hadn't considered hersef (Yo!Bling comes to mind).
