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

[Sookie]

Add me to the list of people who do not like that they had Brass do that.

 

[jafox]

You know what gets me? The Brass seen in "For Warrick" wouldn't have done this. When he found Nick after the shot was fired and McKeen was on the ground, you could see in Brass's face that he was concerned about Nick and that he was afraid of what Nick might have done. Not once did I get the impression that he was going to find a loophole or whatever for Nick. I always felt Brass was concerned that he would have to take Nick in. Squeaky clean Brass. That's why I like(d) him.

Now we have this Brass who goes out of his damn way for Langston and is now no longer clean. I hate this show...

I'm with you 100%. It was totally wrong for the writers to do this unless the show is ending, and even then it shouldn't end on a note like this! But now, how do we go forward pretending everything is okay when we know Ray is a cold blooded killer and the team is okay with it (or they would have fought harder to prove what they knew was the truth) and that Brass is now a bad cop? We can't. I can't. They'd better FIX this next season.

I agree with this, as well as hiphugger.
I think this taints all their investigations in the future. How can they confront suspects on tampering with the evidence issues, or taking the law into their own hands? It will seem hypocritical, at best.
Nick had a choice when he confronted McKeen. Thankfully, he took the high road. Brass, as well, was usually on the side of the law. None of this really makes sense. Sara seemed to be the only one acting in-character. Catherine was appropriately conflicted; her full reaction may be yet to be seen, as well as Nick's.
And, I don't think there is any way that Grissom would have let this happen. He was too much about the evidence and the facts. He might have defended Ray's actions on a personal level and sympathized with him, but I doubt he would have looked the other way, especially once he knew what happened. It could have been a very intense scene between him and Brass.
I'm not sure this can be fixed. It's almost as if tptb wanted a scenario where any or all of the actors could leave. At the very least, Ray should resign. He also needs to man up, and admit what he did. It was justifiable homicide. With a sympathetic jury, he could get off. And, return to a life of lecturing and writing. I'm pretty sure he would lose his medical license as well.
And, I agree with those who said that Haskell won in the end. He's pretty much taken down the whole team (and maybe the show), not to mention along the way he made the whole police force look like idiots.

 

[electra]

It started as a good one becouse LF did a great job portraying Ray and we saw that Haskell was really dead.But I was waiting all the time for a plausible explanation that exonerated Ray.Not to IA but for me to know that he did not killed anyone.At the end,I felt that it tainted the team as a whole like so many are saying. Grissom would never be OK with something like this.I mean, Dexter is entertaining but I still consider him a serial killer.And Brass,I can not even comment about that one.

 

[MacsGirlMel]

Ray did become a killer, but I would stop short of calling him cold-blooded. It wasn't like he did it for no reason whatsoever. I'd go with the justifiable homicide label myself. However, that doesn't change the fact that they really screwed up with the episode itself and did taint the whole team. I can hypothetically see how the others could get by if we look at the part about them not finding the tie cuffs at the scene...is there a way they could admit that they had reservations based on the body but could not corroborate it with the evidence at the scene?

Either way, Ray needs to either man up or get fired, and Brass needs to man up too...that part was really OOC. I'm not sure if he could man up without being fired too, but Ray at least needs to go. And I'd also punish Nick somehow for aiding Ray in LA...bust him down a level or something, or two levels like Warrick. Or suspend him for a few weeks, something.

 

[Ipstenu]

A cold-blodded killing is accurate. He had Haskell 'cuffed'. He uncuffed him and killed him. That was pre-meditated.

Ironically, people mean 'hot blooded' when they say 'cold blooded' most of the time. He did it out of anger and hate, but he did it. In front of Gloria. He better hope she stays semi-vegitative.

 

[byline]

Was it really days? I thought it was less.

It was days. When Catherine and Ray walked in on the initial crime scene, Ray reminded Catherine of Haskell's M.O. and said it had already been 72 hours, so Gloria was probably dead.

As for this episode: Well, I just couldn't get into it. I'm so glad that Haskell is gone -- and early on, no less -- but unfortunately the entire episode still revolved around him and Ray. I was completely wrong about some kind of prior connection between the two of them . . . which, in a way, was a relief. That would've been just too convenient for my tastes.

Sooo . . . Haskell hated Ray because after he and Ray crossed paths, killing just didn't feel the same to him? That makes no sense to me, but I don't even feel enough energy to try to figure it out. The episode saddened me, but not for the reasons the powers that be would have liked. It was very well done, Fishburne did a good job with his role, and the actress playing Gloria portrayed the trauma of such an awful experience superbly, but somehow I just was not moved by what happened to them. Maybe a repeat viewing will improve things for me, but somehow I doubt it.

I was also a bit confused as to who was pulling for whom. Nick, Brass and Doc were clearly in Ray's corner. Catherine? It was hard to say what was going on with her. Normally Catherine would have said follow the evidence, not draw some sort of a priori conclusion the way she seemed to. (I know it was based on the available evidence, but don't curiosity and continuing different lines of questioning open up new possibilities? Catherine seemed a bit too eager to shut that down.) I did like that moment between Sara and Greg, where he questioned her going through Ray's kit. I thought it was a very believable exchange between the two of them.

My only hope is that now we are past this whole Ray/Haskell storyline and can move into something more imaginative . . . which, oddly enough, means a sort of "regression" to the past style of storytelling. Something's gonna have to happen to rejuvenate my interest in this series, because this story arc sure didn't do it.

I wish they had done this ep like For Gedda when Warrick was accused of killing Gedda and other people worked the case and team follows closely behind cause the team shouldn't be working the case in the first place, and Ray SHOULD NOT HAVE ESPECIALLY

I agree wholeheartedly, but remember that in "For Warrick" Grissom asked Ecklie to let his team do the investigation . . . and, unbelievably, Ecklie rolled with it. So unfortunately, "CSI" has this and several other precedents for the team handling cases in which their members have direct involvement. It's not terribly believable, and makes the series more soap opera-ish than it should be.

Except that everyone except Brass filed the report correctly as the evidence showed. Like Catherine said, without the cuffs they couldn't prove it. And Brass told Ray they were the only two who knew the truth. So really, Brass is the only one who officially knew it was definitely murder.

I agree with this. I think that Catherine strongly suspects what went down, but of course she doesn't know without direct evidence. Brass and Ray (and possibly Gloria, if she was able to see what was happening and not in so much shock that she couldn't remember) are the only two who really know what happened. All the rest of the team are in various stages of doubt.

Still, when she was talking with Sara, Catherine seemed less questioning than she should have been, which puzzled me. Maybe internally she was speculating, but wasn't as willing to voice her doubts as Sara was. Odd, because Catherine never seems afraid to speak her mind on anything. Maybe her conflict is over how to handle . . . well, Ray going all vigilante, Nick "cowboying up" and Brass covering for Ray (which, as others have pointed out, is also quite puzzling and out of character).

Going back to the Keppler episode in which they faked a crime scene, who all was involved in that? Catherine, I clearly remember. Was Brass in on that, as well? I can't remember. What I'm getting at is, I'm trying to remember a precedent where Brass was willing to hide/alter evidence to protect someone. After Warrick was murdered by McKeen, I remember Brass talking with Grissom about a party he was invited to at the undersheriff's cabin, and how he was never invited again because he made it clear that he wanted no part of the same kind of stuff he had witnessed going on in New Jersey.

Even if picking up the flex-cuffs was a spontaneous decision by Brass, he had enough time to put them back . . . and I believe the Brass we've all come to know would have. Regardless of how horrific Nate's crimes are, Brass and Ray simply aren't close enough to motivate him to carry that out, especially knowing the repercussions such an act could have on team members he's known far longer.

Previous posts mention the possibility of this setting up exit stories for Catherine, Sara and Ray. It could also set up an exit story for Brass, too.

 

[ladyhunter]

I wanted to hate this episode. All the Ray/Nate drama. All the crap that Ray did behind Catherine's back. All of it, I wanted to shout at the TV. Alas I couldn't.

I really do like the cops vs CSI sort of episodes. And this one turned out to be a doozy.

Unfortunately, Catherine is in the middle. She let Haskell come to town last finale over Brass's head. But I'm sure she didn't foresee what Ray was going to become once she did that.

Now Brass is lying, covering up evidence? Probably to redeem himself for going along with it. I really like Brass. I even liked the Brass/Cat tension over this situation. But what I'm not going to like is the aftermath.

This was a classic CSI episode as Kaylyne pointed out. Find a bloody crime scene, and a victim. Follow the evidence. Where did it lead? To Ray and the flex cuffs. It also had Ecklie doing his former CSI duties as the acting supervisor of the lab. Last time we saw that was in Iced, right?

The only problem is that all the Ray/Nate stuff tainted the outcome. At least for me. It was so over drawn out if you will. It would have been a bigger shock if we just found out Ray killed Nate without all the prior knowledge of the 'warrior' gene and all the 'dark Ray' stuff we had to endure.
Again, that's me.

So I'm not really going to be haunted by this all summer. But I'm thinking how it will play into Catherine's exit. And, knowing me, how it will affect her relationship with Vartann. At least Brass is 'dirty' on this one so he can't come down on Cath for her actions, especially when he has to go up against IAB.

Anyone else picturing Catherine and Brass vs Vartann and IAB?

Not a bad episode. Kept me intrigued. Would have been better had we not know about all the Ray/ Nat history beforehand.

 

[Raynn]

I agree wholeheartedly, but remember that in "For Warrick" Grissom asked Ecklie to let his team do the investigation . . . and, unbelievably, Ecklie rolled with it. So unfortunately, "CSI" has this and several other precedents for the team handling cases in which their members have direct involvement. It's not terribly believable, and makes the series more soap opera-ish than it should be.

In "For Gedda" though, the team wasn't allowed to investigate Warrick (one of their own) when HE was accused of the exact same thing that Ray was. They did end up reviewing the evidence, because Ecklie gave it to Grissom, but the collection and main investigation was done by another shift. In "For Warrick" they weren't investigating (and possibly covering for) a friend as a suspect - they were investigating his death, as a victim. Still a personal connection, and still probably not allowed, but a completely different situation (pushing too hard/vengeance vs. covering up/not looking hard enough).

Going back to the Keppler episode in which they faked a crime scene, who all was involved in that? Catherine, I clearly remember. Was Brass in on that, as well? I can't remember. What I'm getting at is, I'm trying to remember a precedent where Brass was willing to hide/alter evidence to protect someone. After Warrick was murdered by McKeen, I remember Brass talking with Grissom about a party he was invited to at the undersheriff's cabin, and how he was never invited again because he made it clear that he wanted no part of the same kind of stuff he had witnessed going on in New Jersey.

Brass was in on the reverse forensics, but it wasn't at all the same thing. Playing out a fake crime scene in the media, where all the 'higher-ups' know (or would've, if McKeen hadn't screwed up), isn't the same as covering up an actual crime (which is a crime itself). Several times, Brass's clean image has been brought up - in For Warrick, Hollywood Brass - his nickname in Jersey was "Squeaky" or something. It's so out of character for him to do something like this. Even if he does feel guilt over not supporting Warrick, it shouldn't be enough to make him compromise principles he's apparently stuck to for decades. Plus, Warrick was actually innocent - Brass knows what Ray did.

On the topic of "justifiable homicide" - "A homicide can only be justified if there is evidence to suggest that it was reasonable to believe that the offending party posed an imminent threat to the life or wellbeing of another." Haskell was cuffed. He was no longer a threat. It was not justifiable.

I just really hope that the truth does come out, and affects as few of the team as possible (so far, Ray and Brass are the only ones who are really involved - Cath and Sara may suspect, but at least they don't have proof). It's a really bad example for a show to set if they just let this go, condoning vigilantes and murderers.

 

[Ninja0980]

Let me start me start by saying Haskell was indeed scum of the earth. His abusive upbringing is NO excuse for killing and terrorizing innocent people.
Having said all that, I am disguisted with the way this episode played out. The whole thing worked out better than Haskell could have dreamed it would.
Not only did Ray murder him,but several of his co-workers betrayed their badges to let him get away with it.
Brass must have forgotten Assume Nothing and All For Country(season 4 shoutout) in which he ripped apart a man who had killed a serial killing couple for taking the law into his own hands. I never want to hear a speech like that from him again.
IMO, this episode has helped take CSI down the Without A Trace no return path. For those wondering what that is, it's something I came up with. It's where a team member (like Jack Malone) can take the law into his own hands and suffer no reprucussions for it. And even worse, have his team cover for him.
I've never been so disguisted with a CSI finale before.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

And I'd also punish Nick somehow for aiding Ray in LA...bust him down a level or something, or two levels like Warrick. Or suspend him for a few weeks, something.

Nick did not do anything criminal and nothing wrong. The only thing he did was not inform Catherine he found Ray. They went after a killer. He was reprimanded, but that was not a suspension/demotion infarction.

So after reading everyone's posts here's what I've come up with AND looking at it after calming down. :lol:

The only two who really did anything wrong, in this episode, was Ray and Brass. Ray committed murder plain and simple. It could have start off as self-defense, but once those cuffs were on it became murder.

Brass committed a crime by picking up and hiding evidence.

As for the team, think about it...

They couldn't think that Ray would actually murder someone so they would stand behind him and try to prove his innocence. Which is what they did.

Now Catherine suspected Brass did something at the scene because the evidence was telling her that Haskell was cuffed. However, without the actual EVIDENCE there is nothing she can do.

She 'let' Brass know that she knows what he did. Whether she agreed with it or not, she had to go by the evidence.

Same with Greg and Sara. Sara knows, but again, what can she do? Without the cuffs Brass wouldn't be convicted.

Nick was not involved in the part of the investigation so he didn't cover anything up. Really Greg, Sara, and Catherine didn't either. They all suspected, but again without evidence what can they do? They're hands are tied.

As for Nick he may have supported Ray and believed in him, but if it was him instead of Brass, Nick would not have picked up those cuffs. In the end he does what is right and doesn't commit a crime. He would have brought Ray in no matter how much it would have hurt him to do it.

I, also, believe that Sara, Greg, and even Catherine wouldn't have done it either.

So as upset as we are, the team didn't really do anything wrong, but they will always have it their mind that Ray did murder him. However, because of who Haskell was they'll 'live with it'. Think if you were in that situation. You can't prove Ray killed him, you know/suspect he did, but it got rid of Haskell. In the end working with Ray is the lessor of two evils.

However, that doesn't mean they won't keep an eye on him.

Brass, I am very disappointed in, but I still recall that there was something happened in Jersey and that was why he wasn't working there anymore. I don't think they ever said what it was, but there was mention of it. Ugh, I don't remember. :lol:

It's like Ray tore down everything this team built up.

Well, you got to give tptb one thing, they sure know how to get the us talking. :lol:

 

[CazzBlade]

I liked this episode more than I thought I would. The Sara and Greg scenes (and the ones Nick was in with them) were great! Compelling and insightful, I could understand both POV without getting annoyed with them.

To be honest, I skipped most of the Ray and/or Gloria scenes, as I just didn’t care. And I hope Ray admits to it so he can leave (coming from someone who really liked Ray to start with), I know that won’t happen but one can hope. Ray surely can’t be trusted to continue as a CSI, even if the IA clears him the others wouldn’t trust his reactions/judgment anymore?

I think the downfall of the episode for me (besides all the Haskell stuff that I already didn’t like) was that I didn’t care for Gloria, I like her, but I wasn’t affected by what happened to her. If the same had happened to one of the team as happened to Gloria, and one of the other team members did what Langston did, I think I would have totally supported their actions and the covering up of it, because I care about the character the way the other characters do.

 

[MacsGirlMel]

I still wouldn't use the 'cold blooded' label, I still don't think it fits. It's true that Ray went overboard and just killed Haskell because he hated and was annoyed by him, but it's more of a bad temper, impulse kill...are we sure it was premeditated? Do we know for sure that Ray showed up intending to kill Haskell? I guess it's just the way I think of the term in my head...IDK. I do say now that I mixed up the justifiable homicide definition...it doesn't fit that label.

 

[K-Bug]

I don't really give a shit about what happens to Ray or Laurence. At this point, all I care about is Catherine/Marg. If they make Catherine out to be a fool here, I will refuse to watch it again, even when Catherine does appear. The Catherine of four or five seasons ago would be kick-ass, gung-ho, whooping butts to find out what happened and proving it. For them to have her sign off on a report knowing that Ray murdered Haskell is a slap in the face to the character and fans of the show.

Oh, and the closure of the Vartann/Willows romance? Perfect. /snark.

My prediction for next year?

If PG/LF signs, Ray admits what he did and says that HE took and hid the cuffs, and Brass gets off scott free. Catherine is labeled an idiot/her supervisor title is taken away, and Ray is knocked down to level one and isn't allowed to do solos. Cath decides to leave and work casinos, and Nicky (the new supervisor) goes to her for advice when he needs it, hence her guest spots.

If PG doesn't sign but LF does: Ray tells what Brass did and Brass is fired. Same scenario for Cath.

If PG signs, but LF doesn't: Brass admits what he did and Ray is fired, and Brass is suspended/knocked down a few pegs. Same scenario for Cath.

If neither sign: The truth comes out and they are both fired. Same scenario for Cath.

Orrrrrrr.....Grissom wakes up from a dream to find out the last 4 seasons haven't happened. Warrick is still alive, no Raskell, everyone is a happy family. :lol: I kill me.

 

[Smokey]

I don't know how much more cold blooded a murder could get than picking a man up off of his feet and throwing him over a balcony.

Speaking of, I thought this episode was extremely gratuitous with the violence. I know for a fact that if I ever do watch it again (not likely) I'm skipping over those parts. Ick. Way too much for a 9:00 show, I think.

 

[hiphugger17]

Speaking of, I thought this episode was extremely gratuitous with the violence. I know for a fact that if I ever do watch it again (not likely) I'm skipping over those parts. Ick. Way too much for a 9:00 show, I think.

Yes so true!!! I constantly found myself looking away because there was so much graphic violence. Gloria's torture, Ray's beating of Haskell and a couple other stuff very graphic.