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

[beaujolais]

NO Brass has been way out of line many times. And the team has been deeply involed in this from the onset so I totally thought they'd be a part of this and they were~

His daughter Ellie shunned him on and wants no part of him WHY?
He had an affair with a married women~
He was on "The List", in the day~
He was insubordinate with almost everyone at one time or another~

I'm surprised you didn't mention that he killed a cop. But really~
- How does his daughter shunning him or wanting no part of him make him out of line? And how do we know she still feels this way? We haven't seen her in 5 seasons.
- Yes, he had an affair with a married woman. And he dumped her when he found out she was married.
- Yes, he was on the list. Again, how was he out of line? He wasn't guilty of anything and when he was on the case, he cleared it with his CO so there was no conflict of interest.
- There's only one person Brass can be insubordinate with and that's his commanding officer or in this case, the sheriff or the undersheriff, although I've never been clear if he reports to the undersheriff or if they are peers. And yes, he was insubordinate with the sheriff when he went to LA to help his daughter, the one who shunned him, came back when he got shot, ran away and has never been seen again.

I don't think anyone would ever claim they are perfect but up until now Brass has had a pretty good track record. Definitely good enough to make what he did seem out of character. But in his defense Brass is a Marine and he'd probably go to the wall to protect one of his team. In that respect, I can see why he did what he did. And if that's the path the writers wanted to take, who else would have possibly gone that far to protect Ray?

Honestly, I'll be shocked if PG signs on for more than a few episodes in S12 so what better way than to use this as a catalyst for Brass to retire?

 

[Smokey]

I just watched some parts again, and knowing the ending put some things into perspective.

Upon entering the house, Brass looks down at both of Haskell's wrists and sees the marks, then tells the other cop to go cover the back. Then we see Brass handcuffing Haskell.

I remember now while watching, thinking that Brass knew what Ray had done and figured they would go down the same path they did when they suspected Warrick of killing Gedda. But no.

 

[Desertwind]

NO Brass has been way out of line many times. And the team has been deeply involed in this from the onset so I totally thought they'd be a part of this and they were~

His daughter Ellie shunned him on and wants no part of him WHY?
He had an affair with a married women~
He was on "The List", in the day~
He was insubordinate with almost everyone at one time or another~

I'm surprised you didn't mention that he killed a cop. But really~
- How does his daughter shunning him or wanting no part of him make him out of line? And how do we know she still feels this way? We haven't seen her in 5 seasons.
- Yes, he had an affair with a married woman. And he dumped her when he found out she was married.
- Yes, he was on the list. Again, how was he out of line? He wasn't guilty of anything and when he was on the case, he cleared it with his CO so there was no conflict of interest.
- There's only one person Brass can be insubordinate with and that's his commanding officer or in this case, the sheriff or the undersheriff, although I've never been clear if he reports to the undersheriff or if they are peers. And yes, he was insubordinate with the sheriff when he went to LA to help his daughter, the one who shunned him, came back when he got shot, ran away and has never been seen again.

I don't think anyone would ever claim they are perfect but up until now Brass has had a pretty good track record. Definitely good enough to make what he did seem out of character. But in his defense Brass is a Marine and he'd probably go to the wall to protect one of his team. In that respect, I can see why he did what he did. And if that's the path the writers wanted to take, who else would have possibly gone that far to protect Ray?

Honestly, I'll be shocked if PG signs on for more than a few episodes in S12 so what better way than to use this as a catalyst for Brass to retire?

I love Brass and always have. On his daughter not out of line but they did have big ussues, meaning he's not perfect. I forgot about the cop. What ever he's done has always been OK with me, I like whatever he does most of the time. I'm just saying on "The List" he was having a fling wth a known perp. I'm not saying anything against him only that he's always looking for an angle to protect his own, that's all. I'm a huge fan of his , and I think everyone is

 

[Raynn]

I'm just saying on "The List" he was having a fling wth a known perp. I'm not saying anything against him only that he's always looking for an angle to protect his own, that's all. I'm a huge fan of his , and I think everyone is

At the time of the affair, she was a cop, wasn't she? Anyway, "sleeping around" and "covering up a murder" are hardly anywhere close to the same level of "out of line."

The Marine angle makes some sense, but then, wouldn't the corrupt cops in Jersey have been his "team" too? Wasn't one of them his partner? So why turn them in, and then cover for Ray?

 

[beaujolais]

The Marine angle makes some sense, but then, wouldn't the corrupt cops in Jersey have been his "team" too? Wasn't one of them his partner? So why turn them in, and then cover for Ray?

They never said if Mike O'Toole, Ellie's real father, or any of the other cops were his partner or his team. But I suspect his motivation is based on what he didn't do for Warrick. Remember how guilty he felt when he told the undersheriff that he thought Warrick did it?

But honestly, I have no real explanation for why a character is made to do something at a writer's whim. At this point I doubt they even remember that they gave Brass this backstory.

 

[Desertwind]

Again he acted in self-defense different opinion on this. Nate had a gun on him remember? And Brass was just looking out for his team-mate, as he asked Cath "are you"? It was both actually that's why the director Jeffery Hunt was awesome, it left so many unanswered questions. I was only stating that Brass is not Mr. Clean he's done things that weren't in alignment with protocol and dept. rules, and was just looking out for Ray. HE LIKES HIM. THAT'S WHY... What on earth good would it do, if he were sent to prison, for taking down this low-life? How would that help anything or anybody? Their all glad he did this:bolian: case closed~

 

[Otie]

Something that's been bothering me since last night...

There WERE ligature marks on Haskell's wrists, the pattern of which match an object, and would be VERY easy to re-create in an experiment to see if the flex-cuffs were what caused the ligature marks.

If this were just any murder case, you can NOT say that they would just excuse the ligature marks on the wrists and say "Well, we didn't find the binding at the scene, therefore there must not have been a binding in the first place!" They would have marked it down in the report that the object used for the binding had been removed from the scene! Typically taking the logical thought process that the killer took it with him/her.

The evidence was there that something had bound Haskell by his wrists... Robbins has shown before that he can estimate approximately how long prior to death various abrasions occurred... from that they could have easily devised an experiment using someone of the same wrist form as Haskell, and tested both what object was used as a bind as well as how tightly bound he was in order to cause ligature marks to that extent. From that experiment they could then further have determined whether or not Haskell would have been able to remove the binding himself or if someone else had to have removed it.

Even without the flex-cuffs, there was more than enough evidence to show that it was murder and not self-defense.

That is all... seriously I was waking up multiple times last night thinking about how if that's the way they look at potential weapons/evidence being removed from the scene meaning that they were never used... there's got to be a lot of murderers in Vegas getting lucky with the crime lab saying "No evidence of a weapon, so one couldn't have been used!" and getting off as a result.

 

[beaujolais]

If this were just any murder case, you can NOT say that they would just excuse the ligature marks on the wrists and say "Well, we didn't find the binding at the scene, therefore there must not have been a binding in the first place!"

Wouldn't they need the flex cuffs to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in fact the cause of the ligature marks? Without them, couldn't a defense attorney claim that something else caused the ligature marks prior to Haskell confronting Ray? Something that Haskell himself tore off his wrists. I would think they have to have the flex cuffs and they have to find some evidence of Haskell in the cuffs before they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Haskell was bound by them and Ray put them on him.

 

[hiphugger17]

Something that's been bothering me since last night...

There WERE ligature marks on Haskell's wrists, the pattern of which match an object, and would be VERY easy to re-create in an experiment to see if the flex-cuffs were what caused the ligature marks.

If this were just any murder case, you can NOT say that they would just excuse the ligature marks on the wrists and say "Well, we didn't find the binding at the scene, therefore there must not have been a binding in the first place!" They would have marked it down in the report that the object used for the binding had been removed from the scene! Typically taking the logical thought process that the killer took it with him/her.

The evidence was there that something had bound Haskell by his wrists... Robbins has shown before that he can estimate approximately how long prior to death various abrasions occurred... from that they could have easily devised an experiment using someone of the same wrist form as Haskell, and tested both what object was used as a bind as well as how tightly bound he was in order to cause ligature marks to that extent. From that experiment they could then further have determined whether or not Haskell would have been able to remove the binding himself or if someone else had to have removed it.

Even without the flex-cuffs, there was more than enough evidence to show that it was murder and not self-defense.

That is all... seriously I was waking up multiple times last night thinking about how if that's the way they look at potential weapons/evidence being removed from the scene meaning that they were never used... there's got to be a lot of murderers in Vegas getting lucky with the crime lab saying "No evidence of a weapon, so one couldn't have been used!" and getting off as a result.

This is exactly why I think that the rest of the team, especially Sara, Catherine, Doc, and Greg, maybe Nick are more responsible than just "they don't have the evidence so they can't do anything else". They didn't do anything else because Ray is a team member not because they just couldn't. If it were any other case they would've kept working until knowing for certain what had happened (because they knew something didn't add up) and even if they didn't find the evidence necessary I think they would've made it clear on the report they all signed as self defense. I think that what Grissom always taught about following the evidence even if it leads you somewhere you don't want it to lead you, was very poorly displayed by everyone except maybe Sara. Even Nick, because even if he didn't believe Ray could kill someone it's not supposed to matter what you believe as a CSI you can't draw conclusions until the evidence tells you the truth and he did draw a conclusion and it was the wrong one. Which by the way proves that none of them should've worked the case but that's a moot point now. I think they didn't do everything they could've done or would've done if it were any other case and that's were they made a mistake as a team.

 

[Desertwind]

The writers presented this episode, The team didn't come in and go "This is the way I want this played out" the writers told them, handed them the script and wa-la, the episode happened. They know how to do this with great expertise, and pulled it off, and it was a fantastic episode regardless of what some think or don't think, or shoulda, coulda, woulda, my opinion~

 

[hiphugger17]

^^ You're completely right, the writers really messed it all up. I primarily blame them.

 

[kaylyne]

Again he acted in self-defense different opinion on this. Nate had a gun on him remember? ~

It seems to me that you're very confused on the meaning of self-defense.

Self-defense is Ray & Nate duking it out when one is a serial killer (cat) and the other is a victim (mouse) who's been taunted immeasurably by the serial killer.

Self defense is Ray trying to subdue Nate so he cannot inflict any more torture on both himself and his ex-wife, who's already been extremely tortured by him

Self defense is tying up the serial killer with flex cuffs so he can inflict no more torture, and then WAIT FOR THE AUTHORITIES TO ARRIVE - and who were not very far behind (and considering Nate was in the flex cuffs, he was officially NOT an immediate danger anymore)

Self-defense IS NOT cutting off the aforementioned flex-cuffs that were binding the serial killer's hands, torturing him more, picking him up and throwing him down a drop of 132 inches to fall to his death - after he had previously been subdued. That's what's called MURDER - in ANY American justice system - whether it's justifiable or not !

 

[Otie]

Wouldn't they need the flex cuffs to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in fact the cause of the ligature marks? Without them, couldn't a defense attorney claim that something else caused the ligature marks prior to Haskell confronting Ray? Something that Haskell himself tore off his wrists. I would think they have to have the flex cuffs and they have to find some evidence of Haskell in the cuffs before they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Haskell was bound by them and Ray put them on him.

Not necessarily. As it stood in the episode, they suspected it was flex-cuffs. At that point by getting a number of volunteers of the same overall body type as Haskell (as close to his bone and muscle structure as possible) they can experiment using a variety of different types of bindings... when they find one that produces the same MARKINGS as the ligature marks on Haskell's wrists, they can then fine-tune the experiment to test for other variables on that binding. To test various amounts of tightness of the binding, as well as whether he was bound behind his back or in front. Based on those results, and comparing them with the ligature marks for intensity, positioning, etc... they can determine whether or not it would have been possible for him to have gotten out of the binding on his own.

By doing the experimentation, they could show with very little doubt that the flex-cuffs were the bind. Yes, a defense lawyer would probably argue with the fact that they weren't on the scene and weren't ever recovered... but does the lack of a knife in a stabbing equate to there never having been a knife used? No... that's why it's up to the investigators and scientists to experiment to determine WHAT happened based on the evidence they do have... and in this case it's a set of ligature marks on his wrists paired with the evidence that Ray had dominated the fight. In the court, a jury may or may not find the results of the experiment to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt... but at that point it's based on the individual beliefs and faith science and experimentation to find truth. I myself am very science-minded... I would trust that so long as the experimentation was done using proper scientific standards, that the results and conclusions are accurate. My in-laws wouldn't. But you even have people who don't look at cases with clear cut evidence all present who may doubt the validity of the evidence period. So, really... they could very easily make a good case via experimentation.

 

[kaylyne]

Wouldn't they need the flex cuffs to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were in fact the cause of the ligature marks? Without them, couldn't a defense attorney claim that something else caused the ligature marks prior to Haskell confronting Ray? Something that Haskell himself tore off his wrists. I would think they have to have the flex cuffs and they have to find some evidence of Haskell in the cuffs before they can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Haskell was bound by them and Ray put them on him.

Not necessarily. As it stood in the episode, they suspected it was flex-cuffs. At that point by getting a number of volunteers of the same overall body type as Haskell (as close to his bone and muscle structure as possible) they can experiment using a variety of different types of bindings... when they find one that produces the same MARKINGS as the ligature marks on Haskell's wrists, they can then fine-tune the experiment to test for other variables on that binding. To test various amounts of tightness of the binding, as well as whether he was bound behind his back or in front. Based on those results, and comparing them with the ligature marks for intensity, positioning, etc... they can determine whether or not it would have been possible for him to have gotten out of the binding on his own.

By doing the experimentation, they could show with very little doubt that the flex-cuffs were the bind. Yes, a defense lawyer would probably argue with the fact that they weren't on the scene and weren't ever recovered... but does the lack of a knife in a stabbing equate to there never having been a knife used? No... that's why it's up to the investigators and scientists to experiment to determine WHAT happened based on the evidence they do have... and in this case it's a set of ligature marks on his wrists paired with the evidence that Ray had dominated the fight. In the court, a jury may or may not find the results of the experiment to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt... but at that point it's based on the individual beliefs and faith science and experimentation to find truth. I myself am very science-minded... I would trust that so long as the experimentation was done using proper scientific standards, that the results and conclusions are accurate. My in-laws wouldn't. But you even have people who don't look at cases with clear cut evidence all present who may doubt the validity of the evidence period. So, really... they could very easily make a good case via experimentation.

Yes, it would be very easy experiment to do. Cath already mentioned that the ligature marks in the photo were inconsistent with a handcuffs, but were the same consistency as the flex cuffs.

That reminds me of a scene from one of the early years where Catherine was had a curling iron and was doing a comparison of a burn mark on a girl's wrist. She used her curling iron on a prosthetic wrist, and it was a perfect match. That would be basically the same type of simple test for a flex-cuff.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

Again he acted in self-defense different opinion on this. Nate had a gun on him remember? And Brass was just looking out for his team-mate, as he asked Cath "are you"? It was both actually that's why the director Jeffery Hunt was awesome, it left so many unanswered questions. I was only stating that Brass is not Mr. Clean he's done things that weren't in alignment with protocol and dept. rules, and was just looking out for Ray. HE LIKES HIM. THAT'S WHY... What on earth good would it do, if he were sent to prison, for taking down this low-life? How would that help anything or anybody? Their all glad he did this:bolian: case closed~

What on earth good would it do? If Ray got away with murdering a criminal then it would mean that anyone can kill someone just because they hurt them or another. It's called being a vigilante and it is illegal.

And what Ray did was NOT self-defense. It may have been at first, but once Haskell was subdued and cuffed it turned into murder.

Seriously, can Ray do any wrong in your eyes?

I mean I'm a fan of Nick and even I can see stuff he's done wrong.