"Redrum" Discussion **Spoilers**

Grissom is no saint and plays favourites with his CSIs.

However, I think Sara and Nick's anger towards Catherine is not just this case alone. There are mitigating factors are play.

Sara and Catherine have long had some tension between them since the days when Catherine asked, "Since when do you care about your looks?" to the Nesting Dolls incident.

Nick is rather vulnerable right now. He's been through a lot and held Catherine in a rather high esteem. Then she deceived them with a fake crime scene (yes I know she didn't have a choice) and it hurt him deeper. I suspect that had he not been through the ordeal he went through, his attitude would be a bit different about it. But he's vulnerable right now.

I think the writers' crafted it as a way of forboding a future conflict for Nick and Catherine. We saw them dancing in the premiere and then Nick defending Catherine in Leaving Las Vegas, so those were hints that at some point Nick was going to feel let down both professionally and personally by Catherine.

Catherine has always treated Nick better then Grissom has, and has helped him out of many a crisis from the dead hooker to the time he opened his mouth to the security guard. Then during Grave Danger she helped him out big time.

So he feels very let down by her both personally and professionally. Perhaps Catherine didn't realize that Nick had this strong, platonic bond towards her.

So his reaction was very understandable given where it's coming from. Remember Nick has always been the emotional barometer of the show.
 
Question...how would reverse forensics harm the lab's reputation? Apparently it's a method that's been used under certain circumstances and if it really damages the reputation of the lab/police department, the Undersheriff wouldn't have agreed in the first place considering how much he loves reputation. And if I'm not wrong, it is allowed as long as the DA agrees? Basically I don't think faking a crime scene to get the job done is wrong, since it is actually allowed. And I don't get why some people just need to repeat it over and over that Catherine had risked the lab's reputation. It has nothing to do with reputation at all...well, except for the Undersheriff's, maybe. He blew it big time and the DA was pissed.
 
sarahvma said:

And if the possible sexual harassment, or "workplace discomfort" card is going to be played, what about when Greg tried to ask out Sara? Or David?

What about when Catherine told Warrick she liked him?

Weren't those sexual harassments? Couldn't those have caused unease in the workplace and questioned their morals?
Click to expand...

I don't think that's necessarily sexual harassment. Co-workers develop feelings for each other and even ask each other out all the time. Workplace relationships can be difficult. Sexual harassment doesn't have anything to do with honest expression of affection for a coworker, or even a subordinate. Sexual harassment is using sex as intimidation towards a co-worker or a subordinate. Sara and Grissom's relationship, while it's touchy because he's her supervisor, is not technically sexual harrassment. Both are willing participants. As far as Catherine and Warrick, Catherine was not harrassing Warrick by being honest about her feelings. Had she for example gone ballistic and started stalking him, trying to win him back from Tina, threatening to make things difficult at work--that would be sexual harrassment. There's a line that gets crossed with sexual harrassment--Greg and David never crossed that line. Sure Greg gets flirtatious with Sara, Mia, and Wendy--but it's sincere, it's not malicious in nature. And although it may annoy his intended objects of affection occasionally, they know there's no malicious intent behind it. It's just Greg being Greg (and secretly deep down they think it's cute--we all do, right? :) )
 
xfcanadian said:


there are police who break laws, but catherine didn't break any laws...this was set up by the police department, it unethical, but not illegal.
Click to expand...
But she did! She tampered with a controlled substance and planted it as evidence on another case. The mere fact that she handled narcotics without logging the incidence is a crime.

IRL she would have been fired already.
 
^ I doubt it, since it was something her superior ordered her to do, and their purpose was to solve a crime. Should anyone doing similar things get fired, then IRL thousands of undercover cops would have gotten fired.
 
EricaSJ said:
^ I doubt it, since it was something her superior ordered her to do, and their purpose was to solve a crime. Should anyone doing similar things get fired, then IRL thousands of undercover cops would have gotten fired.
Click to expand...
She wasn't undercover, undercover operations needs clearance from the DA, which they obvisously didn't have, not to the extent that the case they fejked was even distuingishable from the real case. An undercovered operation means infiltration, not tampering with evidence. Undercover operation means finding out information and forwarding it to the policeforce, it does not mean that the undercover cop can tamper with and fabbricate evidence.

If it had been legit she shuldn't have had to steal, they could have fejked that the amount needed to be sent to s pecialized lab for more tests. All amounts of any narcotics are logged and weighed. At least in every other PD and lab. I doubt it isn't in the second best crime lab in the US.

Have no doubt, you never tamper with controlled substances, never.

And no undecover cop would steal narcotics without the stash being specifically marked for an specific operation. This was narcotics from aother case!

If LAPD works like this on a regular basis they would have no convictions in drugrelated cases whatsoever. She wanted no leaks, Hell she was risking henry's work and he did leak because sara knew Cath had been in his lab while he was handling the heroin and she had ordered him out. She herself saw to it that informtion was leaked in this case.
 
^ I guess I know what you mean. The reason why I mentioned undercover was some undercover cops have to do a lot of things which are normally considered illegal, but they are not guilty because they do that to accomplish their missions and they have permissions. Anyways This is how I see it...they failed because the Undersheriff hadn't talked to the DA first, which he should have done before they started then plan. Otherwise it was a success because Simon did reappeared (which was the purpose of the whole reverse forensics thing). Apparently "reverse forensics" is some kind of method criminalists use to solve crimes. If the Undersheriff had talked to the DA first, and if she had agreed, would Catherine still be "breaking the law" when she did what she did in Henry's lab?
 
EricaSJ said:
^ I guess I know what you mean. The reason why I mentioned undercover was some undercover cops have to do a lot of things which are normally considered illegal, but they are not guilty because they do that to accomplish their missions and they have permissions. Anyways This is how I see it...they failed because the Undersheriff hadn't talked to the DA first, which he should have done before they started then plan. Otherwise it was a success because Simon did reappeared (which was the purpose of the whole reverse forensics thing). Apparently "reverse forensics" is some kind of method criminalists use to solve crimes. If the Undersheriff had talked to the DA first, and if she had agreed, would Catherine still be "breaking the law" when she did what she did in Henry's lab?
Click to expand...
If she handled narcotics without logging it and leaving a paper trail, without a doubt.

Furthermore it would tarnish the labs reputation irreparably. Any DA worth their alt would ask how the evidence was retrieved and second guess them all along the way because in one instance evidence was being stolen from one case, witout any logging, and used in another. And since the DA got to see the faked case, will the lab's rep be as strong on other cases?

Cath should have personally checked with the DA, she had the responibility for the lab.
 
didnt keppler use a gun from another case for their bullet? how is that not stealing evidence?
im sure they do this in real life, but obviously better and more people are involved. you cant go shooing lab techs away and taking their evidence for your own purposes. especially like S_Bright said when its narcotics and youre not documenting anything. if they had paperwork and logs of everything they faked then the da would be able to tell real from fake evidence.

the youngins had every right to be suspicious. youd be hard pressed to convince me if grissom was the conspirateur catherine would have sat idley by. and without the other team checking things out they would have lost two convictions and not just one. nick saved kepplers butt when his plan blew up.

undersherrifs fault, kepplers fault, brasses fault, catherines, doesnt matter they all got screwed over in the end. if people were so worried about it falling through they could have made contact with the da, kept her up to date with their progress.

but its csi, our characters are infallible. keppler, catherine, and brass wont be repremanded (the mishandling of drug evidence is a really big deal) and im not holding out for anything to happen between catherine and the others. they will probably magically all be ok next episode. life goes on.
 
Redrum was an outstanding episode. i completely loved it, it kept me on heels ALL the freakin time, it was intriguing, different and the only thing i was missing was Grissom. i'm sure he wouldn't allow this kind of investigation, that's why it was a great moment to try out a not-so-ethical style. all i want to say to TPTB - awesome job guys! this season is AMAZING.
 
Apparently it's a method that's been used under certain circumstances and if it really damages the reputation of the lab/police department, the Undersheriff wouldn't have agreed in the first place considering how much he loves reputation. And if I'm not wrong, it is allowed as long as the DA agrees?
Click to expand...

Keppler told the Undersheriff that he'd had one case where reverse forensics worked and one case where it failed. The Undersheriff said he'd take the 50-50 odds so he knew it had a chance to fail. He also knew for it to work, he had to clear it with the DA but obviously, he didn't like her and didn't talk to her. Dude walked because Undersheriff didn't do his part.

ETA: Keppler also said that if it works, they wouldn't remember the deception--only that it worked. Unfortunately, it kind of worked, kind of didn't work so the team will remember the deception.

undersherrifs fault, kepplers fault, brasses fault, catherines, doesnt matter they all got screwed over in the end.
Click to expand...

Brass didn't tamper with evidence so from that standpoint, he's in the clear. As for him being in on it, Brass is a cop, not a CSI (even when he was head of the department, he wasn't a CSI). Brass's job is to catch the bad guys. If one of the CSI guys says let's do "reverse forensics" to draw out the bad guy, and the Undersheriff says "do it", he's going to go along with it because he trusts the CSI's--and because he expects nimrod Undersheriff to talk to the DA. He wants to catch the bad guy and by whatever means, he eventually did.
 
i didnt say brass tampered with evidence. sorry if i was unclear. i meant they all got screwed over since they were all involved and in my opinion the fact that they lost a conviction makes them all look bad.
i dont have any experience in law enforcement, but i think the fact the guy gets away with murder is more important than the faked crime scene. so i think that is what would get them repremanded
 
S_Bright said:
EricaSJ said:
^ I guess I know what you mean. The reason why I mentioned undercover was some undercover cops have to do a lot of things which are normally considered illegal, but they are not guilty because they do that to accomplish their missions and they have permissions. Anyways This is how I see it...they failed because the Undersheriff hadn't talked to the DA first, which he should have done before they started then plan. Otherwise it was a success because Simon did reappeared (which was the purpose of the whole reverse forensics thing). Apparently "reverse forensics" is some kind of method criminalists use to solve crimes. If the Undersheriff had talked to the DA first, and if she had agreed, would Catherine still be "breaking the law" when she did what she did in Henry's lab?
Click to expand...
If she handled narcotics without logging it and leaving a paper trail, without a doubt.

Furthermore it would tarnish the labs reputation irreparably. Any DA worth their alt would ask how the evidence was retrieved and second guess them all along the way because in one instance evidence was being stolen from one case, witout any logging, and used in another. And since the DA got to see the faked case, will the lab's rep be as strong on other cases?

Cath should have personally checked with the DA, she had the responibility for the lab.
Click to expand...

You do have a point. I wonder why she or anyone else didn't? Undersheriff or no, someone should have been able to pass by the DA's office and ask about it. Maybe they thought the US knew what he was doing.
 
i meant they all got screwed over since they were all involved and in my opinion the fact that they lost a conviction makes them all look bad.
Click to expand...

I think this makes the Catherine and Keppler look bad but Brass caught the bad guy and again, as a cop, that's all he cares about.

i dont have any experience in law enforcement, but i think the fact the guy gets away with murder is more important than the faked crime scene. so i think that is what would get them repremanded
Click to expand...

But he didn't get away. They caught him in the end, thanks to the evidence Nick and Sara found an the dead Lawyer's place. They didn't get him for the murder of the assemblyman but they got him for the other murder. Either way, the guy's going away for murder.
 
Dementia said:
I wonder why she or anyone else didn't? Undersheriff or no, someone should have been able to pass by the DA's office and ask about it. Maybe they thought the US knew what he was doing.
Click to expand...
Because everyone had their specific parts to do in the plan. If you remember, just before the undersheriff walked out of the diner, it was basically set that he was the one to check with the DA. Cath & Keppler were the ones to stage the scene, Brass was to handle the police part of the plan. Why would any of the others think they needed to check with the DA when they all expected the undersheriff to do his part, since he was the one to make the decision on the plan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top