Season 12 Spoiler Lab Discussion Part 2

[Speedystokesgirl]

Well yeah Ray was gonna do it no matter what but at least Nick could have tried to stop him

And Nick knew Langston was going to kill Haskell how?

"I wouldn't change a thing" Really Nick? Your friend went and killed someone, but you still wouldn't change anything if you could go back and do it over? Though maybe that's not what they're talking about but I'm pretty sure that's it

Ray would have killed Haskell regardless of Nick's actions. I'm sure Nick .only meant he wouldn't change what he himself did, not what Ray did.

But considering Nick disobeyed Catherine's orders and didn't sit on Ray that could be considered a pretty :wtf: statement.

If Catherine didn't bring Ray to LA in the first place, if Catherine didn't take Haskell out of prison.

Nice try, but don't pin it on Nick. He may have disobeyed Catherine, but she put Nick in that situation in the first place. If Catherine and yeah, Nick too, put a leash on Langston when it was becoming obvious that he was becoming obsessed about Haskell.

Is it hard to put blame on someone else than Nick? Because reallly the whole team is at fault, including Brass and, yes, Nick.

However, letting Ray get away with murder is on everyone, but Nick, as he was not involved that part of the investigation. Well ok, Greg and Sara questioned it, but still should have figured out why Haskell had cuff marks on his wrist and no cuffs. Catherine, too.

Though we're not sure if Ray is getting away with, yet. :shifty:

Because as GNRF Ray would have killed him anyways. If Catherine did what she was suppose to and NOT bring Ray to LA and let him work the case, he would have been in Vegas and figured out Haskell was back in Vegas and the same thing would have happened anyways.

Nick and Ray had a lead on Haskell and they went for it. He backs his fellow team members and that's a great trait...however misguided it can be at times. :shifty:

You know what, let's just blame Nick for everything. He obviously is the only one to blame and is responsible for Haskell's murder.

Maybe Nick will just walk off into the sunset with Catherine (and no, not as a couple).

 

[AFIS]

They seem to be putting quite a bit of effort into promoting the show this year, that hasn't happened in a while

New lead + new night = I hope they do and continue so :thumbsup:

I hope tptb continues to see the wisdom of promoting CSI also. I understand that CSI is already a popular show worldwide, but a little advertising never hurts.

Besides not seeing more of Jorja and Greg (I understand this is a 1 minute preview but is it too much to ask for a little less T.D. and a little more of the characters the fans know and love?) it was a good promo. I know it may sound silly but I really loved the thing they did with the text in between the scenes. That was a really nice touch. Thank you, CBS for finally releasing a promo.

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

You know what, let's just blame Nick for everything. He obviously is the only one to blame and is responsible for Haskell's murder.

Alright, if you insist. Always happy to make your wishes true, Speedy.

Nice promo. I liked the introductions they give for DB and Morgan. I think I'm really going to like them.

Watched the exchange between Cath and Nick. Honestly, I don't feel his response is tied in with her statement. The tone sounded different. As others have said, it's obviously edited to make it seem he's not in agreement. It's like he's responding more to a question regarding the lab and not her comment. But that's just me.

 

[GregNickRyanFan]

Well yeah Ray was gonna do it no matter what but at least Nick could have tried to stop him

Nick didn't know what Ray was going to do. Greg is the psychic one, not Nick. :lol: I kid, but seriously, there is nothing Nick could have done to stop Ray. Ray would have ditched him someway to search for Haskell. Most of the time, you cannot reason with someone who is blinded by love and by wanting to protect the person they love most in the world. It's possible that Ray wouldn't have killed Haskell if Haskell hadn't let Ray know that he raped Gloria. But its hard to tell since when Ray attacked Haskell, he said something about his kidney and I don't recall him mentioning Gloria at that particular time.

If Catherine did what she was suppose to and NOT bring Ray to LA and let him work the case, he would have been in Vegas and figured out Haskell was back in Vegas and the same thing would have happened anyways.

Yep, that's the kicker. Even if everyone had done what they were supposed to in the beginning, it would have likely been the same outcome in the end. That tells me that no one is to blame but Ray and Haskell. Its just like saying if Gloria had never came to see Ray and let him know she's getting married, her husband would not have been killed and Gloria wouldn't have been kidnapped. But, that's not necessarily true. Haskell would have dug and found out about Gloria and the same thing would have still occurred.

Honestly though, its unfair for ANYONE to solely blame Nick, or any one person other than Ray and Haskell. Speedy's right, everyone probably has some bit of blame in it... but the ones at most to blame are Ray and Haskell, PERIOD.

Nick and Ray had a lead on Haskell and they went for it. He backs his fellow team members and that's a great trait...however misguided it can be at times. :shifty:

Yeah, I agree... and I think he backs them even more now because he's still a bit traumatized in some ways after losing Warrick. I think Nick may also feel some guilt for what happened to Warrick. And what I mean by that is that Nick probably thinks things like "if only I had paid more attention to what he was doing and tried to reason with him before it got out of hand". Nick's thoughts during Ray's issues were probably along the lines of "I can't let that happen again". I think Nick in his actions was actually trying to PREVENT a bad outcome. The fact that he didn't only shows that there is nothing he could have done differently to stop the final outcome.

Bottom line is, its the writers who screwed things up with that whole stinkin' storyline in the first place. Now the only way for them to "fix" it is to have everyone face consequences that never would have been an issue in the first place if tptb hadn't kept bringing Haskell back and making him an annoying, overplayed song. I would have rather they had done a Dallas type scenario and have someone have dreamed the whole Raskell fiasco than for them to do this LOL.

Watched the exchange between Cath and Nick. Honestly, I don't feel his response is tied in with her statement. The tone sounded different. As others have said, it's obviously edited to make it seem he's not in agreement. It's like he's responding more to a question regarding the lab and not her comment. But that's just me.

I agree. I'm starting to wonder if maybe what Cath says that Nick makes that response to is something like "do you regret agreeing to be assistant supervisor?" and I could see Nick responding to that question and saying he wouldn't change anything.

 

[PerfectAnomaly]

Like I said before, it's all Mr. and Mrs. Haskel's fault for reproducing.

Nick is responsible for Nick's actions. Period. At the time he disobeyed Catherine's orders Catherine couldn't page Doctor Who and take the Tardis back in time to undo bringing Haskel to Vegas so it was still his responsibility to do what his BOSS told him to do.

What surprises me is that it's human nature to go back and see what you could've done differently and to blame yourself for mistakes you may have made after something bad happens and Nick says, "I wouldn't change a thing," or whatever he says. Obviously, we don't know what the entire scene entails, but from the way the promo makes it look - which I know could or could not be deceiving and is pure speculation on my part based on what is shown - Nick is being pretty arrogant in saying he wouldn't change anything.

 

[Rizzoli]

Like I said before, it's all Mr. and Mrs. Haskel's fault for reproducing.

Nick is responsible for Nick's actions. Period. At the time he disobeyed Catherine's orders Catherine couldn't page Doctor Who and take the Tardis back in time to undo bringing Haskel to Vegas so it was still his responsibility to do what his BOSS told him to do.

What surprises me is that it's human nature to go back and see what you could've done differently and to blame yourself for mistakes you may have made after something bad happens and Nick says, "I wouldn't change a thing," or whatever he says. Obviously, we don't know what the entire scene entails, but from the way the promo makes it look - which I know could or could not be deceiving and is pure speculation on my part based on what is shown - Nick is being pretty arrogant in saying he wouldn't change anything.

IMO, and this isn't to say Catherine isn't to blame for bringing Ray to LA etc., but she told Nick to sit on Ray, he didn't, Haskell died, and yes it wasn't just Nick's fault, and lots of other stuff happened between that, but at the end of the day Nick was culpable for that particular incident. It doesn't matter if Ray would've gotten to Nate some other way, he didn't, he got to him because Nick didn't follow Catherine's orders, and as his boss, she has every right to be pissed at him for that

 

[PraetorCorvinus]

What surprises me is that it's human nature to go back and see what you could've done differently and to blame yourself for mistakes you may have made after something bad happens and Nick says, "I wouldn't change a thing," or whatever he says. Obviously, we don't know what the entire scene entails, but from the way the promo makes it look - which I know could or could not be deceiving and is pure speculation on my part based on what is shown - Nick is being pretty arrogant in saying he wouldn't change anything.

I disagree. Looking at the scene in the manner that you interpreted it, I don't see arrogance. Stubbornness? Oh yeah. Defensiveness? Possibly. But arrogance? Not really.

 

[beaujolais]

Yeah, I agree... and I think he backs them even more now because he's still a bit traumatized in some ways after losing Warrick. I think Nick may also feel some guilt for what happened to Warrick. And what I mean by that is that Nick probably thinks things like "if only I had paid more attention to what he was doing and tried to reason with him before it got out of hand". Nick's thoughts during Ray's issues were probably along the lines of "I can't let that happen again". I think Nick in his actions was actually trying to PREVENT a bad outcome. The fact that he didn't only shows that there is nothing he could have done differently to stop the final outcome.

This could also be Brass' motivation. As I recall, he had a lot of guilt regarding Warrick's death and his "protect Ray at all costs" reaction could have been because he didn't do enough to protect Warrick.

 

[jafox]

I don't see Catherine at fault for bringing Ray to LA; he was suppose to be the resident Haskell/serial killer expert. When Catherine realized his ex and her hubby were the victims, then she sent him home under Nick's supervision.
The bottom line is that since Cath was supervisor and Nick was her asst., then they both shoulder the brunt of the responsibility. I do think when Catherine says 'we', she means her and Nick, because she is talking about 'leading'. They're the leaders of the team, or at least they were.

I agree, AFIS, the promo would have been much better with a little more Jorja and Eric. :hugegrin: Other than that, I loved it, and the song.

My only problem is that I have to erase the image of 'Ecklie' as a crazed killer (in Torchwood), before the CSI season starts. :lol:

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

I don't see Catherine at fault for bringing Ray to LA; he was suppose to be the resident Haskell/serial killer expert. When Catherine realized his ex and her hubby were the victims, then she sent him home under Nick's supervision.
The bottom line is that since Cath was supervisor and Nick was her asst., then they both shoulder the brunt of the responsibility. I do think when Catherine says 'we', she means her and Nick, because she is talking about 'leading'. They're the leaders of the team, or at least they were.

I agree, AFIS, the promo would have been much better with a little more Jorja and Eric. :hugegrin: Other than that, I loved it, and the song.

My only problem is that I have to erase the image of 'Ecklie' as a crazed killer (in Torchwood), before the CSI season starts. :lol:

Ray shouldn't have been there because he was a victim of Haskell and it becomes a conflict of interest. She could have talked to him on the phone, he shouldn't have been there.

 

[SpasmThatCat]

Can we start a "CSI Season 12 Speculation" thread?

Personally, I'm not interested in what Nick may or may not have done, or what he is going to do/not going to do-- I just came in here to find out what is *actually* going on, not read a discussive breakdown of the last eps of season 11! We will find out soon anyway and then this discussion will all be moot.

 

[GregNickRyanFan]

IMO, and this isn't to say Catherine isn't to blame for bringing Ray to LA etc., but she told Nick to sit on Ray, he didn't, Haskell died, and yes it wasn't just Nick's fault, and lots of other stuff happened between that, but at the end of the day Nick was culpable for that particular incident. It doesn't matter if Ray would've gotten to Nate some other way, he didn't, he got to him because Nick didn't follow Catherine's orders

Sorry, but I have to disagree based on the fact that Ray was sent home from LA and Nick was STILL in LA. If Cath had kept Ray in LA until she left LA, he wouldn't have gotten to Haskell when he did (however, he never should have been allowed to go to LA in the first place since its conflict of interest and he was Haskell's victim), but still would have probably gotten to Haskell at some point. Cath made sure he got on the plane back to Vegas and made sure he went where he was supposed to by having Doc meet him at the airport. Ray got to Haskell because he found out where Haskell was when he searched on Hodges' computer. All roads would have led to the same outcome. Ray was determined enough that he would have found a way to get to Haskell no matter how many roadblocks were thrown into his way.

I disagree. Looking at the scene in the manner that you interpreted it, I don't see arrogance. Stubbornness? Oh yeah. Defensiveness? Possibly. But arrogance? Not really.

Exactly! Cath says Nick leads with his HEART. Arrogant people do NOT lead with their hearts. Arrogant people think they're all that and only care about themselves. That is not, nor has it EVER been Nick. Does the comment make him stubborn (if the comment is said in the way the promo makes it seem)? Perhaps, but Nick has always been kind of stubborn.

Nick is still somewhat traumatized by the loss of his best friend. That is mostly what caused him to make the decisions he did regarding Ray. He did not want to lose yet ANOTHER friend. That is what it all boils down to.

This could also be Brass' motivation. As I recall, he had a lot of guilt regarding Warrick's death and his "protect Ray at all costs" reaction could have been because he didn't do enough to protect Warrick.

You know, that's a good point. I hadn't considered that. I still don't like that Brass covered up evidence, but that definitely could have been his motivation. That's made me look at his actions differently. Thank you for giving me a reason to still like Brass as much as I used to lol. I was worried that I wouldn't feel the same about him anymore... but now that you made this observation, I think I can still like Brass as much as I always have.

When Catherine realized his ex and her hubby were the victims, then she sent him home under Nick's supervision.

She told Nick to let her know if he saw Ray in LA and to keep an eye on Ray. When Ray was sent back to Vegas, Cath had Doc meet Ray at the airport to make sure Ray went home. Nick was NOT there (I believe he was still in LA at the time). Why would she have had Doc there if she had sent Nick home with Ray?

The bottom line is that since Cath was supervisor and Nick was her asst., then they both shoulder the brunt of the responsibility. I do think when Catherine says 'we', she means her and Nick, because she is talking about 'leading'. They're the leaders of the team, or at least they were.

I disagree that they shoulder the brunt of responsibility. The brunt of it goes to Ray and Haskell. None of the other stuff would have even been an issue without Ray and Haskell's actions lol. However, I do think Cath might have meant both herself and Nick with the leading with their hearts comment.

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

Like I said before, it's all Mr. and Mrs. Haskel's fault for reproducing.

Nick is responsible for Nick's actions. Period.

And I never said Nick isn't responsible for his actions.

If Langston stayed in Vegas and Nick took him back he still would have figured out Haskell was there and still would have murdered him.

What GNRF says makes perfect sense.

Catherine is the boss and it was her responsibility to make sure Ray's ass was on that plane, not Nick's, not Greg's, not Sara's, HERS! Even if she delegated to someone else it is still her responsibility.

And we could ask Grissom how many times SHE disobeyed him...her boss.

So no, she shouldn't be mad at Nick for his actions when she is just as culpable, just as responsible, if not more, and disobeyed her boss.

I can understand why she's mad at Nick, still doesn't make it right.

 

[Rizzoli]

In related news: Liz Vassey just tweeted she's having coffee with her "bestest friend Dave Berman"

Yeah, it has absolutely nothing to do with CSI, but...

 

[Speedystokesgirl]

Can we start a "CSI Season 12 Speculation" thread?

Personally, I'm not interested in what Nick may or may not have done, or what he is going to do/not going to do-- I just came in here to find out what is *actually* going on, not read a discussive breakdown of the last eps of season 11! We will find out soon anyway and then this discussion will all be moot.

and is that not what this thread is for, to discuss, debate and speculate?

I thought that's what the reference thread is for, so people don't have to wade through the discussions.