Law & Order SVU “Part 33” was an excellent "day-in-the-life" type episode, done in a format that is out-of-the-box for the series. Written by SVU showrunner Michael Chernuchin, it was a compelling look into the minds of SVU detectives and their lieutenant as they wait for their turn in the witness box in a controversial case. Peter Stone is prosecuting a woman who killed her cop husband – and who has admitted to this – but we discover the team members aren't all on the same page regarding what they will say when testifying. The issues in contention: what is considered abuse; how much can they color or embellish the truth and still be truthful; is this a situation where a lie would still serve justice?
The tension is already evident as each detective and Benson arrive at the courthouse waiting room. It’s bad enough that the team is festering strong feelings about the case, but this is amplified by putting them into a lower-level room which is steaming hot, and where the coffee is so hot it can burn hands. And to heighten the viewer impatience, the time clock is running down to the seconds, and the opening credits don’t start to run until 10 minutes in. Everyone is being asked to wait, and it’s only a matter of time before tempers in the room reach the boiling point.
Viewers have seen the team disagree in the past, but this was an entire episode where everyone is at odds. Rollins arrives and finds the coffee is too hot to the touch. Fin starts by arriving with donuts to share but limiting the choice. Fin pours himself a cup of coffee and then drops it when he finds it too hot. The room is too hot. As their discomfort grows, their anger flares. Rollins clearly wants to tell the truth and be done with it. Carisi knew the murder victim and seems all too willing to color the truth to help the defendant, Annabeth Pearl. Fin looks at this situation as just a job. Carisi worries that for $80 grand a year, they have a lot of power, questioning “who the hell are we?”
When Benson arrives, things get even hotter, and soon, Benson and Rollins are in each other’s faces. Rollins has experience with domestic abuse with her parents, and Benson has, unfortunately, experienced the terror of both mental and physical abuse at the hands of William Lewis. She understands all too well about taking matters in to one’s own hands. This has colored both their opinions. The difficult part of this case is that there was no obvious physical abuse, it was presented as psychological abuse. The defendant describes being forced to have sex with her husband when she didn’t want to – for years – and Peter Stone says this is not rape as the defendant never refused him. I admit I was shocked at Stone’s attitude here, but he must have information that we weren’t shown to make him take that stance.
Benson is the last to testify, but before she does so, Fin comes close to asking Benson to lie. He even uses flawed logic, relaying a fish story to say that anything that’s willing to fight that hard to stay alive deserves to live. Benson, who seems close to tanking the case for Stone, decides to grudgingly answer Stone’s question truthfully. We don’t see how the trial ends, but we are left to assume that her truthful answer was devastating to the defendant's case.
If I was sitting on the jury and heard the testimony presented, I could only deliver a guilty verdict. We never saw any evidence – such as a medical expert – to indicate there was any mental abuse. I’m of the opinion that mental abuse is questionable justification for murder. Mental abuse is hard to quantify, especially if you’re the one being abused. How much mental abuse warrants killing the abuser? That said, had I heard expert medical testimony that the defendant does show signs of being severely mentally abused, I could be swayed to show leniency.
I thought this episode was one of the best SVU episodes in its long history. I also think that this case was one of the most poorly handled and that the detectives behaved badly. Here’s why:
1. The conflict between the detectives should have been flushed out in Stone’s pre-trial prep. He thought he had a slam dunk case, but clearly not everyone was on the same page. How did he get so blindsided? I can understand that the cases the SVU work can invoke deep emotions. But when it comes down to it, their job in testifying is to state the facts, or only answer the question that have been asked. If Stone would have been aware of the inner conflict with the team, he could have better prepared by asking pointed or yes-or-no answer questions. For how often they depend on Stone to bring perps to justice with flimsy evidence, it was lousy the way that they sandbagged him. Stone had every right to be upset and to lash out at Benson about keeping her “bleeding heart” out of the courtroom - although it wasn't all her fault.
2. Along that line, if there was an issue with the defendant being psychologically abused, where was a psychologist testimony in all this? In the past, Dr. Huang or Dr. Olivet would have been called in for an opinion if the SVU felt that, despite a confession, that there was a chance there was mental abuse or other mental issues. If Benson and her team felt so strongly about whether Annabeth was a victim of mental abuse, why didn’t they ask for a medical opinion? It’s clear the defense was making this an issue, so the SVU and Stone should have gotten their own medical opinion so they could better prepare for the case. If anything, if there was even a hint of marital rape, a psychologist should have been consulted. Benson told Rollins that somebody has to stand up for Annabeth and tell her she survived and she is going to be okay. That somebody doesn’t need to be anyone with SVU, it could have been a doctor or a social worker, and it should have happened before the trial.
3. I’ve mentioned this many times before and it’s only been done maybe once or twice on SVU, but why don’t they record their interrogations? It’s a lot easier to stick to the truth when there is a video or audio recording of the questioning. Is this not done in new York City, if so, why not?
As I watched the detective argue between themselves, it sounded very much like commentary from fans that I read after an episode airs. It was like watching SVU fans argue, played out as an episode. I suspect that this episode will only bring out more discussion, and that’s a good thing.
A+ !
A side note: this episode was originally named “The Flying Dutchman and EP Julie Martin had tweeted that this episode was nicknamed “The Box.”
Update February 15, 2019 - a deleted scene with Kelli Giddish has been added after the recap.
Here is the recap:
Annabeth Pearl walks into a bar and patrons stare at her with a stunned look, She sits down and the patrons quickly exit the bar. Annabeth is in her nightie and spattered with blood, and she places a gun on the table and takes off her wedding ring.
Later at SVU, Rollins questions Annabeth, who is now covered in a jacket, asking if there is anything else she wants to tell her. Annabeth nods but says nothing. Rollins says they are done here. Fin leads Annabeth into interrogation and Benson enters.
In Supreme Court Part 33 on Thursday, February 7 at 9:13:09am, Stone speaks to the jury: “This is a very simple case. The defendant, Annabeth Pearl, hosted a dinner party with her husband Thomas at their apartment on West 26th Street. Three people ate a New York strip, baked potatoes, and creamed spinach. Three hours later, when the guests had left, and the dishes were loaded into the dishwasher, Annabeth put on her nightie, walked into the den, picked up the gun that was sitting on the coffee table and shot her husband Thomas three times while he was watching TV.” As Rollins is outside, racing to the courthouse, Stone continues: “The detectives assigned to this case will tell you how they arrested Annabeth an hour later at a local eatery – with the murder weapon still in her possession.” Rollins is now walking quickly inside the courthouse main hall, and Stone continues: “They’ll tell you how, without provocation, she confessed to the murder. Now, the defense will play on your emotions. They’ll tell you about a bad marriage, an abused wife, but what they can’t tell you is that Thomas ever hit Annabeth, or that she was ever in imminent fear of physical harm. This is a very simple case. Annabeth Pearl is guilty of murder, in the second degree.”
Rollins continues into the courthouse building, and enters a room at the lower level where Detective Frank Bucci from the 2-8 is waiting, and he cautions her against drinking the coffee, unless her tongue is made of asbestos. She comments he should have told her before she burned her fingers. She explains she is there for a “husband and wife thing” and he explains he is there for a bodega robbery. She hates the waiting but he does not. The court officer calls Bucci to Part 21 and Bucci quickly exits.
Fin walks in, carrying a box of donuts, and says:
Fin: You alone?
Rollins: Yep. Whatcha got?
Fin, opening the box of donuts, offers it to Rollins and says: Alright, anything but the jellies
Rollins: Ooo, thank you
Fin: No sign of Liv?
Rollins: No, I was hoping you heard something.
Fin: (Sighing) Scruples are a hard thing to live with.
Rollins: What if she doesn’t show?
Fin: Then she doesn’t show. (He pours himself a cup of coffee)
Rollins: Her testimony will be the nails in Annabeth’s coffin. Without it, Stone…
Fin (reacting to touching the hot coffee, drops the cup on the floor): …will be hot as that cup of coffee.
In the courtroom, the defense attorney, speaks to the jury: “What Mr. Stone didn’t tell you was that Thomas took one bite of his New York strip, spit it out, and then told Annabeth he was going to give the rest to the neighbor’s beagle. What Mr. Stone didn’t tell you was that that dinner was the culmination of six years of continuous psychological abuse. The straw that crippled the camel, if you will: criticism, insult, blame, all of which served to diminish Annabeth’s dignity, destroy her self-worth, and erase her self-confidence. Now, Mr. Stone may call what Annabeth did murder, but I call it self-preservation. I’m sure you will too.”
Carisi has arrived in the room where Fin and Rollins wait. He hangs up his coat and says the room gives him the willies. Fin comments “The belly of the beast.” Carisi says his belly feels like the professor is about to hand out the final exam. Rollins comments that it is Annabeth that should be nervous, not him. But Carisi says "This is wrong," Carisi says. Rollins retorts "Don't go all Liv on us, alright? The woman shot her husband because he didn't like her dinner." Fin moans, “Life should be so easy.” When Rollins comments, “you too?”, Fin states that he doesn’t judge, then asks if it is hot in here. Carisi replies that hell always is, to which Rollins says that he is going full Liv. Carisi sees a pipe steaming. Fin thinks somebody has to. Rollins say that somebody interrogated Annabeth, she wonders who that could be? Carisi worries that Benson won’t show, and Fin states "Look, man, we can only do our job." Carisi question that is all this is to Fin, but Fin comments that he gets up in the morning, gets dressed, comes to the office, and after that, goes home. At the end of the week, he gets a check and the check clears, adding “That's called a job." Rollins argues with Carisi it is not all on them, they do their part but the rest is up to a judge and jury. Carisi wonders what happens upstairs doesn’t concern them, and Fin comments that short and sweet is fine with him. Carisi gets testy with Fin, saying this is coming from the guy who flew to Cuba on his own nickel to catch a fugitive rapist. He comments to Rollins about the Labott girl…Rollins, angry, cuts him off and says “Enough.” Fin tells Carisi to have a donut, and Carisi asks if they are telling him they never think about this, the responsibility, the power that they have. He could get up on that stand and lie and say Annabeth told him she planned on killing Thomas for the past 6 months and if he does that she is done, no question. Or, he could say that he doesn’t recall to anything Stone asks him and maybe she gets to live a nice, peaceful, safe life in a Chelsea apartment. Rollins shouts “Door number 3: You tell the truth.” Carisi counters that all he is saying is it’s a lot of power, and “who the hell are we?” The court officer enters and calls for Fin to Part 33. Fin jumps up and tells Carisi to chill out and have some donuts.
In Supreme Court Part 33 on Thursday, February 7 at 10:26:08am, Fin testifies the bartender at the Tatum, Jerry Griffin, knows Annabeth and her husband who were regulars, says Annabeth was inside with a gun. He describes seeing her covered with blood, the gun and the wedding ring on the table.
Meanwhile, Carisi tells Rollins he knew Thomas Pearl from the Academy and describes what a prick he was – a macho, cheating, sexist piece of crap. Rollins says Thomas may have been a dick but if he was going to take a bullet it should have been from a yahoo hawking heroin or robbing a bank, not from his wife. Carisi asks if it’s because of wedding vows, and Rollins counters it is because he was a cop. She tries to calm him, telling him to loosen up. He asks where the hell is Benson, and Rollins replies he should be happy; if she doesn’t show up, Annabeth will probably walk.
Outside the courthouse, Benson stands facing it, taking a few breaths and looking slightly apprehensive.
Later, inside the waiting room, Benson pours herself some coffee as Carisi states he wasn’t sure she was going to show up. She comments that neither was she. He suggests on this one there may be ways she can color her testimony – not out and out lie, but maybe she emphasize certain parts, what Annabeth told her and other parts not so much. Rollins hears this and gets a strange look on her face. Benson quickly steps away from Carisi and Rollins reminds Benson she is the one that interrogated Annabeth so people will be pretty interested in what she has to say. Benson comments, “If I say.” Carisi states he is not feeling okay about this case and maybe he feels that SOBs like Tommy Pearl get exactly what they deserve. Rollins argues when a cop gets killed it is an itch she can’t scratch. Carisi shouts it is a cop who abused his wife, and Rollins reminds him it's his words, Annabeth did not have to listen. Benson tells them to stop. They get quiet. Benson tells Rollins that law without empathy doesn’t help anyone. Rollins says she is all about empathy, it’s coming out of her ears. She adds that for 8 years she’s been drowning in it. Carisi asks what about Tommy’s gun, he just puts it on the table? Rollins says he left it out, asking if he ever pointed it at her or threatened her? She adds this is not freshman English, they don’t have to read between the lines, it’s not their job. Benson wonders maybe it is, maybe they shouldn’t ignore the fact that Annabeth was a victim. Rollins thinks that doesn’t work, because Annabeth’s husband is the one in the casket, adding he was a cop and wore the same shield they do.
Meanwhile, being questioned by the defense, Fin states that his Lieutenant was convinced there was domestic abuse. She asks “Was there?” and Fin says her husband never hit her, if that’s what she means. She asks if that is the only kind of abuse contemplated by the statute, and Stone objects, saying Fin is not an attorney. She withdraws the question. She asks how many times Thomas was shot, and Fin replies 3, two in the chest and one in the crotch. She comments, “Interesting” and says he has nothing further. Stone redirects, asking if Annabeth ever claimed that she was raped by her husband. Fin answers not that he is aware of.
In the room, Carisi asks a janitor, who is mopping the floor, if there is anything he can do about the heat. The man explains he will tell someone but he doubts it will change as there is one thermostat for the whole floor, Judge Finkle likes it this way. Benson asks if he can see what he can do, and he says he sure will, and tells them to have a nice day. After the man leaves, Carisi says sometimes he wishes he had a job like that guy, and Rollins wonders it’s so he can listen to cops bitch all day long. Carisi says it’s something without consequence, and Benson counters that she thinks what he means to say is that he wishes he weren’t cursed with a conscience. Carisi says it is definitely a burden, but Benson thinks it also makes them human. Rollins thinks unless you’re a sociopath. Carisi gets upset, asking if she actually thinks Annabeth is a sociopath. Rollins thinks she knew what she was doing and thinks she doesn’t care. Benson suggests she didn’t see another way out, and Carisi agrees. Rollins, her arms folded in disagreement, comments that luckily they don’t have to read Annabeth’s mind. Carisi says they do, adding $80 grand a year and they get to determining they spend t he rest of their lives in a cage and whose going to eat dinner at DelFriscos. Rollins shouts back that worrying about it is way above their pay grade, but Benson says they DO worry about it, at least they usually do. Rollins questions that Benson never wanted to put a couple pops between some guys eyes. Benson says nothing, and Rollins says she wanted to and would have really enjoyed it, but she didn’t…and Benson says because Rollins knew it was wrong. Rollins counters she knew the consequences and chose not to. Benson stands up and gets in Rollins’ face, shouting that maybe Annabeth didn’t have that luxury. Rollins shouts back that Annabeth chose it, she chose to end that man’s life – to take someone’s life, to break the law…it’s free will. She adds they all learn about it in Sunday school. Carisi comments sarcastically that they are free alright – free to believe in the guy upstairs or not, it’s like a perjury trap. Rollins yells that all they have to do is go up on the stand and say what happened; there’s no choices, no consequences to him. Carisi counters they put a crown of thorns on Jesus but that did not make him king. Rollins asks Benson what is he talking about, and Benson says neither does their shields. Carisi explains that what they say and how they feel – this game could be over before it starts. Rollins shouts that if he wants to commit perjury because Tommy hurt Annabeth’s feelings, and Carisi shouts back it is more complicated than that and she knows it. He shouts, “Perjury? I’m talking about the truth here and I’m gonna make sure the jury sees it!” Rollins says Benson’s testimony will turn them the other way. Benson, looking conflicted, replies IF she tells them exactly – verbatim – what Annabeth told her. Carisi comments he knows the law better than anybody in the room but he also knows his moral responsibility. Killing Tommy was Annabeth’s only option and the law says that’s wrong but morally…Rollins cuts him off and says he is not a priest…and Carisi says morally the result is just. Rollins has one question – why didn’t Annabeth walk out the door and leave the damn bastard? Benson asks with incredulity if Rollins is kidding her. Rollins replies no, for it to be a justifiable homicide there had to be an imminent threat of death or serious physical harm. Was Tommy about to beat Annabeth – NO. Was he about to rape her – NO. She says she knows that is because that is what Annabeth told Benson. Carisi states when he was in the bag, he took a domestic disturbance call, the neighbor was claiming the couple was screaming at each other all night, cursing, so he showed up and calmed them all down and he could see the smug in the guys eyes. He told the woman she has to stand up to the guy and leave him but there was no sign of physical violence. A month later he gets a call to the same house and same complaint but this time the husband bashed the wife’s head against the wall and she is dead. He stands up and screams for Rollins not to say all she had to do was walk out the door. The court officer comes into the room and calls Carisi to Part 33. He storms out.
On the stand, Carisi testifies that Griffin, the bartender, said Annabeth lived across the street and based on the way she was dressed he assumed she came from home so he went over there. He knocked and rang the bell and there was no answer, the door was unlocked and he went inside. Stone asks if there were signs of a fight, and Carisi states it was impossible to tell. Stone says, “Excuse me?” and Carisi replies that the defendant could have easily straightened up before she left the apartment or even before she shot her husband. Stone cuts him off and states that is not what he asked. Stone asks that once Carisi was inside the apartment, were there signs of a fight? Carisi says no. Stone replies “okay.”
Back in the room, Rollins tells Benson she loves and respects her more than anyone she has even met in her life but not to take this the wrong way: sometimes she sees victims where there aren’t any. Benson raises her voice and says Annabeth was abused by her husband. Rollins disagrees, but Benson says nobody knows what goes on behind closed doors of a marriage. Rollins counters including Benson, all she has is Annabeth’s word. Benson whispers that she is sorry what Rollins’ father did to her mother and Rollins smiles, saying “See? That’s exactly what I am talking about. My mother didn’t have to be a victim.” Benson says she is not talking about her mother, she’s talking about Rollins. She asks if she really thinks that her father beating the hell out of her mother in front of her didn’t color her whole universe? Rollins replies sure it did but not in the way she thinks. She remembers sitting in her room and staring out the window after one of their knock-down, drag-outs and seeing a street lamp on the corner and was watching and waiting, praying for her dad to come back. She wanted him home. Benson says all children want their parents together no matter what. Rollins explains her mother could have called the sheriff and they had a gun locker in the house but she had to be a martyr and wouldn’t know what to do with herself if she wasn’t suffering and cowering. Benson says it’s because he made her like that. Rollins screams that Benson doesn’t know; there was weakness in her and it was there before they ever even met. Benson challenges how Rollins knows that, and Rollins holds up two different things, indicating they are not the same. Rollins angrily says she knows because she was the one staring out the window waiting for her daddy to come back into their house. She was the one that was petrified that she would end up weak like her mom if he didn’t come back. Benson says that is not a reason to hate her mother and whispers maybe it’s time for her to come up from underneath that shadow.
In Supreme Court Part 33 on Thursday, February 7 at 12:19:08pm, Carisi is being cross examined and states and EMS team determined Annabeth had no injuries but that she was in shock. They didn’t say how long she was in shock but says she may have been in shock before she fired the weapon. Stone objects but he is overruled by the judge who tells Stone that is his own witness. Carisi goes on to say it is not unusual for a victim to go in survival mode once they are threatened and she may not have known what she is doing. The defense attorney shows a photo of the room where Thomas is sitting dead and asks if this is exactly what the room looked like when he entered. Carisi says no, the television was on. She says the apartment is not that big, if the TV was on she thinks he would have heard it. He says the volume was muted. She says it is almost as if Tommy and Annabeth spoke before she shot Tommy. He says he doesn’t know about that, and she suggests they might have, that Tommy may have said he loved her, and Carisi says it’s possible but it’s also possible he said “you ruined my dinner, bitch, now I’m gonna kill you.” Stone leaps up and says, “Your honor!” but the judge says nothing and the defense ends her questioning. The judge decides to break for lunch. Stone glares at Carisi, who leaves the witness box. The defense attorney tells Stone it looks like his witness just committed treason. Stone looks displeased.
In the hall, Stone stops Benson and asks what the hell is going on down there. He says when he walked into the courtroom this morning he had a no-lose case and two witnesses later he is treading water and gasping for air. She says, “So Carisi got creative” and Stone, upset, says “he got creative? He's a cop! He’s supposed to get on that stand and tell the truth, that’s it.” Benson asks if he lied, and he says they both know the truth comes in many colors. Benson thinks Carisi picked the one he could live with. Stone gets more angry and says, “I knew it. I knew you were behind this. You wanna do me a favor? Keep your bleeding heart out of my courtroom.” He storms off and Benson stands there, shaking her head, stunned.
Back in the room, Rollins asks Benson what is her dilemma? Do what Carisi said – fudge it, generalize, minimize, prevaricate. Benson wonders what if she is wrong, adding Annabeth told her she didn’t regret killing him for a minute. Rollins states that lack of remorse is not an element of the crime. Benson wonders that the jury gives a damn; if she testifies truthfully this becomes a revenge killing that is never justified and Annabeth goes to prison for a very long time. Rollins comments the truth is a bitch. Benson knows in her gut she was powerless to leave him. Rollins counters she was strong enough to pull the trigger, Benson calling this naïve. Benson asks what about the gun, he didn’t leave it out for show. Rollins asks if Annabeth said he threatened her with it, but Benson thinks she didn’t have to because he left it out and she saw it when she woke up in the morning, when she made dinner, and last thing before she went to bed. Rollins thinks Annabeth read between the lines. Benson says they both know what he was telling her with that gun – that he could kill her any minute and would probably get away with it. Rollins states Tommy is the one who ended up with bullets in him. Benson reminds her he took two shots in the heart and one in the groin, saying that last one was not a mistake or a miss. Rollins asks if Annabeth said that to her, and Benson says she didn’t have to. Rollins shakes her head. Benson leans down and gets in Rollin’s face and says Rollins has no idea what utter terror is, what pure and utter terror is. She moves away and sits back down. Benson comments they say your heart beats faster but that’s not true, it stops, everything stops. You don’t breathe because you’re scared it might upset him and if you get a cramp in your foot you let it throb because you can live through that pain and that’s a hell of a lot better than what he’ll do to you. Benson’s voice wavers as she says the pain is so complete and overwhelming you can go without food for three days and you don’t close your eyes because you’re scared you will never open them again. She says, “You pray. You pray, please god, don’t let him climb on top of me again.” Rollins moves to console her, saying she is sorry. Benson says nobody should have to live like that, nobody. Rollins says Tommy Pearl is not William Lewis and Annabeth was not held hostage. Benson asks wasn’t she? Annabeth lived with that fear every day for six years. Maybe they are all victims and maybe we are all victims of the past. She says the good news is she is just a rebuttal witness and only used if needed. Rollins asks what if Stone needs her, and Benson says she doesn’t know but somebody has to stand up for Annabeth and tell her she survived and she is going to be okay. The court officer enters and calls Rollins to Part 33. She says she hasn’t finished he apple pie yet, and then says she is pulling his leg. Benson tells her to go and the officer sees the remaining donuts and asks if she doesn’t want them to go to waste. She allows him to take them and he says his name is Charlie, he’s had a sweet tooth since he was a kid and asks if he can take a cruller home to his wife, she loves them Benson laughs and she asks how long he has been married. He replies 34 years next Tuesday. She says he is a good husband and he says it is easy, all it takes is a little love.
Rollins, on the stand, says she took Annabeth’s initial statement and she said she killed her husband. Rollins asked if she wanted a lawyer present and Annabeth told her she did it, why would she need a lawyer. Annabeth said she killed him as he didn’t like his dinner. Carisi is watching from the gallery.
Annabeth is on the stand and her attorney brings out the gun. Annabeth said he cleaned is gun every night and left it out. He refused to put it away, saying he was a cop and it was a part of it. Seeing it made him feel strong. The defense attorney puts the gun right by the jury box and the jury is stunned. Stone voices objection and the judge says what’s a trial without good old fashioned histrionics? He tells the defense she made her point. She doesn’t remove the gun as she asks Annabeth how the gun made her feel. She said it made her feel weak and scared, like a lion showing its teeth to a zebra. He is king and she is less than. She describes her constant anxieties and how Tommy treated her. She did not tell anyone, saying she used to have friends but Tommy said they weren’t good enough and all they have were his friends.
Stone cross examines, and Annabeth must state Tommy never hit her. They had sex lots of times when she didn’t want to but was too scared to tell him. He asks that in six years of marriage she never said “not in the mood” or am too tired I have a headache or I just don’t want to. She replies no. Stone states he is sorry, but says that is not rape. The defense attorney leaps up and screams an objection and the judge chides him, saying Stone knows better, Annabeth yells that the man was raping her from the moment she said “I do”. Stone looks at a stone-faced jury and Fin watches from the gallery. Annabeth looks devastated.
Back in the waiting room, Fin catches up with Benson. He looks at the donut box and asked who ate his jellies? He asks Benson if she is okay. She says she is fine, an asks what is happening upstairs. He said it is a bloodbath, and when she asks whose blood, Fin comments, “You know how they say you only die once? Well. that’s a lie, at least for Tommy Pearl.” Benson thinks Stone will call her. Fin says if he has any shot of winning the case, he will. Benson looks conflicted, then asks what is she going to do. He asks if running is not an option, and when she gives him a look, he says he didn’t think so. He comments this is just another case to him, but she counters his BS doesn’t fly with her. He admits he should know that by now. She asks if he thinks Annabeth belongs in prison. He says half the guys he grew up with are in prison, and do they belong there? They don’t think so. She asks if he does, and he replies it is not his place to judge. Exasperated, she says, “Again with your BS.” He says last Sunday he went fishing off Sheepshead Bay, 4 hours passed without a nibble and when he’s ready to pack it up his rod jerks and he starts reeling it in. He never had a perp fight that hard, a 35-pound bluefish, the most beautiful thing he’s seen in his life. Benson says that’s great. He explains he threw it back in the bay. He says anything that’s willing to fight that hard to stay alive deserves to live. Benson looks at him, saying like Annabeth. She asks if he is telling him to lie, and he says that blue is not going to get hooked again, but that’s just him. She says she guesses he didn’t come here to get some donuts. The court officer calls Benson – it’s her time to go to Part 33. She looks at Fin and walks out.
She makes the long walk up to Part 33, clearly thinking about what is to come. She enters the courtroom and takes the stand, looking at everyone in the courtroom whose eyes are trained on her, She puts her hand on the bible to take the oath. Stone questions her about interrogating Annabeth after her confession. He asks if she expressed remorse for what she did. As Benson starts to say he has to understand, he cuts her off and says to please answer the question. She says “Taken out of context, her words can be misconstrued.” Stone stops her and says she just reached out and put her hand on the bible and swore to tell them the truth. She looks at him and he asks if the defendant express remorse for what she did. Benson hesitates and looks to Annabeth, shakes her head, and says no. Annabeth looks shocked. Stone asks what, if anything, did she say in that regard, and Benson replies, “She said that…she said that she was glad that her husband was dead and that she prayed about it for years.” Annabeth looks devastated, and Benson looks crushed, and as Stone walks away, she shakes her head as we fade to black.
Cast:
Mariska Hargitay - Lieutenant Olivia Benson
Ice-T - Sergeant Odafin “Fin” Tutuola
Kelli Giddish - Detective Amanda Rollins
Peter Scanavino - Detective Dominick “Sonny” Carisi, Jr.
Philip Winchester – ADA Peter Stone
Guest stars:
Paula Malcomson - Stella Russell
Nicholas Turturro - Det. Frank Bucci
Vincent Curatola – Judge Al Bertuccio
Amy Rutberg - Annabeth Pearl
Art McFarland – Charlie
Manny Galan – Maintenance Man
Rachel Green – Court Clerk
Liam James Daniels – Bartender
Mike Funk – Patron #1
Lucille Hansen – Patron #2
Deleted scene titled "Rollins Still Got It"
All Content (Recaps, Review, Commentary) Copyright © allthingslawandorder.blogspot.com unless otherwise noted
Check out my blog home page for the latest Law & Order information, on All Things Law And Order.
Also, see my companion Law & Order site,These Are Their Stories.
49 comments:
This episode will live in my memory as some of the most gripping television I have ever seen. That said, I think they should have done this as a two-hour ep.... With the first hour demonstrating the abuse, the "crime" (I use quotes as I believe no crime occurred), and the interrogation, and the second hour being what we saw last night.
Also, I've seen the SVU bend the law lots in the past to tilt things in favour of defendants who may well have been victims of bad circumstances more or less.... I think they were unwilling to do it here because the deceased was one of their own, which demonstrates one of my big issues with our justice "system".... That cops are always right, even when in the wrong.
I agreed with 2 hours episode instead of one. All about Rollins. Who cares. The past is the past. I really don't want to know rollins's parents. She needs to care her two kids with two different fathers. That's why she screw up. I am glad that Peter stands up for Olivia. Olivia walks over the DA's. She didn't with Barba. Be smart Peter stone with her.
Reminded me of 12 angry men but instead we have 4 angry cops and a angry assistant district attorney. Great all around drama. This is what Law/Order SVU is suppose to be.
This episode was disgusting. If Olivia and Carisi are to be believed, a man's life is worth infinitely less than a woman's feelings. Their arguments were borderline retarded. This whole episode was nothing more than doublethink and feminist propaganda. I've been a fan of SVU since forever. I'm not sure I can ever watch another episode after this.
Some of what Amanda was saying made me sick. I understand if people dont want to believe what the defendant is saying without evidence. However with domestic abuse in general, it's not easy to "just leave". Amanda is being self righteous bringing up the law and the fact the victim was a cop, yet she has broken thr law, almost lost her shield and her actions in gamblers fallacy got a person raped. I think when you tell people to just leave or fight back, minimizes the power and control a individual has and the mental battles that go along with domestic violence, especially if the abuser has money or power. Also not everything is what appears. There are many people that end up dead in these situations but people swore up and down they were "relationship goals"
What is wrong with showing both sides? Fin and Amanda just wanted to say the truth in what they saw. Amanda wanted justice for the deceased. Carisi and Benson are reminding people that there are victims that kill in self defense and have no other option. It's not always easy to just walk away and just because someone is not literally pointing a gun to you at that moment, it doesnt mean there is no danger. Believing the victims doesnt mean they consider a womans feelings over a man's life. A few episodes ago, Carisi said he DIDNT believe the woman that accused stone. They had many episodes where they exposed women that lied about rape or murdered in cold blood. They have showed many men in this show that get away with rape because legal loopholes and arent never brought to justice. Yet this is the episode that triggers you? Sure there are people that lie but there are a hell of a lot more people that live in fear and silence because people think the accuser is lying. .
Spoiler alert .. I agree that this should have been done as a 2-hour or two part episode, I think there was tons of content there that would have been very interesting to see Annabeth Pearl's home life, and see how her husband acted around her. That being said, this format was very gripping and very memorable as other commenters have said! ***** Spoiler alert ***** again in case you are reading this. I cannot believe that the episode ended without explicitly showing that Peter 'won' and got a guilty verdict, as I believe the TV show was somewhat implying.. I'm a little bit cross with Lieutenant Olivia Benson, because Peter shamed her into simple yes or no answers. She should have said that the defendant could still have been somewhat in shock for her confession, and that fear and verbal abuse carried over even after the husband's death. She somewhat showed remorse. I am on the fence as far as which way I would have voted had I been on this jury, glad I was not! A big part of me sides with Amanda, who thought that Annabeth Pearl should have left her husband or at least by going to a battered women's shelter. Time and time again I'm extremely amazed at the stupidity of people, even fictional ones, who do not ask for a lawyer and give confessions. This brings up another question, why did Olivia Benson not video record the interviews and confession?? Was that a movie mistake?
I did not enjoy this episode at all and would've changed to something else, but the alternate choices weren't good. Yes, there should've been more evidence shown to the viewer to show us why these officers felt the wife was justified in shooting her husband. As presented I felt as though they were making assumumptions without truly knowing the wife and situation. It seemed overly simplified. For that reason I'm glad it ended as it did, with Liv telling the truth. This is how it should be. It's up to the defense to provide the evidence to show abuse and its effects and up to the jury to decide the verdict.
I liked the episode.It did show other forms of abuse psychological which is hard to live with. I think Liv has admitted she was raped. And it is realistic because rape victims change their stories and sometimes don't tell right away or lie about it happening.I hope she will gain some relief now that she doesn't need to keep a secret about it.Powerfull clashing of opinions between Rollins and Carisi and Benson.I really believed that Liv was going to lie this time. But she always does the right thing in the end.
I liked the episode.It did show other forms of abuse psychological which is hard to live with. I think Liv has admitted she was raped. And it is realistic because rape victims change their stories and sometimes don't tell right away or lie about it happening.I hope she will gain some relief now that she doesn't need to keep a secret about it.Powerfull clashing of opinions between Rollins and Carisi and Benson.I really believed that Liv was going to lie this time. But she always does the right thing in the end.
Great comment!
I agree with most of you guys, this episode deserved to be a two parter. Shucks I would I have loved to have this story as a season finale. This type of case pushing each detective to the limits. I got to say this is one of the most emotional driven episodes in SVU history. Love that Michael did the writing. Watching this episode definitely given me flashbacks to last year's standout, "Something Happened" with Benson and the female suspect stuck in that interrogation room for hours; talking about each other's father and how the suspect's past really struck a cord to Benson. Love that Michael did this same style but used the court as the main setting.
Of all the detectives in this one, Amanda really got me irked. I wanted to slap her and not Annabeth. Maybe this is why Amanda has been scorned by love so many times it turned her into a cold-hearted...For most of the episode, I was with Benson and Carisi's side. The way Benson recalled her nightmare with the beast was one of Mariska's finest moments similar to her performance in "Something Happened". And the way episode closed with Besnon's "tortured" role in how she had to tell the truth even though this is one of the rarest times she didn't want to admit it. She was in so much pain the way she turned to Annabeth. She was like "I'm sooo sorry, but i can't deny the truth."
Truly one of the most emotional and beautifully executed episodes in SVU's twenty season history.
I thought this was a great episode. Chris, I agree with you on the issues you outlined. This was not the time for the detectives to bail on Stone. The disagreement with the detectives and Benson was so far gone by the time they got to the courthouse that Benson should have called Stone ahead of time and told him there was a problem. This was the rare time that I agreed with Rollins. Their job is to tell the unvarnished truth. That is all Stone wanted. For SVU or Stone not to get in a doctor to flush out the psych abuse was a huge mistake. Benson voices concern for Annabeth but if she felt so strongly about what happened to her, why didn't she do anything to uncover if there was psychological abuse? Carisi torpedoing Stone was surprising, considering Carisi thinks he knows the law better than anyone else on the SVU team. If he knows the law as well as he says, he should know how important it was for Stone that Carisi tell the truth on the stand. I bet Stone is looking at him in a different light after his stunt. Fin has the most realistic approach - this is a job. It sounded cold, but he knows he can't get too involved personally with every single case.
It's a valid point that they should be recording the interrogations. I see on the news all the time these small town police departments record any suspect questioning, so why not SVU in New York City? It would solve a lot of problems.
This may be an unpopular opinion but here goes: mental abuse isn't an excuse for murder. For this person to stay in this marriage for years meant she was not in imminent danger. It didn't matter that he left the gun out. It sounds like he did it every night. She had plenty of chances to get out or to at least tell someone. This is 2019, it's not the 1970s or before where there weren't as many organizations to help women - or men - to get out of abusive marriages or to get free medical mental help. I know that people can get trapped in bad marriages, but killing someone who is not physically threatening you is wrong. The situation that Benson was in with Lewis was very different, he was torturing her mentally and physically. Her life was in real and imminent danger. I heard nothing about Annabeth that convinced me she was in such imminent danger she needed to shoot her SOB husband.
She's denied the truth plenty of times under oath during the course of the series. What was different now? Oh, I remember now. The deceased was a fellow cop. And cops always support their own, even when he rapes his wife every night.
I disagree abiab Stone, he should not be working Special Victims, We know he has no respect for women the way he sleeps around for him to say that's not rape is disgusting, and there are many dirty cops who get away with murder everyday in this country.
First off:
GREAT EPISODE! The last episode was good too, but this was by far the best episode this season. The writers did a great job really adding tension with the cramped hot room they were all waiting in. Also, I really liked seeing real tension BETWEEN the detectives, especially between Rollins and Carisi, as we all know they both have feelings for each other.
My views:
I wholeheartedly agree with Rollins. Let me explain why.
There was no evidence of any psychological abuse except for the wife's words. And there was no physical abuse at all. If we knew for a fact the wife was being abused, that would be one thing, but we do not. Anyways, she had options other than murder. Resources do exist for battered women, and at least she, unlike women who have actually been physically abused or threatened, does not appear to have a valid excuse not to seek help. If her version of events ore true, her husband was a controlling narcissist, but not a murderer. I'm not justifying how she may or may not have been treated by her husband, but no matter what, she did not have the right to take the law into her own hands. And to be honest, maybe it's just the way the actress played her, but I had half a mind to think she really was a psychopath who was using the unproven battered wife theory as an excuse. If you look at the end, when Olivia admits that the wife said she didn't feel sorry, the woman appears genuinely shocked and devastated. Did she expect Olivia to lie?Just the fact that she seemed to count on Olivia committing perjury instead of telling the truth makes me suspicious. But the bottom line is this: there is no conclusive proof to support the woman's version of events, and we know for a fact she was never physically hurt or threatened by her husband. Also, Rollins really hit the nail on the head with Olivia: NOT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IS A VICTIM, AND NOT EVERY SINGLE MAN IS A PERPETRATOR. Olivia was preinclined to suspect the husband and refused to think that there was a possibility the wife was lying. Rollins is right in saying that the William Lewis fiasco has colored her vison. Again, let me be clear, that if the husband was psychologically or physically abusing her, I would be giving a whole different speech, but there is no proof. If the woman wanted to get off, she should have recorded him abusing her or something. But you can't murder someone and then not have any evidence that it was done in self defense, and still expect to get off. The world doesn't work like that. What if it was your son (or daughter for that matter) who has their name being smeared after being viciously murdered, but the person doing the smearing has no evidence to back ANY of their claims up. Does it sound fair that the person automatically gets a way with murder?
I agree that this episode belongs on the Worst Episode list but I disagree about the Best Episode list. It was boring, not gripping. The scenes in the waiting room belong in a freshman Philosophy class. And they were unnecessary.
There are several points in the review that mean to be addressed.
(0) Stone's statement that Annabeth wasn't raped is correct. That isn't based on information the viewers don't have. It is based on Annabeth's testimony. She said she never told Tommy she didn't want to have sex. So legally there was no lack of consent.
(1) Stone would have talked to the detectives in pre-trial prep. But he would only have spoken to Rollins and Benson. The testimony of Fin and Carisi was not required for the case. Annabeth was using an affirmative defense so she stipulated to the court that she shot and killed her husband.
Stone doesn't have to proven any of the elements of murder two. The only issue before the court is whether Annabeth meets the requirements for justification.
Since Rollins and Benson talked to Annabeth, they could be called as rebuttal witnesses. But Stone can't decide to ask them pointed or yes-or-no questions when he has called them as witnesses. Those are called leading questions and can only be asked during cross-examination or be having your witness declared hostile by the judge.
(2) Being psychologically abused is not an issue when claiming a justification defense. No psychological testimony is called for. The standard for the justified use of deadly force is "the actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force". From Annabeth's testimony, she doesn't met that standard. She will be convicted of murder two using that defense.
The defense attorney, and Michael Chermuchin, screwed up by using the wrong affirmative defense. There is a specific affirmative defense built into the statute on murder in the second degree. It says there is an affirmative defense when "The defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be". Now psychological testimony is important and appropriate. But the downside is that the murder in the second degree charge will be downgraded to manslaughter in the first degree.
(3) As of April 1. 2018 the police in New York are required to videotape all
custodial interrogations of suspects for non-drug serious offenses. So there would be a tape of Benson talking to Annabel. There would also be one for Rollins if that took place at the station.
Now for my biggest problem with this episode. Michael Chemuchin made Tommy a police officer but he failed to make use of it. One study states that 40% of police families have problems with domestic abuse. Police departments tend to do nothing about it. An officer will be disciplined for failing a drug test but not hitting a spouse or child. That's what this episode should have been about: aiming a spotlight on the blue wall that protects police officers who abuse their family members.
Let's clear something up right now. Just because you didnt say not that doesnt mean a rape didnt happen. I have worked with women that comes from cultures and religions where women are trained to believe they dont even have the right to say say no. If you are in a relationship where sex is required whether you say no or not, it can be rape.
The problem with Amanda, is she kept saying just leave. There are mental barriers to "just leaving" regardless of how many organizations are out there to help. I'm not saying there was enough evidence to back what the woman is saying. Not every woman is a victim and plenty of svu episodes show that, but we cant underestimate the power of domestic violence. Domestic violence is about power and control, not just physically putting your hands on someone. If you leave your gun out every night, you are sending a psychological message that you have the power to end a persons life at any moment. I have worked with abused women where they have been found even in DV shelters. She has no evidence but let's keep in mind that many victims of abuse suffer and cant prove what happened to them. People are not walking around with cameras. Not to mention any cultural or religious problems. Undocumented people in particular dont even know what's out there. I'm fine people dont believe the defendant. However some of what Amanda was saying was dismissive.
This episode had some of the worst, cliche, over-the-top writing in the history of the show (and there have been years with some pretty atrocious writing), which is kind of surprising given that Michael Chernuchin has written some very good episodes over the past couple of years.
I thought this one was a disaster, an attempt at doing an Important Acclaimed Episode that ended up talky, pretentious and boring.
This episode really had me interested. I was married for 25 years & was never physically abused. However, I was psychologically abused. It started very slowly, but the last 5-6 years were the worst. I had did things, bought things & had sex when I didn't want to - it was easier than dealing with what happened when I tried to say "NO". The last year, I slept with my phone on Record in case he killed me. I prayed every day for one of us to die. I thought about killing him all the time. I finally left after he threw me against a wall & choked me. I only escaped because he had to go to the bathroom. I have been in therapy for 3 years. I don't think there was a crime here but I would have liked a 2 hour episode showing the abuse. And I really, really would have like to see the jury deliberate & a verdict.
I agree this was a great episode & the discussion that follows in this thread is a great example of how the polarized views on domestic violence mirrors the views of the detectives on the episode. However, there are some points from the comments I would like to address.
First off, as others have said, D/V does not have to be physical. It is about power & control. Many abusers choose not to use physical force as an additional means of control over their partner. It's a form of gaslighting—making them question their own reality. If there is physical force involved, it is easier to define the situation as "domestic violence". When the abuse is emotional or economic, when it involves intimidation, controlling behavior, & isolation, it makes the survivor question themselves, their reality, & their ability to access the very resources that may be otherwise available. Sadly, it's also a very effective tactic. I can't tell you the number of times that I've sat with a woman attempting to access the limited shelter spaces available just to have her turned down because the abuse isn't physical. And yet in spite of that, statistics tell us that 28-33% of domestic violence homicides or near homicides are the first act of violence.
That means Annabeth’s choice to wait for it to become physical could be a deadly choice for her. Research has shown that women have a greater likelihood of being killed by their partner if they believe that their partner could kill them, which means that Annabeth would likely have screened as a high lethality case by law enforcement. The accessibility of a weapon would be an additional marker.
Many people have questioned why she didn't just leave or go to a shelter. Let's take a look at some of the barriers in the way of this. First off, the act of leaving a domestic violence relationship is statistically the most dangerous time, increasing the likelihood that she could be killed. Secondly, where would she go? Beds in a domestic violence shelter can be extremely difficult to come by. Often, as soon as a bed becomes available, it is immediately filled so unless someone happens to call at the exact right moment, they may not be able to get in. Other shelters have very restrictive measures and may screen out someone who hasn't experienced physical violence.
But even assuming that she was able to get a bed in a shelter, who is to say this would be a safe environment for her? Domestic violence shelters keep their locations a secret except to law enforcement who often help transport survivors to shelters or are called out to them. That means he would potentially know where to find her and he could potentially get on site with his badge, creating a very dangerous situation not only for Annabeth, but also for everyone at the shelter…
…Furthermore, some have said there is a lack of evidence that the abuse has been happening. While I agree it would have been nice to have a 2 hour episode to have more context, I think the episode was designed to make you question that. However, the actress who plays Annabeth gives us some clues to this. It is apparent from her performance that throughout the episode, Annabeth appears to be dissociating. This is the very response that Olivia is talking about when she talks about her experience with Lewis. This is what is often called the "freeze" response to trauma. It is a way to survive the abuse.
When a survivor is in that trauma response, all of her resources are diverted to helping her to survive (and by survive, I mean very literally that she is breathing & her heart is beating). The part of her brain that is functioning is the emotional center (ie. the limbic system) while the part of her brain responsible for complex thought processes shuts down. This inhibits her ability to recognize the consequences of her action. It also inhibits her ability to recognize the need to ask for an attorney as a means of self preservation (ie. instead of confessing). Olivia knows this, & this is part of her struggle in testifying in court.
At the same time, not only does Olivia relate to Annabeth's experience, but the situation she is put in is also mirroring her experience with Lewis. She has had to commit perjury on the stand before for her own self-preservation during Lewis' trial. She sees and relates to Annabeth's actions. It is much like her own experience with Lewis when she beat him with the iron rod from the bed. Here, she is forced to confront this same choice once again.
My problem with this episode is the lack of psychological testimony and the fact that Stone chose to pursue this case to begin with when clearly all were not on the same page. I felt frustrated by this choice on his part and the lack of understanding as to how this impacts the unit. I would have loved to have more insight into this and the impact it had on the relationships of all involved.
This comment has more red flags than soviet Russia.
Blogger Olive O'Sudden said...
"This episode had some of the worst, cliche, over-the-top writing in the history of the show (and there have been years with some pretty atrocious writing), which is kind of surprising given that Michael Chernuchin has written some very good episodes over the past couple of years."
** Maybe Chernuchin has a small writing staff, interns, that sort.. And "phones it in" by getting to put HIS name as the Episode Writer. However- I thought it was very decently laid out and very thought-provoking! Question: Ripped from the Headlines? -Peter in San Diego CA USA
This was such a great episode, right down to the first 2 minutes, that shot of Annabeth walking into a bar covered in blood with a gun and removing her wedding ring. It was such an interesting exploration of the detective's psych, too. And I've noticed that some people seem to dislike the episode because they disagreed with it - I think that's the whole point. No one was in the right or wrong on either side, the detectives argued, and Benson got the last say, but ultimately, it was up to the viewer on if they agreed with Annabeth. I love when the show gets morally grey like that. Sure, it feels good when the rapist goes away, he's a bad man, etc, etc. But when the show leaves off on a note that makes you question how you would determine the right and wrong, that's a good episode.
I appreciate the ambition of this episode. It was different and out of the box. I feel the script would have benefited from some additional polishing since they must have experienced this sort of debate on other cases and yet, with all their experience, suddenly now they are struggling how to testify in a highly charged, often overly verbose debate? Stone shouldn’t have prosecuted this to begin with. The whole episode would have been more believable in season 4 or 5 rarther than season 20. The acting was good and the story was intriguing but the script/dialogue fell short of the heights it aspired to.
Soon as this episode started I had the sane thought! I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned anywhere else. I guarantee if this was in B&W more people would see the parallels
Completely agree. I didn't like the cop aspect because Rollins kept using that fact in her argument, and it didn't have anything to do with whether or not he was guilty. I also don't think the defendant's situation should be considered rape. She voluntarily married him, he never threatened to hurt or kill her (verbally, anyway...both sides can speculate on the gun..plenty of the SVU cops leave their guns easily accessible at home as we've seen in other episodes). How could her husband know she didn't want to if she never ever said so? Not even lied & made up an excuse? I definitely think marital rape can occur but it should fall under the same rules as non-marital rape. The wife was conscious & sober yet still didn't say no, and wasn't being hels against her will or threatened. That's not rape in any shape or form.
Every once in a while Law & order characters go off the rails, become overly dramatic and immersed in their own issues such that they totally lose objectivity. Liv and Detective Tarantolla were totally getting caught up in their own personal issues with their own past victimization. The storyline was poorly written, in that as a viewer you couldn’t empathize with the victim/defendant because it left the viewer out of knowing the victim at all, because the story started with the detectives arguing as they awaited being called as witnesses. I love law and order, but in my 20 years of watching the show, this one stands out as a dud.
I thought this episode had a good premise but crucial parts were left out for some reason or another. Where was the in house Psychiatrist's testimony of the defendant? As so many have mentioned before, why was Stone blindsided, what about the pre-trial prep with Carisi?
When did Benson get raped? It wasn't when Lewis kidnapped her, there was evidence produced to show that. I think this was the closest she ever came to being raped. So are the writers allowed to changed the facts from the past? If so, L&O SVU is turning into a soap opera.
Did they ever mention how many weeks/months have passed since the last episode, when Amanda had the baby? How long is the typical maternity leave for New York cops?
@gayle - In the previous episode (A Story of More Woe), Benson gets a call on January 18 that Rollins had her baby, so we can assume that is the birth date. In this episode, Rollins is at the courthouse at the same time that Stone is giving his opening statement, the date is February 7. It's only about 3 weeks from the baby's birth. I think that is far too short for standard NYPD leave. BUT - Rollins is technically not working here, she's there as a witness to a court case. Even though her testimony covers something that happened on the job, I don't think that a maternity leave would prevent her from testifying. I admit I don't know the rules in that aspect. What we don't know is when the crime occurred. Fictional SVU cases usually move at lightning speed, but this may have been one closer to reality, and may have happened months before when Rollins wasn't pregnant as she didn't look pregnant while taking the witness statement. (There were no dates given for that.) I don't know if this answer helps or confuses things more (wink)!
This episode hit close to home for me. I was mentored by a retired police officer in my early 20s. He always left out his gun. He "accidentally" pulled it on me one time. He hated a roommate's wife and had that gun with him every single day of the week, in an implied threat that he would use it on her were she to provoke him.
Turns out that his deceased wife, where only one small picture peppered his home, ostensibly "committed suicide" and he changes his story each time when he drinks, including when he found he letter indicating her want to have a divorce: before her death or weeks after her death? She "accidentally" shot herself in the bathroom. Yet there would be no reason for her to move his gun there, and I cleaned his house just enough to know. Something happened in that bathroom. Interesting because he remodeled that part of the house since and only that portion of the house. All his children and one neighbor, now adult, who were playing in the yard that day thinks he killed her. Yet he misses her according to him. Motive? She apparently wanted a divorce.
Because he donated to the sheriff department of that county, no one ever bothered to investigate it. He's still alive. She died in 1992.
The county is full of these flag-waving Republicans and votes that way at about 70%. He'll never be prosecuted because he's part of their favored class.
This case had a lot of parallels. When thinking about Bill's wife Joan, it's clear that Annabeth should have been acquitted. Those who think otherwise might just not be aware of how complicated such cases get.
He also received a huge life insurance sum from her death and gladly spent it all in a few years.
Update: a deleted scene with Kelli Giddish has been added after the recap.
I believe what the detectives had a hard time dealing with in this episode, is trying to accept that a woman could just shoot her husband for no good reason. I think they wanted to believe there was abuse, a threat to her safety, because that's what they are used to seeing. Accepting that the only reason Annabeth killed her husband was because he didn't like her food, would mean she's not a victim, he is, flipping their perception completely. That's a hard thing to do. I'm really glad that in the end, character Olivia Benson did the right thing and told the truth. At the end of the day, she's a civil servant, and it's her job to tell the truth, not skew the facts to her own liking.
I thought this was a great change of pace and format for the show. I loved it. I did feel as if it was meant to stimulate discussion amongst the viewers, and possibly parallel what would happen in a jury room.
A man's life is worth nothing if he doesn't treat women, or other humans in general, with respect.
An interesting episode but the way the detectives discussed the case was too polarizing. As a woman I found Rollins attitudes toward domestic abuse victims to be unsympathetic and uncaring to the point I believe it compromises her ability to effectively investigate these kind of cases. Not all woman have the emotional stability or resources to just pick up and leave an abusive partner. Psychological abuse it a real thing and if done to a person over time it can compromise their ability to make good choices for themselves. You can really scar a person without actually putting your hands on them just ask any child who lives with parents that continually put them down or call them names. Carisis was right police do have a lot of power over people that isn't always used appropriately. I also wish they had not made the abusive husband a policeman as that always muddies the waters in these kind of cases.
Speaking as a professional social worker of 30 years, DV is NOT about violence. It is about power and control.
Annabeth seemed to me to be a good example of a battered woman. She may not have been beaten, but she was obviously abused, on the face of things, IF what she said was true....I would like to have heard corroborating evidence, like, from her 'so called' former friends (which is typical in an abusive relationship isolation from friends and family), as well as testimony from Annabeths family.
Does anybody know if this was actually based on a true story, or if there is any story out there that is anything close to this? Just curious....
I love Kelli Giddish and her portrayal of Amanda Rollins in most episodes, but this time, Rollins is dead wrong. I understand Rollins likes bad boys, but how can she justify Thomas Pearl abusing Annabeth, even if there was no physical violence? Words hurt just as much as fists.
That Rollins is justifying that SOB getting away with it makes me want to scream at her. I've often been upset by the way Olivia treats Amanda sometimes, but this time, Benson is right on with her scathing criticism of Rollins and her justification of a man abusing his wife like that.
If I were in a relationship and I abused my significant other the way Thomas Pearl did to Annabeth, I would hope she would lash out at me. Not kill me, maybe, but kick me in the balls.
If Annabeth would have been found guilty, it would not have surprised me if Stone and Rollins celebrated by getting wasted and ending up in bed together. They were dead set in their convictions that Thomas Pearl was holier than thou and Annabeth was scum.
Just because he was an asshole cop and an asshole husband doesn’t mean he was raping her. She said she did not say she didn’t want to. Why should a husband just assume his own wife doesn’t want to unless she said so. Then it would be rape. Your basically saying anyone that just thinks no in there head only is being raped. It takes two to have sex unless someone is forcing themselves. He didn’t force himself if she didn’t make anything known otherwise. He wasn’t a stranger. He was her husband. He didn’t physically hurt her so that mean if she felt emotionally abused enough to shoot him she could of also tried something else like leaving. Him being a mean husband doesn’t deserve his life.
Rollins is pure evil in this episode. She defends that abusive piece of feces even though Carisi, Fin and Liv present great arguments as to why Annabeth should go free. If I'm on that jury, I'm voting not guilty and sticking with it, even if I'm the only one.
Amanda Rollins did some very, very STUPID things on SVU. This doesn't rise to the level of her illegal gambling, but it's bad enough.
While he didn't rape her technically he did assault her. He groped her, kissed her, was repeatedly on her and in her face. Many seasons earlier she also went undercover in a jail where she was seconds away from being rated. That was the first major trauma they showed happen to her. It really messed with her
Since when is it justified to shoot your husband who maybe or maybe not is abusing you? Killing someone is never the answer so why are we even discussing this nonsense? Its what Rollins said: He was not beating her, he was not raping her, this was not jusified. There are other solutions!
And since when is Benson raped by Lewis? The story was always that she was not raped, but only assaulted but now she is revealing he raped her all the time? Very inconsistent from the writers.
Why is Benson downplaying Rollins; she is raped, she grow up in a abusive household. Its not only Benson who knows what trauma is.
That woman was guilty. its just not justified to kill someone because you think he deserves that. And the gambling periode is 13 years ago, its not that bad. It was in a other life.
Post a Comment