Echoes of My Father - Law & Order S1 E5

Episode Details

Season 1 Episode 5 Kiss the Girls and Make Them Die

Released October 10th , 1990

Main Characters: Sgt. Max Greevey, Det. Mike Logan, Cpt. Don Cragen, ADA Ben Stone, ADA Paul Robinette

Supporting Characters: Paige Bartlett, Libby (Paige’s Roommate), Ned Loomis, Steve, Mr. Bartlett (Paige’s Father)

Notes

-Paige Bartlett is found unconscious in her bed by her roommate, Libby.

-Libby is interviewed by Detectives Greevey and Logan. A calm and thoughtful “witness” who I’m sure investigators appreciate having as a starting point. Libby provides some personal details about Paige’s work and social life then tells the Detectives about the prior roommate, Polly.

-After the interview, we get into the interesting main character’s POV when Greevey walks out of the apartment and talks about the sex lives and personal choices of 24-year-olds. Logan challenges him on what kind of lives someone that age should be leading. Logan calls him a hard ass and the exchange ends with no conclusion. There isn’t going to be one this early in the episode and it isn’t clear they will carry on the conversation. We can conclude that Greevey has a preconceived notion of how people should act and how that affects the rest of the investigation and potential investigations in the future.

-The detectives go to one of the gyms Paige used and there is a super awkward moment where a woman they are talking to is using a machine and she asks Logan to add resistance. It feels weird; unlike anything I’ve heard about in real life. When I think about the world today and the screening process women go through to make dating choices. I suppose the woman on the machine decided Logan was safe enough to flirt with. The show makes plenty of references to Logan being a character that catches plenty of looks. Still, the moment felt weird, like someone in the writers’ room wanted to add a flirty moment and asked “How do people flirt in the gym?” and got silence of a reply so they made it up quickly just to get through the scene and move on to the next.

-Speaking of the next scene, the conversation between Greevey and Logan continues when Greevey asks Logan how long he would wait to sleep with the woman who flirted with him. To his credit, Logan stops to think about the answer, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE STREET, and he says the first date. Greevey cites AIDS then Logan counters with “Have you heard of condoms?” AIDS does not have the same place in the general conversation it once did. HIV treatment has grown over the decades and people are more interested in other political conversations that cause HIV and AIDS to fall out of the news and TV shows. Understandable how AIDS holds such meaning in a show filmed in this era and a reminder of how far medicine has come. Specific to the characters, I think we have to remember that Greevey is Catholic and the idea of birth control would not be front of mind. When Logan asked the condom question, I think the answer was “Yes, but I never think about that because…Catholic.”

-We meet Polly Norris and we learn about a new boyfriend. Polly doesn’t know the new boyfriend’s name so she short hands him as “Denim”, as opposed to mink, and the Detectives run with the name. I really enjoy this as a tool for identifying people but I’m not a fan of using it as a method for class identification. In a group of friends who know the full context, this is a fun activity and there are inside jokes everyone can enjoy. It brings character to the groups when meeting new people. When used as a class distinction, I just sigh.

-Next, Greevey and Logan go to the Bar and there is a moment where Logan pulls out a Polaroid photo of Paige in the bed where Libby found her. Paige is in the hospital, which means she is alive which means first responders took the time to snap a Polaroid before doing anything else. Is this standard procedure? I understand how important this would be for identification purposes but is there not a picture in the house they could use? Could they not get a photo at the hospital? Yes, she has a bunch of tubes in her body but I would want to be taken to the hospital quicker, and taking a photo would use some valuable time. I think we learn in this scene that “Demin” is also “Ponytail”.

-Next bar and we get to have the class discussion again. The Maitre’d refers to “our kind of people” and “my kind of people”. This belongs in philosophy phriday but what is it with humans and this need to feel “better than the next person”? I get why exchanges like this are written into TV show plots. It is such a gross societal trait that it makes for human contrast, character conflict, and plot development. We learn about a new guy, “Young Warren Beatty”. I get a kick out of this reference. Warren Beatty was Dick Tracy to me. I remember him as being handsome and having that square-jaw look that seems to score so many free points in life. This show already has lots of 90s feel to it but these extra dashes of 90s spice make me smile.

-Paige dies due to bleeding in the brain. In the process of more interviews, we learn that “Ponytail” is named Steve. Also during the process, we start the dance around victim blaming. What’s frustrating is that the detectives are sitting with the father who seems genuinely interested in helping. He is calm and appears thoughtful in how he answers. The detectives could make a case for the type of individual they’ve seen over the course of their career would suggest a different type of boyfriend. Couple that with the question “Other than Ned, have there been any relationships Paige mentioned that stood out, put her in a different crowd than what you may expect?" The Victim Blaming in this case is a dodge or the lack of creative thinking about how to ask a difficult question. The father being calm and willing to answer questions should ease the difficult conversation.

-Steve comic books, Greevey grossed out, Logan “Don’t take seriously”, Greevey “Kids take this seriously, Logan “Yeah, 2nd-grade teacher said Beatles were garbage”, Greevey “Beatles were great, this is garbage”. Watch the clip. This is a fascinating social commentary on what one generation thinks another can handle. Humanity has a way of constantly looking for the edge of it’s creative interest in art and personal expression. I wonder how different society would be if older generations accepted that expression and creative interest will expand over time and younger generations accepted that their interests might be outside the norm for older generations. We all agree things are going to change, as long as no one gets hurt, you do you.

A personal example is TikTok. I have no interest. Don’t understand the appeal, don’t want to know the appeal. This isn’t to say we need to build walls between one interest or the other. This is about being open to the creative expression of others and being okay with saying “I’ll pass but have fun” while understanding that the new hotness isn’t for everyone. I think the struggle humanity deals with is that it’s easier for the TikTok’rs to keep dancing while the disinterested carry on their judgment. The way we live now, this is not an equal two-way street of communication.

-We meet Steve and that leads us to Eleanor Phipps, who is the money behind his art. The investigation gets us to the name of “Warren Beatty” and his name is Ned Loomis. At this point, he is the last person we know who saw Paige alive. I like how this story unfolds. It winds through multiple characters multiple times as the Detectives follow leads and the buildup of information is paced very well. It’s great writing and I appreciate the flow. We learn from Polly that Ned Loomis is a “very angry guy”.

-We get back to Captain Cragen’s office and Greevey just pisses me off. Cragen, Logan, and Greevey are covering the facts and Greevey says “The victim is the problem…she was sleeping around” then Logan cuts him off and says it wasn’t like that. The victim-blaming dance continues. It’s a complete lack of empathy for the human experience by an investigator who should have an interest in what makes people tick. Over the last 20 minutes of the episode, we have a very clear picture of what happened to Paige over the course of the evening in question. She was on an emotional roller coaster. She gets dumped and tried to ease the pain, to forget. I’m disappointed that Greevey can wash his hands of what the victim went through, emotionally, and physically, and find concern in how she conducts her life. Steve may not present as a sympathetic character, but he didn’t seem dangerous. Ned Loomis and his anger combined with the testimony from the waitress should be the focus. It’s the only scenario that makes sense, but Sgt. Greevey is writing it off because Paige had sex with two people in one night and the only reason he knows that is thanks to the Medical Examiner. The sex isn’t relevant to what happened. It might matter for motive, but they aren’t in the motive phase yet, they are still trying to narrow down the violence. I’m mad at Greevey, be better.

-We meet Ned Loomis and in the first 90 seconds of screentime, he has deflected questions twice. Sometimes there is doubt going into the trial part of the show, I have no doubt Ned is the murderer in this case. That feeling is only strengthened when we see Ned punching a vending machine in the Police Precinct.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3hyu9He09U&list=PL9DxL1Q_FD-MecQi6LF3cRbBhnaW7ZaCE&index=14&ab_channel=Law%26Order Sally and the DA investigation

-We meet Sally, a reporter who is in the courthouse for this story. The way Robinette speaks to Sally suggests she is supposed to be a regular character in the show. Maybe not Sally specifically but the use of the media. It doesn’t see a lot of action in future episodes and I think it is a missed opportunity. We have to judge the feel of the people of New York through the main characters of the show. They use newspaper headlines, which is fine, but to have a nuance that a specific reporter could bring into the mix would have been a fun touch.

-We are firmly in the trial phase and DA Schiff has ADA Stone in his office. Schiff is making the case that when a jury sees a Harvard Business School rich white guy with no witnesses, there is no way Stone can get a conviction. Schiff refers to Loomis as “every mother’s dream”. Stone makes the counterargument that the evidence will override any sense that being handsome excuses murder. This really makes you throw your hands up because the idealist is right and what we’ve seen during the investigation, all signs point to Loomis being the murderer. However, prosecutors must get over the burden of proof and juries see what they want to see in the way people present themselves. Loomis will be well dressed and good-looking and there is “no way” someone like this could have done this crime. Unless Loomis gets on the stand and Stone can show off his temper? The scene ends with a funny moment when Stone asks if Schiff would like a confession and Schiff replies sarcastically with “that would be nice”. These two characters and the actors are great when they are interacting. They are the subject of my favorite scene in all of Law & Order.

-We spend the next 5 or so minutes investigating the case, getting into the business background of Ned Loomis. The phrase “born to win” and “swordsman” in reference to his dating history are used to describe the murder suspect. The investigation is interrupted by the father of the victim coming into the DA’s office asking why his daughter is being presented in social magazines as a tramp. “It’s like she is being killed all over again” he said to ADA Stone and you feel terrible for the father. Adam Schiff later asks Stone, “who is on trial here?” and Stone simply says, “The victim”. It’s depressing and demotivating to want to participate in the human experience. How have we come so far as a species but kindness to one another is in such short supply in the stories written in the 90’s extending into the stories of today.

-We get a new witness in the form of Mrs. Brody. She met Ned Loomis at university and filed charges against Loomis for assault but the charges were ultimately dropped. Robinette travels to Boston to get a statement from her but she is reluctant to talk about it and Robinette has to leave without the witness he was hoping to add to the case.

-We get a hard lesson on how the law operates. Mr. & Mrs. Brody come to New York and she shares her experience with Ned Loomis. The hard lesson is that his past bad behavior can’t be brought up in court due to the rules of evidence. The husband stands up and says what we’re all thinking, “This guy can go around hurting women and not pay the price?” Stone replies by saying that’s how the law works. That is one of the big lessons from this show that defendants have rights too and the burden of proof should be high. What’s difficult to understand is when we see all the facts laid out and the conclusion is pretty easy to make, there is just one piece that is missing and it doesn’t matter. Not only does the victim not seem to matter, but the victim is being slandered in the press as well. I trust there are good reasons why the law is set up this way but it feels like injustice is in the driver’s seat at this point of the episode.

-After another heated discussion with Schiff, Stone tried to get Mrs. Brody on the stand. The judge in the case listens to the motion and comes back to Stone with a quote, “We have leaned over so far backward to protect the rights of defendants, that we are at risk of putting the justice system on its back.” This is something the judge wrote that same year and really brings this episode into focus. The story itself may have been built on the real-life case of “The Preppie Killer” but I’m willing to bet that the story was inspired by one of the writers seeing or coming up with this line. “How do we build a story that turns the justice system upside down?” was probably asked in the writers’ room and this is the episode we got. It’s frustrating, but it’s important to get an episode like this early in the run of the show. There will be more moments like this. Not just in the show but in real life. I’m not suggesting that we as the audience take steps to try and fix what we perceive to be unjust. I think we can look at this and the stories we read in real life and know that parts of the process are not applied equally, and parts are broken. The witness, Mrs. Brody, is prevented from taking the stand and justice feels like it has withdrawn just a little more from Paige Bartlett.

-While Mrs. Brody may have been prevented from taking the stand, Ben Stone brings Ned Loomis’ girlfriend to the DA’s office and has her meet Mrs. Brodie. A wonderful strategic move that feels kind of scummy. Nothing on the surface says he isn’t allowed to do this, but when the judge says Mrs. Brody’s testimony is “grossly prejudicial” and Stone uses it to influence a witness who can take the stand, I get the shivers down my spine. Here is the thing, Ned Loomis has found multiple ways to dodge “the moment of justice” during this trial phase. This “got you” moment may feel good as the audience but is it right? After spending two sections talking about defendants getting the benefit of the doubt, here I am talking about the rights of the defendant. I this the law, for as hard as it tried to be codified, is just as messy as the people who wrote it and live it. I don’t feel good about this happening, but I don’t feel bad for Ned Loomis.

Side Bar your Honor: Mrs. Brody shows the scar on her neck that’s obviously covered the whole episode. There are two shots of the scar and neither of them match. The first we see it, it’s 1.5-2 inches wide and 3 inches tall. We then get a close up and it’s a horizontal slice with stitch marks. The point is made, but the makeup inconsistency is hilarious.

-Ned Loomis’ girlfriend takes the stand and everything is fine until she says she “spoke to a woman who said Ned choked her.” The defense attorney is outraged, and so is the judge. The judge scolds Stone while he walks back to his chair. He holds for a dramatic pause and says he has no further questions. It feels like Stone has sold a little bit of his soul to get the “testimony” of Mrs. Brody into the courtroom. Add this moment to the list of badass Ben Stone moments. Ned Loomis is found guilty of murder and the episode is over.

Final Review

Another great episode. The social commentary this episode provides across the main and supporting cast was a wonderful mental exercise. In previous reviews, I’ve been disappointed by the shortcomings of the law and the way it’s constructed. This episode had a piece of that, but my main disappointment was in humanity and its willingness to victim blame. Not just the ease, but there is zero hint of the benefit of the doubt for the victim. The same assumption of innocence given to the accused isn’t given to Paige Bartlett. Great episode, made me think and had some Ben Stone badassery, perfect.

Remembering Dad

My Dad and a Little Me

A guitar sat in the corner of my parents’ room for all the years I remember growing up. When I was in my single-digit years, I remember Dad playing more guitar. Somewhere near my tenth birthday, Dad got a Les Paul guitar for Christmas. Dad was a stiff-upper-lip kind of dude, I remember a few moments of real joy being expressed. This was one of them. I think he was genuinely surprised and was playing enough guitar at the time to know he would use and enjoy his new toy.

I don’t remember him playing particular songs. He played some Spanish tunes but I don’t remember any sort of structure or purpose to his practice. He played the way he wanted to when he wanted to. He had long nails all the time because he played guitar. I remember I let my nails grow longer because I was a lazy kid and I could say “I play guitar at home” when the kids on the bus made some comment about my nails being long.

The strongest memory of guitar in the house were the CDs we had of Ottmar Leibert. I still listen to those CDs today, in digital form. The sounds of those CDs are the living room sound of my youth. The guitar in this story isn’t the important part to me. The important part is the many things my dad was into somewhere on the hobby spectrum. I spent much of my 20s and 30s cycling through hobbies looking for something. My Dad was talented in his way. I don’t know how far he was able to pursue his talents. He was very good at his job and that may have fulfilled the accomplishment urge he probably felt. I say probably because I feel it and I’ve never found satisfaction in my job. I discovered satisfaction in the expression of my creativity.

I hope he found that satisfaction that I find myself looking for.

CHR;)