Echoes of My Father - Law & Order S1 E6

Episode Details

Season 1 Episode 6 Happily Ever After

Released: October 22, 1990

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

Supporting Cast: Janet Ralston, Gil Himes, Willie Tivnan

Notes

-The opening has three main characters, husband (Alan Rolston) and wife (Janet Rolston) arriving home from a party and a young man sneaking around the garage. The Husband is shot and killed. The wife is lying on the floor of the parking garage, her aliveness unknown, and the young man is seen running through a door. We know the Rolstons were talking about trying for a baby.

-We meet the family lawyer, Gil Himes, and the Shawshank Prison Warden has entered the chat. We learn that the Rolstons were looking to move “before the third kid”. The episode is trying really hard to build sympathy for the couple. Mr. Himes takes it a step further and tells the Detectives there will be a $50k Reward for finding the murderer. For reference, that would be $116,000 in 2023 dollars. I know how this episode ends so take this with a grain of salt. The way this episode has been constructed so far, the lawyer is in on it. Would audiences in the 90s have been that savvy? People weren’t idiots then, but these kinds of storytelling methods were not as engrained into the TV-watching audience as they are today. Or maybe they were? This is the kind of question I’d like to be able to ask my Dad.

-The investigation gets going once we find ourselves in Captain Cragen’s office. He is upset that the murder happened so close to the precinct. Det. Logan replies with a quip about not being issued telepathy badges and Cragen responds with some good old “madding to be mad”. He starts barking orders and I have to say, this was not a stellar look for the Captain. He started out fine, lamenting the crime to being mad at the people who are there to solve the crime. The idea that Detectives are supposed to live in the heads of those constructing a conspiracy, AHH, spoiler! I just see this scene and think that Cragen is having a bad boss moment and hope this isn’t a permanent character trait. Logan and Greevey get the homeless witness into the precinct and we get to see a fun police tool. They have binders full of mugshots. 2012 me is having a chuckle. The witness looks at one set of mugshots and identifies a suspect. The witness then looks at a second binder and needs to pick out the same suspect. This is made easier as we see the mugshots are the same. I’m unclear on how admissible this is, but it seems like a useful tool to give the detectives some direction on whom to look for or talk to next. The suspect’s name is Willy Tivnan.

-It’s a quick line, but important and one of those investigative storytelling moments I really like. They are looking at a 9mm casing and Greevey says, “that’s a fancy gun for the streets”. The build-up toward this being a crime performed by someone close to the family that runs in the same social circle. Just to drive the point home, the detectives pull the yellow sheet, that’s a criminal history, and all his past crimes have been with knives, not guns. Excellent storytelling.

-Detectives Logan and Greevey go to pick up Willy and something stands out during the interrogation. Willy feels like he is about to get busted for smoking crack. He doesn’t know he is the suspect in the murder of Alan Rolston. The detectives don’t ask Willy what he heard or saw, they presume he was the one doing the crimes. Willy, feeling like he is getting busted, will act like he has done something wrong. While it’s against the law to smoke crack, the Detectives might shift the guilt Willy displays onto the murder and keep pushing in that direction. It just feels unfair for the suspect at this point, knowing what we know, and this is after the detectives already discovered that his crimes have exclusively used knives.

-Janet Rolston gives the detectives her statement, more on that later. She is shown a display of mugshots. She picks #3 which is wrong and Logan tells her to take her time. She then picks #5 which is Willy Tivnan.

Side Bar Your Honor: The two images are NOTHING alike. The face in #3 has a mustache and is much lighter-skinned than Willy Tivnan. When Logan says “Take your time” he may as well have said, “wrong, try again”. It then turns into a one-in-three chance of getting the right guess in the second row of images. I have to spoil the end to make my point. Gil Himes may have seen Willy in the stairwell, he could have described Willy. Additionally, Gil Himes unscrewed the lightbulb in the stairwell, so how could Janet have seen anyone in the stairwell?

-Willy Tivnan is arrested and as his story makes the papers, different mugging victims come forward. All of these muggings used knives, no guns. We get to his arraignment and there is a great scene with the legal aid defense lawyer. She speaks up for Willy to Robinette. She is the audience’s POV at this moment. Willy is getting pulled into whatever it is going on with the Rolstons. To be clear, Willy admits to all the muggings that came forward after his arrest. Willy Tivnan isn’t an angel, nor is he the killer of Alan Rolston. Robinette adds at the end of the discussion that the public has their eye on this case and ADA Stone will not be looking to plead out the case. This is a nice demonstration of the accused having an advocate. In a previous episode, we talk about defendants' rights being more extensive than the rights of the victims. It must be mentioned that the rights that were being extended in that episode were the rights of a young, seemingly wealthy, white dude. In this case, when we get the young Black man with no known address, the concept of defendant’s rights is reliant on the experience of a court-provided defense attorney.

-Greevey and Logan visit Janet Rolston at her home. They get around to the night in question and she amazingly repeats her story from the hospital word for word. A wonderful detail added in the show are the dark glasses she wears when she gives this story. In the hospital, he locked her eyes on a point in space and never wavered. When I try to recall myself in space, I look around like I am at the location. It felt weird at the time of the first statement. Now, she is wearing dark glasses and she won’t make eye contact with either Logan or Greevey. Just a masterful touch to the moment. At this point I sort of think the Lawyer Himes is in on the crime and Janet Rolston is absolutely in on the crime. Another point that just occurred to me, in her statement, she says “I heard the shot, then saw Alan’s face.” We heard ourselves at the start of the episode three shots. This is corroborated by Willy when he was interrogated early in the episode. Janet Rolston has such a rehearsed story clear memory of this moment, how does she not mention “shots” or “three shots”? The version of her events suggests Alan was shot first, she would have been in physical condition to hear the shot that hit her. She is going down for this murder. I feel like I’m mad as I’m writing this. Such bad criming.

-Willy gets a visit and says the light went out, then he ran. “Light went off, then I ran.” Detectives go back to the stairwell and find the lightbulb was unscrewed. This leads to an incident report for Mr. Himes that includes a woman named Brenda Smith whose description matches Janet Ralston. They go to Captain Cragen and I have to say, Cragen is having a bad episode. Cragen is convinced Willy is the murderer and the Detectives want to follow up on Himes’ fingerprint being in the garage where the murder occurred. The problem is, how do you point your detective gaze at Janet and Gil when there is a suspect who has already been arraigned?

-The hunch is proved true when they find Gil and Janet coming out of the same hotel. They approach Janet and there is a satisfying moment where she knows she is caught but she has the time and space to make up cover story. Gil Himes enters a plea of not guilty.

-Motive becomes a little clearer as the insurance policies on Alan Ralston are revealed. Turns out Mrs. Ralston collects $9 million in the event of her husband’s death. There is still no connection to the gun until they find a transaction in the state of Virginia where Alan Ralston purchased the same kind of gun that uses the casing found at the scene. Character note here about Sgt. Greevey. He has a flair for the dramatic. When he reveals the information to ADA Stone & Robinette. He takes his time getting through the details of the when and where then has Stone & Robinette guess their way through all three people. Great for TV, but I would be annoyed. Just the facts Sarge, keep the flair in the precinct.

-The moment I’ve been waiting for starts with another interview with Willie. He goes over the order of events with Greevey and Logan. They try to trip him up but he is consistent in his timing. What’s fun as the audience is this is the first time we’ve been given such a clear order of events that involve the stairwell. Janet Ralston shot her husband then got shot by Gil Himes who came in from the stairwell. “Yes! They got em!” was the feeling during this interview. We then see Greevey and Logan talking to Robinette and Stone, who says Willie is a good enough witness for him and to pick up Janet Ralston for the murder of Alan Ralston. The most manipulative character in the episode so far is going to face the justice system. The scene where she is picked up, the acting is great. Her expressions when she sees the officers is the full story. She looks happy when she opens the door before she sees it’s the police. She recognized the Detectives and looks annoyed and exasperated they are there, “what now?” is how I would describe it. They start to serve notice and she goes into the thinking, looking for a story out of the situation. The scene fades out and she has dropped eye contact, she is building the story then and there. It’s great writing and acting. I really dislike this character and want her to see justice so bad. I’m always happy when a movie/TV villain makes me this mad.

-The trial gets going and we have a modern audience vs. 90s audience moment. A crime scene expert gives testimony and implies that based on the angle of the bullet’s entry, someone shorter than Gil Himes shot Alan Ralston. The defense counters with the fact that the floor of the garage is sloped and that could cause reasonable doubt for Mrs. Ralston being the shooter of her husband. I’ve watched a lot of CSI and I feel like the CSIs would have accounted for the floor being sloped and I think the prosecution would also have prepared for that being a variable. Does that get left out for the drama in the episode or does it get left out because crime scene investigation is still taking shape in the early 90s?

-The rest of the episode turns into a prisoner’s dilemma and Ben Stone plays the middleman perfectly. At one point Mrs. Ralston claims that Mr. Stone doesn’t scare her and Stone replies by saying “Oh, I do, and I should”. The delivery is great and I can feel the moment. Mrs. Ralston and Gil Himes end up in Ben Stone’s office. One of them has the option to take a deal on a lesser charge. Mrs. Ralston tries to play the brave face but Gil Himes takes the deal and testifies against her in court. It’s weird watching the Warden of Shawshank Prison testify.

-Mrs. Ralston is read her verdict and somehow, she is surprised by the fact she is found guilty. This was one of the more unlikable and evil characters we’ve seen so far and I love watching her world fall apart. We don’t get the sentence, but i hope she goes away for a long time. Yes, I know it’s a TV character.

Final Review

I like an episode where the baddie gets theirs. Janet Ralston is convicted on full charges and will not get to enjoy the $9 million in life insurance. Yes, there are children in this equation but this is TV and I can pick and choose where my interest in justice sits. I feel bad for the kids, but evil lost on this day and they have $9m so they are going to be ok. Unless the insurance company claims fraud, but that’s a different Law & Order series. Another good season one episode.

Remembering Dad

My Dad and a Little Me

Dad had a Blue Miata in the 90s. He loved that car. He also had a Red Volkswagen Beetle but I remember going to baseball games in the Miata. He was a car guy his whole life. The best memory I have of the Miata was in 1992, we arrived at the Little League field early for a weekend game. We were the first people there, the dirt parking lot was empty and there were none of those concrete sleepers to mark spots. My Dad did donuts while I was in the car. It was awesome! I can’t pinpoint a moment where I saw my Dad genuinely happy in association with the car, he was very much a stiff-upper-lip type fellow. However, I know he loved his cars and I know he liked driving this car. Six episodes in and I find myself chasing his happiness. I didn’t see a lot of it when I was a kid. Maybe I did and I just missed the cues because I was a kid. Am I here to convince myself he was happy with his life? I know I am more expressive than he was but do I need to take a more active role in showing what I’m feeling? Some lessons to think about in there.

For now, we will remember the day he did donuts before my Little League game; in his favorite blue Miata.

CHR;)