Yet another CSI Post

I really hadn’t planned on posting about CSI again until after Liev Schreiber‘s appearance. But this past week’s episode, Happenstance, really got under my skin mainly due to the show’s inability to give us scenes where Grissom is proven wrong.

The episode synopsis is as follows: When identical twins are found dead on the same night, the CSI team investigates whether or not the two murders are connected. Now, I can’t talk about the episode without giving away the ending, so if you haven’t seen it, please stop here.

Twin sisters die on the same night, only hours apart. I have no problem with that. Catherine, working one of the cases is convinced their murders are connected. Grissom, on the other hand, thinks she is jumping to conclusions. Sure in her theory, Catherine makes a bet with Grissom that the murders are connected and he takes it. This is where I got angry.

First, I was already annoyed that Grissom was playing devil’s advocate. I’m convinced at this point William Peterson has made a deal with the writers that all substiantial theories from the cases must materialize first through him. If they don’t, they shall be proven wrong. One  reason I was having such a hard time with him argueing with Catherine on this is in the past Grissom has dispelled coincidences in murders before and it seems to me that 2 biological twins dying on the same night is a HUGE coincidence. Why he immediately dismisses Catherine’s theory right away makes no sense. Of COURSE trained investigators upon hearing of two suspicious deaths of siblings are going to consider the possibility they are related, even if one appears to be a suicide.  Is it possible they are unrelated?  Sure, but it would be considered incompetance to not go forward thinking they may be connected.

Nevertheless, Grissom believes because the deaths were both different in nature and they lived on opposite sides of town, they probably were coincidental after all. *sighing* OK.

Taking out the ridiculous bet between the leads of both investagations, I felt the episode was interesting with different twists that I wasn’t always expecting. We already knew from the promo neither woman knew the other existed and it seemed the chances of them coming in contact but never actually were explained away by unexpected distractions that would have made a soap writer proud.  Still, I was entertained watching the episode.

The ending turned out, that the woman found shot to death in the parking lot was a case of mistaken identity when the killer assumed she was the OTHER sister. Like the woman he intended to kill, he had no idea she was a identical twin but was taken completely by surprise when he entered his real victim’s house to retrieve her laptop only to discover her alive and walking into her living room. He managed to collect himself together and strangled her to death, then tried to make it look like suicide by hanging.

Realizing this was the closure to the case, I was really surprised. Grissom was WRONG! The show was going to come back with him paying Catherine his side of the bet.  Yet, then the show disappointed me when Catherine looked at Grissom and told him it was a tie, they BOTH were right.

*Sigh* In what universe criminial prosecutors would ever consider these two  crimes unrelated I don’t know. Just because the killer had the wrong target did not make this killing null and void. He would never have killed her if she hadn’t been the identical to his target, thererfore they were related. I know, I need to let this go. Grissom is going on hiatus from the show and my animosity towards William Peterson and his over-hyped potrayal of the bug obsessed CSI may learn to subside so when he returns, I might learn to love the CSI lead again. (nah!)

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Yet another CSI Post

  1. Grissom wrong? NEVER! At least as long as William Peterson is producing.

    And I’d assume they were related too, regardless of which side of town they lived on. Vegas isn’t that big of a city. It’s not like they lived in different parts of the country. It could have easily been a disgruntled family member or something of the like taking down people.

    Ugh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s