|
Post by quietfireca on Jul 6, 2009 12:54:17 GMT -5
I think she was embarrassed because they tried, but how can I put this, he was unable to perform. I think this, along with her unwillingness to lie about the witness' testimony soured their relationship. My take on this has been that Mulrooney would have dumped Alex no matter which way it went. Even if he'd won the case, he would have found a reason to avoid sleeping with her because, well, he just wasn't that into her..... so to speak. Need to rewatch and reform explanation.....
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jul 6, 2009 12:56:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 6, 2009 13:21:30 GMT -5
Just a reminder that this episode will repeat tonight on USA at midnight (EST), and next Saturday at 11pm (EST).
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jul 7, 2009 7:52:30 GMT -5
Really had to chuckle when Eames told Goren that after Mulrooney lost the Boz Bernum case, his career as a prosecutor was ruined so he quit. I mean, how many sensational cases did Jack McCoy lose over the years on the mothership? Or Casey Novack on SVU? Too many to count.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 7, 2009 8:51:07 GMT -5
McCoy and the SVU prosecutors lost some cases, but in Mulrooney's case it was because he blew the case. I suspect it wasn't the first case he lost because of his mistakes. A good prosecutor wouldn't have tried to force a police officer to lie on the stand, wouldn't have placed his entire case on what he knew to be a forged letter, and would've been able to mitigate the damage caused by a witness' mistake.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by quietfireca on Jul 7, 2009 9:46:54 GMT -5
McCoy and the SVU prosecutors lost some cases, but in Mulrooney's case it was because he blew the case. I suspect it wasn't the first case he lost because of his mistakes. A good prosecutor wouldn't have tried to force a police officer to lie on the stand, wouldn't have placed his entire case on what he knew to be a forged letter, and would've been able to mitigate the damage caused by a witness' mistake. Patcat I can't agree more Patcat. Although I know next to nothing about the other L&O things, I'm sure Mulrooney's career tanked because he was a lousy lawyer and this was the case that broke the camel's back. Alex happened to be a convenient scape goat for him. Although she might have been vulnerable back then, he still wasn't able to manipulate her. She might be still vulnerable, but she's got back-up this time. heh heh Even if she tries to fight it!
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jul 7, 2009 10:38:54 GMT -5
I suppose I know too much about the DA's office on the mothership. Jack McCoy has gone out on a much longer limb to prosecute someone who he believed was guilty than Mulrooney did. And has gotten lambasted for it on more than one occasion.
Besides, Mulrooney wasn't fired, in spite of his screw ups - he quit. My guess is that he felt that his efforts weren't appreciated and he went out to make a successful career for himself in the private sector. But that didn't happen, so he returned to the DA's office. I don't think they would have taken him back if his rep was bad.
Returning to the DA's office environment probably triggered his breakdown - that and his mother's death.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 7, 2009 11:31:56 GMT -5
I think Mulrooney might have had a breakdown after the case's failure. He does seem to disappear after the case for nearly eight-nine years, and then reappear. I think his mental state was pretty shaky long before he ran into Alex again.
This episode is so good in so many ways that I hate to pick on it, but I do wonder if Mulrooney expected Eames to be assigned Boz's case? Was he surprised when he found her working it and saw it as an added benefit to his plan?
And...this is not a criticism of the story, just an observation...Was there a hint of something slightly wrong with Kevin's relationship with his mother? Or have I watched one too many SVU episodes? (g)
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jul 7, 2009 21:50:58 GMT -5
I think it was stated by dad that Kevin got along much better with mom. I don't think there was anything abnormal between the two.
|
|
|
Post by tjara on Jul 8, 2009 3:10:24 GMT -5
I think it was implied that he was a "Momma's Boy", but in a perfectly legal sense.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jul 8, 2009 8:26:57 GMT -5
I'm thinking that way too.
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 8, 2009 8:43:52 GMT -5
Ok, clearly too much SVU on my part (g).
Still, I think Kevin had serious problems before the met Alex.
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Jul 8, 2009 10:05:12 GMT -5
I'm sure he did. One doesn't wake up one morning and decide to crossdress, or do they?
I don't think Kevin was much of an attorney. He left a paper trail when he purchased the clothes. One thing I've learned watching cop shows is, you never leave a paper trail!
|
|
|
Post by Patcat on Jul 8, 2009 10:57:09 GMT -5
True, Moonbeam. Bobby did say that Kevin wanted Alex to know who it was framing her and that she couldn't do anything about it. But I wonder if Kevin wanted to get caught? Or was he another in the long line of "I'm-so-much-smarter-than-this-big-lug-and-pretty-little-thing" perps in the LOCI world?
Patcat
|
|
|
Post by DonnaJo on Jul 8, 2009 12:53:40 GMT -5
Here's the difference between an episode like "Cherry Red" and the current LOCI fare.
In "Cherry Red," we were given an excellent view of the screwed up father/son relationship, through scenes & dialog. We knew why the son resented his father & how it manifested itself into murder. In this episode, we really don't know why Kevin cross dresses, or transforms into "Gabby." We are given a clue that it might have something to do with his mother, but a huge chunk of something is missing. Was a pivotal scene cut? Or did the writers just fail to connect the dots?
|
|