Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 178 (click to see context) from:
** The [=CSIs=] didn't find out the horrible truth until the very end of the episode. The last scene shows Grissom trying to solve a crossword puzzle, which might be his way of coping with the horror of what he'd just learned.
to:
** The [=CSIs=] didn't find out the horrible truth until the very end of the episode. The last scene shows Grissom trying to solve a crossword puzzle, CrosswordPuzzle, which might be his way of coping with the horror of what he'd just learned.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 194 (click to see context) from:
* In "Spellbound", why did they need to ask witness Anna Leah for her fingerprints (since she touched the car of a man claiming he hadn't been near the crime scene) when she had already been arrested, booked and presumably fingerprinted for drunk driving and [=GTA=] "Evaluation Day". Even if the charges were dropped due to how she was trying to get away from a potential felon at the time, the arrest and related information should have still been on record.
to:
* In "Spellbound", why did they need to ask witness Anna Leah for her fingerprints (since she touched the car of a man claiming he hadn't been near the crime scene) when she had already been arrested, booked booked, and presumably fingerprinted for drunk driving and [=GTA=] "Evaluation Day". Day?" Even if the charges were dropped due to how she was trying to get away from a potential felon at the time, the arrest and related information should have still been on record.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
* In "Spellbound", why did they need to ask witness Anna Leah for her fingerprints (since she touched the car of a man claiming he hadn't been near the crime scene) when she had already been arrested, booked and presumably fingerprinted for drunk driving and [=GTA=] "Evaluation Day". Even if the charges were dropped due to how she was trying to get away from a potential felon at the time, the arrest and related information should have still been on record.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Red link cleanup
Changed line(s) 171 (click to see context) from:
** She was charged as an accessory to a crime and yes she was an accessory. Her story is that she "just met the guy" and didn't know what was going on. But the evidence placed her at the scene. Her father's vendetta against CSIs seems to be based on the notion that she wouldn't have gotten caught if not for DNA evidence.
to:
** She was charged as an accessory to a crime crime, and yes yes, she was an accessory. Her story is that she "just met the guy" and didn't know what was going on. But the evidence placed her at the scene. Her father's vendetta against CSIs [=CSIs=] seems to be based on the notion that she wouldn't have gotten caught if not for DNA evidence.
Changed line(s) 190,191 (click to see context) from:
** Grissom explains this at the end of the episode, saying he should fire Warrick but decides he's rather not lose two skilled CSIs
to:
** Grissom explains this at the end of the episode, saying he should fire Warrick but decides he's rather not lose two skilled CSIs
[=CSIs=].
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
Changed line(s) 143,144 (click to see context) from:
** Because Hodges used to be a hell of a SmallNameBigEgo back in the day. He sucked up to Grissom - to the point where at times it seemed like he had deluded himself into believing Grissom regarded him as an equal - yet was pretty condescending to everyone else, especially Greg. He acted like the evidence he processed was more important than that of all the other lab techs, and not to mention he didn't think highly of field work, which was one half of the CSI's job. All in all he wasn't put down so much as he insulted the [=CSIs=] so they insulted back. And besides, Grissom was [[AmbiguousDisorder Grissom]] - he'd be the last guy to understand Hodges' way of thinking.
to:
** Because Hodges used to be a hell of a SmallNameBigEgo back in the day. He sucked up to Grissom - to the point where at times it seemed like he had deluded himself into believing Grissom regarded him as an equal - yet was pretty condescending to everyone else, especially Greg. He acted like the evidence he processed was more important than that of all the other lab techs, and not to mention he didn't think highly of field work, which was one half of the CSI's job. All in all he wasn't put down so much as he insulted the [=CSIs=] so they insulted back. And besides, Grissom was [[AmbiguousDisorder [[DiagnosedByTheAudience Grissom]] - he'd be the last guy to understand Hodges' way of thinking.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 172 (click to see context) from:
to:
*** Except she claims she was just there and didn't know what he had planned, and dropped the cup when she was running in fear. Furthermore, the two flashbacks we see of the event are mutually contradictory. One shows her being in on it, and the other shows her running in fear just like she said. So, which one is what really happened?
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 189 (click to see context) from:
to:
** Grissom explains this at the end of the episode, saying he should fire Warrick but decides he's rather not lose two skilled CSIs
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
*Why is the Day Shift so bad? Every time an old case is brought up, its always a day shift case, and the night shift immediately finds something obvious the day shift missed. Seems like everyone on the Day Shift is really bad at their job.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 170 (click to see context) from:
to:
** She was charged as an accessory to a crime and yes she was an accessory. Her story is that she "just met the guy" and didn't know what was going on. But the evidence placed her at the scene. Her father's vendetta against CSIs seems to be based on the notion that she wouldn't have gotten caught if not for DNA evidence.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Added DiffLines:
** Holly was a plot-forwarding device to introduce Sarah.
Is there an issue? Send a MessageReason:
None
Changed line(s) 187 (click to see context) from:
* In the episode "$35K O.B.O.", the killer's ex-wife was at the scene even though she didn't need to be there. The CSIs even ask why she was there, but he refuses to answer. So why ''was'' the ex-wife there? Did the killer persuade her that he needed her help so that he could kill her for [[IfICantHaveYou leaving him to become the male victim's mistress?]]
to:
* In the episode "$35K O.B.O.", the killer's ex-wife was at the scene even though she didn't need to be there. The CSIs [=CSIs=] even ask why she was there, but he refuses to answer. So why ''was'' the ex-wife there? Did the killer persuade con her that into being there by saying he needed her help so that he could kill her for [[IfICantHaveYou leaving him to become the male victim's mistress?]]
