Richard Speck? Just watched the intro. or am I the only one to recoginze this?
Wait…what?
No, you’re not…that was the first thing I thought of. And when Sara found the girl under the bed, that was the clincher for me.
And might I say, damn Wikipedia moves fast. Their page on Speck already has a note on tonight’s CSI.
I diidn’t remember Richard Speck by name but when I saw the first five minutes I thought:
. . . this is like that case from the '60s where the guy killed the Filipina nurses, except the one who rolled under the bed.
And then when Sara found the girl under the bed, I knew I was right.
But I was sorry
. . . they didn’t let the girl under the bed live. 
Also, is Jorja Fox pregnant? Must be, right? Is Sara?
First thought from tonight: Grissom shaved his beard!!
Second thought: Is Sara preggers? They sure didn’t try to disguise it.
Ugh, that episode was hard to watch. I know CSI’s convention is to have alot of blood n’ guts, but wow this one was way over the top.
It’s one thing to have the regular CSI closeups of the knife stabbing the victim and breaking off the tip, close ups of the wounds, etc. I get that. But the torture, bondage and sex…just the horribleness of the crime shown over and over? I was kind of like…OK, we get it, he killed them, tied them up, raped and stabbed them…do you need to keep showing it?
Maybe this is better suited to GD, but really where should the line be drawn? I have seen “R” rated movies that didn’t go as far as this episode did.
After this show and this week’s Criminal Minds (prostitutes being stabbed) I think I’m gonna have to lay off these shows for awhile.
Off to think some happy thoughts now…la la la lalalala la…
No, he didn’t. You missed the previous episode. Let’s just say that the shaving scene was . . . memorable. 
You must have missed the non-standard disclaimer at the beginning of the show. Instead of the normal " Parental discretion is advised" there was the " some scenes may be unsuitable for most viewers, viewer discretion strongly advised"
Or something to that effect. I thought it was somewhat over the top too
No, I did see the disclaimer, but maybe it should have said something like “scenes of torture and graphic violence” instead of just “adult content”. That covers alot of ground. CSI regularly has scenes that are unsuitable for many viewers. I think the point is should this graphic stuff even be on TV…maybe I will start a GD thread on it. It usually doesn’t bother me, but this episode really got me to thinking.
Dang it, I thought last week was a rerun, missed the beard shaving!
Just a bit of geeky crossover. I freely admit that I am a Georger . On the message board over there one of the fanatical Georgers posted that his daughter was going to be on TV. She was one of the victims. Betsy Rue. Probably interesting only to me. 
ETA: I love some of her other credits: Ass Grabin Girl on an episode of Las Vegas, a critical role in an episode of *Untold Stories of the ER * titled Rebar in Butt. No need for me to point out how hot she is.
I forgot one thing that maybe someone could clear up for me. Wossname played by Wallace Langam says something to Sara about feeling bad about doing the right thing. I saw the victim’s phone ringing earlier (it said “MOM”) but I had to leave the room before he did anything with the phone. What happened?
I realized last night just how horribly desensitized I’ve become. When the show was over, I turned to my wife and said “What was with that over-the-top warning at the beginning? They way they worded it, I thought this was going to be an incredibly graphic episode”.
She reminded me that perhaps the constantly repeated shots of the girls lying in pools of their own blood and the close-ups of their freshly-washed slit throats might have had something to do with that warning.
To paraphrase his end of the conversation:
“No, ma’am, your daughter isn’t here…I’m with the Las Vegas Crime Lab…Ummm, I’m really not at liberty to discuss it, but I can give you the number of someone who can…<sees a necklace with the girl’s belongings>…Ma’am, does your daughter wear a heart-shaped necklace? … I see…listen, I don’t quite know how to tell you this, but…” <camera pans away>
They busted down the walls between the C.S.I. people and the victims. The phone call put a lab person in contact with a victims mother. When Sara encountered a still living victim she was shaken because they are supposed to be dead when they are called in. Humanizing the people getting murdered is unsettling for the technicians that the CSI are supposed to be.
Thanks Hal, I figured it was something like that.
Even better, he used the past tense, “Did your daughter wear a heart-shaped necklace?” So between him saying that he was with the crime lab and using the past tense, the mother didn’t need to speak to a counselor to know that her daughter was dead.
This part was not realistic to me. It’s not the tech’s job to inform family of a death. He had no business answering the phone, let alone when it identifies the caller as “Mom”. What did he think she would ask except “who are you and why are you answering my daughter’s phone?” Far from that being okay, I can imagine a tech being disciplined for doing that. But the techie’s human reaction and the interaction with Sara also made me reconsider a favorite theory, which I read here that
. . . the techie guy is the Minature Killer.
What’s that character’s name, anyway.
And is Jorja Fox pregnant?
Same here…I was absolutely sure about that when I brought it up, but this bit is making me question my theory a bit. Note – a bit. I’m still sticking to my guns on this one. 
Hodges
Not according to the Jorja Fox Wiki:
Yeah, I saw the Wiki, but it seemed pretty outdated. I love the sanctimonious tone, though: “please don’t bring this up again without a citable source.” Chastisement is always such an effective tool in censoring teh internets. :rolleyes: My cite is her lil’ pot belly in last night’s episode.
And I couldn’t remember that The Hodges Theory was yours Hal, but I still like it as well.
nitpick:
at teh beginning of the episode, the 2 girls come into the dirty kitchen and see a lit cigarette in the ashtray.
HOURS later, when Sarah arrives, that cigarette is still lit!
That’s some serious long cigarette time!
Second nitpick - where Warick ‘recognizes’ one of the victims, Catherine says “rookies do that”… I dont think in any stretch of the imagination that Warick would be a rookie at this point.
Hodges would know better than to answer the phone… not only did he “not do the right thing” he potentially contaminated evidence. Not his job in any way shape or form to talk to victim’s relatives.
I can see Warick visiting the relative of the victim, but I seriously doubt he would’ve went for the initial visit alone… and just how much time did he take away from the investigation in doing that?
Liked the short scene where they tied up the civil suit vs Greg… wonder if they did that because they plan yet one more altercation between him and the brother?
(and Hal, you were first to mention that theory here, but I must say that simwife and I came to that same conclusion during the episode… we turned to each other at one scene and said “bet he is the MK”).
I know it has become a cliche to mention the CSI flashlights but in this episode it really bothered me. In the flashback scenes the house was brightly lit. Every light in the house was on. Did the killer take the time to turn off all the lights? It seems like he was in a hurry, got spooked and left before he could do a proper job on the last one. And yet every light in the house was off when the CSI team got there.