# Law and Order (Jan 12) Surprise -- (Open spoilers)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482
**Category:** Cafe Society
**Created:** [January 13, 2005, 2:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482 "2005-01-13T02:57:43Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 2
### Author:  [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2005, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/21 "2005-01-14T03:37:39Z")
I think the completely out-of-left-field nature of Serena’s revelation is about equal to the completely out-of-left-field nature of the Space Nazis revelation at the end of Season Three of “Enterprise.”
---
### Author:  [@Indyellen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indyellen)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2005, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/22 "2005-01-14T04:38:43Z")
> [@ivylass](#):
>
> Jamie was divorced.
>
> The thing that ticks me off is that pre-Claire, Jack had only had three female assistants. I guess they’re trying to make up for lost time. It’s not realistic he’d have four female assistants in a row.
D’oh! :smack: My bad…I knew Jamie was divorced. IIRC the custody battle was why she left the prosecutor’s office.
Yeah, frankly, they need another male ADA. Not that this new one is going to be bad or anything, but it would be a nice change at this point. Maybe another female cop?
---
### Author:  [@Call\_me\_Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Call_me_Frank)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2005, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/23 "2005-01-14T05:28:58Z")
> [@Lamia](#):
>
> Am I the only one who thinks it was just a joke?
I immediately thought it was a joke too, at first, but then she didn’t say “Just kidding” or something like that. Then after Arthur says it wasn’t she just says “Good”?! 😕
I suppose it’s possible that the writer intended it to be a joke, albeit a bad one, but I think it’s probably just a gratuitous opening for later confrontation or speculation.
---
### Author:  [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)
#### Post date: [January 14, 2005, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/24 "2005-01-14T17:06:18Z")
> [@Indyellen](#):
>
> D’oh! :smack: My bad…I knew Jamie was divorced. IIRC the custody battle was why she left the prosecutor’s office.
Well, she did resign in the middle of a case because her ex tried to take her daughter away, but that was just a plot point. She ultimately left because she was getting married.
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/25 "2005-01-15T00:35:45Z")
late to the thread 'cause I didn’t watch it until last night, but add me to the list of "WTF"s? I was pretty sure they hadn’t mentioned it before (mostly 'cause after that one disastrous season where they thought we all wanted to know personal details and we learned about Ray’s wife having MS, Lenny’s daughter being an informant for the cops and LT’s lawsuit against the department, they’ve really strayed away from mentioning personal lives there).
It struck me as a totally gratuitous gig, way past left field. and the whole exchange was idiotic.
let’s see, I’m being told I’m being fired, so I’ll ask if it’s cause I’m a lesbian. What response am I expecting? “why yes, of course it is, I morally object to same sex unions”? then, when I of course get the “no” response, my answer is “good”? why not “dammit - then I’d have a clear shot at a horribly public lawsuit”?
I vote for "writers had episode all finished, realized they needed 15 seconds more of dialouge, but wanted to hurry up and get to the bar, so left the office assistant w/the charge “we don’t care, just add in another 3 lines of dialogue.”
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/26 "2005-01-15T03:53:19Z")
> [@Indyellen](#):
>
> D’oh! :smack: My bad…I knew Jamie was divorced. IIRC the custody battle was why she left the prosecutor’s office.
>
> Yeah, frankly, they need another male ADA. Not that this new one is going to be bad or anything, but it would be a nice change at this point. Maybe another female cop?
I say, have Jack run for DA and win, then move up a female for executive ADA and get a male ADA again.
I think that might spice things up.
I still miss Claire.
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/27 "2005-01-15T04:02:35Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> I say, have Jack run for DA and win, then move up a female for executive ADA and get a male ADA again.
Sam Waterston is a bit too much of a ham to give up those juicy courtroom scenes, though. For him to keep up the scenery-chewing in the role of DA, it’d have to involve less courtroom and more politics, and that’d sink the show faster than a lead bikini.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/28 "2005-01-15T04:06:23Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#):
>
> Sam Waterston is a bit too much of a ham to give up those juicy courtroom scenes, though. For him to keep up the scenery-chewing in the role of DA, it’d have to involve less courtroom and more politics, and that’d sink the show faster than a lead bikini.
Oh, I agree. But I think once the show nears the end (and I have a feeling it’s gonna be sooner rather than later), that would be an excellent curtain call.
---
### Author:  [@BobT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobT)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/29 "2005-01-15T07:38:55Z")
The chances of someone with Jack’s background being elected D.A. are pretty remote. He’s got way too much baggage to get elected to office. He’s as high as he is going to get in his legal career.
---
### Author:  [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/30 "2005-01-15T13:03:09Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> But I think once the show nears the end (and I have a feeling it’s gonna be sooner rather than later), that would be an excellent curtain call.
What? What did you say? I can’t hear you. La la la la la la la la la la la.
---
### Author:  [@TeaElle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TeaElle)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/31 "2005-01-15T13:35:49Z")
Back on the topic of Serena, this is a repost from one of the closed threads about this episode:
> [@TeaElle](#):
>
> I was in an AIM chat room during the episode which had their “ripped from the headlines” version of the New Paltz mayor marrying gay couples and my fellow chatters happened to be three lawyer friends who are all gay.
>
> We all agreed that we were just waiting for Serena to come out in that episode. Her commentary was so close to the edge that it was very clear that they were trying to tell us that Serena was either a lesbian or the most queer-positive hetero ever to grace 100 Centre Street.
>
> But this ending screams of tacked-on, abrupt, unsubtle and I have no idea who thought it was a good idea. Cripes. Out of left field, much?
>
> Mr.TeaElle wondered aloud if it was a setup for either a Branch or McCoy exit at season’s end based upon the settlement of an off-screen lawsuit from Ms. Southerland.
---
### Author:  [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/32 "2005-01-15T21:45:33Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> Jack hasn’t slept with any of his assistants since Claire, from what I recall.
Where did this come out? I’ve never heard anything about that, and I though I’d seen most of teh Claire episodes.
---
### Author:  [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/33 "2005-01-15T22:05:21Z")
> [@wring](#):
>
> let’s see, I’m being told I’m being fired, so I’ll ask if it’s cause I’m a lesbian. What response am I expecting? “why yes, of course it is, I morally object to same sex unions”? then, when I of course get the “no” response, my answer is “good”? why not “dammit - then I’d have a clear shot at a horribly public lawsuit”?
That’s why I think it had to be a joke – it doesn’t make any sense if she was being serious. But if I’d just been fired without warning, I might possibly think it funny to drop “the L-Bomb” on my elderly boss and leave him wondering. (This could work whether or not Serena is actually a lesbian.)
Of course, if it was a joke it obviously wasn’t a very good one, since it just confused or irritated a lot of viewers.
---
### Author:  [@Flipshod](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Flipshod)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/34 "2005-01-15T22:09:26Z")
> [@ivylass](#):
>
> Arthur had a reasonable reason for letting her go.
Really? She did a little extra work to make sure the DA wasn’t prosecuting the wrong guy–not really the killer instinct of the typical TV DA, but an issue DAs are supposed to be cognizant of. And since she’s usually foaming at the mouth in indignant bad acting at the pre-trials, I would figure that the boss would cut her some slack for one case of getting emotionally involved.
So I said WTF! out loud both for the firing and the last lines.
---
### Author:  [@Murcielago](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Murcielago)
#### Post date: [January 15, 2005, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/35 "2005-01-15T22:20:42Z")
To me, it seemed like something she blurted out from the shock of being fired. Whether it was due to the writing or the acting, that character was always about as complex as a doorstop. I don’t think there was anything below the surface in that scene, other than the possiblity of a future discrimination suit which others have mentioned above.
---
### Author:  [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/36 "2005-01-16T00:21:49Z")
> [@Menocchio](#):
>
> Where did this come out? I’ve never heard anything about that, and I though I’d seen most of teh Claire episodes.
Hello! You didn’t know?
I forget which episode it was, but Jack’s former assistant/lover was working for the defendant, and at one point, she said to Claire, “Well, you ARE sleeping with him, right?” Claire kind of blushes, and doesn’t answer. Later, after her death, someone points out that they were lovers.
Look back over the Claire years with this information, and you’ll see the inuendo. (That and Hennessy and Waterston had fantastic chemistry!)
---
### Author:  [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/37 "2005-01-16T02:28:06Z")
> [@Murcielago](#):
>
> , that character was always about as complex as a doorstop.
short changing doorstops IMHO. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/38 "2005-01-16T02:43:13Z")
Did anyone else wonder why Jack left before Arthur told her she was fired? I mean, he knew he was gonna do it. Arthur said that.
I think it shows a little cowardly side to him.
---
### Author:  [@Snooooopy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snooooopy)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 2:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/39 "2005-01-16T02:54:34Z")
> [@spooje](#):
>
> Did anyone else wonder why Jack left before Arthur told her she was fired? I mean, he knew he was gonna do it. Arthur said that.
> I think it shows a little cowardly side to him.
He rushed out to stock up on condoms before holding the first round of auditions for Serena’s replacement.
---
### Author:  [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)
#### Post date: [January 16, 2005, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482/40 "2005-01-16T03:50:19Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#):
>
> Hello! You didn’t know?
> I forget which episode it was, but Jack’s former assistant/lover was working for the defendant, and at one point, she said to Claire, “Well, you ARE sleeping with him, right?” Claire kind of blushes, and doesn’t answer. Later, after her death, someone points out that they were lovers.
>
> Look back over the Claire years with this information, and you’ll see the inuendo. (That and Hennessy and Waterston had fantastic chemistry!)
Ok, I remember the former conversation. I just thought she was more shocked at the implication. 😉 Missed out the latter entirely.
Honestly, that’s a tidbit I had heard alot, without ever seeing any concrete mention of it (unlike Lenny’s drinking problem, for example).
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482.md?page=1)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/law-and-order-jan-12-surprise-open-spoilers/284482.md?page=3)