For the difficult-to-buy

1. Blue Wonder – touch-up kit used to repair or hide scratches in the finish of most firearms. Perfect for use prior to attending holiday parties when wearing a dinged-up firearm on your side simply won’t do. $29.95

2. Blue Wonder Removal System – used to remove finishes from firearms—parkerized, cold blue or hot blue. Available in two small squirt bottles, one for removing the finish and the other for preparing the weapon for refinishing. $19.95

3. Scarab Cutterhandheld device used for cutting zip-ties and other temporary/disposable restraints. $28.95

4. MicroBurst Fuming Wand Kit by EVIDENT – used in the field to quickly process items (fingerprints) with cyanoacrylate (Super Glue). $139.95

5. Blood Spatter Kit 2015 – perfect for use in the field when analyzing blood spatter trajectory. Comes complete with tools needed, including multiple spools of assorted brightly colored strings. Again, from EVIDENT.

6. Forensic Entomology Kit – everything you need for collecting bugs in, on, around, and beneath a decomposing corpse. $275.00

7. Forensic Archaeology Kit – a perfect gift for the grave robber who has everything. Also comes in handy for CSI’s who’ve uncovered a clandestine grave. $789.00

8. Blood Impression Kit – used for locating and preserving bloody impressions. (No, not the cheeky imitations of celebrities by British comics). $369.00

9. Explosive Test Kits – for the detective of explosives. Able to pinpoint a variety of exotic flavors—nitro, ammonium, urea nitrate, chlorates, phosphates, and more! $69.00 per kit

10. Blood Spatter Training Blood – comes in handy when the real thing is simply not available. $24.00 per 8 oz. bottle
And, when realistic training is a must, try Spatter Head. Warning, this video is kind of graphic and may be offensive, but only if the bashing-in of a fake skull is upsetting to you. However, you will quickly understand the force it takes to…well, let’s just say killing someone requires more than a blow to the head with a copy of your favorite author’s latest book.

Friday's Heroes - Remembering the fallen officers

 

special-investigator-diane-digiacomo

Special Investigator Diane DiGiacomo, 51

American Society for the Prevention of Animal Cruelty, Humane Law Enforcement

November 20, 2015 – Special Investigator Diane DiGiacomo died as a result of cancer caused by exposure to toxic substances while conducting search and rescue operations at the World Trade Center after September 11, 2001. She is survived by her son, sister, and brother.

police-officer-ryan-copeland

Officer Ryan P. Copeland, 33

McFarland Wisconsin Police Department

November 23, 2015 – Officer Ryan McFarland was killed in a car crash shortly after beginning his shift. The second vehicle crossed the center line, striking Officer McFarland’s patrol car head-on. He died at the scene.

The killing of Laquan McDonald

I’m often asked to share my opinions regarding officer-involved shootings and other similar incidents, but I choose not to offer personal viewpoints because the purpose of The Graveyard Shift is to present factual information with, of course, an occasional bit of fun tossed in. I especially do not address issues regarding race, religion, and/or politics.

With that said, I thought it appropriate to post a dash-cam video recently released by the Chicago PD. The footage shows Chicago officer Jason Van Dyke shooting a suspect, Laquan McDonald, 16 times. McDonald was carrying a small knife in his hand and was several feet away from the on-scene officers when he was shot and killed.

Now, I’d like for you to clear your mind of all notions you may have of police officers, good or bad, and then watch the video with an open mind, much like jury members are asked to do. Afterward, please continue with the remainder of this article. Also, please try not to cloud your open mind with the age and race of the people in the video. Just the facts, as they say.

 

While the video is sinking in, let’s talk about the use of deadly force and when it should or should not be employed.

The use of deadly force is permitted in cases of self defense and to defend the lives of others. In other words, a real threat to someone’s life must be present in order to justify using deadly force. No threat to life or serious injury = no use of deadly force.

Was there a clear threat to life or serious injury in the incident shown in the above video?

Remember…

1. Police officers are legally allowed to shoot a fleeing criminal suspect only when the suspect has killed/seriously injured someone and the officer believes the suspect will continue to kill or further cause serious bodily injury to others. This was not the case at the time the video was recorded.

2. Police officers are not required to be absolutely certain that a suspect is in possession of a dangerous weapon before they’re legally permitted to use deadly force. However, a threat must be perceived at the time the use of deadly force is employed.

3. Officers are not required to use less-lethal weapons before resorting to deadly force.

Do either of the above three rules apply to the shooting in the video?

What about #4? Is it possible that Officer Van Dyke feared for his life or the life of another? I believe that’s what his attorney has stated, that he feared for his own safety.

4. There are no absolute, clear, and defined laws that police officers must follow when using deadly force. An officer’s perception at the time of the shooting is enough to justify the act. In other words, only the officer who used deadly force can know if he percieved a suspect’s actions as a threat to his life or the life of others.

While you’re pondering these points, let’s address some common questions regarding knife-wielding suspects.

Some argue that a small knife, like the one held by McDonald at the time he was shot, present no danger whatsoever. Actually, the size of the knife is not an issue. Small blades can kill as easily as their larger cousins.

Why not use some sort of martial arts technique to disarm a knife-wielding suspect who is on the attack.? The answer to this question is quite simple. There is no foolproof technique, so why should the police or anyone for that matter, be forced to wade into a knife fight, barehanded? The suspect has initiated deadly force and that force must be responded to with the amount of force that’s necessary to stop the threat to the officer’s safety. The officer must defend himself with deadly force, if possible.

What about keeping a safe distance? Why not simply follow the guy until he gets tired and gives up? Well, suppose he’s using meth and doesn’t tire for 12 hours? Suppose he walks until he runs across an innocent person and decides to stab them? Obviously, this is not an option. At some point the police will need to confront the situation to end it.

We’ve mentioned distance, right? So what is a safe distance from a potential attacker who’s displaying a knife or other edged weapon? Well…

There is a long-standing and proven rule that an officer cannot draw, point, and fire his/her weapon if the attacker starts the assault from a distance of 21 feet.

21

In the photo above, the officer’s weapon is still in his holster, therefore he should be contemplating a means of survival other than attempting to draw his sidearm and shoot, such as running for cover, or preparing to go into a defensive tactics mode—hand-hand combat, with the almost certainty of being cut. I have nasty scars on all five fingers on my right hand, and my head, as proof of this last-resort tactic.

However, if the officer already has his weapon drawn and in a ready position, he’ll be able to effectively fire a round to stop the threat. Remember, officers are taught to shoot center mass, not shoot to kill, or to shoot a weapon from the attacker’s hand. That stuff is for TV.

In the two photos above the officer would easily be able to stop the threat by firing a round or two.

Okay, by now you should have a basic grasp of when the use of deadly force is appropriate when dealing with knife-wielding suspects. Now, let’s return to the shooting of Laquan McDonald, by Officer Van Dyke. Did you see anything in the video that should/could justify the use of deadly force? Did McDonald make any movements that could be deemed as threatening to the officers or to anyone else? What about the number of shots fired—16? After all, we know that when using deadly force officers are trained to shoot until the threat is stopped.

What did McDonald do that could be perceived as a threat, and when, exactly, did the threat cease to exist? Was it after two shots? Five? Ten? Fifteen? Or was it the 16th round that terminated the threat?

Or, did the officer simply commit outright murder with an obvious disregard to human life?

Well, prosecutors have now charged Officer Van Dyke with 1st degree murder and he is currently being held in jail, without bond. Obviously, they believe they have a solid case.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on the use of deadly force against McDonald, but I ask that you address only the use of deadly force, saving comments regarding race and/or cop-bashing for your own sites.

My prediction – Guilty of second degree murder among other charges. We’ll see. It’s going to be interesting.

 

Castle: Mr. and Mrs. Castle

“Deep down inside you like being broken.” ~ Castle
New Picture (10)

Melanie Atkins

Last night’s episode of Castle unfolded pretty much like I expected, but it didn’t end the way I’d hoped it would. Sigh. Some folks are ecstatic the way it turned out, but me? Not so much. I did enjoy the ride for the most part, loved the bits of humor, and am happy Kate finally told Rick the truth about why she left him, but I do wish he hadn’t had to dig up evidence on his own first. She should have just been honest with him from the beginning. I also wanted an end to all the secrecy and this despicable Loksat storyline. No such luck. At least Hayley finally proved herself to be useful—even though I’m with Lee in wondering why she’s on the show at all.

Rick and Kate worked together like old times during much of the episode. I loved it, but still had trouble getting past the lack of a kiss or anything intimate when he first wormed his way into her investigation after their sexy tryst at the end of last week’s show. I still believe Kate is acting out of character. One minute she’s pushing Rick away, and the next she’s all over him. What happened to the settled, in-love wife we saw at the end of last season? I don’t recognize Kate at all at this point. The story has gotten so convoluted, the writers don’t know which way to go. The fix? Hire some romance writers to straighten things out.

I loved the Martha moments, Kate’s talk with the three “Marthas” on board the ship, and Rick’s silly dance routine. And I’m happy Rick and Kate are back together, at least behind the scenes. Their plan to not let anyone else know they’re together again irks me and reminds me of when they first got together and wanted to hide their relationship from everyone at the precinct. How silly, unnecessary, and ridiculous is that?

I’m ready for Castle to return to its roots and become the show I’ve loved for seven years. Please, writers—give us the characters we’re used to seeing when the show returns on February 1 (not in January as I reported last week). I want true Caskett happiness and a baby, but maybe that’s just me. The showrunners have no plans for the latter at this point, from an article I read this morning, but we can hope. Think of the comedy that would ensue! Just please at least get Kate back in character and end this torturous storyline. I’m sick of it.

20140523_123600

Lee Lofland

For me, the fact that Beckett had every reason and means to stop the passenger ship from fleeing the harbor, and didn’t, was part of the reason this episode hovered at a level barely above the “just okay” point. But we’ll come back to the escaping boat in a moment. First let’s talk about the medical examiner portion of the show when we were treated to a visit from Perlmutter. I used the term “treated” because the episodes have historically been better when he shows up. No offense, Lanie, but there’s something about Perlmutter that changes the “feel” of the show.

As usual, Perlmutter delivered believable lines even when the information was slightly off center of reality. However, in defense of Tamala Jones (Lanie), the writers seem to save all the good lines for Arye Gross and assign pure crap to Jones. Perlmutter’s scene last night was a fine example…

Perlmutter ~ “It’s a contact gunshot wound. Looks like she was killed execution style and dumped in the water. Based on blanching and bloating it looks like the body has been in the water for 10-12 hours.” During the exam Perlmutter retrieved a small bag from the victim’s throat, and then said, “I’ll put a rush on this at the lab.”

The lab reference was great. Lane would have somehow instantly known the chemical composition of the bag, it’s contents, and the air around it, along with what everyone who’d touched it had for lunch. The writers must have a some sort of grudge against Jones.

Back to Perlmutter’s dialog. Was it accurate?

First, bloating, of course, occurs during decomposition when bacteria in the gut begin to break down tissue, a process which releases gases into the intestines and abdomen. The accumulation of gases in a dead body will certainly help make it float.

Blanching is a part of livor mortis (lividity), something Castle writers absolutely cannot leave alone. Lividity, the purplish discoloration/staining of tissue as the result of pooling blood at the lowest parts of the body, begins the moment the heart stops beating. The discoloration of tissue is absent from areas where something presses against the skin—clothing, floors, furniture, jewelry, etc. This, the process of squeezing the blood from those areas during lividity, is called blanching. So, I’m not sure how much, if any, blanching would appear on a body that’s been freely floating in water. I say this because there’s no constant pressure on any area of the body, pressure that would force pooling blood away from any particular spot.

Still, Perlmutter’s lines were quite believable in spite of the slight inaccuracies. His delivery of those lines helped us believe whatever he said. So why don’t the writers do the same for Lanie? This is a better mystery than the stupid cases they concoct each and every week.

* To view photos of lividity and blanching click here. Be aware, though, that the photos are extremely graphic. Do NOT click the link if you are sensitive to images of dead bodies during various stages of decomposition. I am very serious here. These photos are graphic!

Now, back to captain of the cruise ship refusing to stop the vessel, citing that the Coast Guard was too far away to intercede. Well, for starters, Coast Guard boats constantly patrol and monitor the waters around New York City (remember terrorism?). And, the NYPD has its own fleet and officers who patrol the waters—N.Y.P.D. Harbor Patrol. Believe me, police boats would be nearby and they’d have no problem stopping a cruise ship, especially one that was a floating murder scene.

20151124_10491820151124_104951

New York City Police Department harbor units patrol 146 square miles of navigable waters and 576 miles of waterfront. Their duties include, patrol and respond to incidents within the harbor, protect life and property, prevent and detect crime, arrest offenders, preserve peace and to enforce laws.

Vikram. Why does he have access to evidence from a murder scene? How and why is he allowed to take a portion of the heroin to conduct his own analysis of the drug? And who performed those tests? Was the drug weighed before the lab gave him a portion of it? After all, removing any of the package contents changes the weight of the drug which, in turn, could affect the charges against an offender. You knew drug weight makes a difference, right?

For example, 100 grams of heroin could earn a 5-year minimum sentence of 5 years in federal prison, whereas one kilo of the same drug guarantees a minimum sentence of ten years (I didn’t research these numbers, but it’s a good guesstimate for the purpose of this paragraph).

And, why is Vikram allowed free access to the NYPD? This guy is annoying. He has no real connection to either character—Beckett or Castle—, yet he’s over-the-top concerned for Castle? From the beginning, I have not liked how he’s been forced on us. The same goes for Hayley. WHO ARE THESE PEOPLE?

The one positive aspect left going for this show are the antics of Ryan and Esposito, and we saw very little of them in this episode, and that was unfortunate. Their absence throughout left a huge hole in the overall experience.

At least Castle and Beckett made kissy-face at the end, and hopefully we’ve seen the last of Beckett’s tiresome nonsense for a while. However, I now expect there’s a lot of over the top, save the world darkness in store for us in upcoming episodes. I hope I’m wrong and the writers will somehow return to the fun side of the show. But I doubt it. They seem to be writing for themselves and not the fans. And that’s truly unfortunate. I picture them huddled around a clunky old computer in their mom’s basement, giggling and punching one another on the arm as they type out these wacky scenes.

At least Castle and Beckett are back together, for now, and that’s a start. But will it last?

Touring California

 

Stop monkeying around and have a look at a side of California most tourists never experience. After all, this brief trek sure beats the heck out of the snow and cold some of you are experiencing this weekend. Yes, it’s sunny and in the mid 70’s at our house today.

So park the snowblowers, swap your winter boots for a pair of flip-flops, and follow me. I think you’ll enjoy the sights.

20140601_160752

The narrowest point of the Carquinez Straight

20140601_154252

20140605_145428

20140526_162847

20140526_160542

20140526_160239

 

13

20140605_145410

20140526_153230

 

20140511_214355

The Oak Ridge Boys performing in Santa Rosa.

20140526_153146

Yes, those are very large windmills, and there are hundreds.

20140605_145715

20140601_154434

To the well-intentioned writer. When the scene calls for a shirtless man, well, it’s spelled bare, not bear. Big difference. Here’s why.

20140605_145501

9

20140605_145830

Dozens upon dozens of peacocks live in a neighborhood not far from ours. Ride through and you’ll see the brightly-colored birds perched on rooftops, car hoods, in driveways, front porches, etc. They’re everywhere.

20140412_150424

10

 

Finally…

20140526_162819

The end.

 

Friday's Heroes - Remembering the fallen officers

 

police-officer-ricardo-galvez

Officer Ricardo Galvez, 29

Downey California Police Department

November 18, 2015 – Officer Ricardo Galvez was shot and killed by ambush while seated inside his car in the police department parking lot.

trooper-jaimie-jursevics

Trooper Jaimie L. Jursevics, 33

Colorado State Patrol

November 15, 2015 – Trooper Jaimie L. Jursevics was investigating a traffic crash when she was struck and killed by a drunk driver. She is survived by her husband and small child.

corporal-william-solomon

Corporal William Solomon

Georgia Ports Authority Police department

November 19, 2015 – On March 2, 2015, Corporal William Solomon was directing traffic when he was struck by a tractor trailer driven by a drunk driver. Corporal Solomon was transported to a local hospital where he remained in a coma until succumbing to his injuries on November 19, 2015. He is survived by his wife and children.

Howdy neighbor: sexual predator

 

Fraisure Earl Smith was released from custody this week after serving time for assault with intent to commit rape. Smith, now 51, committed five sexual assaults over a span of 15 years.

In 2007, Smith was convicted for sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl (Smith claims he’s not a pedophile, but I’m betting he’d have a hard time convincing the mother of the 17-year-old girl that his claim is just). This, the latest case, was the one that finally landed him in a California state prison. And, as a 1996 law provided, Smith was eventually transferred to Coalinga State Hospital for followup care and treatment prior to his release back into society.

Smith’s timetable of repeat offenses—a violent sexual assault every five years during a period of fifteen years, and these are the one’s known to law enforcement—is a strong indicator of serial behavior. In other words, reoffending is definitely an option on his table, and violence and sexual assault are both in his arsenal. Needless to say, this man is dangerous. Although, Smith says he’s not. “I am not presently aroused by deviant sexual fantasies or urges….” Smith wrote in a recent declaration.

As Smith’s release date drew near (he’s now been legally deemed safe for release), officials from Liberty Healthcare, a company hired by the state to handle sex predator releases, agreed to find suitable housing for him. After an exhaustive search for housing in cities in four counties, courts and other officials were unable to secure a permanent residence for Smith. Locations were limited since sexual offenders are not permitted to live near schools, day care facilities, or other places where children may frequent. In all, 4,108 placement possibilities were looked at, but for one reason or another, none were approved.

The latest single family home that was approved but later rejected due to the outrage of nearby residents, was a house with a pool in a well-to-do neighborhood. By the way, since Smith is still under supervision of county and state authorities, his housing costs are covered by taxpayers. The monthly rent on the above-mentioned home was $3,000 per month. But, citizens banded together and forced the courts to reconsider. Now, however, without a home for Smith to, well, call home, he has been released from the mental health facility as a transient and will reside in a local Motel 6, still at taxpayer expense. Rules/law requires that he move every 5 days.

Smith is currently living in a motel where guests and their children stay when passing through the area. And those children, wives, and mothers will walk the hallways and parking lot, and they’ll wear their bathing suits while enjoying the hotel pool. All this while Fraisure Smith, a violent sexual predator, possibly watches and waits to be aroused by, in his own words, “deviant sexual fantasies or urges.”

I know, Smith and other violent sexual predators have to live somewhere when they’re released, but my past experiences with these guys tells me to keep a watchful eye on them. Sorry if this offends anyone, but that’s the way it is. Believe me, I’ve seen what can happen and it’s horrible.

Things you should know about sexual predators.

1. Grooming – Predators often “groom” children and other potential victims in order to gain their trust, hoping for access to alone time with them.

2. Predators also groom others, not just their intended victims. The purpose of this type of grooming is to “prove” they are not a risk. For example, see Smith’s quote above about no longer having urges or fantasies. This is a classic sign of grooming.

3. Signs of grooming

a) the adult shows an exaggerated interest in a child.

b) an adult buys gifts for a child.

c) the adult finds ways to be alone with a child.

d) an adult displays a fixation on a particular child.

e) the adult “accidentally” walks in a child when they’re bathing, using the restroom, or changing.

f) tickling

g) wrestling with children

h) playing “doctor”

i) taking photos of children, especially when they’re in various stages of undress or wearing swim suits, dance costumes, etc.

j) lots of hugging, kissing, and touching.

 

What to do when a sexual offender moves into your neighborhood?

Here’s a handy Tip Sheet from Stop It Now!

 

What are the warnings signs of possible sexual abuse in children?

Again we turn to Stop It Now! for a Tip Sheet.

 

Warning Signs That Might Suggest Someone Is Sexually Abusing a Child

To see the list of warning signs, please click here.

So, for now Fraisure Smith is a guest of a California Motel 6 hotel. Next week, well who knows. Maybe he or another just like him will be your new neighbor. Please be mindful of the activities and whereabouts of your children. You never know…

 UPDATE!

Ironically, this announcement came a few hours after I published this article. What a coincidence…or was it?

From KRON news in San Francisco.

“After obtaining further details from Motel 6, it appears that Motel 6 did not know that they had rented a room to Mr. Smith, the recently released sexually violent predator. Once they confirmed that he was staying there, they acted immediately to evict him,” Vallejo City Manager Daniel E. Keen said.

“Details provided by Motel 6 confirm that Liberty Healthcare Corporation, the contractor hired by the State to provide services to Smith, concealed Mr. Smith’s identity in order to obtain two rooms at the motel,” Vallejo police Cpt. John Whitney said in a press release.

Two Liberty employees gave their names and did not disclose the identity of Smith, police said.

Smith has been placed on the no-rent list.

Shhh, your dolls are listening

You’ve all watched at least one TV show where a computer expert helps police save the world by remotely accessing some sort of video and/or audio device. Conveniently, these lifesaving spy-type contraptions are almost always located in the precise spot where the bad guys committed their dastardly deed du jour. Therefore, in the blink of eye and the strokes of a dozen or so keys, detectives are able to apprehend the evil-doers, close the case, and settle in for a few drinks at the local cop bar where they compare stories and hook up with their one-night-only soulmates. All of this within 40 minutes, give or take a commercial or two.

In real life, of course, those “eyes and ears” used by TV cops are rarely where they’re needed. Or, if officers are lucky enough to run across a camera in the area where a crime took place, there’s a good chance the owner hasn’t switched it on within the past five years.

Is it legal, though, to place cameras on every light pole and roof top in the country? Is it okay that police have access to the recordings? Sure it’s legal, but are they really out there watching and recording nearly every move you make? Well, take a peek at the array of cameras on the roof top of Walmart on your next visit. See, you can no longer fib about shopping there because they have you on tape from a variety of angles.

Video recordings in public places are perfectly legal as long as they’re done in places where the person(s) recorded has no expectation of privacy, such as a Walmart parking lot. Audio recordings, however, are a different story. And the laws governing those recordings are clear. For example, some states allow audio recordings as long as one person in the room has knowledge of the recordings (one-party consent). Other states require that all parties be aware that their conversations are being recorded ( two-party/all-party consent).

So how does Barbie, the popular kid’s toy, fit into all this? Well, there’s a new doll in town and she’s called Hello Barbie.

Hello Barbie is a WiFi enabled toy equipped with both microphone and speaker, and she’s designed to verbally interact with children. The concept is simple, yet a bit elaborate. A child activates the unique feature by pressing a button on the doll. Then, as Barbie listens to the child speak, the little one’s voice is transmitted to Mattel (Barbie’s maker) where a response is electronically devised and transmitted back to Barbie who recites it to the child. In other words, these artificially intelligent dolls are able to carry on conversation with children, conversations that are stored in the depths of cyber-Barbieland. The company says they store the information to help Barbies learn and form better responses to their owners.

Child – “I like snow.”

Barbie. “Snow is nice. But it’s so cold.”

This sounds fine and dandy until we step back and think for a minute. Suppose Sally Sue switches on Eavesdropping Barbie while she’s in the room with her parents. Barbie immediately begins transmitting the adults’ conversation to Mattel. What if Sally Sue tells Sneaky Barbie her deepest and darkest secrets? What if Barbie records Sally Sue’s parents discussing their criminal activity?

What if a child tells Barbie that Daddy touches her private places after mommy goes to sleep? How will Barbie respond? Is this a dangerous and slippery legal and psychological slope? Or, is Hello Barbie just another toy that should not be a concern to people and their privacy?

Here’s another point to ponder. Creepy Barbie remembers everything someone says to her. Suppose for a moment that she goes rogue and orders all the toys in the house to rise up and… Okay, I’ve gone too far. Sorry.

Anyway, what do you think? Has Mattel stepped out of bounds on this one?

Are Big Barbie’s capabilities a violation of privacy laws? Is there cause for concern? Do you care one way or another?

Should the recordings be stored by the toy maker? Should the government be allowed access to those recordings in the event of a criminal investigation involving the child’s parents or others in the home?

So many questions and, well, I guess we could turn to Hello Barbie for answers…right?

Castle: The last seduction

 

“Kate, I have never given up hope.” ~ Castle

“Okay, I’ll see you around.” ~ Beckett 

New Picture (10)

Melanie Atkins
I really don’t have too much to say about last night’s episode of Castle, because I wasn’t thrilled with it despite the writers’ lame attempt at bringing back some of the delicious romance we crave. Kate is still acting out of character, and I don’t buy any part of her stupid, contrived story line. I never have, and I never will—and frankly, I’m sick of it.

In my opinion, Esposito and Ryan stole the show, and rightly so. Their almost breakup—and the humor and emotion that went along with it—fueled this episode, and should have taught Kate a thing or two. Their drama, plus Rick’s undercover meeting with a divorce attorney, should have made her kick her crazy quest to the curb in her eagerness to get back home.

Unfortunately, that didn’t happen. Kate went home, all right. . . just not for good. I did enjoy the kisses she and Rick shared—they brought back a tiny bit of the old Castle magic—but her leaving almost immediately after they made love infuriated me. How could she do that? Her misplaced loyalty to her mission makes me cringe, and if she doesn’t go home to Rick soon and allow things to get back to normal, I don’t know how much more of this I can take.

Thank goodness Ryan and Esposito made up and are friends again. They made me smile. Kudos to Espo for saving Ryan’s life. The boys rock!

In spite of all of the unnecessary angst I mentioned above, I’m still looking forward to next week’s episode, titled Mr. & Mrs. Castle, that is supposed to add yet another twist to Rick and Kate’s relationship and bring them back together. I’m leery, yet hopeful that the powers-that-be have finally seen the handwriting on the wall thanks to the shows dropping ratings and have realized their big mistake in tearing apart our dynamic duo. I want some Caskett happiness!

Please note: Next week’s episode will the last one until Monday, January 4.

20140523_123600

Lee Lofland

Before I begin my part of the review I’d like to remind everyone of the original purpose of these recaps. During the first season, eight years ago, a group of writers asked me to please start watching and reviewing the police procedures. Their reason was simple. They wanted to know if what they were seeing on the show was what would happen in the real world, because they did not want to use the material in their books if it was wrong. So here we are, eight years later and the information is still basically incorrect. So off we go…

My first comment has nothing to do with police procedure or forensics. Instead, it’s about the lighting in the opening scene. We can clearly see that all fixtures are switched on and their bulbs are burning brightly. However, we, the viewers, can barely see what’s going on because it’s too freakin’ dark! When did Castle become CSI, another show that was filmed in near darkness. The darkness is irritating, directors. For the sake of old and tired eyes, please STOP.

“Nine separate entry wounds. Lividity puts the stabbing between midnight and 2 am,” said Lanie the Amazing/Psychic Wonder.

Do I really need to say it? Well, for those of you who don’t know, Lanie couldn’t use lividity as an indicator of time of death (TOD) because it’s impossible to see lividity on a victim who’s fully-clothed and lying on their back. Likewise, she couldn’t see the stab wounds, nor could she say without a doubt that either or all of them were the actual cause of death. Why not? Because layers of clothing covered the body and wounds. Bloody holes in sweaters do not automatically equal a cause of death. Sure, they’re excellent clues, but not 100% proof.

For an actual photo showing lividity go here. Warning, some images there were taken during an actual autopsy. Should you decide to have a look you’ll see for yourself why Lanie could not see lividity on this week’s victim du jour.

“The weapon was wiped clean,” said the marvelous medical examiner named Lanie. Obviously she’d taken a quick glimpse into her crystal ball before uttering this gem of knowledge, because we all know there’s no way to tell the knife had “wiped” clean merely by glancing at it at the crime scene. AND, someone placed the bloody knife into a plastic bag. Let’s see a show of hands. Why should bloody knives (evidence of a murder) NOT be packaged in plastic bags? Correct, bloody objects are always packaged in paper containers to prevent degradation of DNA, etc.

Blood should also be allowed to air dry. Plastic bags act as mini incubators that encourage the growth of bacteria, and bacteria can degrade or destroy DNA. For more details on “paper or plastic” evidence packaging, go here. By the way, sharp objects should never be packaged in plastic bags and the reason why is obvious. If you do not know this reason then you are most likely an adult who wears an eye patch yet still runs with scissors.

Lanie, while standing at the crime scene with CSU techs scurrying about while collecting and processing evidence and photographing the body, etc., said, “I just got a hit on those prints” (from the knife block). Well…who ran the prints and how and when did they receive the knife block or the pre-lifted prints? Did a CSU tech leave the scene to hand-deliver the block or lifted-printed to the lab so someone could run it through the system? If so, why did they take that one piece of evidence? Why not the knife? Why not anything else? WHY? WHY? WHY? And why would they call the medical examiner with this news and not the investigators who are actually working the case?

Here are a few more “why’s.”

Why is Hayley in this show? What is her purpose? Why would Beckett ask her, a private citizen to tag along to the spa? Why not ask one of the many ACTUAL female cops who work for the NYPD?

Why is Vikram working and wandering around the precinct? That place has a revolving door that allows random non-cops to walk in and out whenever they please. It’s silly, yet they all seem to have access to case files and notes. Are there not any NYPD detectives who’re capable of solving crimes?

At least the writers explained to the viewers that it is illegal to obtain evidence without going through the proper channels—search warrant, etc. Castle was acting as an agent of the NYPD when he entered the lawyer/killer’s office to steal the information from the client log. Same thing for Alexis. It was an illegal search and the fruits of it could not be used as evidence. But they explained this, so bravo for them.

Ryan and Espo are arguing like two little kids and that’s reason enough for a raincheck on the most important dinner of their (Castle and Beckett) lives? Dumb. Dumber. And Dumber.

So Espo stands there chatting away with a lawyer, a murder suspect who brutally stabbed a guy to death, instead of immediately cuffing her? And why was his partner not there during the arrest? Sure she shot them. Hell, I wanted to shoot them for being so stupid.

There was not a lot about this episode that I liked, but I was glad to see Ryan and Esposito save their marriage friendship. That scene was far more romantic than the show-ender with Castle and his wife acquaintance.

Friday's Heroes - Remembering the fallen officers

 

chief-darrell-allen

Chief of Police Darrell Lemond Allen, 43

Marlin Texas Police Department

November 10, 2015 – Chief Darrell Lemond Allen was shot in the face while attempting to arrest a suspect. He was transported to an area hospital where he succumbed to the wounds ten days later, on November 10th.

Chief Allen is survived by his wife and children.

police-officer-stacy-case

Officer Stacy Lynn Case, 37

Columbia South Carolina Police Department

November 7, 2015 – Officer Stacy Lynn Case was killed in a vehicle crash while responding to a suicide call.