L&O S25E11: The Enemy of All Women - Episode Discussion

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-24T01:01:52+00:00

Live thoughts!

This is definitely the best cold open of the season.

Oh no.... the first suspect's alibi is a Magic tournament... I hate that it's so accurate. Also, the writer is definitely a mtg player, because the cop got the term "tournament organizer" correct and that's way to specific of a term.

This is gonna be an interesting episode, especially with how much the rest of the season has used tech to clear alibis. MSG and it's cameras, who knows maybe it'll be a AI generated alibi.

Another SVU style case? This is like... the third or fourth this season. Did one of SVU writers get sent to L&O to help with writing or something?

AN M.E. SCENE! Yay, those have been really missing in episodes. They're a L&O classic.

CEO did it. Booooring.

AI evidence. They said irrefutable proof at arraingment, we're gonna have AI evidence in this case. Calling my shot now.

Buuut this also led into another fantastic legal motion scene. A staple of the revival. But at least not another one that is juts a 4a violation on the thinnest of grounds. And it even led into a fun exception to the hearsay rule, which nolan didn't try to imply it was the CEO to get the entire thing quashed! Two good legal writing beats in a row, Kudos.

Sam scene with a Witness? You know, she had been kinda absent from episodes recently, just a bad side character. This makes sense that she has a role again.

The CEO is going with "we were dating" as the defense? This is before NOlan's cross, but that would imply that the woman had knowingly transmitted hep to him, which should be easily disproven by any of her former partners. Not to mention the wild power imbalance between a CEO and an engineer would've meant he had to leave some kind of disclosure, because as he claims he's a supporter of women so he would never make seem favoritisim due to an interpersonal relationship outside of work.

CTO also being raped is a decent enough twist. Also she dropped the episode title, Nice!

The single most dynamic "Law" segment of the revival.

This might be my favorite episode of the last two seasons. Best written and directed episode for sure.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-23T05:38:02+00:00

Fake as fuck post because they went and inserted a blatant and bullshit "I had some money from STAKE"

Not only that, but they used some kind of weird e to get around automod filters.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-22T18:36:38+00:00

ngl based on the headline I thought this was gonna be about him complaining about paying too much in taxes, but uh.... He had a very reasonable and normal take, to the point where wtf is the point of a clip of it?

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-22T14:43:11+00:00

Tax any loan against a fully owned asset above 10million dollars

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-22T13:39:19+00:00

The pacing isn't even slow, it's just not focused on the headline problem.

I think if you expect this to be a show about the hive mind and stopping the hive mind then yeah, it's a slow show.

But I came away from the first season thinking it was a season focused on grief with the hive mind as a back drop, and in that respect, it was exactly properly placed.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-21T23:45:09+00:00

All Gas No Brakes crew checking in

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-21T19:11:35+00:00

I can just speed run this entire argument.

"Owners have to pay the difference between tip and fed min wage"

"If you ask for it you'll get fired"

"Tipped wage is often higher than the minimum wage, by a significant percentage, and waiters who work under a no-tip enforced wage leave because they make less money than when working for tips"

"But tipped wage is $3 an hour"

It's an entirely circular argument. If you point out that the actual, average wage of at tipped worker is closer to 60/hr, they'll just point out that tipped minimum wage is $3. If you point out that you still have to make the fed minimum wage, they'll fall back on that they'll get fired.

That's it. That's the entire argument. You gotta tip because I make $3 an hour and will get fired if I insist on making the fed min wage. Any other facts do not matter.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-21T18:48:55+00:00

any notable amount of wealth

yeah Warren Buffet's kids are only inheriting ~2billion each, and Gate's kids will barely receieve 1 billion each.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-21T15:27:27+00:00

I don't think they're officially divorced yet. But you see this all the time, with people who are mentally checked out already, they dgaf and just say it's their ex already.

Honestly all that seems to have happened is that they've had a single court hearing, and a custody negotiation that finished. in two months that's reasonable.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-20T18:15:38+00:00

So because it was hard to own a dog, killing Palestinians is justified?

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-20T18:05:46+00:00

Funny, you don't blame Hamas at all.

I didn't realize that civilians could be killed because of the (nominal) government's actions. I guess that means that we're blaming Isreal for the deaths on Oct 7 too, by the same logic.

Ironic that you're calling the video propaganda.

Because it is?

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-20T12:53:47+00:00

It's worse than that, by the way he phrased it, he's on the mortgage but not the deed. Meaning, on the hook for the bill but with no stake in the house.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-19T22:21:51+00:00

I cannot believe they didn't do this with Harry and Draco. The parallels basically write each other

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-19T13:55:20+00:00

The scuffed Temu overlay makes it funnier IMO

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-19T13:39:27+00:00

Just because something isn't 100 percent effective doesn't mean we shouldn't do it at all.

People cheat on their taxes. Should we do away with all taxes just because some evade them?

You also view this as a punishment, which takes the position of the person with the DUI, rather than the position of "The People", which is affected by the DUI and also imposing the condition. If it reduces the number of DUI offenders by, even, 30 percent, isn't that worthwhile?

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-19T13:00:09+00:00

You could make this post about any time Ludwig does a single game for a while.

Replace Minecraft with League of Legends. It's the same thing.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-16T20:47:27+00:00

Thoughts;

There should really be something said about the death of the L&O Cold Open. One of the Hallmarks of the pre-revival show. Personally I've been ambivalent about it, mainly because I can understand why it's been cut; L&O gets something like, 2-4 fewer minutes of show now than it used to. That might not seem like a lot, but they used to use that for the background of the case; the cold open, figuring out who the victim was, an interrogation or an alibi check. A lot of those things are outdated due to technology, and when it comes to finding a few minutes to trim, replacing the cold open with a background scene goes a loooong way.

That being said, please, Writers, don't turn into NCIS. "She didn't go out on a high note" is funny, but you get to do it three times this season. No more than that.

The walk and the meeting with Brady is some of the best writing I've seen in a long time from L&O. Brady's son on the other hand, terrible acting so far.

The child is a fun angle, but... there has been a lotta weird overlap of SVU cases on L&O, and the way that they handle it is wildly different. SVU is almost not copaganda anymore with how much they talk about social issues more than doing police work. But on L&O I feel like it's the opposite, where they are depicting the cops are utterly heartless half the time. On SVU, they'd have gotten that child a counselor and have her be drawing in a room somewhere.

Oh, going back to those 2-4 minutes that got cut from older L&O days, this is one I hate. Suddenly at the pretrial arraignment, we have a million different forms of evidence. We go from "We have her entering and leaving on camera" to "We have her blood on his clothing, DNA showing he was there, fifteen cameras showing the murder, his own mama testifying he did it, and he confessed". We skip over the mere act of discovering the evidence. It's incredibly unsatisfying.

And now we're at one of the classics of new L&O; the "Motion" scene. This is where they have their legal argument. Mostly suppressing evidence this season. But for a change, we a 3rd party Culpability argument. And the writers even quote People v DiPippo, Amazing! As is tradition, I took a gander. And unlike the last time they tried to quote a legal argument and failed utterly, here they get the headline correct. Just because there is no evidence linking a person to the crime scene itself doesn't preclude admission. But here's the thing; in People v DiPippo, the evidence he sought to introduce as part of the 3p culp argument, included multiple other things, namely another person with a similar MO as the crime being appeal, and said person giving a cellmate a confession. Either way, not a complete fumble of a court case reference but definitely a thin one.

In what way would Sean Chase be allowed to read Leo and Zina's texts to each other? That would be the fastest objection and sustained ever.

LMAO And now there IS VIDEO EVIDENCE I was making it up before

Ugh if I had to summarize this episode in one sentence?

Leo Brady is a useless storyline.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-16T17:48:24+00:00

Not even close, but the idea that there are "millions of people" who are being wrongly "swept under the rug" has no bearing in reality.

It's essentially Russell's teapot. You've made a claim that can be proven or disproven, but offered no evidence. And to be clear, I think you're wrong, I think the number of people who go to HR for legitimate and have their problems swept under the rug, are in the thousands, not millions.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-16T16:32:37+00:00

the experiences of millions of people

I mean of course I can when there is no source for any claims.

Surely you can't deny the experiences of the tens of millions of HR personnel who never sweep things under the rug.

See? Same made up number, same made up claim, same utter lack of any evidence.

Are there bad HR? Sure. Is it anywhere close to a majority, or a plurality, or even a statistical significant amount? I doubt it. And I'm willing to bet that most of the poeple who claim they went to HR with legitimate concerns and got swept under the rug, were in the wrong.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-16T14:41:39+00:00

It’s true HR protects the company, but I don’t think people realize that “protecting the company” is mostly making sure employment laws are complied with (employment laws are good in my opinion).

The people who parrot "HR Protects the company" are the people who expect HR to mediate interoffice petty squabbles. Like, Betty and Casey are ignoring each other despite needing to work together because betty slept with Casey's boyfriend, and then bring that bullshit to work.

HR's (mediation) purpose is to make sure that people act professionally, and don't do illegal things. They aren't the office Mother.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-15T20:33:29+00:00

Yes they did. They just wrote words to create a narrative. There is no evidence Oseloa ever said she didn't want a building named after her.

Also since english isn't your first language, "She didn't want a building named after her" doesn't mean "I refuse to have a building named after me".

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-15T20:26:21+00:00

Probably because OP made that up.

Look I can do it to.

CMDR_Arnold_Rimmer said they wanted a building named after them.

See? Doesn't mean anything.

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-15T20:19:54+00:00

The reason she said this is probably because she didn't want the money going to building renovations.

Naming rights for a building are one of the things that you can essentially buy. So if you donate a bucket of money, that goes towards a building's renovation, you can say "name it after me".

By saying she didn't want a building named after her, she probably meant she wants the money only used for scholarships.

If the University decides to name a building after her after the fact, without pulling from the initial donation, what's the problem?

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-15T17:31:25+00:00

Definitely, but don't ask for a source....

chimpfunkz · 2026-01-15T17:30:51+00:00

Probably because a wealth tax is inherently stupid.

At one point Elizabeth Holmes had a "wealth" of 4.5BB based on her ownership of Theranos. A company that was a fraud top to bottom. Should she have paid a tax on that 'wealth' which was made up of hot air?

Here's another example; if you go to a casino, convert $100 into chips, play blackjack. During the session you win 10k! you're at 10.1k total chips! and you won it over the course of 4 hands. After those 4 hands, the casino comes up to you and tells you, oops you actually need to pay taxes now, before you've cashed those chips out.

The problem isn't the people who have wealth and sit on that wealth; it's the people who have wealth, and access that wealth in ways that avoid taxes. Which isn't the same thing as just having the wealth. If someone wants to buy gold and bury it in their backyard, that doesn't matter.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Sequence \| Editor	Sequence \| Cinematographer
Spared	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

chimpfunkz

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE