'CSI': Just... ugh.

Not sensitive, really, but anybody with any kind of heart will feel affected in some way by the murder/death of a child, even if it is fictitious. This was actually a well-written episode, even if some of the characters were a bit jarring: in particular, I felt that Nora was totally out of place in an episode that really didn't need any kind of light-hearted moments. In fact, it took away from what, up until she appeared, had been a highly-effective story. Fortunately, she was only on screen for a couple short scenes, and I have the feeling that her inappropriateness may have been intentional to take attention away from her fiancee. This worked, because until he reappeared at the end of the episode in the CSI parking garage (apparently, the guards here are the same ones that work on the base where the NCIS folks work), I had forgotten about him. His points about his life being ruined because of what amounted to a mini-witch hunt by Catherine was accurate and well-played, if only because it is all too often true. Sure, Leo had done something ridiculous and stupid as a younger man, but according to his arrest record, he had never done anything directly to harm a child. Thus, his name should never even have been mentioned, nor should Catherine have done what she did in her interrogation of those known to Leo. That was completely her fault, and while Leo had no business confronting her the way he did, I certainly can understand his anger.

As for the case, as somebody who has worked with children of Inez's age, this episode hit me hard at the beginning. Whoever made the mannequin of the young actress playing Inez did an outstanding job, because I've never seen one look that realistic (unlike the store mannequin they used for the Jon-Benet Ramsey movie a few years back; now THAT was a horrid portrayal of a dead child). The entire case revolved around a vacuum cleaner box, which most people wouldn't consider to be all that important once it is thrown away. The writers did a great job of making sure that all evidence found was accounted for (with the exception of Boyd's fingerprints, which I agree would have been everywhere). The only problem I had with the resolution of the case was the reasoning behind it. Sure, an ex-con would have had a hell of a time explaining the accidental death of a small child, but any background check would have revealed whether or not Boyd had been convicted of past crimes against children. Also, with the other kids as both witnesses and alibis, even Witch-Hunter Catherine would have been able to clear Boyd of the unfortunate death of Inez. If anybody is responsible (relatively-speaking, forgive the pun), it is Inez's step-sister, although her influence in Inez's death was purely accidental and indirect. Unfortunatley, things happens, and sometimes kids are the ones that cause bad things to happen to those around them. Perhaps this is where certain negative feelings about this episode stem: that the entire first half would've been completely unnecessary if only Boyd and his family had stepped up and admitted what happened. Inez would still be dead, yes, but another person's life (Leo's) would never have been affected as it was, the community would have mourned and the family would have eventually moved on. Grief is a tenuous thing; nobody really knows how they would act in cir***stances like this. But still...

One more thing, and I think a lot of people might have missed the subtlety of this point--I can't remember the name of the lab rat who made the comment, but he said what a lot of people do when faced with the death of children of certain physical characteristics: "Who could do such a thing to such a beautiful little girl?" In practice, most people use the word "beautiful" as a catch-all for all children, even the ones who are not physically-attractive. However, it is rather provable that certain children who are what society deems "beautiful" are given more press than those who are not. Jon-Benet Ramsey is one example, even though most of what made her "attractive" was make-up and teased hair. Back in 1993, there was a nine-year-old girl named Angie Housman who was abducted and murdered near St. Louis, Missouri. She was not what the media would deem "attractive," and so her case (which, as far as I know, has never been solved) is not anywhere close to being as well-known. This is unfortunate, but it is a long-held prejudice that most people have, even if they would never admit it. Would Inez have been mourned as much if she had been born with a cleft palate, or Down's Syndrome, or a large birthmark? It's hard to tell, but somehow (especially in a false-facade city like Las Vegas) I doubt it.

So, no, Andy, I don't think you're being too sensitive at all. There are certain subject areas that just affect different people in different ways. It may not have been the episode, per se, but how the story affected you personally. It means you're human, and that's nothing to be ashamed of or worried about. I do agree with you completely about the comic relief of Nora, though; totally unnecessary and near-offensive for this kind of episode.

Andy, re: the blunt force trauma, they did explain that as once Inez drank the poison she started to convulse (showed that) and banged her head on the hinge (showed Catherine swabbing it for blood) in the cubboard.

I'll admit that this wasn't one of the stronger cases, but it was far from terrible.

I thought it was fairly pointless to include the camera in the flowers at the shrine - at least in terms of the case. They did show the parents arriving, but only after the case was closed.

Lastly, I was fooled in the opening by the stand up comic. I thought that something was either going to happen to him or he would end up doing something, perhaps in a B story. Usually when CSI does only a 1 story show it is much stronger than this one and it felt like it should not have been the sole focus of an episode. Perhaps if they had condensed the story and included a B story to the ep it would have been stronger. I suspect that this ep was a victim of the strike in that they were rushed in the production process which hurt the strength of the show. Really just searching for explanations here.

I agree that this episode was not good. I was extremely disappointed in the script and everyone it it was less than good.

I also feel that William Petersen should get more screen time.

He did sign for another year but he seems to have lost interest in the show.

The writers had a long time off during the strike. Maybe they just forgot how to write.

IMO, the buzz cut didn't work for George Eads and it doesn't work for David Berman either.

Speaking of recurring guest stars, anybody notice Liz V***ey's name now has the "And" attached to it? I can't help but wonder if Liz is one step closer to becoming a regular next year...

CSI has been running on fumes for several seasons now. I'm not even sure why I still watch it, but at least it's not as bad as CSI MIAMI.

I don't really enjoy CSI much anymore. Cases have been pretty dull and only one or two characters are involved in the case of the week causing the others to hardly be seen. I probably won't continue to watch next season.

There is another point in this episode that is not explained. While doing the autopsy, marks were noted on the child's hand across her knuckles. Later when the step dad was carryig her into the bus, the camera very specifically took a lingering shot of her hand and there were no marks. So those marks had to have been inflicted after she was put in the box. All very strange. Either the writers are messing with us setting the stage for a further story line, or, like others have said, it was just a very poorly written episode. Time will tell.