If the first crime took place 14 years ago and the girl who was killed was 18 at the time then how is it that her father said she was turning 30. Last I checked 14 + 18 has never and will never equal 30. And I thought when they said Catherine would be on the episode I thought it was going to be in the present not in flashbacks. Other then that it was good.
Good episode. However it was the 300th, Why wouldn't you have all the main cast in the episode? Where was George Eads (Nick)? Why was he excluded from the episode? When he is one of the fewer original cast member since the pilot that still remains on the show!
It was a cold case that had all the elements of classic CSI - a murder, a casino mogul, and Sara Sidle putting an obsession for justice over - well, anything else. The only problem was, those flashbacks weren't because that case didn't exist until this show.
Overall it was a pretty decent episode; but I'm going to have to give it a higher rating, just because they managed to fool all of us - including myself, until I went back to check it out.
For the record: the case happened 13 years ago - based on the date shown on the evidence (10-22-2000), which would've put it a few episodes into season 1.
While Greg did have a tendency to wear shirts with wide lapels, like in the flashback, during season 1, he generally wore a lab coat, and had zero outward intention of being a CSI at that point. In addition, he had more of a straight, but shaggy hairdo at that point
Catherine, still trying to distance herself from her showgirl past, had more of a tendency to wear pants suits, and feathered, blonde hair that hung in her eyes.
Ironically, Sara, wore her hair back, and out of her face - where the "flashbacks" showed the opposite - probably to further mask the fact that she wasn't really 13 years younger.
Overall, I enjoyed this episode very much, but I did have problems with it. The biggest problem is one that some of my fellow reviewers have touched upon. This episode was billed as Marg Helgenberger's triumphant return to "CSI" and she played a very small part in it being seen only in flashback scenes. I did not like how CBS mislead viewers to a certain degree. However there are some positive things to say about this episode. One thing is that I like that it avoided the clichs in the sense that it was not formulaic. I actually like that in the end the main suspect turned out to be innocent. I also like how there was a perfectly plausible explanation as to why the CSI's never found a body in the initial investigation. Also, the cast is once again strong as usual. Many people have come and gone from this great show during its long run, but the cast has always been great and continue to be as such. It's almost hard to believe that "CSI" has lasted as long as it has. It has had its ups and downs but it is still the great show it was from its premier.
Should'vee metioned she was going to be part of the flashbacks. It would've been nice to see her back for the 300th episode. Aside of that, I think it was a good episode (still an average one) but could've been better.
I admit I'm not really a fan of CSI any longer. I watch it because it's kind of "safe" and you don't have to be that involved. So I had no idea this was the 300th episode, I just thought it was a bit odd with the Catherine flashbacks.
But with that said, I was quite enjoying this. A classical whodunnit we're were tricked into believing who is the killer. The episode is among things about older films from the black and white era, and in a way I think the script copy that feeling pretty good.
How can you celebrate the 300th episode of a series without one of the cast who has been there from the start? No Nick, that's total crap. I am extremely disappointed with a show that has always been a class operation. Boo!!!!
I had read that Eads was taking a leave from the show per news articles in the late summer.. Too bad it was this episode... CBS was pretty dishonest in that all of Catherine's scenes were flashback ones... I also had a problem with them saying it was 14 years ago... it was 13 years ago.. yes this is year 14 of the show but based on the dates ( October 2000) by my math it's 13 not 14 years back.. Terrible job by writers.. we are not that dumb out here.. That being said, a typical solid CSI episode only ruined by the 2 things mentioned...
Please read the following before uploading
Do not upload anything which you do not own or are fully licensed to upload. The images should not contain any sexually explicit content, race hatred material or other offensive symbols or images. Remember: Abuse of the TV.com image system may result in you being banned from uploading images or from the entire site – so, play nice and respect the rules!