In the last couple of years, I've been watching CSI less and less because the CSI characters seems to be trying to take the easy way out. I'm of the opinion the evidence speaks and the CSI staff should never jump to conclusions or let their personal opinions / anger get in the way.
Yet, so many times in this episode various characters spun stories on incomplete and very little evidence, as well as evidence open to too many interpretations, It would be so much better for them to keep looking till they find enough to draw full conclusions.
Of course, I'm sure many would say a series about looking at evidence is not good drama and I agree with them 100%.
What I'm saying is the same characters who look at the evidence shouldn't be the ones jumping to conclusions, when talking to witnesses and/or suspects. There should be other characters who do the interviews and jump to the conclusions (say based upon experience and their guts).
In this episode, I found it sad to see how many times DB and his crew getting it wrong, until the very end. They accuse a father of being a serial killer, then say he's a child molester, then go after a boy as a killer and being in a three way romance, etc. All wrong and each time I lose faith in them as being fair and good crime scene investigators.
The last issue I have with this episode is the final interview (with the real killer) where DB says the Son signed a confession. Ah, confession for what crime!!!??? I went back through the episode and couldn't find any crime the boy committed (especially not that being gay is no longer a crime). Yes, the boy didn't report what the Father told him, but (last time I checked) it is not a crime to not report a person who tells you he killed someone. Is his crime that he lied to the police? Ah, again after reviewing the episode, I only saw where he didn't offer facts beyond the questions asked by the CSI. As any good lawyer will tell you, don't volunteer information, keep your answers simply, and on target.
Bottom line on this point: Instead of saying it is the boy's confession, instead DB should be calling the Son a material witness and this is his statement.
I really love the series and even this episode. I'm rating this episode as a 10 (given I round up since went to .5 steps), but feel it is more like a 9.6 or 9.7. Yes, even with the problems I mention. Why? The drama is great and so are the twists and turns. What would make the series better and I know would increase viewers would be making the CSI members more about being truthful to the evidence and less on coming up with stories that fall apart.
My biggest suggestion is for Morgan Brody to become a police officer. There could be an entire series of episodes (say going through an entire season) where she moves from CSI to being a detective. It could start out with one or more cases going South because of people jumping to conclusions and not letting the evidence fully speak to them. Morgan Brody could be one of the people who really push and push people treating them as suspects, when they really are witnesses. Some clam up, while others falsely confess and thus waste time as later their confessions turn out to be false. As it was a CSI (and not a detective) making the story based upon evidence no one questioned it, till the trial or during the appeal.
The break could occur at the end of the season with a cliff hanger with Morgan Brody leaving the team. Upon return the following season, we find she is now a police officer. A few episodes into the new season, she becomes a detective and assigned to DB and his crew. I'm sure Morgan Brody would shine as a detective and would be able to really let loose her anger and need to find the suspect as an officer. It would also make the roles of CSI and officers more realistic -- plus give many faith that the CSI are for the truth and not just quick justice or to get the case over quickly.