Law & Order: Special Victims Unit

Season 13 Episode 6

True Believers

Aired Wednesday 9:00 PM Nov 02, 2011 on NBC

Episode Fan Reviews (3)

Write A Review
out of 10
66 votes
  • Never blame the victim........except

    This was a miserable episode for many reasons. In a city where the vast majority of violent crime is committed by blacks, this is the only episode (a token?) this season (only the 2nd in 3 seasons) about a black perp. In the rare instances they have a black perp on this show, either he was an accomplice to 1 or more whites who manipulated him into the act, or there are mitigating factors to justify what he did. This episode falls into the latter category.

    First, the rape was so gentle that it could hardly be called that. She even offered him a beer first before spreading her legs on the bed and telling him he didn't need a gun. Then we find out that she made a habit of getting drunk in bars and bringing home black men. As if that wasn't enough to make us hate her, it turns out her grandfather, who attends the trial, is a high ranking member of the KKK visiting from Mississippi! I'm surprised he didn't show up wearing his sheets!

    Through the years, there have been 2 rules in SVU: 1) the victim always tells the truth and 2) never blame the victim. Both these rules were broken so they don't have to make the black rapist look too bad.
  • Take a key aspect of forensics that's been in use for 109 years and pretend it doesn't exist.


    I'm a fan of the show and the series but that was a terrible episode and for one simple reason, fingerprints.

    The case came down to the gun, if they believed it was his they believed it was rape, if they didn't believe it was his they didn't believe it was rape, in the end they didn't believe it was his so they didn't convict on the rape.

    Nobody on the prosecution have heard of fingerprints? Fingerprints on the gun, the magazine, the bullets prove it was the defendants gun and prove he was a liar (in the jury's eyes).

    Nobody on the defense have heard of fingerprints? No prints on the gun, the magazine, the bullets prove it wasn't the defendants gun and prove he was telling the truth (in the jury's eyes).

    Absolutely ludicrous to basically ignore one of the longest standing aspects of forensics simply because they want to force upon us the horrible morality of a broken rape shield case.

  • Good episode....complex? layered?.....I guess. One of the strangest beginnings that SVU has ever done. I kept expecting 1 of the 2 people to break character and reveal that the whole scene was role play or a movie set.


    You get the feeling throughout that there was a lot more going on in this victim's life than what was revealed in the episode.

    There was dating the piano teacher, yuppie parents, she looked younger than 19, living voluntarily in a bad neighborhood, wanting to experience pain/despair in order to play piano better, eager promiscuity....and so on. I get the feeling that somehow this victim is going to show up again in another episode.

    All this made it unclear whether we saw a rape or not in the opening scene. Could it have just been the girl wanting to have been raped so she could get the pain in her mind for the piano concert later that night?? Or, was she actually raped but had been actively working to lure seedy men into her apartment for that as to have the pain for piano playing?

    As a whole, either the editing was bad or some of what seemed loose-ended will show up again later....example, what was the deal with that rape councilor at the hospital pissing off Olivia?? Why have a character/scene like that if it wasn't really necessary for the episode??

    Were the SVU writers just trying to make us question obvious eyewitness events because race was involved?? If that was all this episode was about....then, I'm unsatisfied.....I hope there was more to this.