Somehow the tension they were trying to build making us wonder what, of if, the kid had anything to do with the killings (or was going to commit one himself), didn’t come across. Everything the team did or said just went too smoothly; they didn’t face any mind-racking problems, no obstacles, asked all the right questions to the right persons; they didn’t even speak out of turn. Not very realistic from a background point of view, since people don’t communicate this smoothly all the time, especially not in a profession like theirs. Even when standing at the killer’s door they took turns in asking the wife questions. The storyline itself wasn’t bad, but the interpretation lacked depth as far as I am concerned.

Definitely an interesting episode, however, for a non-USA resident somewhat complicated what with the constitutional rights being pivotal in this story. In my experience US Americans have a very high regard for their Constitution (nothing wrong with that) but in my country we only refer to it if there is something we want but cannot have. Furthermore, we have no jurors in our judicial system. That background and the specialist judicial terminology, made it sometimes hard to fully understand the finer details of the court battle. But I found it intriguing to see how the story was also influenced by things that were not said, f.i. how the spokesman of the defendants expressed his point that they were not allowed their right to free speech by means of his demeanour when McCoy again objected to his questions.
However, now that I know the outcome of the episode I will not watch this particular episode again, since it was too complicated to be entertaining and furthermore, I have no understanding for militia members. They seem to talk an awful lot about rights and little about obligations.

Impressive episode. Over here in the Netherlands (situated right next to Germany) WW II obviously had a serious impact, but even though the bigger part of our history lessons is dedicated to said period, the emphasis always lies on the fate of the Jewish people. The ordeal of the handicapped (or defected as they are referred to in this episode) is not very well known or told in Europe either. The intense emotions described by Helga, during and after the war, have been portrayed by Phyllis Frelich in an impressively moving and sensitive manner. For me personally the elegance of it being told in signing merely adds to her statement. The chase of ‘lawyer Dan’ during the team’s attempt to stop an anthrax-attack was captivating too, since the scheme remained obscure till the end. The side-story of D., Myles and Bobby fighting Randy on his own administrative territory, gave the story an insight into more humorous human interaction.
Good writing, good acting and a great statement.

Lovely portrayal by Sue of a 'vulnerable' young woman, who lacks expertise in construction matters but is not too gullible to believe everything they tell her, enticing them to go one step further. And Levi just sitting there, watching the plot enroll and playing 'a watching, waiting dog' rather than a hearing-aid dog, that was just fabulous acting on his part.
Bobby's anger, dazed look and hurt pride for having been taken down by a stupid door and then on top of that having been made a fool by the pawn shop owner and his sulky responses to being mocked by his colleagues almost makes you want to give him some lemonade and cookies along with a pat on the head.