Search this Topic:
Mar 9 17 11:32 PM
Temperance Booth wrote:
The concern about Hodgins' handling of the Gormogon evidence is legit. It has to be taken into consideration that he has a record of obstructing an investigation to favor a personal connection to the investigated individual ('The Man in the Mansion' and 'The Hero in the Hold').
That is certainly one interpretation of what was going on in The Man in the Mansion. :) I tend to go with what he said at the time, though: he wanted to help catch the killer, and believed he wouldn't be able to if they knew there was a connection there. I'm not saying he was ethically correct to do so, but to me, wanting to be allowed to search for the truth is the opposite of what Cam and Brennan accused him of with planting false evidence.
And what was revealed in The Hero in the Hold is similar: he took the evidence because no one was working on it and he wanted to do so. He wanted to find the truth, not cover it up.
I'm not saying he was correct in either case, but if we're considering under what circumstances he's capable of planting false evidence, looking at times when he crossed a line to get to the truth to bolster the argument seems weak to me. But ...just me.
Also note his dedication to the case, his enthusiasm when he presented that first finding (the one that is an absence of evidence) and when the blood was found on the first apprentice's hand, illustrating how much he wants to exonerate Zack. Not to mention how it didn't seem to take much to persuade him after he admitted to being doubtless that Zack had intended to kill Brennan in 'The Hope in the Horror'.
I also concur with Brennan that, at least in this particular case, when they're up against not just a confession but a nearly decade-old conviction, the presence of evidence would be stronger than the absence thereof. In any case, an absence leaves more room for reasonable doubt.
So if what Hodgins has found - an absence of evidence - won't exonerate Zack, and Hodgins knows it, why bother lying about it at all?
I'm playing devil's advocate there a bit. I really don't get why they reacted the way they did, and don't particularly think the show justified it for a number of reasons, but I'm not upset about it. I'm enjoying thinking about where they all draw their lines and realizing that I have a slightly different view of Hodgins than others have: I think he'd plant fake evidence to save someone's life, but as Cam once said she believed in the system (when she turned over the evidence they knew was being used to frame Brennan), I think Hodgins believes in science, and at this point of things would still be looking to science to find a way to exonerate Zack. And I think his excitement was genuinely because science had given him something it never had before, which happens pretty much weekly on the show.
Another aspect of it all is that Brennan, at least, has crossed ethical/professional gray lines before, too, and while I think all those situations are different (and have to be evaluated as such) it's interesting to me to think through how they view the differences.
but my appreciation extends still to the smaller moments such as Hodgins having to retract himself when Brennan burned him for essentially accusing her of not caring about Zack thereby also devaluing her grief.
I see that bit differently, too, for the record. I didn't see him retracting so much as clarifying. She's hurt him, badly, I think, based on his bitterness at the end, by accusing him of lying to her, and yet, when he realizes that she's linked his comment to her slacking due to Max's death, he immediately clarifies it. Even hurt and angry, he cares about her and her grief.
(I'm not saying you're wrong in what you see, just noting there's a different interpretation for what happens there.)
Mar 9 17 11:36 PM
Laura wrote:I think Brennan's behavior was understandable at the demo derby. They'd gone undercover as Buck and Wanda, redneck version, at the bowling alley with Max. It would be perfectly natural for her to have happy memories of that time and then be upset as she realizes what's happened recently.
Grief isn't linear. It ebbs and flows, and little everyday things can trigger a reaction, causing a person to become angry or weepy. I'm fairly sure Brennan isn't usually the weepy type. Angry is much more her style, I think. That's why I liked the point that was made by Rynogeny. Brennan's coworkers didn't dwell on her anger, but they did accept it, because they care about her.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.