"Steal" is a figure of speech. And yes, people have to take responsibility for their own actions - and getting involved with the spouse or sibling of a family member is a disastrous and devastating thing to do to your family. I hope neither Daniel or Tawney is that kind of person.

Their dialogue in the garage delivered one of this series' most simple, eloquent and beautiful exchanges - which I now feel I will have to quote whenever I see or hear someone complaining about how depressing or sad this (or some other) show is:

I loved the Tawney / Daniel connection, too - and I hope to see it explored some more, but I think I might prefer to see it turn into a deep friendship. I'm not sure I want Daniel to be the sort of man who would steal his (step)brother's wife - or Tawney to be the sort of woman who would leave her husband for his…

It's funny; I'm nervous when those kinds of things are happening - because a large part of my brain is thinking, 'Nah, this show will never go down that predictable path." - but a smaller part of my brain is thinking, "Wait, that's exactly why it would be UNpredictable if they do!"

You've been a 'shipper for that for awhile now, haven't you ;) I kind of half-agree with you (although it does warm my heart to see Teddy treating Tawney better), but if McKinnon does bring D&T together eventually - I hope it's right near the end of the series, and they run away together somewhere (or some such…

As I said, I can totally understand your point. OTOH, some of the things you mentioned can't help but be lumped together in one bucket, so to speak.

I can understand your point of view (and that of the majority of your countrymen) - but for those of us that live in non-DP countries with shorter sentences, the first thing that springs to mind is something Lezlie might have said to Daniel: "How's that working out for you?"

Ok, got it - I agree - just didn't catch your exact meaning the first time around.

I love how the image used for this review is an obvious production still: since Aden Young and Leon Rippy weren't laughing while carrying the totem pole in the actual show.

Daniel didn't rape her (at least, there's no evidence he did) - but there IS evidence that someone else had sex with her. That's the reason his previous conviction was vacated. So any "time served" would have been strictly for a murder in this case.

Doh.. I forgot the quotation marks! ;)

Well, to be fair - Maureen Ryan and Matt Zoller Seitz are of the same generation as Sepinwall and have been reviewing for about the same length of time (since paper media). Sepinwall and MZS worked together at the Star-Ledger paper - both of them developing the current form.

I hear you - and I would agree that his "…coming up right after I…" shtick feels dated and should probably be retired (people in certain fields sometimes feel compelled to hang onto 'catch phrases').

"But somehow serving 20 years does not seem to be nearly enough for murder. Is that really the case in other countries?"

By being one of the writers that invented this style of TV reviewing ~20 years ago - an example of which we are commenting on here; i.e. week-to-week, post-episode reviews that combine episode recaps with analyses of the show's subtexts.

Not that I want to get into a discussion about the death-penalty - nor am I implying that this is morally "right" or "wrong", but I just thought it's worth pointing out:

It wasn't eligible for the Emmys because of the rules for release dates (although I believe this season will be). And as people pointed out last review, the show get's a lot of critical acclaim (which continues to increase) - and doesn't cost much to make. So some of us believe that if the creators/actors want to…

This is from the site you just linked to:

"…after one partner did not take no for an answer."

I responded to the tone in your know-it-all (yet mistake-laden) post. For example: