I can’t remember the last time a TV show actually occupied my thoughts this way. I’m hooked on the CSI “miniature killer” plot–it’s the best-scripted mystery I’ve seen in a long time.
I know I said I thought I’d figured out who the killer was. Now I’m 50-50. I suspect he’s a red herring. But you know what’s so neat about that? The red herring wasn’t super-obvious the way it usually is, and it wasn’t super-obvious that it was a red herring.
If it is.
So now I have two suspects. This week there was a comment by a psychologist character that left me wondering whether I really had the right guy; one of her adjectives after viewing the photos of the miniatures didn’t entirely fit him. That’s when I thought of someone it did fit, and how the clues that seemed to point to the one guy could have been pointing sort-of through him to the other guy. Which also led me to remember an off-handed comment in the reverse-forensics episode which might have been a clue to the identity of the real killer.
I don’t tend to like mystery plots in many cases because either they’re logically transparent (or at least translucent) or they leave out vital information and thus “cheat” you into not being able to figure out who the culprit is. It’s incredibly rare to find a writer capable of spinning out clues and false clues into a web complex enough to create a rich, long-lasting and truly mysterious mystery.
So, I’m hooked. I can’t wait to see more clues, and try to figure out which of my two suspects is the real killer.