I thought the woman had a cornea transplant. She got Trudy`s cornea`s. I could be wrong. My daughter had a cornea transplant years ago from someone who died in an motorcycle accident. The only time I heard of Trudy being in pieces, was when the mean radio guy was taunting Monk, On The Air. I don`t think there could be a continual role for Stott`s wife and kids, Randy`s mother, or even Monk`s father and brother. I wish his father and brother were on alot, I doubt they could afford Ambrose.

I wonder the same thing every time I watch Law and Order or CSI. These are not comedies, they are dramas.

Well, you know, it's TV reality...and as long as it's entertaining and I don't look behind the curtain too much, yeah, I'll swallow it with a big gulp. That's the big difference with this week's eppy and last week's, which the more I mull about it, I LOATHED. Aside from TL's nifty looking toupee, there was nothing I liked about it. If that eppy had been a rabid dog, like Atticus Finch, I would have put it down without hesitation! This week, despite all the logic gaps and plot holes, it was entertaining. BIG BIG difference.

Exactley, why would Randy have to clean it up? When the Capt. did that whole thing with the coffee cup, threw that little fit, my friend yelled "you over acting drama king"! I didn`t say it, please don`t yell at me everyone.

And with that said, I'm taking a break from the forum. I can't take this stuff anymore.

Exactly. I'm not pro or con. I could say that I'd rather they not do it and not totally change the dynamics of any the relationships going on here, but it's not like I'll stop watching or second-guess them if they do. It's just not a big issue for me. I don't criticize anyone on this issue, no matter which side of the fence they're line up on. I commented on it briefly in another thread, and hope I've successfully extracted myself from any battles with this one. lol. God-forbid they take aim at each other. Gotta let people speak their minds.

I think you're taking something personal that was not intended to be personal. I think it was just a general statement for allowing people to speak their minds and feel the way they feel, and to temper disagreeing responses. I think it was directed at everyone, and encouraged only freedom of speech and open expression.

I hope you don't go anywhere, but if you need to take a breather, we can all wait. It's been tense in here for some time. It's for Kawasaki to say, but as an innocent bystander, I sincerely don't think this was anything directed at you personally.

I've just found a mistake in the episode. Look at the window in Monk's door. Once it's opened, once it's closed.

1. Natalie and Monk are reading books. (window is opened)


2. Patric Kloster has just brought them beverages. (window is closed)


3. Natalie is drinking "poisoned" lemonade. (window is opened)


4. Monk is opening the door. (window is opened)


5. The same scene as above - Monk opening the door. (window is closed)

Yes my friend, silence is good, so we all agree, nobody will ever, ever say another negative thing about Monk! LOL

A similar thing happened in a scene in, I think, the captain's office. In one shot Natalie's arms are down and in the very next one they're up, with no time for her to have moved.

And then that "poisoned lemonade" bit -- a guy you have every reason to think is a murderer hands you a drink and you DRINK IT? Seriously? I couldn't believe she was mad at Monk for not mentioning it when she should have thought of it the moment the guy gave her the cup!

I also have to take issue with Monk's breaking into the house with the intention of planting evidence, after the captain had specifically told him not to. Even though he didn't go through with it, he was about to -- and did he really think, after that talk, that the captain wouldn't guess the truth??

I apologize to all those who thought the episode was perfection, but I thought it had quite a few holes. It had some good moments -- Stott was particularly good; I loved the scene with the coffee cup -- but we've had better.

And going back to what I said earlier about why the wife didn't leave -- I'd have left, genius or no genius. Just because he was brilliant didn't mean he was omnipotent, for goodness' sake. That was another thing I objected to: The whole "He's a genius so no one can ever get the better of him in any area ever ever ever!" thing. Um, I don't think that's how it works. And better to die while running than just sit around waiting for the blow to fall, in my opinion. But to each her own!

Dear CS,

I hope you will reconsider and remain one of the important contributors to this Board. You have begun many threads that have proven very popular with posters and so I feel that your absence would hurt the Board.

I wish I could remember how my dad pulled an engine out of a car and left it swinging from a tree for a couple of days. I don't recall a cherry picker, but I think a winch was involved, or something he called a 'come along' (?). If I remember any of it correctly, the thing he used was fairly small, could be carried in his hand, so carrying two of them wouldn't be an amazing feat.

Of course, my dad wasn't always known for doing things the safest or easiest way. But if he could hang an engine from a tree using this thing with a heavy cable, hanging from a logging chain in a tree, by pumping this hand crank thing (it worked like an old jack, the kind with a handle you pump up and down), I think it's normally used for stretching cables. Here's what one looks like. Two of these, some straps and a ladder, or if he was really spritely, and could climb a tree, skip the ladder, climb up two trees above the two closely spaced tombstones,, lift them up and swap them.

He'd be feeling it in every inch of his body the next day, but I think he could do it. Maybe. It did take my dad an afternoon to get the engine out of the car, though, and he's kind of a good old boy.

BTW, wasn't that the same judge who was having the 'sex affair' with his stenographer in Leper?

May I call for a truce.

One can be as negative as they want about Monk, Natalie, the show, the writers or whomever but why be negative about another fan's opinions? State you own, point out what you think is incorrect - a process that can be done without the need to be negative but simply different and leave it at that.

Folks. I only wanted to call for a little circumspection in voicing opinions about those of others who may diasgree because all too often in my humble opinion the board seem to become a battleground of critics and not fans.

I am really sorry for stirring up passions so but on reflection maybe the real problem is simply in my misuderstanding the purpose of the Board and so I apoloigze to those whom might have felt slighted or offended - it was not my intention to do.

Kawasakifan



.

Finally managed to watch the episode and have to say, I really liked it. Nope, i didnt think this was the best, but it was very good. An amazing thing that I find is that after 6+ seasons, the writers always manage to surprise us by the different dynamics that they show in the episodes.

One can only hope the season keeps getting better ). I think that Monk is starting to age like fine wine !!!

Few things that I really enjoyed:

1. Interaction b/w Monk and Natalie when Julie is "flirting"

2. David strathain -- he was wonderful

3. The whole toxicology thing to the 2 old ladies in the funeral home

4. Monk and Natalie in the car (that had me cracking up).

5. I really like Monk and Julie interactions and here too was a great one when Julie notices that its cheaper for an under 18 to play and offers to play (knowing how sensitive Monk can be about money)

Am hoping for an even better episode next week, the promos look good.

[quote name='Kawasakifan' date='Jul 26 2008, 06:46 PM' post='920007']
May I call for a truce.

One can be as negative as they want about Monk, Natalie, the show, the writers or whomever but why be negative about another fan's opinions? State you own, point out what you think is incorrect - a process that can be done without the need to be negative but simply different and leave it at that.

Folks. I only wanted to call for a little circumspection in voicing opinions about those of others who may diasgree because all too often in my humble opinion the board seem to become a battleground of critics and not fans.

I am really sorry for stirring up passions so but on reflection maybe the real problem is simply in my misuderstanding the purpose of the Board and so I apoloigze to those whom might have felt slighted or offended - it was not my intention to do.

Kawasakifan

I am not offended by anything you said. When I watch Monk, I look for what is good in the episode, not what might be a mistake. I want to be entertained by my favorite actor. I don`t know of any show that has no mistakes, each and every week it is on. Even my beloved Columbo, has plot mistakes.

Personally I only see one really glaring plot hole in this episode: Having David Strathairn kill his wife. My boyfriend would never do such a thing.

Hi, I just wanted to clarify: Kawasakifan's post had very little to do with me deciding to take a break from the community. I've been considering it for awhile now, but the message today made me realize that I'm wasting my energy trying to make sure that my thoughts make everyone happy. And even the phrase 'taking a break' is a little incorrect. I will not be participating in the forum, but I will lurk. I will use my PM. I will go to the nifty meebo chat room. I am just having a difficult time with all of the drama recently in this community. (Especially the - leaving an harmless post or starting a friendly thread and coming back to mean PM's and rants about how horrible I am for saying this or that.) I've gone to bed depressed for the last week over some of the stuff. My mind starts racing and I can't sleep. It's affecting my work, and my health. And it's over an online community of people who love the same show I do.

I'm not sure how long I will take the break, but I feel like I need to do this - and I will still be around, only not vocal.

I have a question about the Natalie/Monk "Should We Kiss?" thing. Maybe it is so obvious, but it escapes me. For answers to the question, please spare me your predictions about what it portends for a future romance.

My question: Was Natalie's "Should We Kiss" remark (1) just a flustered remark/mistake/Freudian slip when the murderer suddenly appeared with refreshments, or (2) would kissing then make any possible sense/serve any real purpose detective-wise? And what were the two of them doing in the car anyway? Anything besides Natalie reading the chess master's books to Monk? Shouldn't they have been reading the books in a more comfortable surroundings?

In many movies we have seen couples decide to kiss in a stake-out car as a subterfuge. They are staking out (spying on) a certain place, and then kiss to make it look like they are romantically "parking" so as to avoid suspicion. In the parking scene in this recent Monk episode, there was really nothing to hide, right?

Hey Crystal! That's too bad. Well, I hope your break isn't long. I haven't been on the board long but I have really enjoyed reading your posts and ideas. You don't have to please everyone. And I'm a shipper but I'm not really offended by anything you've written...we'll all have our own pov's.

I'm pretty much doubting it, because I haven't seen my post quoted once, but i do hope my rant didn't contribute to your departure. I wasn't trying to "flame" at anyone, and hope it did not come across as such. I do have massive issues with presumed "professional" investigators not wearing gloves of some type at a crime scene, and have stated such on a number of boards I've seen break this "rule"...I do think one person of any stature trying to move two full tombstones is a bit far fetched (and I don't think I was alone), and the check thing was just plain silly (all I can think is maybe he knew what she was doing, and was trying to give himself an "out" without feeling guilty about taking the money...). Opinions only....as far as any "real" flames, I have to confess, I've been more skimming this thread than reading, so I can't say as I've really seen any. I too have enjoyed many of your posts and hope to see you coming back, if not to this board, than maybe to the others soon......


KA23

I just wanted to post this note

Since the guy knew that his wife was drinking again and found her secret bottle he added the poison to it before he left to go to Canada...so one could conclude that if it takes 12-18 hours for the poison to work wouldnt it be enough time to kill her ...the next day?

This was just my thought process here...but I still loved the episode...I believe it was the best so far...

VERY nice episode !!!!!

LOL! Guess the anger management classes were a big waste of time! Didn't Capt. Stott end up blowing up and temper tantruming and flinging the yo-yo given to him in the class at someone's head. I recently watched the movie American Gangster and The Great Denzel Washington does an amazing coffee cup swipe when being interrogated at the Police station at the end of the movie that is spoken of highly of in the director's commentary. Maybe Ted Levine thought it looked cool and dramatic and copied it.

did anyone notice that natlie when the genius guy was walking to the car said they should kiss to throw him off?

Thought that was very intested

I think you`r on to something there. The Capt. had a yo-yo in Garbage Strick, I guess he bought a new one.

I think I understand what you are asking and the 'Shall we kiss?" was pretty much thrown in there by the writers as a joke and as a 'shipper bone' as BfloGal would say because them kissing wouldn't fool anyone or kkeep anyone from recognizing them, or it might actually have been meant as a joke because Monk, of all people would be the last person to ever agree to kissing someone on the spur of the moment for something like that. There was really no logical reason for them to be sitting in the car reading the guy's books. The argument might be made that they were staking the place out and watching him, or rather Monk was while Natalie read. But that is really kind of a cliche premise for detective/cop shows, kind of a staple. Like the boxing episodes, and the kid/dog episodes.

I thought it was a stake out. Another thought, Monk said he needed to get into the guys head. Maybe it was a little chess move in their mind game.

Liv, thanks, that's what I thought too, when you say: "I think I understand what you are asking and the 'Shall we kiss?" was pretty much thrown in there by the writers as a joke and as a 'shipper bone' as BfloGal would say because them kissing wouldn't fool anyone or keep anyone from recognizing them, or it might actually have been meant as a joke.. ....."

Anyone notice that Monk didn't ask for a wipe after shaking hands with Patrick Kloster? Or maybe he just didn't want to do that in front of him. I also thought the, "We should kiss." part was pretty funny. I was shocked to see Monk start to plant that evidence. That definately would have ruined his reputation, among other things. Thank goodness he didn't go through with it. I think it would drive anyone bonkers knowing that someone could anticipate your every move. Someone commented about the fact that Monk seems to be more bold. After seeing this episode, I would have to agree.

I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed this episode. I'm not a shipper but I do like the teaser moments. Some how the idea of Adrian lip-locking with anybody turns me off but I'm all for a quick buss teaser.

On the headstone swapping scene, in chess castling is done early in the game to protect the king so if I were the genius who was planning to murder my current wife in the same manner I had murdered my first wife I would have switched the headstones well in advance having anticipated someone would make the connection between the two deaths since they were both alike.

As to using the cemetery map, I thought they had one but when Randy saw the headstone they just jumped on it being the right grave - who would ever stop to think the wrong headstone would be on the grave of another.

Adrian, being driven to find the evidence of the poison did go over his own ethics - he knew who the murderer was and how it was done and in his anger driven desire to nail the guy was willing to plant evidence but his own sense of right and wrong stopped him in time. I can accept that.

As to Natalie drinking the lemonade, if they both know he used poison to kill his wife, and PK knew they knew he had he would have been stupid to try to poison them so the chance of Natalie drinking something that was going to kill her was nil, it would have led directly back to the genius. That would have been a very stupid move for such a smart man. It was Adrian's suspicions that caused her to toss it out in a moment of panic.

Overall I thought the acting was very, very good and the murder plot (or the way to solve the murder) was excellent.

For those of you who have asked why the wife stayed knowing he was going to kill her. It happens in real life, abused women don't leave their husbands/boyfriends for reasons known only to them, even when they know their life is in danger. It's a twisted form of love and fear of rejection. Google WI vs Mark Jensen for a case in point or look up ABC Prime - Crime.

I agree. I think that Adrian did realize that Kloster would never make such a stupid move and so he's not really thinking Natalie is going to drop dead. He's got a sarcastic, incredulous look on his face, like he can't fathom how it never occurred to Natalie that perhaps she shouldn't drink something a suspected murderer has just given her. Then he messes with her. I think that was completely intentional. She has a blonde moment and he finds a way to enjoy that. Loved it.

LOL -- this bothered me too. I mean they're not really in an open public place while on this stake-out, and they're known to the suspect. He's not going to think that they're two lovers who just happened to pull over in front of his house and couldn't control themselves.

I think this might actually have been a little bit of a spoof of what we've seen in the movies and TV shows -- and as such, and a really good one-liner, and a bit of a tease, it really worked for me.

(BTW -- there was a similar situation in one recent fan fic, with Monk and Natalie on a stake-out on a boat, but that one ended a bit differently )

Crystal -- you need to put on your anti-shipper glasses and get right on back here as soon as you're ready. You know, as well as I, that these storms blow over.

Hello everyone

Just watched the episode....really good...just one thought...will Natalie be able to cash the cheque...I thought the account would be frozen..unless of course it was a joint account..maybe someone could answer this for me I have probably got my facts wrong here...but it is niggling me.

PS Crystal..I am a newbie and look out for your posts...please reconsider...I need to read all the older hands posts...it is a great help to me...I have not seen every episode yet so informed comments is important.

Quinnie

anti-shipper

Ok, newbie to the forum here....what is a "shipper"?

jg

A "shipper" is someone who likes the idea of 2 characters in a show having a realionSHIP - particularly 2 characters who don't have one.

Everyone notice the "searching for Bobby Fisher" references? Chess games, of course, but "Don't bring out your queen too early" (though that wasn't said to TS in the movie).

It was odd that Natalie was driving an Audi, especially since she and Monk both seem to be short on money. How many vehicles has she had since starting? There was the Jeep SUV, the Buick SUV (after Linda had a Buick), and at least one other car before this.

Speaking of "Linda", I was surprised that the wife was named Linda.

Wasn't Monk suspicious of giving an autograph on a piece of paper the size of a check; especially a check that he was seen closely and has thought of quite a bit?

Welcome to the board!

I believe the term "shipper" is short for "relationshipper", or something similar. It refers to fans who want the characters to have a romantic relationship. Not that I would, you know...know anything about that. Because I don't.

Yes, this is true in many cases but the wife told us why she stayed with him. Another poster has answered this question, so I'm not taking full credit for it but will just repeat it. to the best of my memory.
Natalie asks the wife: Why do you stay? And, she said, He's a genius. There isn't anyplace that I could go and he wouldn't find me. There's no place to go.

I didn't see any wipes at all, even when he held/shook hands with the soon to be victim....even after she left......

Keeslady 12:56
On the headstone swapping scene, in chess castling is done early in the game to protect the king so if I were the genius who was planning to murder my current wife in the same manner I had murdered my first wife I would have switched the headstones well in advance having anticipated someone would make the connection between the two deaths since they were both alike.

Do it too early though, and you risk discovery by the family of the person you swapped with, unless you know for certain they don't visit.....

KeesLady 12 56
As to Natalie drinking the lemonade, if they both know he used poison to kill his wife, and PK knew they knew he had he would have been stupid to try to poison them so the chance of Natalie drinking something that was going to kill her was nil, it would have led directly back to the genius. That would have been a very stupid move for such a smart man. It was Adrian's suspicions that caused her to toss it out in a moment of panic.

I don't know what to say about the drinking of the lemonade, kind of reminded me of the Iocaine powder scene in Princess Bride -- on one hand, he'd have to be a complete idiot to poison a woman who was trying to prove he was poisoning people, especially with witnesses (aka Monk) sitting right there the entire time. On the other hand, if he had done so, and there suspicions were confirmed, woudn't it have been good to have the evidence (NOT pour it out) with his finger prints (not planted) and bring that to the police station instead of "waving a bush" (that still cracks me up, btw )

As far as the break in to "plant" the evidence, I agree, I do think the actual planting is not in Monk's repetoire, but maybe the alleged break in itself was....if they were so getting into each other's heads, why not make the next (allegedly) "rational" move, as his opponent might (and apparently did) expect, but more to "throw him a fake", just as he did in the final chess match....where the chessmaster in his fluster from Monk's inaction (which disallowed him from making such "short work" of the "lesser" stratagist) dropped the last clue...



Think that's about it -- still liked it, but want Hector Back!!!!!





KA23

A lot of mention has been made about poor Natalie owning an expensive Audi car. Remember, Natalie's parents are wealthy and lately have been on very good terms with Natalie. So no surprise that she drives an Audi. The surprise should be that she needs money at all. But this is TV-land, and anything can be written into a story and explained somehow.

I just watched the episode again. Very good. Clever the way the chess terms and moves are incorporated into the story and clues. Here is a post I just made someplace else:

I thought it was a very good, clever episode. It didn't have the humor and loving characters and wacky, offbeat fun of other "Monk" episodes, but one thing I like about "Monk" is the way they vary the structure and theme of the shows, and they still come out pretty good. (A few good quips, like: Monk: "I can't just quit. ... ..... To me quitting would be like giving up.")

Some qualms:
¶ even though the wife said she was resigned to being killed and not fighting back, she did have that pistol to protect her, so she was not about to give up. So she should have informed the police, and the insurance company to cancel the $10,000,000 life insurance policy. (Can she have the policy the husband paid for cancelled? I bet she could scare the insurance company into wanting to cancel it on their own!) With no insurance, he may have decided to call off his murder plot. She also should have fled the house (she wasn't the typical battered wife -- no chance of reconciliation, no kids, and she had the wherewithal and relatives to leave). She could easily have recorded his threats (she said he threatened her every day). Weird they could cohabit together (kiss, for example) under the circumstances.

¶ not believable that the Genius would use the same poison that killed his first wife (who also died young with heavy life insurance ), who had not been cremated. He should have cremated the first wife, a no-brainer. If he was so smart, couldn't he figure an alternative way to kill Linda?

¶ unbelievable that the cops/insurance company wouldn't insist on an autopsy (and block a cremation) under the circumstances of a young, (mostly) healthy woman suddenly dying and with Monk (the world's most famous detective) claiming she was threatened by her husband. And then you have a slew of other factors calling for autopsy: house servants testifying as to husband's wrath, ill will; the strange, insurance-laden death of both young wives; and Stottlemeyer wanting an order of protection as she was dying .

¶ not such a biggie, but difficult, to say the least, for husband to move the heavy headstones on a moments notice.

¶ out of character for Monk to decide to plant the evidence, and he had met the woman just once for a short period of time. The Trudy-like hand-holding doesn't convince me. Also, the case had just begun; Monk shouldn't have been so desperate at that point.

Some minor quibbles:
¶ she is found dead. The husband is in Canada playing chess. With all of Monk's warnings and Stottlemeyer trying to get an order of protection for the wife, don't you think the police would search the house and find the poisoned liquor after the wife is found dead?

¶ would the cemetery have a map to show each grave, or just maps to particular plots/sections that have a number of graves there with particular graves filled at the choice of the plot owner? That is, do cemetery's know exactly where each deceased is buried?

Something unimportant: probably doesn't mean anything, but interesting that the wife, Linda, held Monk's two hands with her two hands, Trudy-like. And the husband (the Genius) did something similar at the airport; for a long time, when introduced to Monk, he held Monk's right hand in his two hands.

I love this episode!

My fav scene would have to be the "The Stakeout scene" and finally finding how the chess master did it

"We should kiss"
Those writers can be so mean sometimes

I have read the many comments on the significance of that line but since I haven't seen the show I can't add my three cents but based on the playfully mishievous shenanigans of the writers in the past and the fact that she is a loveable person, I wouldn't be too surprised if they have Natalie spit out a similar line or variant thereof vis a vis another later.

These wonderful writers have proven themselves to be brilliant strategists and no doubt have an ulterior motive in having her say this. Vexingly nothing is what it seems in this series.

I liked this episode. My favorite part was when Monk told Patrick that he was tired of his chess metaphors. I was really happy when Monk told him "checkmate" That was an "in your face" moment. I couldn't stand the guy.

We don't have cable so we buy all the Monk episodes at Amazon using their 'Unbox' product. New episodes can be purchased Saturday morning after they are aired Friday night. $1.99 per episode.

I thought the "shall we kiss" line was cute.

I want to know what the hell is going on with USA Network?!? Monk & Psych are clearly not the same as previous seasons. That new show In Plain Sight is trashy and kinda boring. Did they like replace the writers after the writer's strike or something?!? It's clearly a turn for the worse!!!

Overall, I thought that this was one of the better Monk episodes in a long time! The mystery was very good, the comedy was a bit subdued but worked well when it was there, and the acting was EXCELLENT, especially the scene between Stottlemeyer and Monk (more on that scene shortly)!

The only slight misgiving I had was that the ending seemed just a little rushed. There was no "Here's What Happened..." What happened had been slowly revealed throughout the episode, but I would have liked to have seen a little bit more of a "gotcha" to the bad guy at the end and watch his reaction that he was beaten by Monk. Oh, well. That simply made it a 3 1/2 out of a 4 star episode for me. I still highly enjoyed it!

Now, back to the scene between Monk and Stottlemeyer where Stott pleads with Monk not to plant evidence...KUDOS to not only the actors, who were WONDERFUL in that scene, but also to the Director! The scene was filmed with the camera pointed at the huge mirror in the interrogation room, and we saw the whole conversation played through it. Stottlemeyer was seen only as a reflection, but the look on his face and the tone of his voice (it sounded at times as if the great He-Man Stottlemeyer was on the verge of tears!) was absolutely spot on! Monk was actually seen not only in the reflection but also in person in the foreground, so we could see the complete effect this conversation was having on Monk, not only through his facial expressions but by his whole body language. The cold gray and minimalist furnishings of the interrogation room gave the scene some hard-edged, weighty seriousness to it that wouldn't have been near as effective if the scene was shot in, say, Stotlemeyer's office. There, it would have been good. In the way that was done, though, was (excuse the pun) GENIUS! That was a scene that any film school professor should be showing their class next year on creative ways to frame a shot! Plus, later in that scene, towards the end, when the camera angle changes to Monk and Stott in front of the camera, not reflected in the mirror, the lighting was superb! They had some blinds in the background in front of the lights, so that the slats were softly projected onto Stottlemeyer as he was talking. It was a very gritty looking scene, with a shadowy, film-noir feel. Sometimes the Directors do not get as much credit as the actors and writers, but I've got to give praise where praise is due!

I can't help noticing that Monk tends to run into an awful lots of Lindas in his universe. This one, the onerous Ms. Fusco, Max Hudson's knowing sister-in-law--one might end up wondering whether he's attracting them somehow. Nor is it just with that; earlier he came across either directly or indirectly about 3 or 4 Julies before the name became permanently affixed to his everyday life.

On the episode itself, oh yes, I must agree with all this was top notch; I'd give it a 9.4. It was good that they showed him coming close to the abyss for once, and then deciding in the end he didn't want to go over the side, much as any true hero would in the clutch. I really loved his final touche, if you will, to his nemesis, telling him in no uncertain terms that life is not a game, and people are not meant to be used as pawns (darn, now he's got me doing it too!), and then throwing his whole thought process back in his face. He's definitely getting more assertive now, and for the better. Let's see what else they've got coming his way down the pipe.

I've been reading back into this thread. It looks like a couple of issues that were initially perceived as plot holes have been filled back in, or at least cast in enough shadow that maybe we can give them the benefit of the doubt. I was hoping to pose a theory on this one. They do say they're going to run every toxicology test in the book--but that was just in the funeral home scene. Monk had theorized that Mrs. Kloster was poisoned, but he hadn't yet found the Oleander in Mr. Kloster's yard or found out that Mr. Kloster also had Oleander in his yard 15 years ago when Tatianna died.

At that point, the only poison they would need to test for was Oleander. In the sex affair judge's chambers, the judge says they will be looking for traces of that substance in the first Mrs. Kloster's exhumed body. I would be curious to know how long it takes to run the toxicology test on that one poison? At this point, they're looking for only one substance and they know what that one substance was. If that one test can be done in a day or a matter of hours, then I think this issue as well, withstands scrutiny.