Edit
Storyline
The city anxiously anticipates the arrival of Heather Taffet, more notoriously known as "The Gravedigger," for her final appeal after being sentenced to death for a kidnap-murder and a series of similar coldblooded crimes. But when a bullet targeted at The Gravedigger is fired from a distance and hits her, the Jeffersonian team is tasked to piece together the sniper's precise location as well as identify the suspect and his motives. With the help of probing investigator Caroline Julian, Booth and Brennan put together a list of likely suspects, but the evidence and the remarkable skill needed to pull off the crime leads the team to believe that the crime was an inside, professional job, leaving Brennan's father Max and even Booth as plausible suspects. Meanwhile, Sweets attempts to put on a brave face after being caught in the firestorm just moments following a chilly encounter with The Gravedigger. Written by
Fox Publicity
Plot Summary
|
Plot Synopsis
Edit
Did You Know?
Goofs
Booth views an image of a reconstructed bullet and proclaims "That's a .338 Lapua Magnum. But it shouldn't look like that." All he should be able to tell from the picture is the .338 part of that. Even then, at a glance he would probably only be able to tell that it was nominally .30 caliber. That it was a "Lapua Magnum" could only be determined by looking at the case and powder charge, respectively. In addition, if the bullet "shouldn't look like that" how does Booth recognize it?
See more »
Quotes
Special Agent Seeley Booth:
Stop, Jake. I'm warning you.
Jacob Broadsky:
Go ahead. Jump the fence. Don't wait for the warrant.
Special Agent Seeley Booth:
[
Booth jumps the fence]
I don't need a warrant. This land belongs to Seely Booth.
See more »
Idiotic beyond belief. When will writers and producers pay a tiny amount of attention to things that, when misrepresented, give the public a horribly distorted picture of the justice system? The premise is that a death row inmate is being transported to her last appeal. Prisoners have no right to be at their appeals (arguments), even in the not-very-common cases where a court agrees to hear them argued rather than just rule on the briefs. There is dialog about testimony at an appeal. There's no such thing. Appeals are based solely on the record of the trial.
Shows like this give the impression that the criminal justice system is far more arbitrary than it is--and loaded in favor of defendants, which is the opposite of the truth.
And David Boreanaz remains as stiff as ever.