Up on the Roof

[Dreamfire]

Cool, I agree with both of you, without the gun shot inconsistancy, there wou'd be no start to the questioning, but... if Terry had come clean on that and said, either I shot first and then Titus shot me, or I don't remember, or I shot first but don't want to admit it... any version of opening up to Jim instead of standing his ground on his lie...
do you think JIm would still have ruminated and realised just how low Terry's had fallen?

And I realise I am asking for opinion, not fact, I'm just curious as to how you see it.

[mlm828]

My answer to this is: it depends. If Terry had originally told a story that was consistent with what Jim heard and gave a plausible explanation of why he shot first, there's a good chance he would have gotten away with shooting himself and pinning the blame on Titus. Jim is a cop, after all. He'd be more likely to believe a fellow cop -- even Terry -- than a guy with a "pretty bad" rap sheet, like Titus. In addition, Jim very much wants to be "done" with Terry. In the actual episode, this desire to be "done" with Terry was so strong that at first Jim doesn't want to act on his suspicions, even though he believes Terry shot himself. So I don't think he'd start questioning things without a good reason to do so. It was the inconsistency between what he heard and Terry's story which gave him the reason to question what Terry was saying.

On the other hand, if Terry first told the same story he told in the episode, then changed his story when he saw that Jim was questioning it, I think that would have made Jim even more suspicious. I don't think Terry would have changed his story, however, because he's a detective, too, and he would know that would make Jim more suspicious.

One final observation: I don't think Jim would have thought Terry was "coming clean" if he changed his story but didn't admit he shot himself. That seems too similar to what Terry tried to do about what happened at the bank.

[hoosier]

It was Karen who told Jim that the inconsistency in Terry's story didn't change anything--that Terry was only covering his butt because he had shot first instead of the other way around--because Terry had been shot by Titus. Terry could have said that Titus had pulled a gun and ,feeling threatened, he had shot in self-defense, but he held to the story that Titus had fired first.

Terry had the opportunity to come clean with Jim in the hospital when Jim asked him to go over the sequence again since he (Jim) thought that in all the confusion he might have 'mixed things up in his head' or words to that effect. Terry stuck to his story of Titus shooting first and Jim knew that he was lying even if he didn't know exactly why. He went so far as to give him a second chance to come clean when he went to Terry's home and confronted him with the fact of what he had heard and telling him that he knew he was lying.

If Terry had admitted that he had fired first in self-defense, I don't know if Jim would have pursued it as vigorously as he did. I mean, why would he? Terry had jumped the gun, so to speak, but he wouldn't have been the first cop to do so. It would have been his word against Titus' and ,with his record, Titus would have gotten the short end of the stick and a quick trip back to prison.

But , like mlm mentioned, Terry had this nasty habit of twisting the truth. Why did Jim give him a second chance to admit what he had done? He didn't haul him down to the squad but went to his home, spoke to him one on one. I doubt he would have been as considerate to another cop. Was it because of some lingering sense of obligation? Terry had been his partner and maybe, just maybe, Terry had only thought of covering his rear because of his actions at the bank. He didn't want another blot on his record which could have been a career ender.

[Dreamfire]

mmm, thanks girls, I think you are both on the money. Amazing writing in this show, to sew such controversy and so many possibilities into a single action adn then lace it up with lies, deciets, prior judgements.

Your points about Jim wanting desparatley "to be done with it" are key, and I think Terry nailed his own coffin with the lie.

[hoosier]

Why did Jim give Terry a second and third chance to come clean about the shooting on the roof and how did he get Terry to come to the waterfront?

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

Why did Jim give Terry a second and third chance to come clean about the shooting on the roof. . .

Here are my theories about this question. Part of it, I think, was their history of three years as partners and friends, which caused Jim to give him these extra chances to come clean. However, I think Jim's own ambivalence about pursuing the issue was even more important than wanting to give Terry an extra chance. We see this most plainly at the hospital, where Jim backs off telling Terry he heard Terry's shot first. He doesn't even articulate his suspicion that Terry shot himself until Galloway forces him to say it.

Another reason he gives Terry these extra chances to come clean is that he really doesn't have any leverage on Terry until he and Karen find the handkerchief. At Terry's house, before the discovery of the handkerchief, he can only appeal to Terry's better nature (assuming he still has one) and hope that Terry will "step up" and do the right thing. It's also interesting that, during the scene at Terry's house, Jim tries to invoke their past friendship to get Terry to talk, telling him, "It's just you and me talking." It doesn't work, of course.

hoosier said:

. . . and how did he get Terry to come to the waterfront?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I don't have any good theories about this. I would have loved to listen in on that phone conversation. The fact that Terry brings the coat with him suggests that Jim might have asked him to bring the coat as the stated reason for the meeting, but beyond that, it's just speculation.

[maggiethecat]

Aah, those missing conversations we would have loved to have heard! Speculation, to be sure, but I never figured Dunbar for the kind of guy who was chatty and longwinded on the phone -- and I always assumed it was along the lines of "I know what happened and I have the proof. Meet me at blahblahblah, and bring the jacket you were wearing yesterday. Or I go straight to my lieutenant."

If Jim had just asked Terry -- who was recovering at home, after all -- to meet him with the jacket, well, I don't think that would have been enough. Some sort of leverage was needed to peel Terry off the sofa, and I always *assumed* it was fairly blunt, given Dunbar's character.

As to why Jim gave Terry those extra chances (apart from providing some excellent angst-ridden drama, of course), for me it comes down to Jim not wanting to open up -- in a public way that would have involved the squad and the department -- the can of worms that was their past relationship. What would make a guy shoot himself in the arm? First question that would be asked, no doubt, and what is the possible answer? Terry wanted to look like a hero cop, finally, to assuage his guilt over not stepping up at the bank. Considering Dunbar's disgust with the media and his prickly relationship with the department, this is the last thing he'd want. So he gave Terry those chances to step up and do the right thing, and, of course, being Terry, he weaseled out (is weasel a verb?) and stuck to his inane little story, no doubt hoping the whole thing would just go away.

In the end, it played out in a way that was beneficial for both men: Terry, as Jim tells Christie, got to hate him, which was what he wanted, and he was able to keep at least a partial pension; and Dunbar had the satisfaction of knowing that a good cop gone rotten was permanently off the job . . . and also -- equally as important -- wouldn't be turning up every couple of months angling for an apology and trying to resuscitate a friendship that died in the shootout.

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

Aah, those missing conversations we would have loved to have heard! Speculation, to be sure, but I never figured Dunbar for the kind of guy who was chatty and longwinded on the phone -- and I always assumed it was along the lines of "I know what happened and I have the proof. Meet me at blahblahblah, and bring the jacket you were wearing yesterday. Or I go straight to my lieutenant."

If Jim had just asked Terry -- who was recovering at home, after all -- to meet him with the jacket, well, I don't think that would have been enough. Some sort of leverage was needed to peel Terry off the sofa, and I always *assumed* it was fairly blunt, given Dunbar's character.

It could have happened this way, and I'm not sure I have a better theory to offer. But I wonder. When Jim unfolds the handkerchief, Terry gets that sick look on his face, then says, "Don't do this to me, Jimmy." This always seemed to me to be the reaction of someone who has just realized that Jim has "the goods" on him. And I think it's consistent with what we've learned about Terry that this would be his immediate reaction. If Jim had already told him he had the proof of what Terry had done, Terry would have had time to think about his response, and I think his reaction would have been different.

I do agree that, whatever Jim said, it would have been pretty blunt, and some kind of leverage would have been needed to get Terry to show up at the river. But maybe there was enough without the explicit statement that Jim knows what Terry did, and he has the proof. Jim has already told Terry he "knows" Titus didn't shoot him, and Terry knows Jim well enough to know he wouldn't make a statement like that without some basis for it. So maybe something along the lines of, "Meet me with the jacket at wherever in half an hour, or I'm going to the lieutenant," might have carried enough of a threat to get Terry there.

[hoosier]

Didn't Terry tell Jim at the house that he would bring the coat in himself so it could be tested for gunshot residue??? If so, maybe Jim told Terry it would be better to meet and leave the coat with him, that way they could both avoid the questions that would have popped up if Terry had just walked in with it. Meeting in a neutral place, Jim could then confront him with the evidence and give his ultimatum with only Karen as a witness. If Jim had been hostile, what would have prevented Terry from getting rid of the only evidence tying him to the shooting? Alone, the hankie proved nothing. Of course, this is all conjecture. Wouldn't it be lovely if this was one of the 'deleted' scenes that could be included in a dvd release!

[mlm828]

hoosier said:

Didn't Terry tell Jim at the house that he would bring the coat in himself so it could be tested for gunshot residue??? If so, maybe Jim told Terry it would be better to meet and leave the coat with him, that way they could both avoid the questions that would have popped up if Terry had just walked in with it. Meeting in a neutral place, Jim could then confront him with the evidence and give his ultimatum with only Karen as a witness. If Jim had been hostile, what would have prevented Terry from getting rid of the only evidence tying him to the shooting? Alone, the hankie proved nothing. Of course, this is all conjecture. Wouldn't it be lovely if this was one of the 'deleted' scenes that could be included in a dvd release!

I agree that the coat must have played some part in the conversation. The first thing Terry does when he gets to the riverfront is drop the coat on the bench next to Jim and say, "Here's the coat. Go nuts." (or words to that effect). And you're correct that when Jim is leaving Terry's house, Terry says he'll bring the coat in to the squad to be tested. So something must have been said in the "missing" conversation about bringing the coat with him. But I'm still not sure how the coat played a role in Jim convincing Terry to come meet him at the river right away.

Another random thought: maybe the writers couldn't figure this out, either, so they didn't include the phone conversation.

Edited to add: But the coat didn't have powder burns on it. Terry knew that all along, and after finding the handkerchief, Jim knew this, too. So how did bringing the coat factor in? I give up.

[maggiethecat]

mlm828 said:

I agree that the coat must have played some part in the conversation. The first thing Terry does when he gets to the riverfront is drop the coat on the bench next to Jim and say, "Here's the coat. Go nuts." (or words to that effect). And you're correct that when Jim is leaving Terry's house, Terry says he'll bring the coat in to the squad to be tested. So something must have been said in the "missing" conversation about bringing the coat with him. But I'm still not sure how the coat played a role in Jim convincing Terry to come meet him at the river right away.

Another random thought: maybe the writers couldn't figure this out, either, so they didn't include the phone conversation.

Edited to add: But the coat didn't have powder burns on it. Terry knew that all along, and after finding the handkerchief, Jim knew this, too. So how did bringing the coat factor in? I give up.

Aw, don't give up just yet.

How about . . . Jim asks Terry to bring the coat in the phone call, while also mentioning that he's "got proof." So Terry shows up, all cocky, knowing damn well there won't be any gunshot residue on the coat. Hence the "knock yourself out" remark. I think we can guess by the expression on Terry's face when Jim pulls out the handkerchief that it never occurred to him that the handkerchief would be "the proof." You could easily argue -- God! what would we do without supposition and conjecture? -- that Terry assumed, given his arrogant posture at his house, that he had Dunbar thoroughly snowed.

Terry thought the coat would be the proof: Dunbar knew it was the handkerchief.

Or not.

Oh dear, must I go watch "Up on the Roof" tonight? Again?

[mlm828]

maggiethecat said:

How about . . . Jim asks Terry to bring the coat in the phone call, while also mentioning that he's "got proof." So Terry shows up, all cocky, knowing damn well there won't be any gunshot residue on the coat. Hence the "knock yourself out" remark. I think we can guess by the expression on Terry's face when Jim pulls out the handkerchief that it never occurred to him that the handkerchief would be "the proof." You could easily argue -- God! what would we do without supposition and conjecture? -- that Terry assumed, given his arrogant posture at his house, that he had Dunbar thoroughly snowed.

Terry thought the coat would be the proof: Dunbar knew it was the handkerchief.

Or not.

Works for me. I would only quibble with the idea that Terry was confident, after their conversation at his house, that he had Jim "thoroughly snowed." He knows Jim believes Titus didn't shoot him and, by extension, that Jim believes he shot himself. His arrogance, I think, stems from his belief that Jim will never be able to convince anyone else, not from a belief that he's conned Jim into backing off.

maggiethecat said:

Oh dear, must I go watch "Up on the Roof" tonight? Again?

I fail to see a problem here.

[maggiethecat]

All great points, mlm88.

Then again, when you think about it (!), did Jim really have to play hardball to get Terry to the river? When they talk at Terry's house, Jim pretty much lets him know that he's figured out what happened on the roof. At this point, any sort of physical proof notwithstanding, Dunbar is the only thing standing between Terry and the whole mess coming out, whether officially or just as water cooler gossip. So yeah, I think Terry would meet Jim even if all he wanted to talk about was the weather or the Yankees.

Terry just doesn't know which way Jim's going to play it, and he keeps hoping for some sort of twisted loyalty from Dunbar -- "Jimmy, don't do this to me" -- or that he can weasel/bargain his way out of the situation. So all Jim needed to say to Terry was something along the lines of, "This isn't over. Meet me at blahdiblahblah." (For all we know (heh) the coat wasn't mentioned and it was Terry's idea to bring it, so he could throw it at Jim knowing darned well it was "clean.") Simple curiosity, or one more opportunity to attempt to dissuade Jim from acting on his suspicions, would have gotten Terry there . . . in the proverbial hot New York minute.

And Terry's just so pathetically desperate for any sort of contact with Jim that I think he'd take any opportunity for a face-to-face, even one that ended acrimoniously. He keeps playing the "were we not friends?" card over and over again, hoping to get through to Jim. He makes me think of a little kid plucking repeatedly at someone's sleeve, trying to get their attention. And Jim rebuffs him repeatedly, politely but coldly: "Apology accepted," "Let's just work the case," etc. So I think Terry would have gone to the river no matter what Jim said.

Great fun to go around the corners, but also great fun to sit back and try to imagine the straightest line between two points.

[mlm828]

Good theories, mags -- but picking apart these theories is way too much fun to stop now.

maggiethecat said:

Then again, when you think about it (!), did Jim really have to play hardball to get Terry to the river? When they talk at Terry's house, Jim pretty much lets him know that he's figured out what happened on the roof. At this point, any sort of physical proof notwithstanding, Dunbar is the only thing standing between Terry and the whole mess coming out, whether officially or just as water cooler gossip. So yeah, I think Terry would meet Jim even if all he wanted to talk about was the weather or the Yankees.

Terry just doesn't know which way Jim's going to play it, and he keeps hoping for some sort of twisted loyalty from Dunbar -- "Jimmy, don't do this to me" -- or that he can weasel/bargain his way out of the situation. So all Jim needed to say to Terry was something along the lines of, "This isn't over. Meet me at blahdiblahblah." (For all we know (heh) the coat wasn't mentioned and it was Terry's idea to bring it, so he could throw it at Jim knowing darned well it was "clean.") Simple curiosity, or one more opportunity to attempt to dissuade Jim from acting on his suspicions, would have gotten Terry there . . . in the proverbial hot New York minute.

I still believe Terry thought, when Jim left his house, that he'd gotten away with it. Even if he remembered the handkerchief he'd hidden on the roof, he probably wasn't too worried about it. If crime scene didn't find it, surely Jim wouldn't be able to. Of course, the one factor Terry left out of the equation was Karen. I don't know if he just didn't consider her, or he thought she was unlikely to help Jim pursue his suspicions. If the latter, he wasn't far wrong, of course. She wasn't buying Jim's suspicions, and he had to be very persuasive -- even playing the blind card -- to get her to search the roof for him. So I think Jim would have had to come up with some way of letting Terry know the whole mess was going to come out, if he didn't show up at the river.

maggiethecat said:

And Terry's just so pathetically desperate for any sort of contact with Jim that I think he'd take any opportunity for a face-to-face, even one that ended acrimoniously. He keeps playing the "were we not friends?" card over and over again, hoping to get through to Jim. He makes me think of a little kid plucking repeatedly at someone's sleeve, trying to get their attention. And Jim rebuffs him repeatedly, politely but coldly: "Apology accepted," "Let's just work the case," etc. So I think Terry would have gone to the river no matter what Jim said.

Is Terry really so desperate for contact with Jim, at the time of the phone call? Almost the last thing he says to Jim, at his house, is "Go away and don't come back." And shortly before this, he tells Jim, "This isn't the Jimmy Dunbar I knew." It can be argued that he was only trying to deflect Jim from pursuing his suspicions. But Terry knows that Jim knows what happened on the roof, and I doubt he expects anything good to come from a further meeting between them. He only invokes their past friendship after being confronted with the proof of his actions, as part of his attempt to escape their consequences.

[Dreamfire]

MMmm, making me think. Yeah Terry seemed pretty confident that he would get away with it, maybe that in the end it would ony come down to his word against Jim and Titus, and Jim is not going to be a credible 'eye wittness'. ( Okay I'm pushing it there , even I can see that).

I reckon the phone call only needed to be a "meet me here" because of the shared history and even if Terry says he's had it with Jim, truth is he hasn't.

Jim may well have used 'bring the coat' as a misdirection to make sure Terry arrived. Terry does seem to arrive with a "okay here it is" knock yourself out attitude.

Maye he just sent an SMS/Text? (Joke!)

I also find it believable that he would say come seeme or I'm going to take what I have to the Lt. (Can't spell right now so abbreviating) But I think he's be bluffing there. We know Jim likes a nice clean confession to secure his case, prior to going to the judge ( in this case the Liuetenant.)

Had a couple of nice reds, hope this post makes sense.

Oh and commisserations as to the one who had to see the ep again. What time you watching? I might pop by and watch it with you.

A