Sure he had motive, but he went right back to the hospital, Frank left and was out and about and had plenty of motive in that his pride got in the way, couldn't get the confession so he's got to resort to something else. It has nothing to do with actually nailing a guy who shot three of his coworkers, just that he HAS to have the final word and get the credit, and if he can't have that, look out.
shareI don't think Frank had it in him to kill Pratt. Considering how things turned out in the end (Fallen Heroes - first, being right there on the spot during Junior Bunk's rampage, but doing nothing, and then getting Bayliss shot). Frank didn't have it in him to kill even to save his own life, or the lives of his fellow cops, even his partner. I think that's a big part of the reason I was so angry with the way he handled Kellerman after the truth came out about the Mahoney shooting, he was so morally superior and hypocritical (though that is very true to his character, of course). I found it very interesting that for all his talk to Bayliss about being able to get into the criminal mind, it was Bayliss more than anyone who really had the propensity for violence, and to overstep that mark. Frank was a coward really, and I thought that was a fascinating revelation about his character, beneath all his bluster. Considering all of that, there's no way Frank would coldly go out looking for revenge against Pratt.
"I say Holmes, shotgun if I'm not mistaken, which might make it...a murder."
But then that leaves the question of who DID kill Gordon Pratt? All eyes are on Munch but I don't think he did it either, granted that would leave anybody left in the squad who wasn't hospitalized: Gee, Tim, Lewis, but I don't think any of them are right for the job either. So then the next question would be, was it somebody outside of the Homicide unit?
shareMunch was the only one whose alibi didn't check out. That's why.
shareHe went to the hospital, he was there when Stanley woke up, something that could not have been foreseen, granted we don't know how long he was there before Bolander awoke, but when he left the squad room he said he was going to the hospital and how along the way could he have found out where Gordon Pratt was going to be?
shareThere's nothing to find out. Pratt was killed in his own apartment building, and everyone already knew he lived there. They straighten out the timeline in the following episode. Munch claimed to be eating breakfast at some diner at the time of the murder, all of which occurred after he visited Stan, so the hospital's irrelevant. Bayliss talked to some employees at the diner, none of whom remembered Munch being there, and then lied to Gee by saying that Munch's alibi checked out. Later on in the series finale, Bayliss told Munch that he always suspected him of killing Pratt. Munch is the only one that the show ever even slightly implied might have killed him.
share^ And when Bayliss tells Munch that he thinks he did it, Munch doesn't even bother to dispute him. He doesn't say he did it, but you would think that if he was innocent, he would object to the accusation at that point.
And yeah, Munch's alibi was the only one that didn't iron out. He claimed to be having breakfast at a particular restaurant and didn't manage to come up with a very good excuse or explaination when that turned out to be a lie, which not only left him without an alibi for the time period after he visited the hospital, it also implied strongly that he had something to hide. Otherwise, what was he lying about?
"I say Holmes, shotgun if I'm not mistaken, which might make it...a murder."
And on one hand it would make sense for it to be a homicide cop because who better to make sure it's never solved? Just like when Bayliss killed the sick freak who broadcasted his murders live on the web, nobody ever figured out it was him, but we knew, we knew all along. And yet, though Munch is known for keeping his secrets for a very long time, I just can't see that he'd be the one to do it.
Now, it's already been pointed out that Frank can't even shoot somebody to save his own partner's life...his wife must feel SO safe with him around , but everybody's got a breaking point, and Frank, his ego is SO fragile, first he couldn't get the white glove killer to confess and a TV reporter got that credit, now, he can't get the scumbag who shot his own partners to make a confession, he's got a boiling point, he reaches it on a weekly basis, he should've had that stroke LONG before he did...I'm not above thinking maybe he snapped and when he stormed out HE was the one who shot him, Frank never talks to anybody anyway, he never tells anybody anything, nobody is worthy to know what Frank Pembleton is thinking about unless the almighty Frank Pembleton deems it so, so he would obviously never confess to killing anybody because then the great Frank Pembleton would be in prison instead of Baltimore's best (haha) homicide cop. I could see his pride leading him clear through all of that.
Except Frank had an alibi that was verified. He didn't do it. You can spin all the theories you want, but they don't mean much when they're explicitly contradicted by the facts of the case.
shareI saw the episode tonight where Bayliss is checking the alibis, Lewis, home alone asleep, very POOR alibi, how do you check that? And when Bayliss questioned Munch, he handed over his gun and told Bayliss to check and see if it had been fired recently. Of course there's always the chance he knew Bayliss wouldn't do it, but that's one hell of a chance especially coming from someone whose response is generally 'I don't have to answer that'.
share- There's always the possibility that Munch used a second gun. Wouldn't be the first time a cop did that.
- Meldrick wasn't home alone, he was with 'a poker pal (a FEMALE poker pal )', which to me sounded like a made-up alibi straight-up, but when Bayliss says he checked everyone's alibis, one can assume that he confirmed the presence of Meldrick's poker pal, and that was the end of it.
"I say Holmes, shotgun if I'm not mistaken, which might make it...a murder."
Well if a cop can use a second gun, a cop can also have somebody lie and vouch for them too, so that doesn't really clear Meldrick either.
shareSure, there's always that, and by that logic you can doubt the alibi of anyone who didn't have multiple reliable witnesses (and for that matter, Frank's alibi didn't really cover the whole two hours between Pratt's release and the discovery of his body), but that doesn't change the fact that Munch is still the only one who is known to have lied, he's still the only one with no alibi at all.
"I say Holmes, shotgun if I'm not mistaken, which might make it...a murder."
What nobody has said so far is the possibility of Bolander's former partner having done the murder. Remember how he tagged along in the whole investigation?
I was watching carefully and Bayliss never interrogated him about his alibi.
He had just as much motive as the rest of them.
That's a very good point, kikko, I never thought about it, and you're right, he was never questioned, and he never had to have an alibi checked on, so if he was the one who did it he got away with it VERY easily.
shareMaybe I missed it, even after reading all of your posts. But - what was the name of the episode where "Gordon Pratt" appeared? I'm not sure I ever saw this one, so the reference would help. Sounds like one of the most captivating episodes... Watching re-runs on Centric and hope to catch this one.
Thanks if you can help!
That's a very good point, kikko, I never thought about it, and you're right, he was never questioned, and he never had to have an alibi checked on, so if he was the one who did it he got away with it VERY easily.
Found the title in the list of episodes - End Game.
Endgame is the episode with Pratt, scarrington, but the following episode - Law and Disorder - is the one with the investigation we've been discussing. Just so you know.
"I say Holmes, shotgun if I'm not mistaken, which might make it...a murder."
Now I have to go back and check on Mitch. Never gave that one a thought, but for what Munch always Mitch out to be based on Bolander's description of him, it would make sense with his loyalty to the job, the city and fellow officers/detectives.
shareI never suspected the major cast members of Homicide. Always assumed it was some extreme member of the BCPD. Mitch would fit the description, but his alibi seemed sound. I just cant imagine a Munch or Pembleton being able to do that.
Just some random police officer is my guess.
Well we know Pembleton couldn't because he can't shoot to save his OR his partner's lives. Though come to think of it has Munch ever shot anybody that we know of?
share[deleted]
[deleted]
Munch was a bit creepy when guilt-tripping that Poe-loving poet. Wouldn't surprise me if it was him, it's definitely one of the biggest unanswered events in the series.
shareI don't think it's just a question of motive. I think Munch's personality would make him very possibly Pratt's killer. Despite being a cynical jerk throughout the series, who seems unfazed by most things, he really does care about his friends and seems to think that Pratt got what he deserved. Also his shady behavior in the last episode was very suspicious. Throughout the series too, he seems to snap when nobody expects it, such as yelling and tearing apart a boy's room looking for a gun in "A Model Citizen", and nearly throwing an ashtray at Garty after Gharty brings up the bullying Munch experienced in school. I think Munch definitely had it in him to kill Pratt, but he was really good at acting nonchalant about it and hiding his actions later on. Of course, there are a number of others who could've done it. I think it's one of the biggest mysteries of the series, right up there with the killing of Adena Watson.
Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
I don't think Munch had the personality to kill him. Sure he may have not cared that someone did shoot him as he had witnessed Pratt shoot 3 of his colleagues but Munch's personality, being all existential and philosophical, he would've suffered lots of angst over it for a long time and wouldn't have been able to hide it or go on like he had never done it. It puzzles me how many people think Munch did it, it seems totally out of character for him. Yes he was prone to hotheaded moments but blowing someone's head off is over the top for him and not something he would do. Like I say, he was prone to angst and frequently pondered deep questions and there is no way he could shoot Pratt and then go on without showing any signs of being upset about it, he would've had lots of angst over it and he never hid his feelings well. He just happened to be the one with no alibi, but I have never understood why people think Munch did it, be side it would be totally OOC for him.
The one main character that it wouldn't be OOC for is Gee. Gee is extremely hot tempered and at times irrational, he was devastated over the shooting, he had the power to orchestrate the cover up in that the cops didn't respond to the call, he was never even questioned for an alibi by Bayliss, he did have the personality to commit a vigilante execution and not have angst about it, he has made comments about revenge and vigilantism, and he has a knowledge of vigilante cops and how they executed anyone who shot a cop, as shown in the season 4 episode Justice. He is a much more likely suspect than Munch in all regards, not only did he not have an alibi but his personality was much more vigilante like than the philosophical, deep thinking Munch.
Gee is very possible too. There are numerous characters who could've shot Pratt. Over-analyzing it too much though probably won't answer any questions. It's a fictional show. The makers of HLOTS seemed to be implicating Munch, and Richard Belzer said that while playing the role, he thought of himself as the vigilante, which is why I think so many viewers think it's Munch. However, Gee, being in charge of the department and feeling responsible for every detective, definitely had reason to want to kill off Pratt. Looking back on HLOTS a second time around as well, Munch seemed to be too traumatized to do much of anything other than wander around aimlessly in "The City that Bleeds". He had the motive, the lack of alibi and the attitude to kill Pratt, but not as much as Gee did. Nobody ever really outright interrogates Gee about murdering Pratt, probably because he was the top dog in Homicide and a friend to the other detectives, so they didn't even want to consider that their boss could be capable of such a thing. Because Munch is still a reoccurring character in many TV shows, there might still be a chance for the character to say whether or not he actually killed Pratt. If that happens, it might clear him and then Gee is really the only other character who had the motive and power to do it. Gee's wife was gone too, and his kids had long ago moved far away from him, so he had nothing left to lose in killing Pratt, whereas Munch still has a brother and an ex-wife whom he still seems to care about despite the divorce, both living close enough to be caught in whatever impact would be caused by Munch's arrest. Thinking about it further, Munch does seem less likely than Gee to kill Pratt, although both have reasons why they could have done it.
Canada, eh? 🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦🇨🇦 :)
"The 21st century is all flash but no substance." ~ Smog City
They both have the motive to do it, I just don't think Munch has the personality to do it. If he did it, he wouldn't have rebounded so quickly and acted like nothing happened, he would've suffered lots of angst over it. Gee wouldn't have though, he was irate over what happened and based on several of his comments he had knowledge of and almost approved of vigilante justice. Like you say, Gee had nothing to lose by doing it, and no one ever even thought to suspect him. So I think if it was any of the characters that we saw it would be Gee
share