Let's begin clarifying that I found the characters appealing. Amanda Schull is lovely in her role. Dr Rachel is a kind, wholesome person. Brendan Penny has a charming, solid male role, as Detective Jack. Even their sentimental interaction is played with subtle, gentle touch.
The mystery is somewhat convoluted, yet acceptably engaging.
Where the shows falls apart is in the details, that some may want to overlook, if concentrating in the pleasantness of the characters, but disturbing to any viewer who approached the thriller with a critical mind.
As seen in other Hallmark mysteries, it makes poor sense that an amateur sleuth, a family practice physician in the present one, could go around meddling with official police investigation so easily. Why should all possible suspects even pay attention to her inquisitions? And why should the detective in chart let her get involved and share in his investigations?
Then, the highly intelligent and inquisitive physician is portrayed as a medical jackass. How could a physician ordered an MRI, just to please a patient, clinically in excellent shape, to screen for a prostate cancer? It is an idiotic abuse of an expensive test, and a choice that would make a physician fail any examination, besides never been approved by any Insurance plan. And how could she make a firm diagnosis of "diverticulitis" in a patient just admitted in hospital?. While the diagnosis should be suspected as a possible cause of symptoms, it would take time and complex testing to prove it. And How could a family practitioner spend considerable time meddling in a police investigation for days? Does she not have patients to attend?
Then, before the cause of the victim's death is known, Jack states that a suspect had a solid alibi. How does he know what time the alibi should cover?
Unfortunately, the above is nothing, compared to the main issue. The coroner in the case is made to look like an unprofessional idiot. How could a M. E. dogmatically state that a man, apparently in excellent health and found suddenly dead, has died of natural causes and no autopsy is needed? If the law has not recently changed, the event requires a certificate of cause of death by an attending physician. In this situation the only attending physician would and could not sign such document, in all conscience. By law, an autopsy should have been mandatory and exhaustive enough to keep searching for a cause. No coroner should be satisfied to declare the death as due to natural causes, if the initial results of the autopsy reveal no apparent causes. Where was Dr Quincy all this time? So, the entire drama of the first half of the movie, spent by family and authorities opposing to a medical examination of the corpse is total nonsense.
Finally, I hope I have not missed it, I do not recall if the movie explains how the poison was administered to the victim. Somewhere a hypodermic needle was mentioned.
If so, how could the victim let anybody do that to him? There was no evidence he was rendered unconscious, and the scene of the crime showed no evidence of struggle. Was not this an essential element in reconstructing the crime?
In summary, a reasonably entertaining show, with serious flaws. The script writer should be ashamed of putting together a story with absolutely no understanding of basic principles of medicine, medical legality, and logic.
2 out of 3 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
