I'm having a LOT of logic problems with the ending. The outwardly upstanding guy doubling as a heroin dealer is one thing, but the upstanding guy who's also a trained (and hired) assassin and starts dealing heroin when he knows his brother will be involved AND then kills his brother AND was hired to kill Beckett's mom for unknown reasons ten years earlier? That's a hell of a balancing act on Occam's razor.

but the upstanding guy who's also a trained (and hired) assassin and starts dealing heroin when he knows his brother will be involved

He didn't know that his brother would be involved. He was dealing to the Latin Kings, and one of them started dealing on the Westies turf. The brother was sent to find the dealer/supplier and discovered it was his brother. Who, coincidentally also is or was a hired assassin.

He was dealing to the Latin Kings, and one of them started dealing on the Westies turf.

Ah, that was the disconnect. I still have trouble reconciling some of the details, but that part makes sense, at least.

ION: Sark! and CKR! on 24!

Whew.

Got that out of my system.

I need to rewatch the ending of Castle because I misunderstood. As soon as there was Heroin involved I knew that the brother (who'd been in Afghanistan) was also involved. But - I thought he was just the guy that the assasin was working for not that he was the assasin. Confused.

But - I thought he was just the guy that the assasin was working for not that he was the assasin. Confused.

They never thought that he was working for the assassin, they thought that he'd hired the assassin to have his brother killed . He gave them the information to hire the assassin in exchange for immunity (go Castle for risking 100K to catch Beckett's mother's killer! Also, I knew something was up when he insisted on his immunity kicking in when the contract was accepted). They figured out that he was the assassin because he knew that the person that Beckett had lost was female (flimsy, but okay). Also, he did mention that he and the assassin had been in the service together.

Castle was much fun, but quite hard to follow.

Or, what Frankenbuddha said.

I was expecting Castle to tell Scary Old Irish Crook who had pulled in the drugs that were on his turf, and who had likewise killed one of his men. I figured Scary Old Irish Crook would have the appropriate response to having an Irishman as the culprit, especially an Irishman who killed his own brother.

I quite liked the fact that the chief hood was old, it speaks to an appreciation of decades of evil-doing.

I was so afraid they'd have Kate do the standard "Here's my badge, I'm going after the guy who perpetrated-the-defining-crisis-of-my-life" moment.

I really like that Castle is a real person. I liked that when he reared back and busted the guy in the nose, he hurt the back of his head, and looked surprised that it hurt.

"You were like Steven Segall."

"Is that a compliment?"

OK, a quick questions for lawyers. A recent episode of a show that may or may not belong in procedurals had a plot where a character Videotaped his crime, and the videotape ended up the hands of his lawyer. The lawyer (according to the show) was required by legal ethics to keep this videotape confidential, but chose human ethics over legal ethics (because in Hollywood defense lawyers are not human) and anonymously mailed the tapes to the prosecutor.

IANAL. But the problem with this plot point, as I understand it, is that physical evidence is NOT covered by Lawyer-Client confidentialiy. The defense attorney in fact had a legal obligation to turn over these videotapes to the prosecution, and thus faced no ethical dilemma. True? Or has show got legal ethics right, and I have legal ethics wrong? Buffista lawyers?