Ripping story concepts straight from the headlines is no new feat, a majority of the legal shows have been doing it for years. The latest CSI/Legal type show as of late to do so is ABC’s Body of Proof starring Dana Delaney (Desperate Housewives). In the upcoming episode, “Sympathy for the Devil”, a woman is accused of murdering her five year old but is eventually released after her case is processed through the legal system. Of course a couple of days later she is found murdered. The first thing that came to mind was the Casey Anthony trial, only this plays out like a what if scenario. Sure, many cases like this exist in the world, daily more then likely, but the first thing that will pop up into most people’s minds is Casey Anthony.

As the story moves on we come across yet another familiar type character named Sheila Temple, played by Marcia Gay Harden, who comes off as a cross between Nancy Grace if she ran a TMZ like show. The way in which Temple runs her show is like how the first guy who called for the townspeople to raise their pitchforks and torches to go kill Frankenstein worked. Then of course you have half the staff including detectives and examiners alike who feel as if this was coming anyway and good for whoever did it. It’s an interesting approach but all the more interesting wondering weather or not this is a dangerous game, considering Anthony is alive and well and all. Will this episode provoke people who already think she should have harm done to her or will it prove to enlighten people to the judicial system and respecting its fair and well thought out outcome? In any case it was a bit frustrating trying to distance myself from thinking about this episode in any other way but the obvious.

Body of Proof is heavily stocked with female actresses and a few familiar male actors. In the lead role you have Dana Delaney, her boss, played by Jeri Ryan (Boston Legal, Star Trek: Voyager), her mother Joan Hunt, played by Joanna Cassidy (Six Feet Under, Diagnosis Murder), and Sonja Sohn (The Wire, Cold Case), just to name a few. While there is a male presence it was rarely felt in this one episode. Maybe the show was going for more of a maternal tone in regards to the case rather then the primal one they so nonchalantly throw on every male character on the show, an aspect of the delivery that I felt fell flat.

In any case it was a bit frustrating to watch due to the extremes the show led the story in. In some aspects there was truth to it but in others it seemed like a poor device to move the story in one direction. The press is a monster, that pretty much sums up the whole idea of creating Harden’s character in its ridiculous high’s and seemingly flat truths. It also brought up some interesting concepts on what exactly freedom of the press means. Does it mean the press can act as a spark for vigilantism by putting personal opinions into people’s heads or does it mean offering up the cold hard facts in a non-bias way? Then again, at the same time you have to ask the same question about this episode. Is it really trying to relate to people that even though we think someone is guilty of an atrocity, as long as after they’ve been processed through the legal system and come out clean, that we should treat them as an innocent human being or is it plain dangerous to flirt with the idea of using a real person as a show storyline, except in this parallel story world that person is murdered? The questions do detract form the seemingly innocent entertainment aspect of the show. At least they did for me. I wouldn’t watch it a second time but if you’re into legal shows or medical examiner shows you might want to check this one out for yourselves and come to your own conclusions. As always final judgment is yours. Enjoy.