Danny said what many people are feeling for a lot of reasons.

On Blue Bloods Season 10 Episode 13, he felt like he was living in Opposite World. For him, it was because his case was so weird.

But it was oddly comforting to know that every single one of the Reagans felt that sense of the world being topsy-turvy that has become all too common in modern times.

Danny's reason for feeling out of sorts was that his likely suspects were cooperative and his potential victim had disappeared.

But that wasn't that unusual. Not if he took a minute to think about it.

Yes, I killed his reputation, but I did not kill him.
Allison

Permalink: Yes, I killed his reputation, but I did not kill him.

The problem was that he was fixated on Allison Roth as the culprit. Everything felt bizarre and like it didn't fit because he was thinking of the wrong suspect.

The oddest thing about that was that Baez didn't have an alternate theory of the crime that she tried to convince him to look into.

Usually, she does, but this time she was just as fixated on the wife. So I guess it was Opposite Day after all.

Anyway, you'd think that the detectives would have taken a closer look at Melissa after everything they kept learning about her.

Sure, their theory of the case made sense...until it didn't.

Allison might have had a strong motive, but they had a suspect who disappeared, turned out to be pregnant with the victim's baby, and was going overboard insisting the deceased was a wonderful guy.

She wasn't the culprit either, but all of that should have set off some alarm bells.

Erin's case was strange and didn't make a lot of sense.

First of all, aren't defense attorneys entitled to witness' names before trial even without this law?

I guess the new law entitled them to contact info as well, but it's not like witness' identities don't come out during discovery most of the time.

And if the change in the law was that defense attorneys now got contact info, what was the purpose of that change?

Blue Bloods often presents a conservative point of view about criminal justice reform, and that's fine.

But in this case, it was one-sided. The architect of the law was off-screen and nobody defended it or even explained its point.

That weakened this story somewhat. It felt more agenda-driven than the typical Blue Bloods episode because it fell squarely into the category of "criminal justice reform is bad" instead of presenting an issue for viewers to make up their own minds on.

Meanwhile, this was the second time that Eddie begged Jamie not to tell IAB about something because she didn't want to be seen as a rat.

She's in a tough spot because she's married to the boss but wants to be a regular cop. Plus, it's probably harder for her to gain acceptance as a female cop, which probably contributes to her fear of breaking the thin blue line.

I don't like it, though, because nine times out of ten, asking Jamie to back off an investigation is asking him to participate in a cover-up. Besides, he's too stubborn and principled to listen.

Eddie was right this time, though. The issue had multiple layers.

There was the immigrant doctor who didn't make a lot of money getting squeezed out by a big urgent care clinic, the cops' sense of loyalty to the doctor who had helped them heal their injuries and get back to work, and of course, the fact that the cops were stealing private information and passing it on to their doctor friend.

This could have been solved easily by asking accident victims if they wanted a referral to the doctor. Some would and some wouldn't, but at least it would be above board.

The cops thought they were doing a good deed, but they were breaking the law and making the doctor look like a scam artist by getting him patients illegally.

So Jamie was right to call them on the carpet over it. But was he right to look the other way?

He wanted to put a stop to the cops stealing private info, and they agreed to stop, so for him, it was win-win to look the other way on their past behavior.

But what about the woman who complained, and other citizens who had their info stolen? Could Jamie's decision come back to bite him?

Finally, Frank's dilemma was one of the most interesting he'd had in a while.

As usual, Sid was predisposed to trust the cop over the citizen who was claiming excessive force -- but he conveniently forgot that the complainer was a cop too.

This all stemmed from tensions between the biker community and the cops. Sid, Connor, and even the undercover all referred to the bikers negatively and suggested the cops would never trust anything they said.

Frank would be wise to look into how to solve THAT problem because those tensions will boil over again if he doesn't.

Frank: Why not let someone else file a complaint?
UC: A bunch of bikers complaining? Who'd take them seriously? Look, you sent me out there to catch some bad guys. You didn't tell me only these bad guys.

Permalink: A bunch of bikers complaining? Who'd take them seriously? Look, you sent me out there to...

But as it was, the undercover agent was right.

Reporting on bad cops was just as much a part of his job as catching bad guys among the bikers, and he'd been beaten up badly.

He had every right to file a complaint, and since he was more likely to be believed than the bikers, he was right to be the first one to do so.

Sid was so heartbroken, though.

He tried so hard to give Connor the benefit of the doubt even after he had proof that Connor was guilty, and I can only imagine how hard it was for him to tell Connor that he was suspended.

Your turn, Blue Bloods fanatics.

What did you think about Danny's feelings of being stuck in opposite world, Jamie's ethical dilemma, and everything else that happened on Blue Bloods Season 10 Episode 13?