For a few years, this show has not been available on my cable system, but now it is again. I was excited to see that it was, but, good grief, has this show gone downhill! Along with other reviewers bemoaning the awkward grafting of today's "sensibilities" onto early 20th Century society, I note that they do the same thing with the legal system. Here, finally, Murdoch has something concrete on the crooked coroner, sits her down for an interview, and she refuses to speak without her (of course, female) lawyer. Murdoch immediately stops. Granted, that's a way of life now, but does anyone really think that would work over a hundred years ago?
In the U. S., it was not until 1966 that Miranda, a 5-4 decision by a liberal Supreme Court, established a code of conduct for police interrogations of criminal suspects held in custody. However, even today, in Canada, adults do not have a right to have a lawyer with them in the room while they are being interviewed by the police. This interpretation of the Canadian "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" was confirmed by their Supreme Court in 2010 in Sinclair. Regardless, in the early 1900s?: The police would have continued to question the coroner to explain her actions.
And, BTW, the judicial gloss Justice Warren placed on the Fifth Amendment is that a person cannot be "compelled to incriminate himself." However, what the amendment actually SAYS on that issue is: "No person . . . Shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." In other words, what was intended was that a person could not be compelled to testify against himself AT TRIAL.
As for the plot of this particular episode? I agree with those who found the plotlines (of this and the last several episodes) to be dull, a rip-off of Misery (thank goodness for fast-forward buttons!), and a melange of various other non-appealing things. Notwithstanding their attempt at uplifting endings for all the regular characters, I'm so disappointed in this formerly engaging show.