nora1992

I just watched The House, and have so many questions. But what if this is a case where the murderer killed Scott to put the wife in prison? Someone heartless enough to kill him in order to get her in prison. I know this has no basis in what was shown in the show - but this show was so incomplete.

I did like the Howard the Duck t-shirt, followed by the appearance of Lea Thompson.

Regarding the paternity suit/protective order case, is it known whether or not the defendant is the father? I left the case without an answer, but did catch the comment about defendant’s thinking the plaintiff would need financial support. Was it ever said if the child is receiving SS benefits because the plaintiff’s husband died? If the child is, then wouldn’t a paternity case throw those benefits into doubt?

Wasn’t her ex sleeping on a couch in his sister’s house in the pilot?

In another generation, Jana would be a contestant/runner-up on The Bachelor. Has Missy had a growth spurt unmatched by Sheldon? She hasn’t stood up next to Sheldon in a while.

His reaction when Georgie was told he should cut his hair! Reminds me of Meatloaf’s lyrics: he’d do anything for love, but he won’t do that.

The phone eavesdropping took me back: it would happen all the time when I was little, and there were only two phones in the house. Sweet how George calmed Sheldon. Missy is an unsung treasure.

When you're being billed for money you don't have and can't afford to pay, and realize you've fallen for the promises of someone who doesn't care that you can't pay the rest of your bills, you are desperate. Was she foolish for signing in the first place? Yes. But who here can just watch patiently while the bill balloons? The discussion of what she tried to do with Hertz was shutdown; her first resort DID involve the company. And take him to small claims court? He didn't have the assets to rent his own car; what would be the point of a judgment? If you've never been in that situation, you won't understand how the worry takes over and you can't do anything until the immediate problem is fixed. If the defendsnt had taken his mother's debit card and drained her bank account, he'd be guilty of theft. Adding a third party to the mix doesn't absolve him of guild.

Her solution was driven by desperation. If she had the legal responsibility for payment but was denied access to the car from her son, then it was stolen. The report was made after many attempts to get the son to return the car, and he ignored them. If this happened overnight, I’d agree with you; but it didn’t. This reminds me of the roommate cases where whoever is left behind is expected to mitigate the loss by finding another roommate. It didn’t seem like he was imprisoned for 9 days because of this alone; the drugs found in the car were a glossed-over factor. What other recourse did the mother have to mitigate her loss?

Just catching up on all the sweeps episodes, and am struck again by JJ’s total inability to imagine the struggles people without a safety net have. In particular, the car buyer who had to travel by bus, and the woman who reported the rental car stolen when her son neither returned nor paid for it. Buses do break down, and connections are missed. The plaintiff can’t control that. What is he supposed to do, charter a private jet? I agree that the defendant should be able to keep some of the deposit for the removal of the car from the website, but $500? The defendant didn’t sell the car to the subsequent buyer at a reduced price because of anything to do with the plaintiff. Why should he be able to keep so much? And the rental car case: the mother wasn’t outrageous. She can’t afford to pay for the car indefinitely, and the son won’t return it. She’s in debt because her son doesn’t care. I believe she tried everything she could to get her name removed, and her son’s added. Reporting it as stolen was the last resort. The mother tried to salvage her credit, and the results are unfortunate, but primarily the son’s doing. She was paying for something she couldn’t use and couldn’t return. How is that not theft?

The Stermer boys seem like they were brainwashed by their father. Of course it’s normal for grown men to push girls around, the girls are just going to exaggerate anyway. The way they insisted the mother had sedated their father, when nothing was found in the blood screen. They’re not going to let facts get in the way of their father’s victimization narrative.

I would not be surprised if Cemetery Guy winds up eclipsing both John and Dale; he just seemed so very kind in his screen time, and can relate to Connie's grief more than either of the other suitors.

Just catching up on yesterday’s episode: did anyone else wonder if the two Poore brothers were ever referred to as the po’ boys? My mind wanders when I’m hungry.....

I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Jackie had stayed on land during the test of seaworthiness. This is a horrible story, driven by the actions of despicable people. But maybe other boat sellers have thought of the Hawks and used a fail-safe for their own safety. But these despicable murderers probably had a plan if one or both of them had remained behind. They don’t come any lower than the happy couple who picks up a video camera to record Thanksgiving, and hide behind a toddler in a police interrogation. What happened to the notary - was she charged too?

I actually feel sorry for the plaintiff. I think she’s totally overwhelmed by son and soon-to-be-ex DIL, but still has to be the brains of the household. She’s wrong about so many things, but I get the feeling she really doesn’t know better.

I thought the necklace was striking. Unsolved Mysteries was routine viewing for me; I remembered this case as soon as I heard “card shop” in the beginning. Good to know the case is solved. Did some of the store photos have “Store Closing” signs in the window? Did this tragedy end the store too?

If Thursday’s plaintiff had physically harmed his wife, then the kids would have an opinion. Throwing a homemaker out on her ear after nearly 40 years of not working is physically harmful. How will she support herself? Even if she can claim plaintiff’s SS income in retirement, does that mean SS pays out twice as much as was put in, since he’ll claim his own SS too? I’ve always wondered how that works. If 2x as much gets paid out, then his divorce is harming all of us. As for Friday’s case, didn’t the defendant give an estimate for the cost before starting? And what happened to his acknowledged, frequent 7-Eleven gas purchases? If he underbid the costs, and there was a contract, tough. He’s the expert. It’s like the plaintiffs ordered a steak from the defendant, and then, after cooking the steak, the defendant raised the cost.

I think that's why last week's episode was the rerun of them meeting from season 2.

It seems like they almost caught up to him in time to save Meredith; that is the worst thing in these 3 heartbreaking cases. If only there was a quicker way to flag ATM transactions for police.

I’m torn about the case and the two single mothers: on the one hand, a pre-teen did sneak out in the middle of the night on a babysitter’s watch, but I find it hard to believe it was the first time he ever did something like that. He seemed to know what he was about, and managed to get a disabled companion and a toddler with him; that takes practice. The plaintiff shouldn’t have to carry the entire burden. What is it teaching the defendant’s son if he can hide behind someone else’s negligence? Unless the plaintiff was passed out in a stupor, the defendant should have had to pay something. In JJ’s America, shouldn’t the kid have to learn there are consequences for bad behavior? Again, I keep coming back to the sequence of events: 12-year-old steals keys, gets a physically challenged peer and a toddler outside without waking anyone else in the house, drives off in car and crashes it. Maybe the driving was the first time, but it seems like the rest had been done before. If he had injured someone, then would the mother have been charged with child neglect too, for leaving him with the plaintiff? It just seems as if he’s been spared any consequences from bad actions; it will come as a shock to him when he finally is held responsible. Again, I don’t think the plaintiff was blameless, but there is so much blame to go around, the 12-year-old should (or his mother) should feel it too.

NBC purchased the rights years ago; they found the loophole.

I miss the 80s, when It’s A Wonderful Life was in the public domain.....

I thought it was sent from Downing Street at first.

The shark has been jumped. Nothing more to say.

Isn't the actor who played the neighbor/auto mechanic now starring in a different CBS show? We probably won't see him again, unless the part is recast.