nora1992

I was on the mother's side in the urn case, and can totally see the father seeing nothing wrong with giving his son drugs as a way to pass time. For me, keeping an urn of a loved one's ashes is morbid. Beyond that, what happens when the keeper dies? Two generations removed, and the ashes/urn are just one of many tkotches for a descendant to dispose of. 50 years from now, will anyone care about the ashes of someone who died years before that person was born? Just like the forgotten graves at cemeteries - but on a shelf, next to junk mail and a collection of ----. And the mother's crying reminded me of how I cry. My tears are there, but are overshadowed by my cauterwauling. It didn't seem like a put down to me.

Reptilian evil! What a great phrase! But isn't it amazing how both parents can work AND homeschool their kids? Mom works with Univision and other networks, yet still finds the time to homeschool her children. Perhaps that is the solution to boosting the pay of teachers across the land: they can obviously work two jobs with ease, even when it means teaching students in three different grades at the same time. Or would that be akin to holding four jobs at the same time, if each grade is counted as a separate job? But a note about the daughter (JJ was wise to remove her from the courtroom): did she say she was 11? Her speech sounded similar to that of some current third-graders I know. Perhaps she isn't allowed to speak up much in the home? I kind of got the same impression of the wife. Is the plaintiff's new house really in foreclosure? Will there be a case related to adverse possession/squatter's rights next?

About this case: the instigator of this all (was his name Matt?) reminded me of James Spader from practically any movie from the 1980s, but especially Pretty in Pink: the semi-good looking guy who can think of nothing better to do than amuse himself by creating trouble in the lives of others and then standing back and watching it all unfold. That kid is trouble. And the doctor's son who went only went along because he had nothing better to do? Better he learn that hard lesson now instead of when he's older and the stakes are higher. Staying home and watching the grass grow is something better to do than get swept up in someone else's drama, especially when that someone is adept at avoiding the harshest consequences of his actions. From my armchair quarterbacking position: Dr. Mommy's son isn't the alpha bully-er, but part of the chorus of hanger's on - the toadies who are the perpetual back-up singers for the bullies. Dr. Mommy should send the chorus singer for some assertiveness training; he didn't seem as bad as James Spader 2.0, but he has to find his own backbone.

He said it so often, it was a throwback to The Princess Bride:

I wish JJ would ask for clarification from one of the (I assume) dozens of millennials on staff: electronic signatures ARE NOT ELECTRONIC VERSIONS OF AN ACTUAL SIGNATURE! I've applied for jobs, 100% online, and just checked a box acknowledging that typing my name into the following field would be my "electronic signature." I could have submitted something under the name of Daffy Duck, and the system would believe that Daffy Duck had submitted a signature, not I. That poor girl should try her luck on People's Court: Judge Marilyn would actually look at the actual, 21st century evidence, instead of burying her head in the sand of 1980s technology. And if Judge Marilyn didn't understand, she would have researched it beyond asking another non-techie. The plaintiff did everything she could, but JJ's idea of advanced technology seems to be a fax machine.

Was yesterday's case about the two exes and the fight for half of the medical costs new or a repeat? I haven't seen any discussion about it, so will assume it was new. I LOVED how JJ just took one look at the new girlfriend and removed her from the courtroom. What a great dad - he can't find the time to see the kids he created in six years, but he does find the time to create a relationship with a new woman. And still, he balks at paying for the cost of glasses for his children because HE DOESN'T THINK THEY NEED THEM? How the eff would he know - he hasn't seen them in six years!!!!! Are they supposed to wait until he gets more vacation time than he knows what to do with, so he can go visit them when he literally has nothing better to do? Until then, are they supposed to trip over everything because their vision is impaired? And the poor girl who had to have five teeth extracted just to be fitted with braces - she's supposed to wait for him to agree that the treatment is necessary? What a tool. I've been in the same position as his daughters, but I have a strong mother. I hope his girls do, too, since the father seems too preoccupied with everything else in the world.

It could be - I wish I could give it the proper level of consideration. My problem is that watching the band rehearsal has lead to "Thor & Dr. Jones" getting stuck in my head. That is a catchy tune, darn it!

I get the need to blame someone, but picking on someone for the way she looks/sounds doesn't seem to be in keeping with the rest of Nancy's demeanor. The pages I read almost all include a Bible quote or reference to a special blessing she's received. Write about how horrific Nancy finds carrying on with another woman's husband, but claiming that NEARLY EVERYONE finds the other woman's voice irritating? Didn't Jesus say something about she who casts stones? It made the rest of the blessing/missions excerpts read false to me. And I don't even know the other woman's name; I am not on her side. But even the victim can aim low, and that intro is a LOW BLOW. If you must, cast aspersions on what people CAN change about themselves - one's appearance/voice might be modified, but why should it have to be?

After watching Friday's show and reading these posts (and agreeing with the comments about the daughters), I felt nothing but sympathy for Nancy. She seemed like such a sweetheart. After finding the link to the ebook, apparently she does have claws. From the intro: "At what point does a good man become someone else? Is it when he looks across a casino floor and sees a woman whom he decides to approach, a less-than-beautiful woman with a voice that irritates most people? Surely Satan has better tools." Horrific experience notwithstanding, my first reaction to reading this? Meeeeeooooooooowwwwwwwwwwwwww. I usually don't have much sympathy for the "other woman" but she was not the main tool - your husband is!

The drama started well before the wedding day. Pointing out that the man you're about to marry had to steal the ring he gave you is not creating drama - just alerting you to that. I'd want to know if the man I was about to marry was that much of a a**. If he could do that to the sister who adored him, how would he treat me down the road? And I couldn't wear the ring, knowing how it was obtained. I've always thought that the sentiment behind the wedding had to be real; the jewelry doesn't. Like earlier posts mentioned, the destination wedding wasn't cheap - so why steal from your sister? It has been a recurring theme after some episodes where people have pointed out that every victim is the most wonderful, most thoughtful, most special person you'd ever meet. I think this episode breaks that pattern.

Micki was about the worst mother I have seen on a true crime show - omitting the mothers who killed their own children, of course. She stole a ring from her daughter, plotted with her son to fool that daughter, and then pointed the police in her daughter's direction when her son was shot? And then the remaining brother just washes his hands of it, leaving his sister to take all the blame? Everyone was blaming the daughter for something that HER MOTHER AND BROTHER SET IN MOTION! Both mother and son should have been in prison for theft - does that merit grand larceny? What kind of a jerk has the bright idea of trying to fool his sister with cubic zirconia? The actual murderer was a depraved and selfish individual, but I have never seen a mother disregard the well-being of one child for the convenience of another in such a selfish way before. Jewelry can be bought on layaway! He could have made payments to his sister if he wanted that ring so bad, but instead, mother and son treated the daughter like an inconvenient afterthought. That woman is a piece of work. And she thinks she did nothing wrong. I thank God she is not my mother, and that my mother is nothing like her. All the sympathy I have in this case goes to the daughter.

Bill won't win any husband of the year contests, but why would he want to get rid of his wife when she was the one who brought all the money in? Was there an insurance policy too? If he didn't want to share the inheritance in a divorce, why not get a divorce after the 35-year mark? How could Adam have done it when he was 300 miles away? Did ANYONE have a strong reason to want Mary dead? And yet she is. And only one person tried to share suspicions through an anonymous letter, instead of calling the police and telling what she knew in person. Katie reminds me of liars I've known, whose lies I've fallen for: everything seems so plausible, until questioned. Once questioned, there is more hostility than cooperation: how DARE you question me? Which is then followed by crocodile tears: but I'm only trying the BEST for YOU. These lies then lead to divisions, as the liar had enjoyed widespread popularity before the incident; even after the lie was proven to be false, the popularity remained. I'm projecting my own bias into the situation, but given the evidence that was presented, and the resemblance to the most devastating liars I've encountered, I think she did it.

But this is what keeps me from believing Katie is totally innocent: the son is the real murderer, and he had sense enough to access the email only from his girlfriend's phone, but not sense enough to have a more anonymous/generic email? Why go to all the trouble of commandeering her phone and forget to create a mymotherisawesome@gmail.com address to help him avoid detection? Especially when everything else points to someone else?

But even when the husband didn't want patients to know he was in the office, at least one staff member did. Did the police ever check on where the husband was that day? Look at the Russ Faria case - it seems like it takes a lot (and more than 5 alibi witnesses) to get police out of the "husband did it mode." If there was even a slight crack in the husband's alibi, my opinion is the police would have kept digging. Whatever first sickened her came at some point during the day. The show never said where the husband was, but it did say the son was 300 miles away. How did the poison get from son's Jeep to mother's system? Why was the poison kept after it was administered? Katie had once before involved authorities in a fight with the son - would he be so naïve as to confess to her that he killed his mother? How, from so great a distance? Would he enlist her help? Why? The relationship was volatile. I think Katie wrote the letter thinking she was that much smarter than everyone; turns out, she was not as smart as she thought she was. Husband and son were not presented as the Pam Hupps of this case, immunity or not. The family is always under suspicion, and a lot of evidence is needed to divert suspicion away.

I didn't like the sisters co-opting the grief of the family. It started when the nurse-sister mentioned that one of the Yoder daughters (maybe doctor-daughter), told nurse-sister that the toxicology screens that NURSE-SISTER suggested were going to be done.....wouldn't any of the attending physicians, or the doctor-daughter, have asked for a tox screen? But nurse-sister was taking credit for it, because no one else involved would have thought of it? At first I liked Mary's sisters, but they managed to turn the tragedy into something all about them. Perhaps that is why the Yoder daughters came off as over dramatic, because they knew they'd be competing against the Greek chorus of the mourners-in-chief. And why I think Katie was the only one behind it? The email address she made up and used in her attempt to frame her boyfriend: a title, first name, last name, year of birth? That is just one step removed from IDIDIT-NOTKATIE@gmail.com. ayoder, adamyo, a.yoder, yodera, or even something without a person's name, like yoderchirocliniconeida@gmail.com, and I would have wondered who really was the creator of that email address. But I believe it was part of Katie's cockamamie plot to have it all come back to Adam, and away from her. The email showed some evidence of planning; not well-reasoned thought, but planning. I don't know why. Not that I have to know why, either. I think she is too smart to let herself be a victim, but not smart enough to make someone else the perpetrator.

I have a friend from Florida who didn't buy the shovel, but bought everything else in your example, while preparing for Irma. When she described the purchase on Facebook, she admitted to feeling conspicuous when those items were scanned. But perhaps the purchase was mitigated by the cases of water and canned food she bought at the same time....

That would be news to Beethoven's mother - http://www.classicfm.com/composers/beethoven/guides/maria-magdalena-beethoven-mother/

Did anyone else see the rerun of the New York kayaking case? I don't believe it was murder, and this case is the last straw in persuading me to NEVER talk to the police without a lawyer present. Did the ME even look at a kayak to determine where the plug was before coming to the conclusion of murder? She probably removed the plug, but she didn't pour the alcohol down his throat and prevent him from wearing a life jacket. This was a stupid, senseless accident. If she really wanted him dead, why call 911 at all? Why not wait until she knew it was too late, than come up with a sob-story after reaching land? Did anyone investigating this bother to test a kayak before rushing to judgment?

But I had the feeling the defendant had no intention of ever repaying a cent of the plaintiff's money, and deliberately cobbled together an "investment agreement" instead of an IOU. Defendant still gets the money, but never has to pay it back.

Bow is great, but the writers really let her down. For that matter, did no one else notice the obvious and nails-on-chalkboard grammar mistake? When Bow was describing the growing bond "between Santamonica and I." This isn't an obscure future tense subjunctive break of the rules of grammar - this is as basic as it gets. Around your birthday, does anyone ask friends to "send I a present?" I hope not! Because that would be wrong. Between is a preposition, which means it must be followed by an objective case pronoun. Did the show's writers EVER study grammar? Stupid mistakes stand our more than good quality, at least to me. If I heard my doctor make that kind of stupid mistake, unless she was removing her own appendix at the time, I would find a new doctor. Someone should have known better. If production values can turn night into day and vice versa, then someone can do a voiceover for a one word mistake like that. Grammar DOES matter!

Hadn't heard of David Charvet before last night's challenge, and now only wish I was still in the dark. What a jerk. Really, I'm speechless that he was so reluctant to support his wife by sitting behind her on a motorcycle in a photo shoot. He strikes me as the type of father who texts his wife incessantly when a child gets sick and she's not home to take care of the sick toddler. Incidents like this make me feel relieved that I'm single.

I believe the plaintiff's statement that the dog jumped over the fence. And why was there a tire in front of the gate? Are the defendant's daughters any more believable than the plaintiff's daughter from a case last week (the one where JJ believed the defendant's witness from across the street and not the plaintiff or her daughter)? If the mother has already lost one homeowner's insurance policy, then she is as motivated to persuade her daughters to lie as the plaintiff from last week, who wasn't even being sued (if I recall the case correctly).

I can't comment on the circumstances of the case; the only thing that is definite is the fact that someone got away with murder. But watching this show, I have to ask: how close was the pilot's wife to the family, really? In other words, was the relationship close enough that she was an invited guest barbecues, or was she allowed in because she picked up last minute but necessary items and the family wasn't totally boorish? Not having followed this case beyond the headlines, I couldn't shake the impression that the pilot's wife held the Ramseys in some esteem, and was grateful for even the smallest crumb of attention from the family. I hope I'm wrong, but was this a relationship a real friendship, or was it more like a fan club? Can anyone add any details to this?

I have a question about the storage wars/flea market case. This is how I view the situation; is this how it actually worked out? 1) Plaintiffs loan defendants $3K. 2) Defendants pay back $2K of the amount, by allowing the plaintiff to work in the store. In other words, the plaintiff had to go work for the defendants in order to get the loan back? I was distracted while watching; did I miss something else to explain it? The plaintiff essentially paid the defendant to go work for him? And no one caught that?

I laughed when that line was given. She co-hosted for a few seasons, after Pierce Brosnan's wife (whose name I can't remember) left.