Marsupial

Agreed! I'll miss seeing all these talented, original people, even the ones I didn't like. I am glad I discovered Darci Lynne, Sara & Dogs, Diavolog and Bello Knock, acts who apparently have had success but weren't household names yet, and acts like Greater Good, Preacher Lawson, Tim London and Just Jerk who were thrilling or just plain fun to watch. Won't miss that brat Angelica, boring/weird Chase (how do you manage to be both?) and the rest of the nameless sob-story singers. Kelly Clarkson is a really amazing singer.

LOL that is funny (the Comcast glitch blocking out Preacher) even though I like him...but I have Comcast and I didn't get the medieval family! Still wish they had kept that first magician Tim London (he was much better than Eric IMO), Bello and Just Jerk,.I'd much rather have had all of them instead of the endless parade of child singers.

Evie sounded awful, but she isn't that talented. Angelica is, but I still don't want her to win. And I still don't get the love for Chase, at all. But I tend to not like singers winning on these shows, anyway. I just don't think there's any way to compare what a singer does with what a group like Diavolo or Just Jerk (yes, still bitter) or a performer like Bello do. Yeah, it's probably Darcie's to lose, and she deserves it. She is incredibly talented! My votes went to Sara & Hero, Diavolo and Preacher Lawson (he had a bad night tonight but I have found him appealing).

I am a huge fan of Sara and Hero, but do I think they would make a good Vegas act? No, but Sara's training abilities and her bond with those dogs is truly amazing. She has done something remarkable and I am happy that being on ATG will open her up to new possibilities. Winning isn't all; simply getting exposure on this type of show often leads to great opportunities (e.g. the past season loser who has his own show in Vegas now, and many other examples). My personal favorites, who I'd be happy to see win -- -- Darcy Lynne, Diavolo, Preacher, Sara and Hero Those whose win would make me lose all faith in humanity (well, at least the ATG voting public of humanity) -- -- Chase, Evie and Angelica, although I know I'm fighting a losing battle on that last one. I'd be OK with Light Show Balance although they don't knock me out that much. I'm still bitter about Just Jerk.

The point is that they never even considered the possibility that she was still alive at that time. They totally disregarded it, were not even aware of it. What about the fact that Strawberry Shortcake stated she based her entire conviction on the "fact" that the dog trailer caught Laci's scent on the pier? This AFTER the dog and trainer were both completely discredited. A man's life was at stake here and that was the best this jury could do? He assumed that Laci was at her parent's house, which was where she had been planning to go. He assumed she had gotten a ride with someone because her car was still at the house. He didn't realize that she wasn't there until her father called him asking when they were planning to arrive. As to his calm demeanour during questioning, so what? Other killers have wept like babies and wailed for their lost loved ones after killing them. It proves nothing. And polygraphs are notoriously unreliable. I wouldn't take one if I were being questioned about a crime I didn't commit. A lot of the "evidence" mounted against Peterson are that he wasn't a nice guy (he was calm! He screwed another woman! he didn't want to feel the baby kick! he lied!) BUT NONE OF IT proves that he killed Laci.

Here's a summary of the burglary connection, since accounts of it have been confusing: http://pwc-sii.com/Research/burglary/medina.htm

You're far from dumb. It seems clear that Scott Peterson's guilt is still being hung on a very flimsy evidentiary frame. I am not saying he's innocent, but I am saying that he definitely did not get a fair investigation or trial, and his case deserves to be re-opened. This documentary points to a lot of issues that the press misrepresented at the time--(shocking, I know, but "fake news" didn't start with the Trump era, remember, these are the same people who told you that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9-11 attacks). It's clear that there was juror misconduct in this case, and despite the dismissive remarks made here about it, a juror who lies or withholds important information is a very serious legal matter. The Scott Peterson jurors had two replacements, one being Nichelle Rice (Strawberry Shortcake) who came in at the last minute. The jury deliberated NINE HOURS on a death penalty case!?! WTF. I was on a jury for a minor drug deal where the guy sold drugs to an undercover cop and it took us almost two days to reach a verdict and agree on a sentence!! In a case with NO physical evidence, it's clear they didn't even do a token deliberation of the circumstantial evidence, which was also weak. After the trial, the jurors were interviewed by a CNN reporter about several pieces of defense evidence that clearly contradicted the state's case (e.g. the fact that Laci was on her computer at 9:45 that morning), and they were all like "duh, compu what??" Apparently, they didn't even look at the evidence. The OJ jury gets slammed a lot for their acquittal, but they made the right decision based on the crappy case the state put forward. In this case, I think Peterson can make a fair case that his defense did not present as strong a case as it should have and that there was very serious juror misconduct. I think it is useful to view this documentary as a starting point to examine what really happened in this case. I wouldn't base an answer (guilty or innocent) on the basis of one documentary or book or article or whatever, but a dispassionate analysis of the facts. Granted, I take a polarizing stand on many high-profile cases but I like to think that I do so out of a considered, dispassionate look at the facts. I'm sure I get it wrong sometimes but I try to make an honest effort, and I think that Scott Peterson deserves the same consideration.

Maybe, instead of the experts, they should have each person's closest friends and family members, or even coworkers, match them? People who know them well and see them regularly, know their dating history and their dislikes. Surely they would do better than the so-called experts...hard to see how anyone could do worse! In all the show's seasons there have really only been two successful couples, Courtney and Jason from S1 and Tom and Lily from the current one.

Everybody here has stated my own thoughts so clearly there is no need to elaborate, but I really want to see what happens at the reunion. I am sad for Sonia that she decided to stick it out with Nick, there is zero love there and she really did make herself look desperate. Nick reminds me of the character of whom Zhivago said, "He has a rare gift for making people unhappy--particularly women." I have liked Tom and Lily from day one and continued to do so, and am glad they stayed together. I think they have a real chance. Agreed! Although it also really highlighted how jarringly different the two relationships are. I think Tom and Lily were a little stunned at how detached the other two seemed from each other. Not the lack of physical affection but the emotional distance. When Sonia made that comment about Nick wanting to be handed the perfect partner, it was very telling, like an SOS signal. Yes! A hundred times yes, watching these shows is like watching WWE, it would not be nearly as fun without the commentary!

As a longtime horror with a preference for classic old-school terror, I would add 1. "Wolf Creek", a superb and terrifying story that takes its time building to the horror and actually makes you care about the characters. 2. The original "Last House on the Left" directed by Wes Craven. 3. Anything Sam Raimi but for real fun, "Drag me to Hell." 4. "The Conjuring." 5. I have seen "Rosemary's Baby" 100 times I think LOL and it never fails to amaze me.

I know I'm being totally manipulated by this show, but I don't care, it sucker-punches me every time and I fall harder and harder. This episode was wonderful in every moment, and Kevin's description of his painting, accompanied by the various scenes from past and present of this family, had me riveted and, finally, moved to tears. Agree 100%, I love Toby but this was just OTT. Yes, absolutely right. As a fanatical football fan, I do not want to make conversation with a stranger during the game. I want to watch the game. And sports fans are notorious for their off-the-wall superstitions and rituals. I DEMAND to know what happened to Clooney! Seriously, you cannot introduce that plot point and just let it drop!!! William clearly loves/loved that cat, traveling hours every day to make sure he was fed, and from all appearances no arrangements have been made to take care of Clooney. In real life, or iina plot with some semblance of credibility, someone would be offering him a ride every day, or paying for a pet-sitter, or SOMETHING. This irritated me, but I'm always irritated by storylines that insinuate that women who say they don't want kids just don't know any better. People who want kids should not marry people who emphatically state (as she apparently did) that they never want kids, and that is certainly not a difference that can be resolved over a few drunken conversations during a football game. It's a plot detail I really wish they had left out. All that said, I still love this show and continue to look forward to the next episode.

She was given an interpreter and when Mignini began his formal interrogation of her, he twice offered her a lawyer. She refused both times, and signed a document waiving her right. Amanda thought she was smart enough to outwit the system and didn't need a lawyer. Besides, she already had a fall guy lined up. Yes, false confessions happen. Unfortunately Amanda's false "confession" was not about herself, it implicated somebody else, a completely innocent man. As to the DNA not picked up for 45 days, again, that was in a sealed room that nobody went into and it was conclusively proven to be Sollecito's. What is an explanation for his DNA being in the bloody bra clasp of a murdered woman?

Rudy Guede had no criminal history, which is part of the reason that his sentence was reduced from 30 to 16 years. The other part being that he was proven to not have killed her. His sentence was as a co-conspirator with other, unnamed assailants, one of whom actually killed Meredith. That's not a theory, that was the official sentencing judgment. I'm not saying Rudy is an innocent lamb, btw. The three of them are horrible people for what they did.

That mixed blood showing DNA of both women was found throughout the house, including Filomena's room which was where the staged break-in was. And there is no DNA of Rudy's in there. It supports the idea that Knox and Sollecito staged the break-in after murder. And it wasn't tiny spots, whatever Amanda said; in the pictures under the Luminol they are very large stains. As to the bra clasp, is there any explanation for Sollecito's DNA being in that blood that is innocent? (In the BBC documentary, they interview one of the world's leading experts in DNA typing, who states that despite all the "contamination" claims there is no possible way that DNA belongs to anyone but Sollecito.) She also tried to claim that the blood came from her pierced earrings. There were also two long, blond hairs found on Meredith's body, one in her hand and one in her vaginal area. I don't think they were Rudy's. There was also evidence that someone did a pretty thorough cleanup job with bleach, and Amanda was seen buying bleach at a store on the morning after the murder. And also reality, as in the Moors murders, the Bernardo-Homolka rape-murders, the Gallegos, the Hillside Stranglers and numerous other seemingly normal people who went through life without being crazed killers until they met someone that, for whatever reason, sparked a homicidal flame in both of them. In the Homolka-Bernardo saga, Paul was perfectly fine "just" being a rapist until he met Karla and then they both decided the best way to spice up their sex life was through shared torture, rape and murder, including of Karla's own sister. And they were even more "normal" seeming than Amanda and her beau. It's odd and unusual but certainly not unheard-of. In the BBC documentary that's available online, and that does a much better job of fairly showing both sides, there's a recording of a conversation Rudy had while he was hiding out in Germany, with a friend, in which he clearly states that the other two were involved. But in this case that wasn't just some random theory, it was actually an integral part of every court document in this long, long case. In Rudy Guede's sentencing report it states clearly that there was more than one killer. So do the appeals court and Supreme Court summations. Nobody listening to the evidence and weighing it ever believed that Rudy acted alone. Another point that often gets overlooked: in Rudy's sentencing, it was clearly stated that he was not the actual killer, only an accomplice. Hi DNA was not found on the murder weapon OR the smaller knives. And again, you have to ask, what is an innocent explanation for the existence of Amanda's and Meredith's mixed blood all over the house, even if not specifically in that one room? What is an innocent explanation for Sollecito's? If you say that the DNA convicts Rudy, it convicts them too. You can't have it both ways.

Your point about the Italian police is well taken. They arrested Lumumba with no other evidence and didn't release him until patrons from his bar came forward and testified talking to him there during the night in question. It was an ugly and embarrassing episode in this whole mess. No kidding! I would sleep with one eye open.

Absolutely, SimoneS. And the only person convicted was a young black man who didn't have a rich family or a gullible American press backing him. Rudy Guede was on his own and he ended taking the fall for all three.

John Noretti! Yes, that would have been great. I loved that episode, too, especially the end when Dorothy comes home and tells her mom all about the prom, just like a high school girl. And agree about George and Blanche. They really did a good job showing why they were such a good match. He was awful. A tightwad, an intellectual snob and a whiner. Ugh. Rose could be a pain in the ass but even she deserved better. Of course, who can forget Dorothy's fling with the Beatles impersonator? The best part of that episode was how crazy it drove Sophia.

I get what you're saying, and I don't expect everyone to be as crazed as I am LOL...here's a brief rundown: Here too. 1. Blood containing Amanda's and Meredith's DNA, mixed, was found in numerous places in the cottage although not in Meredith's room. It was in the bathroom sink, on the bidet faucet, on the light switch, on a box of cotton balls, in the bloody footprints on the floor and several other places. Some of it was not revealed until investigators used Luminol and investigators believed that someone had used bleach to clean the bloodstains that were not immediately visible. 2. On the knife believed to be the murder weapon (because its blade shape/size matched that of the fatal blow in Meredith's neck), Amanda's DNA was found on the handle and Meredith's blood was found on the blade. The knife was found in Raffaele's apartment, and he explained her blood being there by stating that Meredith had used it to cook at his apartment. In fact, Meredith had never been to his apartment. The defense countered that the amount of DNA on the knife was too miniscule to provide a good reading, but an independent team of investigators (which included some American investigators who had offered their services in support of Amanda's defense team) all concluded that it could only have been Meredith's blood. 3. Investigators took a second knife from Raffaelle Sollecito's collection, a small jack-knife believed to be the weapon used in the smaller, non-fatal stabs to Meredith's neck. DNA belonging to both Knox and Sollecito was found on this knife. 4. Raffaele's DNA was found on the bloody bra clasp that was to become the most controversial piece of evidence in this case. It was not picked up until a month or more after the initial investigation, which allowed the defense to claim that it was tainted/contaminated (shades of OJ!). The prosecution responded that even though the bra clasp sat there all those weeks, the room was sealed off as a crime scene where nobody went in. This is probably where the defense made its strongest case for "contamination" or "improper handling." Evidence that there were multiple attackers: No court, including the latest Supreme Court decision, has concluded that Rudy Guede (the only person convicted)acted alone. Forensic experts have not been able to demonstrate any way that Meredith could have suffered multiple stab wounds, restraint wounds (the bruises) on her arms, all at the same time. She had almost no defensive wounds, indicating that she was restrained firmly throughout the attack. Even the defense could not decide whether they thought the lone attacker had attacked Meredith from the back or the front. In the case of Amanda and Raffaelle, it's admittedly true that the idea of a motive is much harder to figure out. It certainly seems really weird, random and unlikely that Amanda could go from being a normal American girl to a bloodthirsty killer, but it's not without precedent. But this is definitely the most puzzling part of the case. As for Sollecito, he had been exhibiting strange, destructive behaviors for a long time, to the point where his father worried so much about him that he made a nightly phone call to his son and was heard pleading with him to stop taking drugs. Rudy Guede was known to be sexually attracted to Meredith and his DNA was found on (and in) her body. There's one theory that the actual killing was not intentional, that the three killers, drunk and on drugs, did mean to assault Meredith but not to kill her, and then things got out of hand, or she accidentally impaled herself on one of the knives, and they were all too messed up to even realize what was going on.

The accusation that she was slapped in the head has been proven false. It never happened. Asked to identfy the officer who hit her, Amanda retracted that statement. The assumption here seems to be that poor weak Amanda was "broken" by a bullying and brutal interrogation and that simply isn't true. Amanda has proven a completely unreliable witness who couldn't keep her own story straight and even said she doubted the veracity of her own statements which is a really convenient "out" to give yourself. An innocent person would have reported exactly where they were and what they were doing at every minute of the timeline. Amanda had no reason to lie if she was inmocent. Yes I know about false self-accusations but the liar didn't accuse herself, did she? Oh no! She deliberately and repeatedly framed an innocent man. Amanda would happily have let Patrick sit in prison for 25 years and I think anyone capable of that monstrosity is capable of murder. It's beyond "immature". It is evil.

Sophia, telling the girls about her friend who just died: Rose: What did she die of? Sophia: She was fighting fires on an oil rig and it exploded. She was 88 years old! What do you think she died of? Rose: It's nice she was able to keep working right up until the end. When they're looking at scratchoff tickets and Dorothy is sure she's won: Dorothy: I have three palm trees! Sophia: No you don't. You don't even know what a palm tree looks like. Dorothy: I certainly do know what a palm tree looks like. Sophia: And you know what a handsome doctor looks like. Doesn't mean you've got one. And later... Blanche: Now I don't feel so bad about spending all this money on this aviator jacket. And I can afford some accessories for it! Rose: Like a purse? Blanche: Like an aviator.

Two corrections: she wasn't interrogated for hours (it was two hours total, and she was given tea and snacks, and had an interpreter), and she fingered Lumumba very early in the questioning. And they had not yet convicted her, at the time she was only being questioned as a witness. And she reiterated the accusation against Lumumba the next day, in writing. Nobody, including Amanda, has been able to provide a convincing rationale for her relentless accusation of Lumumba. Weren't we all horrified at Susan Smith and Charles Stuart, who both invented fictional black men as suspects to cover their own crimes? And they were BOTH guilty. Why does Amanda get a pass on this? I've never understood why she this gets hand-waved for Amanda but not anyone else. And Lumumba wasn't fictional. She ruined an actual man's life, yet she's still painted as a victim. So she was not a suspect when she was first questioned. The police only began to consider her a suspect when her story kept changing, and because her and Sollecito's alibis contradicted each other. There was no "preconceived notion." They couldn't even agree on whether they had spent the night together. People keep talking about mishandled evidence and police preconceived notions. Neither were present in this case. It's really just like the OJ case, those were smokescreens thrown over to muddle the proceedings, and in both cases they worked. Note that the makers of this documentary decided back in 2011 that Amanda was innocent. They did not make this documentary in a search for the truth, and it shows.

Thank you, editorgirrl! I figured it was so obscure, I'm surprised but happy that it has a forum. I did like "Autumn in the Vineyard" because, well, it had pretty scenery and GOATS! I liked the two leads and the story, while predictable of course, was cute. I completely get what you're saying; to be honest, I think the hate/love thing is overused in full-length movie romcoms anyway, it's time for writers to come up with a different twist! Yes, I know there are only so many different plots you can use, especially in romance where we all know what the ending is going to be anyway, but I prefer the kind of story where people meet when they are, say, both working toward a goal or for some shared cause. That rings more true to life and feels more natural to me. Is anyone else looking forward to the new "Good Witch," premiering Oct. 22?

Oh yes!!! Totally agree, they were a perfect match!! He was just right for her and quite sexy in his way. I also always hoped Blanche would get back with the dreamy caterer dude. They kept hauling Miles up for Rose (remember the Cheeseman episode?). So I don't get why they couldn't recycle some of the other girls' flames. And while they're at it let Sophia have Mr Toshiro!

Does anyone else watch the "Chesapeake Shore" series? I started watching because it takes place in my home state of Maryland and I really enjoy it. ("Chesapeake Shores' is also the name of a nursing care facility here!). Like many others here, I watch all kind of programming but I love me some happy, cozy Hallmark movies. They seem to really fit the bill in the fall as the weather's getting colder and the holidays start. Of course I usually have to DVR them because Mr. Marsupial would rather have his eyes gouged out with teaspoons than sit through one. I have the rerun queued up for watching later today so I'm happy to hear that! The preview looked nice and I'm always a sucker for vineyard/farm stories.

Oh and the BBC documentary on the case is much more informative and balance. It's available online: ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw