Pike Ludwell

I think too many are giving Zabel's mom too much of a break. She acted like an unhinged nut, and I found it inexcusable. Her son was basically not yet competent as a detective, and that is what caused his death, not Mare. And he was a grown man and the lead officer in the case. Basically the mom is implying he didn't have a mind of his own and was easily manipulated. Also, Siobahn's behavior, lashing out at Mare, was to me for flimsy irrational reasons, and inexusable, and shows she, like Zabel's mother, is a person way too eager to hate others. There's been lots of scenes with people flying WAY off the handle, moreso than one would expect. Makes one wonder about the people the writers have contact with. LOL To the people who have been defending Dylan and saying he's not so bad ... are you satisfied now? The guy has been a total jerk from the beginning. If John did manipulate Billy into thinking he, Billy, did it ... if Billy was that weak minded, that was a nice bit of misdirection when they showed Billy acting strongly on his convictions, refusing to help John get the mattress up the stairs.

I've found Zabel annoyingly weak and timid all along. He bristled at toughness in questioning suspects. He questioned very weakly. At the kidnapper's house, he was the officer in charge, but he just stood there like a dope when it was clear the guy needed to be arrested immediately and forcefully. Mare had to, slightly annoyedly, it seemed to me, say to him "Zabel!" and motion with her head to get him to take action, and though he had the jump the other guy outdid him. He was just too inexperienced to have been in a sitation like that at that time.

I just had that one cursory look at the killer, haven't re-watched. But it seemed his sideburns are pretty much the biggest clue. They look most similar to the older church guy - the cousin. Later in the show they showed him in ways where he looked more frail than he is - maybe playing up phony frailty as distraction. Based on the sideburn test you can rule out Zabel, the Guy Pierce character, the younger church guy, and some others.

I thought it strange that in an earlier episode she had horrible feelings of guilt that led her to tears because she was withholding the big secret that Dylan was not the father. Now we find she pretty comfortably withholds other important info, until it's pried out of her, such as the setting up the prostitution web page, and what the heck ever else related to that. Like you indicate, her silent communication seems to imply there's more.

And he looks absolutely nothing like them. Maybe he was adopted.

LOL. Definitely setting up to be a convoluted mix of teen pregnancy, paternity questions, adultery, teachers, etc.

Good point. Jess only said Erin told her Dylan wasn't the father. It was Jess herself who said *she* thinks the father was Frank. I think Erin did tell Jess that Dylan wasn't the father, because Jess's reactions when she was alone - crying alone about the secret - and then immediately with her mother indicate such. But I don't think the father was necessarily Frank. For Erin to have known Dylan wasn't the father she must have been on birth control when she was with Dylan. They must have had sex at a time fitting with the time frame of the pregnancy. Otherwise Dylan wouldn't have bought into him being the father. And if she had sex with Frank, it would have to have been around the exact same time, but she wasn't on birth control with him. Seems strange. I think it's impossible now to figure it all out. We'll need further new facts. Maybe some set of facts will emerge showing a motive by Mare's mother, or Erin's friend, or Frank's fiance, or Siobahn - many possibilities are imaginable. I agree with others that Siobahn is withholding a lot of things. Mare gave up questioning her in the bedroom way too quick, saying she was too angry and Siobahn would be questioned at the police office next day. So, next day she's questioned by Zabel, who's style is to treat everyone with total kid gloves and get upset if the questioning grows intense, and he bought into everything she said. I too got vibes of deception from that interview and would not rule out her or her girlfriend as the perpetrators. One possibility of many.

I agree that the author's behavior at the party was rude. I would have liked to see Mare just leave, despite his comments. If he's going to treat her like this at this early stage where he is supposed to be totally infatuated with her and pursuing her, how will he act as the relationship ages? Of course Mare is sharp (I think). She's aware of what she needs to be seeing from here on, and I guess it's reasonable to give him another chance and see what happens, especially since there are probably not many interesting men in that area.

Loved the big, very quick justice insofar as Dylan, as opposed to letting the character drag on to the end of the season. I'm sure Dylan wasn't the killer but he did help with the brutalization of Erin, and in general, was a total D. A total piece of junk. And I just don't get why a cute friendly girl like her would have gotten involved with and stayed hung up on such an odd looking cretin who, if he had any personality, it was of a total jerk with violent possibilities. And now we're learning that she likely had sex with that math teacher (the big-black-beard guy)?

One thing that drew me in right from the beginning is the incredible acting - Kate and everyone. Even the old lady who reported the prowler. Exceptional all around. I would think the director has something to do with it too. You can tell a lot of work went into doing the lines well, but it all seems natural.

I disagree that Bill is an angry or bitter or unhappy person because he is criticizing what in his opinion are specific out-of-touch-with-reality directions culture is taking. A person can be very happy, but still extremely critical of particular things. Many have pointed out his age as if that has something to do with his views. I disagree. I believe he would have reacted the same to the same stimuli decades ago. Many of his guests who espouse his views have been very young. I disagree that it is "crankiness".

I believe Bill wpuld say this is wrong. That maybe there have been a few out of millions who cooperated and ended up dead by psychotic cops (I'm talking last 30 or more years - not 60s and earlier). And that also, statstics show that it is the most egregious non-cooperaters who end up with problems, and those are mostly people of color. I do think the Hispanic cop who pepper sprayed that black military guy in Maryland was way in the wrong. There are problem people - whites, hispanics, blacks, asian - in the police who need to be rooted out.

Total false equivalency since most of these cases of failure to cooperate resulting in death are cases where the non-cooperation made the officers feel like their lives or physical safety were threatened or that the public's safety was threatened. Or a mistake was made in the crazy, fast sudden melee that followed. And these folks weren't shot because of the reason for the pullover. That is a distortion.

I think Bill feels that emotions based on a largely misleading narrative have moved the left too far away from common sense. E.g., why can't people feel that these victims should have just cooperated and put some of the blame on them at the same time as blaming the police? And why is racism alleged for every one of these incidents when there is very little evidence? And isn't this needlessly divisive for the country? And if someone after a few drinks says something stupid, why can't they apologize, promise not to do it again, and carry on with life? Why do these mistakes have to be career ending? Isn't there something wrong with a culture that is clearly in that direction? Of course the list goes on. That's what I think explains Bill's opinions. He's thinking in terms of common sense and dislike of angry mobs pushing people around. He's stayed the same over the years. The cultural thinking has changed, for the worse, he'd say.

I agree Bill should not have done the spoilers. The Oscars have definitely been rewarding socially conscious movies for years, but this year that phenomena seems on steroids. I don't like the sound of any of these nominees. I tried to watch Nomadland but quit after 5 minutes, it was so dreary and depressing. I get Bill's point about the lack of good quality dramas which do not involve social commentary, or, I would add, are not super hero or Marvel stuff. There have only been a few movies made in the last few years that I've wanted to see. There used to be many. As an example, look at HBO Max. Of all the releases this year, only one serious adult drama - The Little Things - and it was a piece of junk. As to the guests, I guess the reason Bill wanted the CA Senator on was to criticize the recall effort. Beyond that he was worthless. When asked why Democrats are losing more of the minority votes, the Sen. went into evasive mode, with milquetoast Senate speech and fillibustering. Total boring non-answer. What did Bill expect?

So Bill is taking Easter off? LOL I'm sure he has some other reason for being off this week, but I hoped he'd make a point of having a show on Good Friday just for the principle of the thing. LOL

As to the opening guest - IMO maybe the most pointless one recently. Waste of ten minutes. I nearly fell asleep and can barely remember wht they talked about. Tucker Carlson would have even been better despite his insane views.

I think Bill thinks that "wokeness" in general is a major problem for the country because of the weird thinking it involves. Cancel culture is one aspect of wokeness. He would disagree with those saying it's not an important issue. The opening interview with Shor was only about ten minutes. I think Bill cut it short because he kept trying to get Shor to admit that wokeness is a problem for Democrats. Shor kept either not directly addressing it or minimizing it, or addressing it only after a lot of prodding, even though his polling data backs it up. I think Bill got fed up with it. The very first issue with the panel is an important one - so many saying the Atlanta shootings were racial, when the evidence doesn't support it. The country moving in this weird way totally disregarding facts is a major issue from the left and also Bill would say, as we've seen in the recent 4 years -- from the right. Bill wants to keep addressing an issue he thinks is important, in all it ramifications, including cancel culture.

Yeah. It was like there was a motor within her to speak, and once turned on the motor could not be turned off and she had to interrupt and keep talking, even if what she was saying completely ignored or had no relation to what the others said. I was like "oh no ... they're making interesting points and she's going to interrupt again."

Joe Scarborough was good. I watch a good bit of MJ every morning. Bill kept expressing shock at reasonable things Joe said, I think to show he thinks for himself or something, but his objections were idiotic. I think Bill had "Charlamagne Tha God" on to appease the "social justice" community since he's had so many guests on lately critical of things going on in that movement. Unfortunately he was a poor choice -- he's a caricature of that movement and a joke. At least when Charlymane said stupid things Bill and the other guest pushed back.

I think Bill is right in that questioning distortions by the folks on the extreme "social justice" left does not constitute white supemacist or racist thinking. I like his general thrust that a lot of the misinterpretations of reality do need to be straightened out. People are too fearful to question the things that need questioning.

Not sure why they had Tester on. Middle of the road guy with milquetoast views and really contributed nothing (as could have been predicted). Ezra Klein wasn't that great either. The discussion with Megan Kelly was good. She began with some serious false equivalencies and I question whether her facts are correct and whether she is distorting things, but the general thrust of what they discussed is correct. I never thought I'd agree with her on anything, but like Bill stated, the "social justice" excesses could turn me into a Tucker Carlson character in some ways! That was a good discussion of a sort you would rarely see elsewhere. Questioning these sorts of issues needs to become more mainstream and without people fearing for their reputations and jobs.

Have you ever heard anyone on MSNBC say anything critical of BLM? If ever it is very rare. Hell. I think even Bill is scared of saying such things even though I know he thinks it. E.g., Watch how much he agreed with Kmele two weeks ago.

I sort of understand where he's coming from on that. I'm around his age and I too find people of this age mostly boring. I raised no kids and maintained freedom my whole life. I'm still super-enthusiastic about the music I grew up with. And I keep up with popular culture in general. Most people of this age have had kids and have devoted their lives to raising kids. That's taken most of their attention and I often find it hard to even relate to them. What they want to talk about mostly is their family life and that sort of thing and it just bores me to death. Even though of the same age it's like talking to my grandparents.

Loved this show. And last week's too. Always love the anti-religion rants. Where else can you hear that? It's either not allowed or too many people are afraid to say such things publicly. Loved the anti-Me Too/ skeptical of BLM thinking discussed on his show - especially with Kmele Foster last week. I listen regularly to the Fifth Column podcast. Kmele was on last week. Welch was on this week. Will Michael Moynihan be on next week? I hope so. I hope he continues with this sort of theme -- its the only place on TV where you can hear reality discussed without interference from social pressures.