augmentedfourth

I just hope whoever is responsible for writing the episode titles is compensated appropriately. I wasn't able to watch live today, but as soon as I turned on the DVR and saw "The Picasso of Upholstery; Blue Book, Shmoo Book!", I knew I was in for a good 20 minutes. GOLD, I tell you! I agree that Picasso/JFK's Upholsterer's Apprentice did a shitty job, but alas, he did *something*, and JJ's been pretty consistent that even shitty work, unless violating a written contract, has to be compensated (and then advises never to hire that person again). And while I get what the plaintiff was saying about the kinds of staples that should have been used, I'd bet money there was no written contract outlining that. (Because if everyone had a written contract, there would be no show.) As far as the rainwater damage...ehhhh. Yeah, it would have been nice to give him something. On the other hand, I can kinda see her reasoning that he knew right off the bat that the boat wasn't in a good position for storage, yet didn't do anything about it while he was standing there. All parties in the second case just seemed odd, and I did get a whiff of HUSTLA from the defendant. I'm not sure about the law in JJ's TV courtroom vs. the real world - if you do have a signed contract for something rather egregious, like agreeing to pay $2000+ for a car that's only worth $800, can a judge just toss that out? The plaintiffs even acknowledged that they knew they were paying more than the car was worth due to their inability to get financing elsewhere, and while I'm not disappointed in the judgment because the defendant was obnoxious, I am left wondering if JJ did them a favor based on her dislike of him instead of the law.

And thus continues a tradition of horrendously awful Halloween episodes? I cut this show waaaaaaay too much slack, but we might have a new contender for Worst of All Time.

Yeah, I think there was just a ton of miscommunication all around in the carriage case. Which doesn't mean there has to be a lawsuit. I'm sure Mom had this grand vision of her daughter pulling up to the reception in a horse-drawn carriage as all the guests oohed and aahed at the spectacle...she just didn't *tell* anyone about it. And I'm fairly certain that if she'd said "hey, try to get to the reception as close to 5:30 as possible so my daughter can make the entrance of a lifetime", the defendants would have gone around the block a few times. It didn't sound like they were the type to be high-fiving each other as they laughed about screwing their clients out of 20 minutes of paid time, or racing down the streets as fast as the horse and carriage would go. Even when Mom was talking about the plan to have the photographers at whatever bridge the carriage was crossing at 5:00, I couldn't tell if anyone else had gotten the memo. Oh well, at least it was something different. Better than the blah blah rent harassment blah case that followed. I'm as hippie liberal as they come and believe in a strong social safety net, but I think I've been watching this show for too long because when the plaintiff was complaining about the state of the rental property (which is probably bigger than my house) and how it should have been in better condition because of all the rent she paid, I immediately thought "you mean all the rent WE pay!" Thanks, JJ!

The color blocking on Lori's dress made it look like she had underboob sweat, to the point where I actually spent most of the episode trying to figure out if that was the case, or if it was just the design. I couldn't tell for sure until she stood up. The bathing suit mommies annoyed the crap out of me, and I'm even more annoyed that Barbara gave them a pity deal. (Especially after she yelled at a woman last season for crying during her pitch.) The suits didn't look flattering or supportive, and if I'm going to be shelling out that much money for a bathing suit, it had better have my chest on lockdown. Also, one of my toddlers is getting glasses next week (hopefully temporary!) - does wrangling an 18-month-old and convincing her to keep her glasses on suddenly qualify me to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company? Just curious. There's been a recurring character on SNL's Weekend Update called Willie, whose schtick is that no matter what terrible, awful, horrendous things keep happening to him, he always maintains a positive outlook and a cheery demeanor. Mr. Fourth and I remarked that Famous Amos is now the real-life Willie. That might have been one of the saddest things to ever air on this show. The phone thing and the shoe lights - sure, why not? Reasonable people with reasonable products, while sometimes refreshing, do not always make for interesting TV.

Holy fuck. I usually try not to judge people for things they can't help or change (not out loud, anyway), but the people in the "one meter to rule them all" case were among the most frightening-looking I've ever seen on my TV. Good thing the kids were in bed already and I was watching on the DVR.

My hipster cousin from Park Slope (and her sometimes-bearded husband) got me artisan pickles for Christmas the year I was pregnant, so I laughed at that. Like many others, I also laughed at the fact that Hudson University is now apparently this elite prestigious school that's near impossible to get into. Other than that...meh, I don't know. I guess the premise was interesting enough and could have led to a great moral debate, but the execution fell flat. I'm about as hippie liberal feminist as they come (possibly even more so than my cousin in Brooklyn), but I was having difficulty seeing this as a rape. Maybe we all should just be checking IDs of everyone we sleep with before the pants come off. Might cut down on some statutory rape as well.

I got super excited when I saw the Great Dane and the pig owners were from Wareham, as one of my best friends is a veterinarian there and it would have been AMAZING if they were his patients. (Or at least the dog, as I think he just handles dogs and cats.) Alas, he had not heard about this, though he was highly entertained by the details of the case. Also, he said nothing about the case really surprised him. Note to self: don't veer too far off the highway when driving through Wareham on the way to the Cape.

We just got a new TV (as in purchased, not rent-to-own, or borroweded from a babydaddy, or traded for rims, or whatever). The dog case eventually got uninteresting enough that I started playing around with the picture settings, because it looked like our beloved JJ was presiding over her courtroom during a power outage, and that is simply unacceptable. As soon as I succeeded in making the picture brighter, the car plaintiff with her cotton candy hair and bright pink whatever showed up. TERRIBLE TIMING.

I was shocked to hear Mario was 18 years old. I totally had him pegged for, like, 35, and wondered why he was creepily hanging out with the twerpy-looking plaintiff kid. I think he was driving and agreed to take the fall, but I also think that once he told the police, was ticketed, and paid the fine, in the eyes of the law, he was responsible, and JJ had to rule accordingly.

I carry full coverage on my 11-year-old car, if for no other reason than I'm too lazy to change it from whatever it was when I first started the policy. Every six months I get the email that the payment is due and the new card is ready, I think "ok, cool", click the buttons, and forget about it for the next half year.

I've been working like crazy this week and finally got caught up with the DVR. The surveillance footage of the parking lot fight is my everything. You've all recapped it brilliantly, so I don't have much more to add. Just that everything about it was amazing. Second place goes to the dune buggy plaintiff who masterfully coordinated her sundress, cardigan, and husband's shirt. This is not a criticism - I have been known to engage in some hardcore color coordination. And now I'm forced to wonder if I could get away with wearing that shade of yellow, because it was pretty, but that's a hard color to wear.

Oh man, that landlord plaintiff was such a typical Nice Guy. Hell yes, he thought that if he bailed out the defendant, got her a new car, etc., she'd start sleeping in his room instead of holing up with a boyfriend every now and then. He seemed so eager to prove to JJ and the world what a Nice Guy he was, and then as soon as JJ wasn't having it, his whole demeanor changed (right into the hallterview). It was actually rather chilling.

I remembered some of the parties my housemates threw in college (including 21st birthday parties), and you know, if it meant someone else cleaned up the mess, I can see how it might not be the absolute worst idea in the world. Sketchy as fuck, sure, but it doesn't sound like we're talking about a fancy dinner party here. There's a reason Dad didn't want the party in his condo, and good for him for not caving. But full disclosure: Responsible Adult Me is horrified to remember the state of some of the bar restrooms College Student Me peed in. A urine pit might have been an improvement over some. In other related tales of Younger Augmentedfourth, in high school, I dated a guy whose father had built their house from the ground up way out in the sticks (we were in upper middle class suburbia, where the McMansions were sprouting up like weeds). It was a charming house, with a gorgeous view of the river (and, uh, the Indian Point nuclear power plant if you turned your head), but not without its quirks. One of said quirks was the plumbing was a little wonky, and I was instructed not to flush the toilet paper and just put it in the labeled bin. Now, Older Me is aware that this is A Thing in parts of the country/world, but 16-year-old Me did not like this idea one bit (probably because she hadn't gotten to the college bars yet). That brief relationship was weird start to finish anyway, but the inability to flush toilet paper at the guy's house didn't help matters. (Confession: I think I flushed a few pieces anyway.) And thus ends that little trip down memory lane.

Based on the audience's reaction to the ruling, I'm going to guess that there was a whole lot more to the towing/false arrest case we didn't see (unfortunately). I'm also going to guess that whatever was cut made the defendants seem pretty vile. For what it's worth, I believe the plaintiff was not the guy in their yard, regardless of what their witness said. I can't quite put my finger on why, nor do I remember her exact words, but something about the female defendant's description of the guy she allegedly came face to face with in her yard that night made me think that the plaintiff wasn't lying about her referring to him as a crazy Arab guy, or whatever it was. And I hate to say it, but I wondered if that played any part in the complaints she made to the police.

She gave the plaintiffs $1000 of the $1400 they were asking for, which I thought was fairly generous. I'm pretty sure that had the coaches not found another girl to fill the vacancy, Grandma would have gotten nothing, but since they did replace her, they weren't out any money for the granddaughter not fulfilling her obligations. Were it me, I don't think I would have given them any more than half of what they requested, just to help reinforce the point, but meh.

Channeling my inner Chandler Bing: Could the plaintiff's fake suit flower BE any bigger?

This is eerily similar to the EXACT words that were going through my head as I watched this case.

I think, but I'm not positive, that the Madame X scene was when Naomi came back to Alison's office at night. I'd forgotten to look up the painting ahead of time (and it's not one I was familiar with off the top of my head), and I remember thinking at the moment that Naomi was standing kind of strangely. Then when I look, it kind of matched the pose, and I think she was wearing black. I think the final flashbacks indicated the detectives showed Alison photographs of the old lady's house (either crime scene photos, or just general photos to ask if she knew her), and that's where she saw the wallpaper. Even so, it's kind of a stretch, unless it was distinctive enough that it stuck in her mind.

Well, it worked on a lot of us, didn't it? Cam riding the bodyguard down the stairs and Madeline's exchanges with the C-minus cop and the neighbor were hilarious. Also, DNA Dana finally got her boat. You go, Dana! Okay, so in thinking this over, there's one minor bit I'm not super clear on and maybe someone can help me out. So in the first episode, the kids find the box of silver bells in the shed. Madeline tells them Dad was a true crime buff (right? or was there another reason/excuse she gave for the bells? my memory is a little fuzzy here), gets rid of them, except not really, uses one when she killed the reporter, and then Alison tosses all of them (except one more) into the water. So what was the deal with that box of bells? If they were SBK's, how did they wind up in the Hawthornes' shed? Was Madeline actually telling the truth for once when she said Mitchell was so interested in the case, he went out and bought a box of silver bells to keep around? (Which is kind of weird.)

I know! I had to make sure I heard that correctly, and I'm surprised JJ didn't make a bigger deal out of it. The chutzpah! :D

Well, that was fun. I had been wondering how Sophie had found out about how her father died and guessed we were just supposed to assume Cam told her. Loved the ending with Alison, taking over the reins as the ice cold matriarch. I'm glad she and Naomi wound up together, though what would have been a public divorce and juicy gossip just got handwaved away with the flash forward. I doubt there will be a second season of this (was that even a possibility?), but there are still some loose ends with Sophie and Jack. I was kind of rooting for Madeline to make it out alive. Other than that, my biggest complaint (and it's not even that big) is Cam and the rehab nurse winding up together. That was pretty pointless, and I'm kind of rolling my eyes at how both Cam and Garrett seem to have this mystical sexual attraction that women in the medical field just can't resist.

At the beginning, I thought there might have been an element of truth to the defendant's story, especially since she presented herself better than most of the 21-year-olds that have appeared on this show. I'm no physicist, Cliff Clavin, or Mr. Morehead, but it seemed plausible to me that the plaintiff could have been trying to merge into the lane the defendant was in, misjudged the distance, and clipped the front of her car with the back passenger side of his car. But as soon as she started in with him intentionally hitting her because he was angry...yeeeeeeeah, nooooo.

I love my father and he's very knowledgeable in certain areas, but...yeah, this is probably him. As my mother and I say, there's always a reason and an explanation for everything. My personal breaking point was when he tried to mansplain the diaper genie to me shortly after my twins came home from the hospital after the hinge had gotten stuck. My mother's current favorite was when she complained that her dishes were always cold due to the cabinets being on the outside wall, and my father tried to claim that most kitchens had their cabinets on outside walls. She refused to let that one go and compiled a list for him of everyone they knew whose kitchen cabinets were not on outside walls (and didn't have to suffer cold dishes). #1 on the list - me/my house. Oops. Anyway, carry on.

I think the tree plaintiff may have had a valid point in there somewhere, but 1) it was obscured by him being an asshole, 1b) the bullshit assault claim didn't help any, and 2) considering that yes, people are allowed to trim whatever's hanging over their property line, it was going to be really hard to prove that the gardener cut too far. I'd think at the very least he would have needed better pictures than he had, like a shot that clearly shows where the property line is and where the branches were cut. Ideally, he would have also produced an expert witness re: pruning trees, someone who could say it was done improperly and caused damage to the tree, because as we all know, JJ doesn't read statements!

Let's see how well I do before my coffee. Re: the knife - my takeaway was that the ivory knife was SBK's and Garrett somehow got hold of it in the struggle, used it to kill him, and then kept it afterwards. Granted, that scene was so damn dark, anything could have happened. But I think after the flashback he said something to Brady like "...and I kept the knife", indicating it wasn't his in the first place. Re: the accomplice - I admit I'm a little fuzzy here and I might be confusing two different things. The detectives deduced there was an accomplice from the GnomeCam footage, but was that the Morales murder or one of the others? I'm trying to remember which murder it was where Brady was trying to figure out the timing by driving like a maniac due to Tessa's story about her father taking her out for her birthday early in the morning, and I thought it was the same one as the video footage, but I'm not positive. But in the footage, wasn't the accomplice in the driver's seat of the car the whole time and SBK got in the passenger side? If so, that doesn't make sense with the Morales killing where both Mitch and Maddie were there.