Bobby88

I wrote this about a different case a few months ago and I think it's mostly applicable to the case of the rock thrower. In this case, I think it was kind of a perfect storm of the wrong types of people coming together and shit hitting the fan. The defendant was clearly an emotionally troubled woman. And she absolutely had no right throwing the rock and is 100% responsible for any medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff and her boyfriend (and I'm sure their friends) are clearly spoiled brats who think they can do whatever they want wherever they want. I think they were in fact blaring their music and being obnoxious twenty-somethings. I absolutely believe the defendant when she said that she nicely asked them to turn the music down and that she was met with profanity. And I absolutely do not for one second believe the plaintiff's claim that the defendant told them to "go back to the other side of town where you all belong" She's Asian and her boyfriend is Black and/or Latino. It's obvious she was implying racial bias which I don't think was in any way a factor. I'm getting tired of this recent trend in some cases lately where minority litigants will just casually throw out "Oh, yeah, and he/she is a racist too!" when it's obvious that their own hands are dirty. After the plaintiff said she didn't have pictures of her injuries and JJ asked about medical bills, was anyone else half-expecting her to say she didn't seek medical attention either? Maybe it was because I couldn't stand her. but I kept expecting JJ to catch her in some kind of lie and say "You both acted like idiots. Case dismissed!" Or was it just me?

I had to have soy milk until I was about five. Some kids do have really severe food allergies which they outgrow. But something about this story with Isaac just doesn't feel right. The whole family dynamic doesn't feel right.

Did anyone else find it weird and inappropriate the way Mom kept holding Isaac's hand in the waiting room? Almost like they were a couple instead of mother and son? I actually kept forgetting that the father was even in the picture until the camera would get a shot of him (always with resting bitch face) with the caption "Tony, Isaac's father". There are some serious boundary issues in this family. I accidentally deleted it after I was done and can't do a re-watch, so someone correct me if I'm wrong about Isaac's backstory. He said that for the first three years of his life, he was allergic to nearly every food known to man and miraculously "overcame" this at about age four. At that time, he became addicted to food and was 100 lbs by age six, 200 by age ten, etc. Given the mom's (IMO) questionable cancer diagnosis, something tells me that there never was any such food allergy or if there was, it was way less severe, and has nothing to do with him being nearly 700 lbs now. It just sounds to me like mom invented the story as an excuse for why her son was overeating and why she overfed him. It's not like Isaac would be able to remember any of that now anyway, although I think he claimed he did. It was sort of in the same category as Ashley the Catfish's backstory, only he wasn't the one to make it up. I get serious Munchausen's vibes from Mom. As far as her cancer is concerned, isn't uterine cancer one of the most treatable forms of female cancer? I'm a guy, so I wouldn't know for sure, but as I understand it, there is a very low recurrence rate and needing constant chemo treatments like she kept claiming (while being more or less the same size as her son) is practically unheard of. According to both Isaac and mom, she got cancer WITHIN THE FIRST YEAR OF HIM BEING AT COLLEGE AND LIVING ON HIS OWN! That seems awfully convenient. As right as her son is starting to show signs of getting some of his eating habits under control, she needs more chemo! I detect a pattern here. I wouldn't be surprised if Dr. Now mentioned some of these suspicions privately to Dr. Paradise before Isaac's first session. You could tell by the way he asked the mother "How's the chemo going?" that he's onto her. And it's certainly no coincidence that she went to the therapy session with her son.

In today's rerun from 2018 about the girl hit in the face with a chair at the pool party, JJ made what may be one of the silliest "Don't tell me what someone else told you, that's hearsay!" admonitions ever. When describing what happened after getting hit, the plaintiff said "My friend looked at me and said 'you're bleeding'" and JJ told her it was hearsay! She also called it hearsay when the plaintiff told her that said friend explained to her that she'd been hit with a chair! EVEN AFTER THE VIDEO OF HER GETTING HIT WITH SAID CHAIR WAS SHOWN AND IT WAS ESTABLISHED WHAT HAPPENED! That seemed really nit-picky even for JJ. Getting hit in the head or face suddenly is extremely disorienting. The plaintiff was likely so out of it (looking at the video, I'm surprised she didn't lose consciousness altogether. She got hit pretty hard.) that she likely wouldn't have known what happened or that she was bleeding unless someone told her. Maybe the witness should have been in court to say it directly, but still. Everything was on video and it was clear that she was totally not at fault. Given that this woman was hit in the head and could have been hurt way worse than she was, I think JJ probably could have let that little bit of so-called hearsay slide under the circumstances. Then again, she wouldn't be JJ if she looked at things in context, would she?

Absolutely! I think it's JJ's lack of consistency that frustrates me the most. One episode, she'll give some 18-year-old spoiled brat a well-deserved verbal smackdown for trashing a rental property. Next day, identical scenario with different litigants, and she goes off on the landlord for being stupid in renting to such a young person. Either 18-year-olds are legally responsible for any damage they cause or they're not. I've noticed in recent years that she HATES when anyone (except her) makes some type of profit. Anyone apart from her who has even the slightest of windfalls is automatically a scammer. I don't know when that started, but I definitely remember when she wasn't like that. Seriously, when I watch some of her older episodes from even about six or seven years ago, she's like a different person. I would imagine seeing some of the wackos that have come in and out of her courtroom day after day for 25 years would jade a person, but this is ridiculous.

This case SO did not warrant a full 30-minute episode. The defendants seem like jerks, but I think the plaintiff is a crybaby who was looking for reasons to play the victim, hence the repeated references to "mean mugging" which is not a crime. And I actually do believe that she was illegally parked. Anybody else get the feeling that this wasn't (or isn't) the first time she has accused other tenants in the complex of "threatening" her? I agree with whoever said this was one case where JJ's "I didn't go to law school to listen to [insert crap here]" spiel was totally in order. I really wish she had raked the plaintiff over the coals for the CPS call (which I absolutely believe happened and was done vindictively). That is exactly the way you're NOT supposed to use child protective agencies. Someone being a dick to you over a fender-bender doesn't mean they're abusive or neglectful parents. As far as the "high traffic number of people" in and out of the defendant's apartment is concerned, unless she can somehow prove that said people are committing some type of crime or hurting the defendants' children, it's none of her business who goes in and out of someone else's unit where she neither lives nor pays rent. If the landlord has an issue with the defendants' alleged visitors, it is his/her responsibility to address it, not another tenant. Sorry to drag this out (not unlike the episode itself, lol), but has anyone else noticed a certain pattern with some litigants in recent years where the seemingly normal, calm, articulate ones (usually female plaintiffs like this one) actually seem like or end up being the real instigators while people like the defendants who come across as disrespectful and generally less educated are at least partially in the right? I have little doubt that the plaintiff can be just as (as the kids nowadays say) ratchet as the defendants when she feels wronged, but knew what JJ likes to see and hear and as a result, the judgement was in her favor. There's obviously appropriate courtroom behavior and everyone who enters a court should try to be as respectful and prepared as possible, but these really stark contrasts between plaintiffs and litigants seem really contrived. The irony is that in this case and other similar cases, the bumbling defendants usually admit to some wrongdoing on their part and only really object to the situation being exaggerated. It's the well-dressed plaintiffs who usually keep insisting on $5,000 because they felt "threatened" over nothing. I think these contestants know EXACTLY what JJ wants to hear and how she judges people based on certain characteristics and tailor their performances accordingly. And 99% of the time, it seems to work. I've seen her award articulate people who present zero real evidence the max while screaming at the other party (some of whom I'm convinced actually have some type of cognitive issues) because they get disability or some other noise about Byrd's money that isn't relevant to the case at hand. Or am I imagining things?

It's the interrupting that drives me nuts. She considers even the slightest bit of context given by litigants in their responses to be a "tributary". Seriously, tell me the following scenario isn't a typical occurrence in the last few season: JJ: What did he say to you and what did you say to him? Litigant: I got out my car and.... JJ: J-J-J-J! I don't need the tributary! I just want to know what you said to him and what he said to you! Litigant: After I got out of the car.... JJ: Didn't you hear what I just said? I don't want to hear any gobbledegook about the car! I told you I'm not interested in the tributaries! JUST TELL ME WHAT WAS SAID! She's also repeating herself more and more. Yes, your Honor, we get it! The courts are not set up for people who choose to play house, we have to have clean hands, etc. You don't need to keep cutting off litigants' testimonies every third sentence to interject about how you've been doing this for over 50 years and damage to someone's rental home isn't your problem it was "stupid" of them to rent it to a 21-year-old and everyone KNOWS that young people that age can't be trusted not to destroy things. Honestly, the repeating herself makes me question her mind. She does it more frequently every season and I definitely remember when she rarely (if ever) did it at all.

The plaintiff was nuts for sure, but the defendant was getting on my nerves with the constant unnecessary remarks. She struck me as someone who could be pretty antagonistic in her own right. Did anyone else think the video seemed a little staged? The camera is focused squarely on the door and almost on cue, the plaintiff barrels through and wreaks havoc. Given the defendant’s attitude in court, part of me wonders if she kind of picked a fight with the plaintiff knowing it would provoke a reaction and recorded it. The plaintiff is clearly a loose cannon, so it would no doubt have taken very little to set her off.

I didn't know that. If that's the case, why does JJ demand that so many litigants give their social security number in open court? And she insists that they do so VERBALLY in front of an audience and gets furious when people understandably refuse! On very few occasions, she will let the litigant write it down, but still. What is the purpose of this battle of wills if show already has the information on file? I wonder if it's to see if the litigant gives the same social security number as the one they gave the producers, but screaming at someone to give it to you in a room full of people is ridiculous. Regardless of someone's guilt or innocence in a case, most people (myself included) won't simply blurt out their social like they're announcing the time of day to anyone who demands it. Despite this not being an appropriate case for the show (JJ was totally correct not to hear it out), I have a feeling that there's more to the assault itself than just the defendant sucker punching the plaintiff out of the blue. And I actually kind of believe the plaintiff when he says that he thought the case in JJ's court was about something else. I wonder if the producers could have told him one thing to get him to appear (since he apparently didn't show up at the first hearing) and the true nature of the case came out when the cameras started rolling. Talk show producers have done this since the early 90s when the Jerry Springer genre of confrontational talk shows first became popular, and many shows were sued over it. I don't think the defendant is blameless by any means, but I also wouldn't put it past the JJ producers to engage in some sleight of hand to lure certain litigants who otherwise might not have wanted to come. Even if it's a show about the "law", JJ is still a TV show whose goal (like any other show featuring real people) is to be entertaining. We should never lose sight of that.

Yes! I thought I was the only one who noticed!

I actually wonder if he had some form of dementia. His anger issues were brought up several times. Personality changes such as newfound aggression can be early warning signs for the disease.

This drives me nuts! She certainly deserved every penny, but even her tone when she was showing JJ the pictures of her injuries was irritating. Her demeanor reeked of that one kid we all went to grade school with that was only too happy to let the teacher know that you rolled your eyes while she had her back turned. Remember Judy from Leave it to Beaver? “Miss Landers, Theodore doesn’t have his homework. Isn’t he irresponsible? I’m so glad I always come to class prepared.” That kinda shit. This show manages to prove something over and over that I don’t think most people would ever admit because it would be very un-PC nowadays. Just because someone is a legit victim who deserves compensation, doesn’t mean they are likable as an individual. You can be 150% correct in your position and people can agree with you, but they are under no obligation to like you. I can’t be the only person who could see the defendant as someone who could get very passive aggressive very quickly if they feel wronged.

I also meant to add that I thought JJ was way off about the adult children keeping their nose out of their parents' divorce. I didn't get the impression that these defendants were needlessly butting into their parents' relationship problems just to stir up trouble. Their father, after nearly 40 years of marriage to their mother, leaves her for another woman (do we know if that's really what happened or if JJ was simply using the yoga instructor thing as an example to make a point?). They're rightfully angry with him and are probably just trying to help their mother cope with the betrayal. Just because they're adults with their own families doesn't mean their parents' apparently sudden divorce doesn't leave them confused, hurt, and frustrated. Your parents are still your parents. Totally different that JJ's analogy of having a buttinsky friend who purposely meddles and tries to critique your relationship. In all honesty, I would be more disturbed if the defendants took JJ's approach of just saying "meh" instead of supporting their mother. If anything, much of their involvement in the divorce is probably due to dad suddenly deciding he wants the guns back as a form of passive-agression.

I agree. The main part that convinced me was the fact that this suicide happened seven years ago and the dad gave the other son the guns immediately afterwards. The father's contention is that he's afraid his grandchildren could play with the guns and get hurt. The defendant's oldest child is now nine and would have been two when this whole thing started and both sides admit that the defendant was gun owner long before her ever had children. SO THERE WERE ALREADY GUNS IN THE SAME HOUSE AS A YOUNG CHILD WHEN HE TURNED THE SUICIDE WEAPONS OVER TO THE SON! Seven years later, NOW Grandpa is concerned about the kids getting a hold of them?!? Bullshit. I think the defendants sided with mom in the divorce (if dad cheated after such a long marriage, can you really blame them?) and dad wants to get back at them for it. I think the smirk (although I didn't appreciate it, I kinda couldn't blame him) on the defendant son's face was because he knew the father's case was garbage and had no legal merit. Something tells me there was severe dysfunction in this family for years even before the suicide or divorce.

Am I the only who was kind of rubbed the wrong way by the plaintiff? I just got a weird sneaky vibe from her. If you listen to the recording of the assault, the defendant says something like “What’s your problem?” and the plaintiff responds with something about being tired of the defendant’s ugly face before the shit starts to hit the fan. The assault was obviously uncalled for, but the plaintiff’s remark was childish and unnecessary even for a 19-year-old. Before she played the recording, JJ even asked somewhat incredulously “What made you decide to start recording from the minute you walked in the door that day?” and her response was a somewhat dismissive “Well, there’s always something going on.” As annoying as the defendants seemed to be, I don’t know if I buy her explanation. She just struck me as very passive-aggressive and someone to push buttons. Sort of like that one girl we all went to high school with who initiated most of the fights but who was never actually seen fighting herself. While the defendants were totally wrong to get physical, I also kind of believe that the plaintiff probably deliberately cut off the WiFi knowing it would start something. I too am over JJ constantly telling to people to move if they’re not happy with their current living arrangement. It seems that the older she gets, the more she forgets that few people will ever have even a small percentage of the money she does. Even long before her show started in 1996, she was extremely wealthy and I seriously doubt that she ever had to worry how to pay her bills or where her next meal is coming from a day in her life. I certainly don’t think it helped that the plaintiff in this case was a homeowner at 19 (for two years; how is that even possible at 17?) and the defendant was in her early fifties, so this probably only added fuel to JJ’s assertion that ANYBODY can get a new home if they really want one. For all of the defendant’s evasive answers, I do believe that her tears were genuine when she said she had nowhere else to go.