LuvMyShows

What update?

IIRC, this took place in a relatively small place where three missing girls would have been extraordinary, and should have been a red flag unto itself. But add in the close proximity of the disappearances, and the cops' inactivity is downright criminal. But apparently it's not just the cops that are sub-par, since according to Paula's little closing segment, the f'ing judge allowed the guilty guy to LEAVE THE COURTROOM during the victim impact statement. WTAF???? Good for Desi's mom for protesting that as well and getting the law changed.

Overall, this show just keeps sliding downhill: Also, he didn't check the gun to see how many bullets, if any, were in the gun. I wish that could have been the explanation, but they made it pretty clear by showing his antagonism and his feisty attitude, that he was still thinking clearly. Loved how you worded that! I thought it was such a dick move on his part!! I actually remarked on the hotdog thing to my husband. He theorized that the writers wanted to plant the fantasy idea in the female viewers' heads that "Oh look, he needs a woman's touch." But really, super lame. I've only watched NOLA a few times, so I'm assuming that Pride is the Scott Bakula character, and one of the reasons I was unable to get into that show, is his disappearing/re-appearing n'awlins accent. Yeah, totally left out as to why he did it or any commentary about it later in the show. Glad I wasn't the only one...hot, hot, hot! Jury is still out for me. One thing that was so very, very bad on the writer's part (thus not the New Abby character's fault) was that they had no analysts watching that video of Vance. In reality, they would have had sooo many people analyzing it every way from Sunday, so it wouldn't have been up to the quirky nowhere's-near-qualified forensic scientist to figure out Vance's blinked message. And how the assassin completely.stopped.shooting as she was running up the stairs and once she got to the top. The other stupid thing from a plot perspective is that the bad guys provided a non-existent location to Vance, instead of a real location that would have diverted Gibbs and the gang to be looking in the wrong place. I do have to give credit that I did not foresee the twist at all, that the misjudged-then-apologized thing of Jack was fake, so that the bad guy woman would hopefully take her to bad guy headquarters. And as corny, preachy, and jingoistic as it was, I actually like Jack's little speech at the end about the U.S. being the good guys.

What made no sense to me, was that if this had been real, Benny would never have let the plaintiff's lawyer go on and on and on without even trying to object. We've seen Benny be an objection monster before, but all he did here was complain after the woman had completely finished her spiel. Also, as sad as the mother's situation was, by Bull giving her the entire $2mil, he is effectively saying that her life is more important than that of all the people at TAC combined, since we have every reason to believe that finances are still an issue for TAC, which could mean TAC going under, which would very negatively affect a lot of people's lives. He could have given her what she needed, and still had lots left over for his company and his own employees. He didn't need to personally take a cent of it, if it felt tainted to him, but he could have spread the wealth around to benefit more people.

I don't actually think they are making her look "cold", but they are definitely showing much, much less reciprocity in vocalizing feelings, and it's not just editing. I really hope that she can provide what Bobby wants/needs, because I like them as a couple. True dat. All the editing monkeys could manage to show to stir up drama in the preview for the episode we just had, was to quote Dave and make it seem like Danielle and Bobby fought during the games. But it was a big nothing burger in terms of drama. Either we are in for an upcoming major shocker of drama with them, or they're going to just cruise to decision day.

But he wasn't "stuck". He could have (and should have) left when he found out that she was a criminal, a stalker and a thief. The fact that he didn't, puts his actions after that on him, not on Mia.

I see what you did there! Preach on! Pastor Cal says that year after year after year, and it's such nonsense. It makes me wonder, for all of the experts, doesn't it cost them some real life clients/parishioners, when they see the horrible advice they give on TV? Or are there enough fame-sniffers to take up the slack? My feelings about Tristan changed sooo much during this episode. He was so condescending and gaslight-y to Mia during their conversation. When she was saying how she felt, actually using adult words and expressed properly (even using "I" statements!), he said something like "Oh, you're bothered by something?" as though she didn't have the right. He also tried to gaslight her, by saying that he hadn't told her that he had cancelled his insurance because she had been so stressed out, as though his piss-poor decision-making was somehow her fault. Un-f*ing-believable. One million times 'yes' to this!

Now that we are all 'professional' amateur crime-solvers, I have to rage out about what I just saw on one of the Hallmark Mysteries. A college kid disappeared, and the police went into the kid's dorm room. They took his computer and decided to just give it to someone the detective knew, who was a relative of the college kid, so that person could try to get into the computer by guessing the password. Then that person gave it to another person to try. Hmm...no need to bother with that pesky little thing called chain of custody? And the other idiocy from another detective show, was that the star/detective was going to be a bridesmaid in her cousin's wedding. Then one of the groomsmen had to back out, and it happened to be the groomsmen who was going to be paired up in the wedding party entrance with the star/detective. So the star/detective asked a male pseudo-boyfriend of hers to fill in...meaning, the bride was going to have a man in her wedding party, and in the pictures memorialized for all time, who neither the bride nor groom knew in any way, shape, or form. Sure.

I wish I could Like this 1,000 times! I don't have an issue with Danielle not saying "I love you" to Bobby...in fact, if anything, I think he has said it too soon to genuinely be in love with her, not just in love with the situation, or speaking from infatuation and happiness. But I do have an issue with Danielle remaining silent after he makes his proclamations, and not being able to come up with any verbal feeling for him (and we know that wasn't just editing, because it's what Dr. Blonde was showing on videotape and discussing). She doesn't have to reciprocate his exact feelings, but she can at least say something to him that conveys her own level of affection or appreciation for him.

Don't judge me, but when the real world gets too intense, true crime stories are just too overwhelming, so I watch...Hallmark Mysteries. Yes, they are idiotic, but they are also predictably formulaic and always have a treacly-sweet subplot with a nice resolution, and they are insanely G-rated. I'm in that mini-phase right now, with series like "Flower Shop Mystery", "Murder She Baked", and "Aurora Teagarden". Does anyone else watch this stuff? No?...just me?

It seems very real, and imperfect, like human characters would be. I just can't get past the fact that IRL, she would be kept busy practically 24x7 by having to deal with all the tenants' petty sh*t, like "My light bulb is burnt out", and she would not have time for her any-time-of-day escapades. Absolutely. I kept wondering that the whole time, especially when Andrew asked Molly point blank what the visit was really about. Even have Issa ask him herself...at this point, she basically doesn't have anything to lose, and she'd probably get way more from that than from sneaking around in Nathan's room, looking for who-knows-what. It was a little confusing for me, when Issa said that she thought she was over Lawrence because of Nathan. Was that just her Nathan infatuation speaking, and once Nathan was out of the picture, she realized that she really wasn't over Lawrence? Or was it that once Nathan was out of the picture, she missed the presence of someone even though she was still hung up on Nathan, and decided that Lawrence would be better than a ghosted Nathan? Or is it genuinely just friendship with Lawrence? I know that as TV viewers, we're supposed to be rooting for them together (I think), but in IRL, I'm not sure that if I were Lawrence, I could ever get past the fact that she slept with Daniel.

Thanks Humbleopinion for continuing to do the Unfiltered wrap-ups! Two things stood out to me in this episode: 1. I finally saw the back of Amber's head when they were drinking their post-furniture-fail shots. It is worse than I envisioned. Girl, no. 2. When Tristan and Mia were in bed talking, he said something that she thought was sweet. So she said something like "Awww" and reached across him to touch him. He did not move even one tiny bit to lean into or receive her touch, let alone reciprocate it, so her hand ended up sitting awkwardly on his opposite shoulder. Yeah, he is def not into her.

The only thing I can come up with to explain how they missed so much is that because there was no body, they didn't really do a murder investigation...and since as we know from watching these shows, adults are presumed to have the 'right' to walk away from their life and disappear, then they might not have done much of a missing person investigation either (and his biker-ness might have been a negative factor in their opinion).

I also didn't miss it, and I had somewhat the same thought, that he was basically "hiding in plain sight" by being up front with Candice about where he was, but not why he was there. Even in an open relationship, I just can't imagine Candice would greet Molly in such a friendly way, when confronted right in front of her with her husband's friend that he started f*ing. I could see the friendly greeting much more easily if it were a threesome, but it sooo isn't.

Looked like a very good case in the No Safe Return episode. Nice to see the son is planning to return to his old life. I hope the DA ends up taking the case, and wish we could get updates without having to look it up constantly on our own.

Somehow it has become OK to consider it "judgmental" if you think (or even worse, if you say) anything that is not 100% positive about someone else. There is nothing wrong with two partners or spouses not liking something about the other person, and saying something about it. The important part is how they say it and what happens next. Dave could have been legitimately concerned about Amber's decision-making processes, since by her own admission, she has over and over again dated men she couldn't trust. If I were Dave, I would want to understand it better...did she see red flags but choose to ignore them? Did she think the person would change? Did they seem trustworthy at first but then revealed their true selves? Understanding things like this makes a partnership soooo much better in terms of knowing what might be behind someone's actions and how you can help. But it seems like Amber's deep insecurity makes her want to run from any genuine discussion of her faults so she turns it around on Dave and accuses him of being judgmental. He certainly could have been more caring and inquisitive in how he mentioned it to her, but now the conversation is adversarial and won't go anywhere positive. But I am pretty darn sure that there are things she doesn't like about Dave, which she is perfectly entitled to as well, and she wouldn't consider it judgmental if she mentioned them to him. These two are just so mismatched!!!

This reminded me of something I've noticed. Kenda has a low-key straight-forward personality, and Carl Marino portrays him in a somewhat similar way, even though there is almost no physical similarity. The actor and actress portraying Rod Demery on Murder Chose Me and Lindy Gligorijevic on Killer Closer do a pretty good job too. And there are quite a few others where the actor does a good job portraying the real detective. But on the new show ATL Homicide (on TV One), with the detectives Vince Velasquez and David Quinn, the actor portraying Velasquez does a great job capturing Vince's personality, but the actor portraying David Quinn is awful at capturing Quinn. Quinn has swagger and game, but the actor playing him is just very soft-spoken and respectful. It seems like he must have been cast for a physical resemblance, but I don't think he even has that. Has anyone else noticed this?

Oh man...just watched the Preacher's Mother episode. That preacher son is definitely guilty, but I don't think they'll ever uncover enough evidence to charge him. Her brother was shook up at the end...I felt so bad for him, and for their family, not having gotten together again after that Thanksgiving from the day before she died.

Heh...good one!

Exactly! The socks thing was so bizarre, and really gives insight into the special hell Dave must be living in. If she can't even keep up with her OWN laundry, to the point that she runs out of clean socks (when it's a task she has been responsible for already in her adult life), there is NO WAY IN HELL that she is going to be keeping up with doing his as well (which was apparently what they agreed on). And if she already isn't even keeping up with a task that is so fundamental to the happiness of her own life, then she's undoubtedly not doing other lesser joint tasks that she has agreed to do. The whole tantric thing was odd, because when they asked the woman about how much action the couch had seen (or something like that), she replied something like, "I don't really know." I took that to mean that this was not her place of business, and was just a rented Airbnb (like they do on Catfish sometimes), so she'd never used that couch before.

But it's not that simple. Bobby is accepting the chore inequality with Danielle (where he does far more) not just because he "really cares" about her, but because he recognizes a different inequality, which is the commuting distance (she does far more). He is doing his part in response to the part she is doing. If Danielle did not have a longer commute, I don't believe that his "really caring" about Danielle would cause him to "enthusiastically" carry the lion's share of housework without complaining, in the absence of a corresponding cause/comparable burden for Danielle. I absolutely believe that he would complain, and rightly so. And that's the difference...with Dave and Amber, there is no comparable inequality in their situation to account for Amber's slacking off on the chores. It's simply that Amber isn't doing her share, even for the things she said she'd do. I don't blame Dave one bit for complaining, and if it was the other way around, Amber would be complaining...as would Bobby or Danielle if they were in Dave's situation/shoes.

The ghosts/hallucination deflection thing was genius! Here's the thing I didn't understand, maybe I missed something...why would Issa think all the girls are soooo mad at her? Is it cuz she went to get the water and ended up riding the ferris wheel and not being there when all the sh*t first went down? It seemed like it went deeper than that, but I couldn't follow...

I just watched the latest "Fatal Vows" episode called "Everybody Loves Rick". They mentioned something very odd about the lead woman, Jolena. Her husband had been abusing her. So she left with her kids and got divorced. The ex was supposed to only have supervised visits with the kids, but for a reason I didn't quite catch (maybe that he was threatening her?), she let him have unsupervised visits. So he turned her in to social services for giving him unsupervised visits. And then the show said, with no other explanation, that then her kids were put into foster care and then adopted. WTF? There must have been quite a bit that was left out from the story about the real reason that the kids were not just removed temporarily, but removed permanently. (She did appear to have other problems, but they emerged later as the show progressed.)

I also don't like watching shows that as their premise deal with truly evil people/acts (which is distinct from the usual murder mystery crime-solving premise). I've also found that I don't enjoy watching the shows where we already know who did it (Deadly Women etc.) or where it's unsolved and remaining that way (Disappeared), as opposed to unsolved and being worked (Cold Justice, Reasonable Doubt). For me, it's all about the whodunit and the evidence/clues! When the first season of I Speak for the Dead came out, I didn't watch it, cause it just seemed kind of slow and ponderous. But when the second season came out, I decided to watch it and go back and watch the first season, and just focus on the mystery/solving aspect that I like, and basically ignore the personality part.

The strength of this statement is in inverse proportion to the age of the man. The older a man gets, the more his ears bleed at the incessant use of the word "like" and at the mere mention of the Kardashians.