Bastet

They heard acoustic recordings of both songs.

Tanya was younger (she was seven when she first met O.J.), and said Denise told her after the murder that the reason Nicole had never told Tanya any of what was going on was because of her age; she was a teenager for most of the marriage.

The Cialis tubs always remind me of movies made under the Production Code, where even married characters had to be shown sleeping in separate beds. It makes the commercials quite a strange juxtaposition for me, with video that harks back to a time of keeping everything unseen and unspoken, and audio that's nattering on about boners.

The jury in the Stairway to Heaven plagiarism case has cleared Led Zeppelin.

I wasn't reading anything into Grace eating chicken salad (back when I first brought this up), I was wondering whether the presence of chicken salad in the fridge was another instance where Frankie the vegetarian was eating meat. The easy answer is no, it's Grace's, not Frankie's, so it's probably not, it's just that chicken salad didn't strike me as a particularly Grace thing to eat, plus it looked homemade rather than from a deli, so it gave me that moment of pause that maybe Frankie had made it. I think that leaves us only with Frankie eating seafood in the first episode, so I can just guess that the writers hadn't yet decided to make her a vegetarian, and I think the original point of my observation was that it strikes me as funny because Frankie as written from jump is SO going to be a vegetarian.

Heads up: The six-part Bionic Vet documentary series is now on Netflix. Not the SuperVet series about the same practice that started a few years later, though. Thanks for the info on the Vet Life forum; I've added it to my home page (even though I still have yet to catch an episode).

A post from GHScorpiosRule in another thread had me looking up who Pierce is married to and what she looks like. She reported they were featured in one of those horrible clickbait articles, this one about celebrities with unattractive significant others. I thought I recalled he married some hot young model/actor/"journalist," and, sure enough, I was right -- the woman simply had the audacity to put on a few pounds over the past 20+ years. Through the course of looking her up, I read that Cassie's mom had died of ovarian cancer, too. I knew their daughter died of it, but I didn't realize she was the third generation. So sad. Anyway, the point of all this is to say that for all his fame and fortune, Pierce still comes across as a good man. He didn't trade his trophy wife in for a younger model because she, like 99% of the population, picked up a few wrinkles and pounds over the years, and throughout both marriages I have never heard a single plausible rumor of infidelity. He adopted Cassie's kids, and seems to have been a loving and involved father. He loves animals, has both cats and dogs (I love men who love cats), and adopts them rather than buys them. He's an activist for women's health, animal welfare, environmental protection, etc. I've really never heard of him being a jackass to people other than paparazzi, and I give quite a pass on that one. This shouldn't be particularly noteworthy, but for a man with his looks, his money, and his celebrity, it is.

I have no new words, since this has long since passed crazy (not to mention irresponsible), but Rachel and Sean have produced yet another kid, their EIGHTH.

I cannot stand people like Angela who give blanket advice about how gifts need to be romantic. Give me practical any day. Now, don't give me a blender when I note we need one (how do two adults not have a single blender between them?), because that's something for us, not for me, but do not give me some schmaltzy shit, either. If Kiki wants romantic gifts, good for her, and she can communicate that, but Angela didn't know that when she was spouting her wisdom. One size does not fit all. Wonderful to see Yvette Nicole Brown again, but what a collection of black female stereotypes her character was. She made it work, as she does; I enjoyed her. Boundaries, Kent. His motivation in compiling all that research is good, but his execution sucks. He doesn't know Maura well enough to just hand her a folder and tell her to go get brain surgery. He should have taken that info to Jane, explained the situation, and let her sit down with Maura to suggest she look into it. And I still see not one iota of sexual tension between them (plus, again -- she's his boss!). I like them as friendly colleagues, but if the show goes down the romantic road I am going to be hella pissed. Such a final season thing -- so, anyone in the cast want to sing? We'll write that in. I meant to watch the late airing to actually pay attention to the case, since I was cleaning during the first airing and thus not paying full attention, but I don't watch this show for the cases, anyway, so who cares?

I did it with upholster. My answer was "Upholster. -ing! Upholstering." Under game conditions, Alex would have ruled me incorrect before I remembered the category.

Stonewalling really surprised me as a TS. Dogs kind of did; if nothing else, Big Red just sounds like a dog, and all the other clues had already been answered without dog being among them, so I would have expected someone to at least guess that. I was cleaning the living room and facing away from the TV during the fonts category, so I didn't realize until I turned around for the last one that the clues were written in the fonts being asked about -- I got an impressive number of them just listening to the clues!

A lot of what I consider the coolest items from her estate - at least the ones in relation to Golden Girls - have long since been auctioned off, but maybe they've been holding some stuff in reserve.

Yeah, it felt akin to a business stocking up on "free gifts" in anticipation of having to appease irritated customers, not a husband advance purchasing gifts for his wife. He wasn't coming across something he knew she'd like and saving it for the next birthday or "just because" surprise. He was buying in bulk (nice bulk, but bulk) to have a supply on hand for whenever he wanted to soothe her ruffled feathers -- as a means to avoid engaging with her as to why she was upset.

Yeah, to think of someone trapped there, conscious, while slowly succumbing to their injuries is very sad. The gate is pretty damaged, and if it's wrought iron it would take a decent amount of force to do that, but we'll see what the coroner's report shows. I didn't recognize his name or face, so looked him up on IMDb; quite a list of credits for someone not even thirty years old yet.

Different jury, yes, but also different attorneys, different judge, different evidence (although obviously with significant overlap), and a different burden of proof in the civil case; they were answering the same question, but didn't have to answer with anything near the same degree of certainty.

It's much more prevalent in the UK. But I vaguely remember stories of harassment of "gingers" in the US, and I also remember reading that What Would You Do? did a segment on it in response to a kid's letter (I just did a quick search to confirm that).

I'm not sure what floors me more in this scenario - that the friend had the audacity to say, "Hey, I'm bringing my whole family, cool?" or that the husband didn't say, "Um, no." And, yeah, I'd have been off having myself a spa day or something.

Right? What hubris. When Bailey kept on after the original denial, clearly he had witnesses waiting in the wings. Fuhrman bought himself some time by saying he wasn't sure how to answer the question as posed, and had the perfect out right there in front of him. Bailey was asking if it was possible he had, in fact, used the word in the past 10 years, but forgotten. The correct answer to that (if you're Mark Fuhrman) is, "Yes, I suppose it's possible." You know what's coming, get ahead of it. Stand by not remembering a specific instance, but allow that, yes, it's possible, phrase it as something you unfortunately might have done in the past, and let the prosecution help you out on redirect. Instead he goes with "No." Then Bailey essentially says, "I have witnesses who will testify otherwise, so let's make sure you hang yourself but good" and he doubles down! Lying sack of racist shit.

I don't particularly care for asking defense attorneys whether they think their client is innocent. Their job is to ensure the prosecution makes its case. We give the state the power to imprison (and, in some cases, execute) people. The check on that enormous power is that it must establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys perform that check, as someone up-thread described beautifully. Sure, it's easier to be sympathetic to a public defender who's working to ensure a fair trial for some disadvantaged member of society particularly vulnerable to police and prosecutorial misconduct than to a high-paid attorney for a celebrity client, but the principle is the same. If any defense attorney wants to only take on clients she or he believes are innocent, that's fine, but I'm not throwing shade on those who are focused on not guilty (the legal standard) rather than innocent. The flip side is I also don't much care for defense attorneys faced with that question doing a dance rather than just explaining that it's irrelevant. On that note, I was stunned by how poorly Scheck performed when he was asked whether he believed the DNA theories he proposed were true. You're a top-notch trial lawyer, and you can't control the shoulder-brushing and such? He may as well have held up a neon sign that flashed "Hell, no." He initially said, paraphrasing, it wasn't about what he believed, it was him casting doubt on the evidence, but then he was asked again, even more directly, and got strangely flustered; the body language and the word salad that fell out of his mouth was surprising. Whenever there's a horrific cause of death, I become fixated on how awful it must be for victims' families to think about how violent and terrifying their loved one's final moments were.

No worry, Jane would have just jumped after him and saved him.

I guess I should have made that explicit myself, that prosecutors and (some) jurors both failed on that front. With my professional experience, it was one of the particularly frustrating aspects of the trial, and what my colleagues and I had feared would happen.

Same here, on both counts - I like the contrast, and I may need medication to get through the next part with that juror. I also liked the cut back and forth between Marcia Clark and someone else, regarding the jurors' reaction to the domestic violence testimony, with one saying they didn't get it, and one saying they got it, but didn't care. I ran the legal clinic of a DV shelter for several years until I shifted from direct representation to policy work because it was less likely to lead to me throwing myself off a bridge. At the time of O.J.'s arrest, I had just fairly recently started studying the issue and volunteering. My heart sank thinking that he'd be acquitted, confirming to many victims what Nicole had known all along -- someday he'll kill me, and he'll get away with it. (And, to this day, we get clients who've been threatened via reference to O.J.) One of my clearest memories after the verdict is one of the jurors (not either of the ones seen last night) saying she didn't understand why the prosecution spent time on the DV evidence -- this case was about murder, not domestic abuse. What is intimate partner homicide if not the final point on the spectrum of abuse? The other is of a juror saying of the blood evidence, yeah, it matched O.J.'s blood type, but lots of people had that blood type. Look, there were issues with how the prosecution presented the evidence, but if you sat and listened to the explanation of what DNA is and what a match means and came out thinking all we knew was someone with O.J.'s blood type was there, the prosecutors and their witnesses are not the ultimate problem here. Which takes me back to my appreciation that this film includes the two very-different jurors. Because I hate the "oh, that stupid jury" sentiment as much as the next person, because they should not shoulder all or even a majority of the blame yet there's this enduring (false) narrative that the prosecution put forth a slam-dunk case and the jury reached a decision no reasonable jury could reach, but, yeah, some of those jurors did stupid things. So, juror no. 9 thinks what she thinks and we should see that. But it's important to also see juror no. 2, who gave the evidence fair consideration.

I heard a nice piece about her on NPR Thursday, and cracked up at an old interview clip of her recounting her experience watching the film adaptation of I Know What You Did Last Summer and wondering what the hell happened to her story. "There was no guy with a hook!"

That struck me again last night, and I still don't understand it. I don't know how many times these cops and techs had testified before, but even if it was a first for everyone, the prosecutors should have better prepared them. They knew - or should have known, given the defense lawyers' reputations and their tactics already seen in this case - how the defense was going to challenge the credibility of these witnesses, but didn't have them prepared for how to respond to cross-examination. If a few key questions had been answered with an "I don't know" rather than a "no," it would have made a difference. Seeing Ito again sure riled up the blood, like when Fuhrman's lawyer correctly pointed out that any further questioning by the defense would just be theatre, as his client has established that he will assert his Fifth Amendment right in response to any and all questions. The defense needs the jury to hear him plead the Fifth to "did you plant the glove," though. Watching Ito play right into that -- ugh. My neighbors were probably alarmed by the fact I yelled, "You are a racist piece of shit," but watching Fuhrman will do that to me. I feel about him much the way Marcia Clark expressed - I don't believe he planted evidence in this case, simply because it doesn't work out that he could have, but I could absolutely believe he did it in other cases. Police departments pull this shit, and he's exactly the kind of cop I can see doing it. I just don't think he did it here. The urge to yell "Don't do it, Darden!" was strong, even after all these years. It was interesting hearing from that one juror that she knew exactly what was going to happen. It's second-hand embarrassment watching him fall for that, but come on -- what an inexcusable rookie mistake.

Huh? Who in the what now? (I missed the episode, and the archive is not yet updated.) Are you telling me a category about female characters in Aaron Spelling shows did not contain a clue about a single one of the women of Charlie's Angels? Aren't they the most famous of his female characters? I am rather irrationally annoyed by this. They never got to the $2000 clue in the category whixh given that they already did 90210, Dynasty, Melrose, and Charmed. I imagine it would have been the clue. Ah, okay. Although I'd think Charlie's Angels would be the lowest-valued clue in that category. I'd be impressed if they had a $2000 clue about HeartBeat - I liked that show, because of the cast, and for having a lesbian as one of the main characters, but it didn't catch on.