Re: L&O 10/30 - Human Flesh Search Engine
theget
> Rob Corddry was fairly evil in this episode.
Why? Please compare your answer to the other thread that's active
now, "How foolish can a person be?"
> And how does an actor as famous as Ernie Hudson agree to do maybe ONE
> MINUTE of screen time at the beginning of the episode, and never show up
> again after that? They must be planning a multi episode arc, since he's
> playing Van Buren's new boyfriend.
Likely.
>
> Also...I think Van Buren's wig could have used some work. I don't
> suppose they could have used SEM's real hairdo, and just said that it
> was a wig? (She's always worn a wig the entire time she's been playing
> Van Buren...her real hair, AFAIK, is dreadlocks)
SEM might wear dreadlocks, but I think it would be out of character
for Van Buren.
Once again we are getting a massive dose of personal business. Besides
meeting Van Burens SO and seeing her new wig, we found out about
Bernard's love child.
Some interesting issues this time around regarding free speech. I
guess the thing hinges on the fact that Corddry's character knew about
the mad woman's behavior in advance and that undid him.
And the irony is strong here, although they didn't play it up that
much. Lupo must have some mad networking skills in order to pull off
getting some cop in, where was it, Singapore maybe, to do him a favor
like that.
I suppose the time has come to ask, why if he has those connections
and those abilities is he working homocide? It seems almost a waste.
He's kinda like a supercop or something.
Plus we got a mention of crush videos and the kittens. Or was that two
mentions?
Theget
David / Amicus
turned the tables on the perp at the end! BRAVO!
David / Amicus
if he has those connections and those abilities is he working homocide?
It seems almost a waste. He's kinda like a supercop or something.>>
Wasn't his character introduced when his brother was killed and now he's
watching after the widow and her children? Maybe he wants to stay
local?
David / Amicus
out-of-wedlock nor missing a few child support payments.
Quite common in this day and age, nothing out of the ordinary.
Since he has no contact with the child and the mother wants her husband
to raise the boy I wonder if Bernard is still paying the child support
or has signed away his rights?
Damien
"David / Amicus" <Ami...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:10279-4AE...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net...
>I don't understand the big deal about Bernard fathering a child
> out-of-wedlock nor missing a few child support payments.
>
> Quite common in this day and age, nothing out of the ordinary.
>
>
In addition, he missed the payments during the first six months when the
paternity was in question. If he was still continuing to pay, that would be
9.5 years of on-time payments
theget
The issue is that he gave his word in writing. I don't recall if it
was a contract or some sort of court decree, but he gave his consent
and then didn't pay when the matter was being disputed.
That allows the attorney to question his ability to keep his word and
his oath.
Theget
Ray O'Hara
"theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
news:7b94f279-f2ce-42b0...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
Theget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It seemed to me the prosecution should have used that as a means of attack.
point out how people like the defendent can and will violate your privacy to
intimidate and control you.
that this is a threat and point out the power of it.
jack
> "theget" <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote in message
>
> news:7b94f279-f2ce-42b0...@l34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 2:48 pm, Ami...@webtv.net (David / Amicus) wrote:
>
> > I don't understand the big deal about Bernard fathering a child
> > out-of-wedlock nor missing a few child support payments.
>
> > Quite common in this day and age, nothing out of the ordinary.
>
> > Since he has no contact with the child and the mother wants her husband
> > to raise the boy I wonder if Bernard is still paying the child support
> > or has signed away his rights?
>
> The issue is that he gave his word in writing. I don't recall if it
> was a contract or some sort of court decree, but he gave his consent
> and then didn't pay when the matter was being disputed.
>
> That allows the attorney to question his ability to keep his word and
> his oath.
>
> Theget
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> point out how people like the defendent can and will violate your privacy to
> intimidate and control you.
> that this is a threat and point out the power of it.
That whole line of argument made no sense and I can't see how the
judge allowed it. No one would expect police to be angels living
perfect lives. If this were a valid argument then every defendant's
lawyer would hire private detectives to get the goods on testifying
officers. Police officers' conduct would have to directly be of
relevance to the case.
Ray O'Hara
"jack" <jrs9...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:551602fb-7d4c-465d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
==================================================================
impugning a witness's credibility is perfectly alloweable.
D.F. Manno
<551602fb-7d4c-465d...@b15g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
jack <jrs9...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That whole line of argument made no sense and I can't see how the
> judge allowed it. No one would expect police to be angels living
> perfect lives. If this were a valid argument then every defendant's
> lawyer would hire private detectives to get the goods on testifying
> officers. Police officers' conduct would have to directly be of
> relevance to the case.
Credibility of witnesses is _always_ a issue.
--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"Faith is a cop-out. If the only way you can accept an assertion is by
faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits."
(Dan Barker, former preacher, musician, b. 1949)
Hunter
Ami...@webtv.net says...
> I don't understand the big deal about Bernard fathering a child
> out-of-wedlock nor missing a few child support payments.
>
> Quite common in this day and age, nothing out of the ordinary.
Some people still have feelings of shame about it if it violates
their own moral code. If I recall he is religious IIRC (but keeps it
private). He slipped and he is not proud of it. This may also be
informing on his feelings against abortion since he had a child out
of wedlock. He wasn't sure as to who fathered him at first but once
he did he was pleased about his existence even if he doesn't get to
raise him. He certainly didn't want him aborted.
To be more on point in this case the Defense slant on it is that if
he lied about the child support how could they-the jury in
particular-trust his word.
>
> Since he has no contact with the child and the mother wants her husband
> to raise the boy I wonder if Bernard is still paying the child support
> or has signed away his rights?
---
When the spouse that is receiving child support remarries the father
of the children of the previous relationship is no longer under any
legal obligation to financially support the child. As for signing
away his parental rights he didn't do that but came to a civilized
agreement for him and his son to go their separate ways, to avoid as
his girlfriend and himself put it, confusing the boy (who's ten years
old now).
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
paristalks
did the woman kill her victim? As I recall, it looked like a self-
asphyxiation gone wrong. But how would she have been able to tie him
up and kill him? Surely he would've been able to overpower her pretty
easily.
Sue
theget
Maybe he didn't think it was self-asphyxiation and he was
cooperating? Maybe she told him it would be really enjoyable and he
thought she was telling the truth?
Theget
theget
Replying to my own post here.
Maybe she gave him a knock on the head that make him fall down just
long enough for her to get something around his neck that he couldn't
loosen, or to tie up his hands and legs,and then she made it look like
he was having his own fun?
Theget
paristalks
> On Nov 12, 10:01 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 12, 9:25 am, paristalks <rdesche...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > Something I've been meaning to ask about this episode: How, exactly,
> > > did the woman kill her victim? As I recall, it looked like a self-
> > > asphyxiation gone wrong. But how would she have been able to tie him
> > > up and kill him? Surely he would've been able to overpower her pretty
> > > easily.
>
> > Maybe he didn't think it was self-asphyxiation and he was
> > cooperating? Maybe she told him it would be really enjoyable and he
> > thought she was telling the truth?
>
"Hey, honey, you up for a little S&M?" Even he didn't seem quite that
out of it.
> Replying to my own post here.
>
> Maybe she gave him a knock on the head that make him fall down just
> long enough for her to get something around his neck that he couldn't
> loosen, or to tie up his hands and legs,and then she made it look like
> he was having his own fun?
>
Wouldn't they have caught that in the autopsy? I don't remember any
mention of a knock on the head. But, come to think of it, I don't
recall any autopsy scenes with Rogers, either.
Sue
theget
> On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:> On Nov 12, 10:01 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 9:25 am, paristalks <rdesche...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > Something I've been meaning to ask about this episode: How, exactly,
> > > > did the woman kill her victim? As I recall, it looked like a self-
> > > > asphyxiation gone wrong. But how would she have been able to tie him
> > > > up and kill him? Surely he would've been able to overpower her pretty
> > > > easily.
>
> > > Maybe he didn't think it was self-asphyxiation and he was
> > > cooperating? Maybe she told him it would be really enjoyable and he
> > > thought she was telling the truth?
>
> With a total stranger? Someone just knocks on your door and says,
> "Hey, honey, you up for a little S&M?" Even he didn't seem quite that
> out of it.
There has been research that shows that men are far more likely then
women to respond to a sexual invitation from a total stranger.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/booster_shots/2009/08/women-take-very-attractive-strangers-to-bed-men-are-not-so-picky.html
There is even some evidence that suggests that a woman doesn't have to
be "good looking", or at least not what our society considers good
looking. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/the-power-female-choice-fat-chicks-get-laid-more
So a strange woman knocks on a man's door and says "Hey, honey, you up
for a little S&M?" I don't think it's entirely out of the question
that he would say, "Sure, come one in."
Besides which, she may not have told him about the S&M or that she was
planning on murdering him, in advance.
>
> > Replying to my own post here.
>
> > Maybe she gave him a knock on the head that make him fall down just
> > long enough for her to get something around his neck that he couldn't
> > loosen, or to tie up his hands and legs,and then she made it look like
> > he was having his own fun?
>
> Wouldn't they have caught that in the autopsy? I don't remember any
> mention of a knock on the head. But, come to think of it, I don't
> recall any autopsy scenes with Rogers, either.
I don't know if it would show. I think she only has to throw him off
balance for a minute or two. If she is fast, she can get through the
work, or the fun, depending on her view.
Theget
paristalks
> On Nov 15, 11:56 am, paristalks <rdesche...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 1:11 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:> On Nov 12, 10:01 am, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 12, 9:25 am, paristalks <rdesche...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > Something I've been meaning to ask about this episode: How, exactly,
> > > > > did the woman kill her victim? As I recall, it looked like a self-
> > > > > asphyxiation gone wrong. But how would she have been able to tie him
> > > > > up and kill him? Surely he would've been able to overpower her pretty
> > > > > easily.
>
> > > > Maybe he didn't think it was self-asphyxiation and he was
> > > > cooperating? Maybe she told him it would be really enjoyable and he
> > > > thought she was telling the truth?
>
> > With a total stranger? Someone just knocks on your door and says,
> > "Hey, honey, you up for a little S&M?" Even he didn't seem quite that
> > out of it.
>
> There has been research that shows that men are far more likely then
>
> There is even some evidence that suggests that a woman doesn't have to
> be "good looking", or at least not what our society considers good
>
> So a strange woman knocks on a man's door and says "Hey, honey, you up
> for a little S&M?" I don't think it's entirely out of the question
> that he would say, "Sure, come one in."
>
> Besides which, she may not have told him about the S&M or that she was
> planning on murdering him, in advance.
>
>
>
from Eve. Seemed like a pretty major dropped plot point.
> > > Replying to my own post here.
>
> > > Maybe she gave him a knock on the head that make him fall down just
> > > long enough for her to get something around his neck that he couldn't
> > > loosen, or to tie up his hands and legs,and then she made it look like
> > > he was having his own fun?
>
> > Wouldn't they have caught that in the autopsy? I don't remember any
> > mention of a knock on the head. But, come to think of it, I don't
> > recall any autopsy scenes with Rogers, either.
>
> I don't know if it would show. I think she only has to throw him off
> balance for a minute or two. If she is fast, she can get through the
> work, or the fun, depending on her view.
>
But she was a pretty small woman. If he's dead weight, could she
physically have lifted him onto the bench and strung him up? Just
doesn't seem plausible to me. If it were two women, or at least one
woman who clearly has done some heavy-duty weight-lifting, but I can't
see it for this one.
Sue
theget
Well, I'm not sure exactly which of my points you're responding to.
If she had said, "I'm here to murder you." then I think it would be
unlikely he'd let her in. We don't know if he was into S&M and if he
was a top or a sub so we have no way of knowing what would have
happened if she had suggested more slap then tickle. Perhaps she told
him she was there to sell subscriptions to "Have Sex With Me Now!"
magazine. Perhaps that would have gotten her in the door.
>
> > > > Replying to my own post here.
>
> > > > Maybe she gave him a knock on the head that make him fall down just
> > > > long enough for her to get something around his neck that he couldn't
> > > > loosen, or to tie up his hands and legs,and then she made it look like
> > > > he was having his own fun?
>
> > > Wouldn't they have caught that in the autopsy? I don't remember any
> > > mention of a knock on the head. But, come to think of it, I don't
> > > recall any autopsy scenes with Rogers, either.
>
> > I don't know if it would show. I think she only has to throw him off
> > balance for a minute or two. If she is fast, she can get through the
> > work, or the fun, depending on her view.
>
> But she was a pretty small woman. If he's dead weight, could she
> physically have lifted him onto the bench and strung him up? Just
> doesn't seem plausible to me. If it were two women, or at least one
> woman who clearly has done some heavy-duty weight-lifting, but I can't
> see it for this one.
I can imagine a scenario where she gagged him and tied his hands and
then showed him a gun in order to encourage him to be more
cooperative. Then he would have put himself into position and she
could have completed her work.
Or maybe she had someone help her once he was tied up and gagged.
I didn't think this was all that important to the point of the story.
You seem awfully interested in the details as to how this could come
about.
Murder mystery fan? Practical application? Detail oriented?
Theget
paristalks
open their doors to just anyone, and the likelihood of him letting in
a total stranger just seems off to me. I would've liked to see them
explain in more detail exactly *how* she managed to get in, subdue him
and kill him because that's information they normally cover in this
series.
Nope. Cause of death is just another detail this series, being a
police procedural, usually addresses.
Sue
theget
> On Nov 15, 4:45 pm, theget <the...@bigmailbox.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 15, 3:09 pm, paristalks <rdesche...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> My point being that, especially in New York, folks generally don't
> open their doors to just anyone,
Maybe he went out, they met, he invited her back home?
> and the likelihood of him letting in
> a total stranger just seems off to me. I would've liked to see them
> explain in more detail exactly *how* she managed to get in, subdue him
> and kill him because that's information they normally cover in this
> series.
I'm not so sure about that. I think we've seen plenty of eps where
the exact method isn't shown, although the cause of death usually is.
> Cause of death is just another detail this series, being a
> police procedural, usually addresses.
And here they did address the cause. They just didn't tell us exactly
how he got that way.
Theget
paristalks
Sue