Hawai'i 5.1 4/9/12

[anim8rFSK]

Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?

Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.

Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.

And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?

Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
bring in their worse supporting character, Max.

Ptui.

Tons of stuff that doesn't make sense, including dialog like "So I just
spoke to the victim's mother, and I found out that Angela had a child
out of wedlock, and she hid it from her mom" -- say WHAT? If she hid it
from her mom, how did her mom know about it? If her mom knew about it,
then she didn't exactly hide it. From the mother she LIVED WITH.

What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.

Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
really didn't find anything that exonerates him.

Thankless and pointless cameos by Kevin Dobson and Stacey Haiduk.

Was anybody else hoping that that ending shot would be McCarrott dead
someplace, or at least his cell phone laying in the gutter?

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is stupid?

[rwgibson13]

On Tuesday, April 10, 2012 12:24:40 AM UTC-5, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
>
> Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
>
> Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.

::sigh::

I was just drunk enough to tune into this one and hope...

> And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
>
> Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> bring in their worse supporting character, Max.

And Danno didn't have any good lines either.
The producers of this show don't really have clue one how to use Caan if he's not bantering back and forth with The Wooden One.
That's a scary bad thought.

I gave up on it about the time that they went into Max's background.
Good for fans of the actor who may have followed him over from Heroes, but not so much for anyone else.
Lord knows, I bought into the "a guy's gotta work" angle on this show when Terry O'Quinn signed on, but the producers on this one are light years away from those on LOST, or even Heroes, when it comes to developing interesting characters and character interaction.

Or maybe that's just the way CBS wants it.

Then again, the producers of NCIS have managed to do it for over a decade, so it's definitely possible, even for a police proceedural on "the network of old farts."

RWG (the production staff of H20 is just really pretty godawful by comparison)

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-93537...@news.easynews.com>,

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

> Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
>
> Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
>
> Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.
>
> And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
>
> Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> bring in their worse supporting character, Max.
>
> Ptui.

I watched this tonight on the DVR and I couldn't believe that the show
was *worse* without McCarrott. Wouldn't have thought that possible.

Then I watched the movie "The Getaway" about a couple honeymooning in
Kau'ai who meet up with unexpected serial-killing trouble in paradise.

Kind of a dark side of Hawaii night all around.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?

>Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.

>Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.

>And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
>take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?

>Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
>bring in their worse supporting character, Max.

>Ptui.

>Tons of stuff that doesn't make sense, including dialog like "So I just
>spoke to the victim's mother, and I found out that Angela had a child
>out of wedlock, and she hid it from her mom" -- say WHAT? If she hid it
>from her mom, how did her mom know about it? If her mom knew about it,
>then she didn't exactly hide it. From the mother she LIVED WITH.

I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
That's something they'd check.

>What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
>boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
>other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.

Was he even her boyfriend?

>Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
>really didn't find anything that exonerates him.

Has Pruitt Taylor Vince lost weight?

>Thankless and pointless cameos by Kevin Dobson and Stacey Haiduk.

>Was anybody else hoping that that ending shot would be McCarrott dead
>someplace, or at least his cell phone laying in the gutter?

He should have returned to North Korea.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
>
> >Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
>
> >Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.
>
> >And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> >take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
>
> >Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> >bring in their worse supporting character, Max.
>
> >Ptui.

I didn't mind Max, but Kono could have been given Chin Ho's duties, except that don't think she and Danno get along that well (or rather the actors don't get along). And when did Steve get such "girly" handwriting?

> >Tons of stuff that doesn't make sense, including dialog like "So I just
> >spoke to the victim's mother, and I found out that Angela had a child
> >out of wedlock, and she hid it from her mom" -- say WHAT? If she hid it
> >from her mom, how did her mom know about it? If her mom knew about it,
> >then she didn't exactly hide it. From the mother she LIVED WITH.

There is evidence of lots of girls hiding pregnancies from families. That one didn't seem to be one such where it would work, but... I thought mom said that she hadn't known daughter was preggers, but daughter told her after she'd given up the baby (?).

> I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
> she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
> That's something they'd check.

Why? They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any children, unless they don't know who she is. They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had had children (at least that's what I got from it).

> >What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
> >boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
> >other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.
>
> Was he even her boyfriend?

They'd been dating, but he thought she was cheating.

> >Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
> >really didn't find anything that exonerates him.

The "real killer" confessed all to Max, then died. Deathbed confessions (and the withheld exculpatory evidence) would at least get a new trial (and release until said trial).

> Has Pruitt Taylor Vince lost weight?

I was thinking, at the end, that he's become ill. The weight loss doesn't look like "healthy loss". It "looks" like cancer weight loss.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
>>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
>>That's something they'd check.

>Why?

It's a motive for murder.

>They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
>children, unless they don't know who she is.

Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.

>They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that
>front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had
>had children (at least that's what I got from it).

Yet Max knew she'd given birth, without going back to the body.

>>>What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
>>>boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
>>>other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.

>>Was he even her boyfriend?

>They'd been dating, but he thought she was cheating.

No, that's what he claimed.

>>Has Pruitt Taylor Vince lost weight?

>I was thinking, at the end, that he's become ill. The weight loss
>doesn't look like "healthy loss". It "looks" like cancer weight loss.

gawd, I hope not. He's a great actor.

[BTR1701]

In article
<22610245.949.1334413499577.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjm4>,

"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
> >
> > >Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
> >
> > >Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.
> >
> > >And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> > >take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
> >
> > >Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> > >bring in their worse supporting character, Max.
> >
> > >Ptui.
>
> I didn't mind Max, but Kono could have been given Chin Ho's duties, except
> that don't think she and Danno get along that well (or rather the actors
> don't get along).

You have to be some sort of spectacular ass not to get along with Grace
Park. She's about one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

> And when did Steve get such "girly" handwriting?

Yes! It looked like Danno's kid wrote that note.

> > >Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
> > >really didn't find anything that exonerates him.
>
> The "real killer" confessed all to Max, then died. Deathbed confessions (and
> the withheld exculpatory evidence) would at least get a new trial (and
> release until said trial).

No, for a convicted killer, there would be no release until the new
trial was over and he was acquitted.

The only way it could have worked the way we saw it in the episode is if
5.0 presented the case to the governor who agreed the guy was innocent
and pardoned him. That's the only way he'd be released within days.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
> >>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
> >>That's something they'd check.
>
> >Why?
>
> It's a motive for murder.
>
> >They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
> >children, unless they don't know who she is.
>
> Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.

It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause of death (the asphixia [sp?]).

> >They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that
> >front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had
> >had children (at least that's what I got from it).
>
> Yet Max knew she'd given birth, without going back to the body.

Istr that he did go back, after realizing that another of the Trashman's victims had had a child.

> >>>What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
> >>>boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
> >>>other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.
>
> >>Was he even her boyfriend?
>
> >They'd been dating, but he thought she was cheating.
>
> No, that's what he claimed.
>
> >>Has Pruitt Taylor Vince lost weight?
>
> >I was thinking, at the end, that he's become ill. The weight loss
> >doesn't look like "healthy loss". It "looks" like cancer weight loss.
>
> gawd, I hope not. He's a great actor.

I know. I am certainly hoping he just lost alot of weight, by limiting intake.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:17:40 AM UTC-6, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article
> <22610245.949.1334413499577.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjm4>,
> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
> > >
> > > >Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
> > >
> > > >Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.
> > >
> > > >And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> > > >take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
> > >
> > > >Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> > > >bring in their worse supporting character, Max.
> > >
> > > >Ptui.
> >
> > I didn't mind Max, but Kono could have been given Chin Ho's duties, except
> > that don't think she and Danno get along that well (or rather the actors
> > don't get along).
>
> You have to be some sort of spectacular ass not to get along with Grace
> Park. She's about one of the nicest people you'll ever meet.

It's probably the suits thinking that Danny and Kono have no chemistry (and Chin and Kono do, which is a bit skeevy). I don't know that they don't get along, that was speculation, and I should have noted it.

> > And when did Steve get such "girly" handwriting?
>
> Yes! It looked like Danno's kid wrote that note.
>
> > > >Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
> > > >really didn't find anything that exonerates him.
> >
> > The "real killer" confessed all to Max, then died. Deathbed confessions (and
> > the withheld exculpatory evidence) would at least get a new trial (and
> > release until said trial).
>
> No, for a convicted killer, there would be no release until the new
> trial was over and he was acquitted.

With the DA withholding the evidence (that he could *not* have killed one of the Trashman's victims, when they were claiming he was the guy), I think they would release him (on bond), for a new trial, no? Looking for the cite of a similar case (could take a bit, bear with me).

> The only way it could have worked the way we saw it in the episode is if
> 5.0 presented the case to the governor who agreed the guy was innocent
> and pardoned him. That's the only way he'd be released within days.

Almost all procedurals never give an actual timeline of events. For all we know, it was a month, and there could have been evidence found of all deaths that exonerated him. The CSIs are notorious for this (compressing months to minutes, with no explanation).

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:04:26 AM UTC-6, Smokie Darling (Annie) wrote:
> On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:17:40 AM UTC-6, BTR1701 wrote:
> > In article

> > No, for a convicted killer, there would be no release until the new
> > trial was over and he was acquitted.
>
> With the DA withholding the evidence (that he could *not* have killed one of the Trashman's victims, when they were claiming he was the guy), I think they would release him (on bond), for a new trial, no? Looking for the cite of a similar case (could take a bit, bear with me).

Okay, found cites:

first:
http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/04/joe_dambrosio_to_remain_free_p.html

Former death-row inmate Joe D'Ambrosio will remain a free man pending a retrial in the 1988 murder of Tony Klann.

U.S. District Judge Kate O'Malley said in a ruling Friday afternoon that Cuyahoga County Prosecutor Bill Mason cannot seek to keep D'Ambrosio in prison pending his trial. The 55-page filing also expunged D'Ambrosio's criminal record.

second (though not matches to release for retrial in murders, some were, but charges were dropped):
http://www.iacenter.org/folder02/deathrow_released.htm

Third (though it's unclear if he received bail):
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Freedom-eludes-former-death-row-inmate-Graves-1876836.php

A flurry of federal court orders brought former death row inmate Anthony Graves to the brink of freedom Thursday, then pulled him back as prosecutors prevailed again in a struggle to keep him jailed.

Hours after U.S. District Judge Samuel Kent ordered his release, the same federal appeals court that threw out his capital murder conviction ordered that he remain in the Burleson County Jail.

In an unusual move that was thwarted by the appeals court, Kent had ordered the U.S. marshal to bring Graves to his Galveston courtroom Nov. 17 so he could be released on bail.

"It's astonishingly unusual," said David Dow, professor at the University of Houston Law Center.

There is precedent showing a "convicted murderer" was released pending retrial (either on bail or ror).

[BTR1701]

In article
<9958356.201.1334419466120.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3>,

Nope. Until the old conviction is officially overturned with a new
acquittal, it's legally valid, which means he has to stay in prison.
With the caveat that he'd get to attend the actual trial, of course.

[BTR1701]

In article
<33354668.284.1334423245513.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3>,

And it's also "astonishingly unusual" as my old criminal law professor
Dow noted. And note also that the guy's release was reversed by the
appellate court because releasing convicted murderers pending retrial
isn't in accordance with the law.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

Alright, but the first cite says the convicted murderer was released on bail pending retrial.

The third reference (to which the "astonishingly unusual" comment is attributed), he was brought into court for a bail hearing, I didn't look for more on that one (but I did note that in my cite).

So, not common, but it does happen "in the real world".

[Adam H. Kerman]

Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
>>>>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
>>>>That's something they'd check.

>>>Why?

>>It's a motive for murder.

>>>They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
>>>children, unless they don't know who she is.

>>Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.

>It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
>of death (the asphixia [sp?]).

It's possible motive!

>>>They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that
>>>front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had
>>>had children (at least that's what I got from it).

>>Yet Max knew she'd given birth, without going back to the body.

>Istr that he did go back, after realizing that another of the Trashman's
>victims had had a child.

I don't recall he left the room. He just looked again at the file. But he
was at Five-0 hq, not the morgue anyway.

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
> >>>>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
> >>>>That's something they'd check.
>
> >>>Why?
>
> >>It's a motive for murder.
>
> >>>They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
> >>>children, unless they don't know who she is.
>
> >>Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.
>
> >It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
> >of death (the asphixia [sp?]).
>
> It's possible motive!

In hindsight? Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted (was she?).

Why would anyone look at a db's uterus, just to see if she'd had children? I can see it for ID purposes. It just isn't an automatic (even CSI, who notoriously get it wrong, got it right with Lady Heather's daughter, LH had to *ask* Doc Robbins to check her uterus).

> >>>They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that
> >>>front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had
> >>>had children (at least that's what I got from it).
>
> >>Yet Max knew she'd given birth, without going back to the body.
>
> >Istr that he did go back, after realizing that another of the Trashman's
> >victims had had a child.
>
> I don't recall he left the room. He just looked again at the file.

I thought that was the file (on computer) on a prior victim? Oh well, see how much attention I paid?

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<28444668.1326.1334441875852.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18>,

"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > >>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > >>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >>>>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
> > >>>>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
> > >>>>That's something they'd check.
> >
> > >>>Why?
> >
> > >>It's a motive for murder.
> >
> > >>>They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
> > >>>children, unless they don't know who she is.
> >
> > >>Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.
> >
> > >It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
> > >of death (the asphixia [sp?]).
> >
> > It's possible motive!
>
> In hindsight? Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted
> (was she?).
>
> Why would anyone look at a db's uterus, just to see if she'd had children? I

Did he say it was her uterus? I thought he was talking about her pelvic
bones or something. And, yeah, it was something he had noted, that
meant she'd given birth, but hadn't made the connection to realizing
she'd given birth, which pretty much makes him incompetent.

> can see it for ID purposes. It just isn't an automatic (even CSI, who
> notoriously get it wrong, got it right with Lady Heather's daughter, LH had
> to *ask* Doc Robbins to check her uterus).
>
> > >>>They knew who she was, they weren't looking for clues anymore on that
> > >>>front. No need to check, until they'd noticed that other victims had
> > >>>had children (at least that's what I got from it).
> >
> > >>Yet Max knew she'd given birth, without going back to the body.
> >
> > >Istr that he did go back, after realizing that another of the Trashman's
> > >victims had had a child.
> >
> > I don't recall he left the room. He just looked again at the file.
>
> I thought that was the file (on computer) on a prior victim? Oh well, see
> how much attention I paid?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <atropos-B8306C...@news.giganews.com>,

No matter *what* happened he wouldn't walk out the next day.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<9958356.201.1334419466120.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yndm3>,

No, there was something in that last scene that made it the next day.

[anim8rFSK]

In article
<22610245.949.1334413499577.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjm4>,
"Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> > anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Are you familiar with the phrase "These guys could fuck up a free lunch"?
> >
> > >Well, 5.1 just did, pretty much literally.
> >
> > >Tonight was the highly anticipated 'McCarrott Free' show.
> >
> > >And do they do what any sane and/or competent production would do, and
> > >take the opportunity to showcase our beloved and neglected Kono?
> >
> > >Nope. Instead they sideline her for no apparent reason and instead
> > >bring in their worse supporting character, Max.
> >
> > >Ptui.
>
> I didn't mind Max, but Kono could have been given Chin Ho's duties, except
> that don't think she and Danno get along that well (or rather the actors
> don't get along). And when did Steve get such "girly" handwriting?
>
> > >Tons of stuff that doesn't make sense, including dialog like "So I just
> > >spoke to the victim's mother, and I found out that Angela had a child
> > >out of wedlock, and she hid it from her mom" -- say WHAT? If she hid it
> > >from her mom, how did her mom know about it? If her mom knew about it,
> > >then she didn't exactly hide it. From the mother she LIVED WITH.
>
> There is evidence of lots of girls hiding pregnancies from families. That
> one didn't seem to be one such where it would work, but... I thought mom
> said that she hadn't known daughter was preggers, but daughter told her after
> she'd given up the baby (?).

No, I went back and checked before I wrote that. They said that the
mother told them she (the daughter) had the kid 'out of wedlock' and hid
it from her (the mom). Made no sense.

>
> > I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
> > she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
> > That's something they'd check.
>
> Why? They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
> children, unless they don't know who she is. They knew who she was, they
> weren't looking for clues anymore on that front. No need to check, until
> they'd noticed that other victims had had children (at least that's what I
> got from it).
>
> > >What strange secret life was Angela leading anyway, that had her
> > >boyfriend GPSing her car and her being late for work by being on the
> > >other side of the island? They promptly forgot about *all* of that.
> >
> > Was he even her boyfriend?
>
> They'd been dating, but he thought she was cheating.

And there's still the whole "they forgot the mysterious behavior of the
victim" bit. There's probably some whole subplot about how she was
trying to find the kid they just forgot about.

>
> > >Falsely accused guy gets out of prison the next day, even though they
> > >really didn't find anything that exonerates him.
>
> The "real killer" confessed all to Max, then died. Deathbed confessions (and
> the withheld exculpatory evidence) would at least get a new trial (and
> release until said trial).

The next day? On the word of an incompetent wacko murderer?

>
> > Has Pruitt Taylor Vince lost weight?
>
> I was thinking, at the end, that he's become ill. The weight loss doesn't
> look like "healthy loss". It "looks" like cancer weight loss.

[BTR1701]

In article <anim8rfsk-C48B2...@news.easynews.com>,

It's possible with a governor's pardon he could be free within 24 hours,
but the governor would take longer than that to review the case and
decide on a pardon in the first place.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Smokie Darling (Annie) <Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>>anim8rFSK <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>>>I couldn't figure out how Max performed the autopsy and didn't notice
>>>>>>she'd given birth, then he knew she'd given birth. It made no sense.
>>>>>>That's something they'd check.

>>>>>Why?

>>>>It's a motive for murder.

>>>>>They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
>>>>>children, unless they don't know who she is.

>>>>Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.

>>>It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
>>>of death (the asphixia [sp?]).

>>It's possible motive!

>In hindsight?

No, not in hindsight. It's one of them thar extremely common motives
for murder that can be learned from the deceased.

>Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted (was she?).

>Why would anyone look at a db's uterus, just to see if she'd had
>children? I can see it for ID purposes. It just isn't an automatic
>(even CSI, who notoriously get it wrong, got it right with Lady
>Heather's daughter, LH had to *ask* Doc Robbins to check her uterus).

They can certainly tell from her cervix if she's given birth, although
I don't know if they can tell how recently. Can they tell from examining
the exterior of the uterus without discecting it?

As it happens, I caught the beginning of an NCIS rerun the other day,
you know, the one with the dead petty officer. She had all these weight
loss and exercise books in her quarter, apparently because she wanted
to compete in a swimsuit competition, but Ducky found that she was
pregnant. Seems like it's routine.

[Michael Black]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2012, Adam H. Kerman wrote:


> As it happens, I caught the beginning of an NCIS rerun the other day,
> you know, the one with the dead petty officer. She had all these weight
> loss and exercise books in her quarter, apparently because she wanted
> to compete in a swimsuit competition, but Ducky found that she was
> pregnant. Seems like it's routine.
>

It seems pretty common for such shows to reveal that so and so was
pregnant. I have no idea why they do it, but obviously it's a plot point,
so they can't move the story forward until there is the reveal.

Michael

[Smokie Darling (Annie)]

On Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:07:31 PM UTC-6, anim8rfsk wrote:
> In article
> <28444668.1326.1334441875852.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18>,

> "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:

> > > >It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
> > > >of death (the asphixia [sp?]).
> > >
> > > It's possible motive!
> >
> > In hindsight? Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted
> > (was she?).
> >
> > Why would anyone look at a db's uterus, just to see if she'd had children? I
>
> Did he say it was her uterus? I thought he was talking about her pelvic
> bones or something. And, yeah, it was something he had noted, that
> meant she'd given birth, but hadn't made the connection to realizing
> she'd given birth, which pretty much makes him incompetent.

That's right, the separation of the pelvic bone. Gah..

[~consul]

'tis on this 4/14/2012 3:17 PM, wrote Smokie Darling (Annie) thus to say:
> On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>> Smokie Darling (Annie)<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, April 14, 2012 9:11:49 AM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>> Smokie Darling (Annie)<Barnab...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, April 13, 2012 10:32:03 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>>> anim8rFSK<anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> They don't automatically check to see if a female db has had any
>>>>> children, unless they don't know who she is.
>>>> Why wouldn't they check every organ? It's an autopsy.
>>> It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
>>> of death (the asphixia [sp?]).
>> It's possible motive!
> In hindsight? Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted (was she?).

Wouldn't a possible motive for any unconscious/asphyxiated woman be rape?
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, consul -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>

[~consul]

I am envisioning like a snake's jaw ... ooph! :(

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jmi1te$ec4$2...@gist.usc.edu>,

~consul <con...@dolphinsTAKEAWAY-cove.com> wrote:

> 'tis on this 4/15/2012 8:01 AM, wrote Smokie Darling (Annie) thus to say:
> > On Saturday, April 14, 2012 10:07:31 PM UTC-6, anim8rfsk wrote:
> >> In article
> >> <28444668.1326.1334441875852.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq18>,
> >> "Smokie Darling (Annie)"<> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Saturday, April 14, 2012 12:37:16 PM UTC-6, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> >
> >>>>> It's not an automatic thing, particularly when they have a solid cause
> >>>>> of death (the asphixia [sp?]).
> >>>>
> >>>> It's possible motive!
> >>>
> >>> In hindsight? Yeah. However, it wasn't initially. She wasn't assaulted
> >>> (was she?).
> >>>
> >>> Why would anyone look at a db's uterus, just to see if she'd had
> >>> children? I
> >>
> >> Did he say it was her uterus? I thought he was talking about her pelvic
> >> bones or something. And, yeah, it was something he had noted, that
> >> meant she'd given birth, but hadn't made the connection to realizing
> >> she'd given birth, which pretty much makes him incompetent.
> >
> > That's right, the separation of the pelvic bone. Gah..
>
> I am envisioning like a snake's jaw ... ooph! :(

LOL, yeah, that was my reaction.

--
So we're all agreed that Clod is as stupid as Charlie Sheen?

[anim8rFSK]

In article <jmdlpm$1tj$3...@news.albasani.net>,

Yeah, but Ducky's competent.