s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

Incredibly lame episode that uses Standard Plot 23, Is the wife innocent
of murdering her husband despite massive amounts of evidence? The
writers on this show are so terrible, they couldn't even pull off that.
This should have been a 1940s movie.

A toy manufacturer marries a woman young enough to be his granddaughter.
I'm guessing he hates his adult children and wants more with her, but
that's not stated in dialogue. On the night before the wedding, he's
been murdered.

There isn't much to say about the investigation. Brady still goes into
the field and conducts some interviews with Riley. When the two of them interview the daughter who tells them that her husband will be home
shortly with one of their kids, they leave instead of waiting to
interview him. Of course this turns out to be a massive mistake.

BTR1701 must have had a field day with all of the unstated objections
and one incredible trial moment in which Price raises yet another
objection (without stating it) that defense counsel is testifying.
Instead of immediately shutting her down, the judge waits till she's
made her statement, then sustains the objection.

Pretty lame defense counsel. When cross-examining Riley, she asks him
about evidence, possibly exculpatory, that hasn't been introduced. Why
didn't she just introduce it, then question Riley about it?

Maroun tells about the bond hearing, in which defense objected to the prosecution on the basis of... slut shaming. I think that one is right
there in the New York Code of Criminal Trial Procedure.

The son-in-law hired a P.I. to perform a background check and found
pictures of her. She's an escort and it paid for college. The brief
glimpse of the pictures we got were possibly cheesecake but not
especially erotic; we saw no nudes. Of course it's broadcast.

The prosecution wants to introduce her background; defense objects as
it's inflammatory. Breaking tradition, the judge rules admissable as it supports the prosecution's theory.

Later in the episode, the defendant tells Price she's disgusted with how
she was treated and that she wasn't ashamed of the picture. That's nice
but the issue was that she was an escort and was using the pictures to
ensnare a wealthy man to marry.

It gets wokier as it goes along. Now, the television audience probably
doesn't hate the wife and isn't sure about the accusations against her.
At one point while the defendant has taken the stand, she apparently
scored points. The daughter then suddenly remembers having seen her
around the time of the murder, telling Price after court. Huh?

At this point, we start to wonder if the daughter is lying and that she
and her husband committed the murder. They have a discussion in Baxter's office. Price still thinks they can convict her but Price starts to
wonder if she's the perpetrator.

Maroun makes the dumbest argument ever. Rather than emphasizing that
they are seriously doubting her guilt, because continuing to prosecute
is unethical, instead she lays into how terrible it is that their story
to the jury is slut shaming, and again, you just can't prosecute on the
basis that she's getting condemned for who she is as a sexul being.

But what if she really were trying to ensnare a wealthy man with her
youth and body, and then intended to murder him? You can't say mean
things about her?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

I resent the article due to database indexing problems on
eternal-september. Likely it was injected and seen on peers.

s
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

Incredibly lame episode that uses Standard Plot 23, Is the wife innocent
of murdering her husband despite massive amounts of evidence? The
writers on this show are so terrible, they couldn't even pull off that.
This should have been a 1940s movie.

A toy manufacturer marries a woman young enough to be his granddaughter.
I'm guessing he hates his adult children and wants more with her, but
that's not stated in dialogue. On the night before the wedding, he's
been murdered.

There isn't much to say about the investigation. Brady still goes into
the field and conducts some interviews with Riley. When the two of them interview the daughter who tells them that her husband will be home
shortly with one of their kids, they leave instead of waiting to
interview him. Of course this turns out to be a massive mistake.

BTR1701 must have had a field day with all of the unstated objections
and one incredible trial moment in which Price raises yet another
objection (without stating it) that defense counsel is testifying.
Instead of immediately shutting her down, the judge waits till she's
made her statement, then sustains the objection.

Pretty lame defense counsel. When cross-examining Riley, she asks him
about evidence, possibly exculpatory, that hasn't been introduced. Why
didn't she just introduce it, then question Riley about it?

Maroun tells about the bond hearing, in which defense objected to the prosecution on the basis of... slut shaming. I think that one is right
there in the New York Code of Criminal Trial Procedure.

The son-in-law hired a P.I. to perform a background check and found
pictures of her. She's an escort and it paid for college. The brief
glimpse of the pictures we got were possibly cheesecake but not
especially erotic; we saw no nudes. Of course it's broadcast.

The prosecution wants to introduce her background; defense objects as
it's inflammatory. Breaking tradition, the judge rules admissable as it supports the prosecution's theory.

Later in the episode, the defendant tells Price she's disgusted with how
she was treated and that she wasn't ashamed of the picture. That's nice
but the issue was that she was an escort and was using the pictures to
ensnare a wealthy man to marry.

It gets wokier as it goes along. Now, the television audience probably
doesn't hate the wife and isn't sure about the accusations against her.
At one point while the defendant has taken the stand, she apparently
scored points. The daughter then suddenly remembers having seen her
around the time of the murder, telling Price after court. Huh?

At this point, we start to wonder if the daughter is lying and that she
and her husband committed the murder. They have a discussion in Baxter's office. Price still thinks they can convict her but Price starts to
wonder if she's the perpetrator.

Maroun makes the dumbest argument ever. Rather than emphasizing that
they are seriously doubting her guilt, because continuing to prosecute
is unethical, instead she lays into how terrible it is that their story
to the jury is slut shaming, and again, you just can't prosecute on the
basis that she's getting condemned for who she is as a sexul being.

But what if she really were trying to ensnare a wealthy man with her
youth and body, and then intended to murder him? You can't say mean
things about her?

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Nov 22, 2025 at 1:38:47 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

I resent the article due to database indexing problems on
eternal-september. Likely it was injected and seen on peers.

Incredibly lame episode that uses Standard Plot 23, Is the wife innocent
of murdering her husband despite massive amounts of evidence? The
writers on this show are so terrible, they couldn't even pull off that.
This should have been a 1940s movie.

A toy manufacturer marries a woman young enough to be his granddaughter.
I'm guessing he hates his adult children and wants more with her, but
that's not stated in dialogue. On the night before the wedding, he's
been murdered.

There isn't much to say about the investigation. Brady still goes into
the field and conducts some interviews with Riley. When the two of them interview the daughter who tells them that her husband will be home
shortly with one of their kids, they leave instead of waiting to
interview him. Of course this turns out to be a massive mistake.

BTR1701 must have had a field day with all of the unstated objections
and one incredible trial moment in which Price raises yet another
objection (without stating it) that defense counsel is testifying.
Instead of immediately shutting her down, the judge waits till she's
made her statement, then sustains the objection.

The girlfriend has threatened to either cut me off from LAW & ORDER or she's going to install a steel cage around the TV to keep it safe when I throw
things at it during scenes like that.

Maroun tells about the bond hearing, in which defense objected to the prosecution on the basis of... slut shaming. I think that one is right
there in the New York Code of Criminal Trial Procedure.

It's in the new section right alongside the crime of fraud where no one is actually defrauded and only applies to people with the last name Trump.

The prosecution wants to introduce her background; defense objects as
it's inflammatory. Breaking tradition, the judge rules admissable as it supports the prosecution's theory.

And it was actually a legally sound ruling. The defense doesn't get to hide evidence of a big honkin' motive because it's sexually embarrassing for the defendant.

Maroun makes the dumbest argument ever. Rather than emphasizing that
they are seriously doubting her guilt, because continuing to prosecute
is unethical, instead she lays into how terrible it is that their story
to the jury is slut shaming, and again, you just can't prosecute on the
basis that she's getting condemned for who she is as a sexul being.

Maroun's whole argument was, what if she really is in love with the geezer?

The response to that is, do you ever notice how these romances between octogenarians and super-hot 20-year-olds only ever involve men with lots of money? You never see a young, vivacious bombshell falling into 'true love'
with an 80-year-old ex-garbage man, living off a meager Social Security check in a one-room walk-up in Red Hook.



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Nov 22, 2025 at 1:38:47 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

Maroun makes the dumbest argument ever. Rather than emphasizing that
they are seriously doubting her guilt, because continuing to prosecute
is unethical, instead she lays into how terrible it is that their story
to the jury is slut shaming, and again, you just can't prosecute on the
basis that she's getting condemned for who she is as a sexul being.

I forgot to comment on Maroun's story about screwing her professor in law school and how her fellow students unfairly gossiped about her sleeping her
way to an A.

I can't believe Price didn't point out how unethical it was for her to be sleeping with a professor who was teaching one of her classes. Maybe it would be okay-- not a great look, but not per se unethical-- if she wasn't in any of his classes but she apparently was in his class or how could anyone accuse her of sleeping her way to an A in a class she wasn't in?



--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

On Sun, 23 Nov 2025 20:22:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>
wrote:

I can't believe Price didn't point out how unethical it was for her to be >sleeping with a professor who was teaching one of her classes. Maybe it would >be okay-- not a great look, but not per se unethical-- if she wasn't in any of >his classes but she apparently was in his class or how could anyone accuse her >of sleeping her way to an A in a class she wasn't in?

I knew a couple of profs who were with students who weren't THEIR
students. Seemed like a non-issue or at the very least MYOB. (Not sure
but I think one of them was a PAST student of his)

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

Sun, 23 Nov 2025 20:22:26 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

I can't believe Price didn't point out how unethical it was for her to
be sleeping with a professor who was teaching one of her classes. Maybe
it would be okay-- not a great look, but not per se unethical-- if
she wasn't in any of his classes but she apparently was in his class
or how could anyone accuse her of sleeping her way to an A in a class
she wasn't in?

I knew a couple of profs who were with students who weren't THEIR
students. Seemed like a non-issue or at the very least MYOB. (Not sure
but I think one of them was a PAST student of his)

Ok. We all agree that it's unethical for a student to sleep with a
professor teaching one of her classes, and that there's no ethical issue
at all involving grading (there could be other unethical issues) if the
student were sleeping with a professor who is not currently teaching
her.

--- PyGate Linux v1.5.1
* Origin: Dragon's Lair, PyGate NNTP<>Fido Gate (3:633/10)