On Dec 13, 10:54 pm, "Smokie Darling (Annie)" <Barnabus1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 9:47 pm, Ellen K Hursh <ekhu...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 13, 10:18 pm, "P.Schuman" <pschuman_no_spam...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > wrote:
>
> > > ok... who's on the inside letting the "barber chair" know what's
going on
> > > with Warrick ?
>
> > $64 question, innit? Assuming, of course, that the loud public
> > suspension wasn't a set-up, to try to see who goes to Geppetto about
> > it. ("Oh, look... he received a phone call from Lt Douchebag not one
> > minute after that scene in the hallway.")
>
> You know... I will address the "insider" in a second, but you
> know... Dog lady... nearly perfect. Nearly. I've never had to look
> away from a show before, but the dog fighting... ~GAH~
Oh, good lord yes. They could have shown test patterns during all that
dog noise, and I wouldn't have known the difference. ("They're still
barking? Then I'm still doing my crossword.")
On the plus side: Bruno Petersen, looking adorable in that PSA. Floppy-
eared dogs rock.
> Personal opinion... Didn't sound like him, but I thought it might
> have been the undersheriff (or whoever it was that called him off the
> bar owner). Didn't recognize the voice at all though.
Oh, to have one of those magic CSI computers... then "algorithms"
could reconstruct the guy's full face, complete with height, weight,
astrological sign and blood type.
> and how did they get permission to pull the cell logs on the husband?
> Wasn't he more or less ruled out as a suspect? I realize that we
> don't see them getting all their warrants, but how did they justify
> that? "Um... he left a party she was at because of a phone call.
> She might have been alright if he'd stayed." Yeah, that'll work (pfft).
Fourth amendment?? What fourth amendment?
|
