Ellen K Hursh wrote:
> 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?
To the Benevalent & Protective Order of Elks' charter.
|
