It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".

Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...

Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
deal.

anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
to the grandsons...

Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
wasn't there.

Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?
Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
goes blank to keep from exploding.

Thanks

_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".
>
> Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...
>
> Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
> deal.
>
> anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
> grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
> to the grandsons...
>
> Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
> wasn't there.
>
> Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?

He went to college. Then his kid brother went to the same college. The kid
brother makes it back for Sunday dinner but the older brother presumably
stays at school. I think the last time we saw the older brother was in
welcoming the younger brother to school.

> Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
> goes blank to keep from exploding.
>
> Thanks
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
> dannyb@panix.com
> [to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]
>

Christ. I missed this entirely. Let me see if the DVR remembered…

Nope. It recorded a couple movies yesterday. But no bluebloods. Even though
I remember seeing it on the upcoming list. And it’s scheduled to record
next week.

Sometime later

OK watched it on CBS on demand. I hate that CBS on demand doesn’t let you
put it on hold long enough to go to the kitchen without throwing you
entirely out of the program.

Jamie just needs to go to his father and get his captain fired. Go to his
cop rep. Go anywhere that he can but get the bitch fired. Unless of course
she’s secretly working for Magnum which may well be the case.

Jamie also needs a divorce. Maybe Magnum is secretly trying to get Jamie
to understand that.

Jamie needs to grow a pair and do each of these different jobs that they’re
clearly steering him into on his way to being the PC. As it is, he doesn’t
and isn’t ever going to deserve the job.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<1762170888.687547862.406247.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
> > It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".
> >
> > Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...
> >
> > Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
> > deal.
> >
> > anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
> > grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
> > to the grandsons...
> >
> > Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
> > wasn't there.
> >
> > Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?
>
> He went to college. Then his kid brother went to the same college. The kid
> brother makes it back for Sunday dinner but the older brother presumably
> stays at school. I think the last time we saw the older brother was in
> welcoming the younger brother to school.
>
> > Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
> > goes blank to keep from exploding.

> OK watched it on CBS on demand. I hate that CBS on demand doesn't let you
> put it on hold long enough to go to the kitchen without throwing you
> entirely out of the program.
>
> Jamie just needs to go to his father and get his captain fired. Go to his
> cop rep. Go anywhere that he can but get the bitch fired. Unless of course
> she's secretly working for Magnum which may well be the case.
>
> Jamie also needs a divorce. Maybe Magnum is secretly trying to get Jamie
> to understand that.
>
> Jamie needs to grow a pair and do each of these different jobs that they're
> clearly steering him into on his way to being the PC.

The whole "I can't brief my wife on the Top Secret info from the CIA and
the FBI that I see at work" has to be one of this show's stupidest
plotlines. Of course you can't tell your spouse about all that shit. And
any decent spouse would understand that and not even ask, like Grandpa
BlueBlood said.

When I was still working, I was the head of the L.A. Field Office's
Intelligence Squad and my LAPD girlfriend never once asked to know about
all the cases I was working or all TS-SCI material I saw every day. And
I don't ask her about the confidential aspects of the murder cases she
works. And somehow we still manage to have a great relationship.

It's called being an adult-- something Edit (and to lesser extent Jamie)
clearly is not.

The other major bit of ridiculousness in the episode was the doctor's
lawyer strutting into the precinct and handing Danny some kind of legal
paper that he claimed would hold Danny and NYPD 'liable' if that
surveillance cam footage becomes public. And Danny slaps the paper down
and puts his head in his hands like his whole case just swirled down the
bowl.

WTF? What possible legal liability could there be for surveillance
footage that NYPD doesn't even control-- it belongs to the hotel--
becoming public?

(1) There's no grounds for defamation. Any kind of lawsuit based on
libel would fail because what the video showed was true. It actually
happened. Truth is the ultimate defense to any defamation claim.

(2) There's no invasion of privacy issue. The doc and his whore were
canoodling in a public bar. No legal expectation of privacy there.

(3) There's no 4th Amendment issue. The surveillance footage belongs to
the hotel, not the doc. The doc has no standing to assert a violation of
someone else's constitutional rights.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1762170888.687547862.406247.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>> It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".
>>>
>>> Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...
>>>
>>> Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
>>> deal.
>>>
>>> anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
>>> grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
>>> to the grandsons...
>>>
>>> Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
>>> wasn't there.
>>>
>>> Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?
>>
>> He went to college. Then his kid brother went to the same college. The kid
>> brother makes it back for Sunday dinner but the older brother presumably
>> stays at school. I think the last time we saw the older brother was in
>> welcoming the younger brother to school.
>>
>>> Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
>>> goes blank to keep from exploding.
>
>> OK watched it on CBS on demand. I hate that CBS on demand doesn't let you
>> put it on hold long enough to go to the kitchen without throwing you
>> entirely out of the program.
>>
>> Jamie just needs to go to his father and get his captain fired. Go to his
>> cop rep. Go anywhere that he can but get the bitch fired. Unless of course
>> she's secretly working for Magnum which may well be the case.
>>
>> Jamie also needs a divorce. Maybe Magnum is secretly trying to get Jamie
>> to understand that.
>>
>> Jamie needs to grow a pair and do each of these different jobs that they're
>> clearly steering him into on his way to being the PC.
>
> The whole "I can't brief my wife on the Top Secret info from the CIA and
> the FBI that I see at work" has to be one of this show's stupidest
> plotlines. Of course you can't tell your spouse about all that shit. And
> any decent spouse would understand that and not even ask, like Grandpa
> BlueBlood said.
>
> When I was still working, I was the head of the L.A. Field Office's
> Intelligence Squad and my LAPD girlfriend never once asked to know about
> all the cases I was working or all TS-SCI material I saw every day. And
> I don't ask her about the confidential aspects of the murder cases she
> works. And somehow we still manage to have a great relationship.
>
> It's called being an adult-- something Edit (and to lesser extent Jamie)
> clearly is not.
>
> The other major bit of ridiculousness in the episode was the doctor's
> lawyer strutting into the precinct and handing Danny some kind of legal
> paper that he claimed would hold Danny and NYPD 'liable' if that
> surveillance cam footage becomes public. And Danny slaps the paper down
> and puts his head in his hands like his whole case just swirled down the
> bowl.

$10 million, guaranteed.

I thought the Danny must be putting on an act for the idiot lawyer but then
he tells Baez that his case got flushed.

Just all kinds of stupid.

I also liked him lying to the hooker about no one else having seen this
photo. And her being stupid enough to buy it. Come on, dozens of people had
to have seen that photo at that point!

I will say that the hooker was hot and now he’s free to go on seeing her
all he wants. So, happy ending.

>
> WTF? What possible legal liability could there be for surveillance
> footage that NYPD doesn't even control-- it belongs to the hotel--
> becoming public?
>
> (1) There's no grounds for defamation. Any kind of lawsuit based on
> libel would fail because what the video showed was true. It actually
> happened. Truth is the ultimate defense to any defamation claim.
>
> (2) There's no invasion of privacy issue. The doc and his whore were
> canoodling in a public bar. No legal expectation of privacy there.
>
> (3) There's no 4th Amendment issue. The surveillance footage belongs to
> the hotel, not the doc. The doc has no standing to assert a violation of
> someone else's constitutional rights.
>

If only Danny knew a lawyer. Somebody to run questions past.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:

>It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".

You're so right. I said every line before the actor did.

>Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...

>Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
>deal.

For several people! Even Frank!

I did enjoy the way she rolled her eyes left and right and left and
right again, signalling she agreed with Garrett.

>anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
>grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
>to the grandsons...

>Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
>wasn't there.

Apparently he isn't attending Columbia.

>Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?
>Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
>goes blank to keep from exploding.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>In article
><1762170888.687547862.406247.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>> > It's really way beyond the point of just "calling it in".
>> >
>> > Minor spoiler: Yeah, Erin _is_ running for DA...
>> >
>> > Oh, and obAbigail Hawk: She has her usual "holding door for someone"
>> > deal.
>> >
>> > anyway, the Q: At the family dinner the mushy headed
>> > grand daughter is still missing... but in regard
>> > to the grandsons...
>> >
>> > Andrew Terracini (Sean) is at the table, but Tony (Jack)
>> > wasn't there.
>> >
>> > Anyone remember the reason they gave for his disappearing?
>>
>> He went to college. Then his kid brother went to the same college. The kid
>> brother makes it back for Sunday dinner but the older brother presumably
>> stays at school. I think the last time we saw the older brother was in
>> welcoming the younger brother to school.
>>
>> > Aytime I try thinking about the show my mind quickly
>> > goes blank to keep from exploding.
>
>> OK watched it on CBS on demand. I hate that CBS on demand doesn't let you
>> put it on hold long enough to go to the kitchen without throwing you
>> entirely out of the program.
>>
>> Jamie just needs to go to his father and get his captain fired. Go to his
>> cop rep. Go anywhere that he can but get the bitch fired. Unless of course
>> she's secretly working for Magnum which may well be the case.
>>
>> Jamie also needs a divorce. Maybe Magnum is secretly trying to get Jamie
>> to understand that.
>>
>> Jamie needs to grow a pair and do each of these different jobs that they're
>> clearly steering him into on his way to being the PC.
>
>The whole "I can't brief my wife on the Top Secret info from the CIA and
>the FBI that I see at work" has to be one of this show's stupidest
>plotlines. Of course you can't tell your spouse about all that shit. And
>any decent spouse would understand that and not even ask, like Grandpa
>BlueBlood said.
>
>When I was still working, I was the head of the L.A. Field Office's
>Intelligence Squad and my LAPD girlfriend never once asked to know about
>all the cases I was working or all TS-SCI material I saw every day. And
>I don't ask her about the confidential aspects of the murder cases she
>works. And somehow we still manage to have a great relationship.
>
>It's called being an adult-- something Edit (and to lesser extent Jamie)
>clearly is not.
>
>The other major bit of ridiculousness in the episode was the doctor's
>lawyer strutting into the precinct and handing Danny some kind of legal
>paper that he claimed would hold Danny and NYPD 'liable' if that
>surveillance cam footage becomes public. And Danny slaps the paper down
>and puts his head in his hands like his whole case just swirled down the
>bowl.
>
>WTF? What possible legal liability could there be for surveillance
>footage that NYPD doesn't even control-- it belongs to the hotel--
>becoming public?
>
>(1) There's no grounds for defamation. Any kind of lawsuit based on
>libel would fail because what the video showed was true. It actually
>happened. Truth is the ultimate defense to any defamation claim.
>
>(2) There's no invasion of privacy issue. The doc and his whore were
>canoodling in a public bar. No legal expectation of privacy there.
>
>(3) There's no 4th Amendment issue. The surveillance footage belongs to
>the hotel, not the doc. The doc has no standing to assert a violation of
>someone else's constitutional rights.

What's with the hotel manager? "Are you sure a crime was committed?"

That was two pints of blood soaked into that matress! How the hell did
the doctor stitch himself up? Did he just happen to have blood bags on
hand too?

Do we even comment on Jamie, who needed at least nine months of rehab,
just being up and about?

Danny was an amazingly huge idiot this week. He saw the hotel manager
trying to prevent the two housekeepers from truthfully stating what they
saw. Danny let them go to allow the hotel manager to tamper with their
statements. Why didn't he interview both of the immediately given that
they were willing to cooperate to prevent the hotel manager from
interfering?

Of course the doctor committed crimes. He participated in a coverup. Ok.
He wanted to keep his daughter out of trouble, so why the hell didn't he
get her a criminal lawyer instead of letting her confess?

In <tifvkm$32jtb$2@dont-email.me> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

[snip]

>Of course the doctor committed crimes. He participated in a coverup. Ok.
>He wanted to keep his daughter out of trouble, so why the hell didn't he
>get her a criminal lawyer instead of letting her confess?

Well, sure there was a crime. But if the victim doesn't
want to press charges it's damn difficult (although certainly
not impossible) for the DA to push the case and get
a conviction.

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> writes:

>[snip]

>>Of course the doctor committed crimes. He participated in a coverup. Ok.
>>He wanted to keep his daughter out of trouble, so why the hell didn't he
>>get her a criminal lawyer instead of letting her confess?

>Well, sure there was a crime. But if the victim doesn't
>want to press charges it's damn difficult (although certainly
>not impossible) for the DA to push the case and get
>a conviction.

Fair point