Any lawyers want to weigh in on how the dog hair got admitted? Can excluded evidence be put back in play that easily? And if so, how bone-headed was the defense lawyer acting? It's interesting that Brenda was treating the defense lawyer the same way she treats suspects—she got him to admit something that he didn't want to.

Who thinks Schaefer did it?

He's guilty of something; if not murder, then obstruction. He might be covering for the wife or something.

I'm with Tom-- there is something coming - a twist - it's the wife or the ex-gf or something.

DH interviewed VK last week -- I'ma xpost in the B&A thread because he also talks about AtS.

[eta: And, heh, this is a quote about playing Connor, but it's SUCH a Pete Campbell thing to say:

I showed up to play that character and I had a lot of ideas. And they didn’t like any of those ideas. That’s okay, I’m in the business of having my ideas rejected. But after about 7 or 8 episodes of coming in with ideas and realizing it just didn’t matter, I became really complacent and jaded and angry at the project.]

The defense lawyer said "did you find ANY evidence that links my client to the crime" Brenda didn't answer and the judge instructed her to do so. The lawyer opened the door. I think it's an appealable issue, though. But, what the hell do I know.

Yeah, it's like the attorney didn't know the answer to the question - it's not so much that it wouldn't work - it just seems unlikely that a good defense attorney would let that slip by. Particularly since there was probably some ruling that said that the evidence wasn't allowed.

Yeah, it's like the attorney didn't know the answer to the question - it's not so much that it wouldn't work - it just seems unlikely that a good defense attorney would let that slip by. Particularly since there was probably some ruling that said that the evidence wasn't allowed.

No probably about it. however, if the defense asks a question, the witness is allowed to answer it. In this case, he just got caught up and asked the wrong question.

An interview with JK Simmons.

The Closer: I think that the wife of the guy on trial did it, but I don't want Brenda to be wrong.

Well, given that they have found "Topper" I'm not sure that Brenda being wrong can be helped.

Damages: the young attorney is so generic that when she was meeting with Greg I didn't recognize her until he ID'd her as "Kay's lawyer friend." This seems not good. Meanwhile, I'm trying to guess who the brunette from the hospital is working for. I'd love it to be Patty but I've long since lost any sense of what her motivation could be except to frack with that relationship.

okay, I'm catching up on Damages, and I'm watching last week. Do the lawyers in the group agree that Tom would have a conflict of interest and could not take this case?

If you don't watch the show, the basic issue is that Tom was second chair on the big case. Patty (the boss) pretended to fire him to gain the confidence of someone else. He really continued to work for her. He quit to take an offer from another firm.

Shortly after he really did quit, the plaintiffs fired Patty and hired Tom as their new counsel. I think that it's a conflict of interest. What does anyone else think?