• spoiler Tues Aug 4

    From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Thu Aug 6 01:08:18 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital



    I have to admit I only halfway paid attention to the proposed Drew
    testimony to help Curtis.
    So, if I misunderstood it, help me out.

    Fitz=cop asked Drew (albeit while locked in) what Willow was doing on the evening of JordanrCOs accident. He blinked to the cop that Willow was worth investigating.

    Will this possibly invalidate anything he is planning to say in support of Curtis attack on Isaiah?
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SteveR@SteveR3333@aol.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Thu Aug 6 12:42:17 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    On 8/5/2026 9:08 PM, marika wrote:


    I have to admit I only halfway paid attention to the proposed Drew
    testimony to help Curtis.
    So, if I misunderstood it, help me out.

    Fitz=cop asked Drew (albeit while locked in) what Willow was doing on the evening of JordanrCOs accident. He blinked to the cop that Willow was worth investigating.

    Will this possibly invalidate anything he is planning to say in support of Curtis attack on Isaiah?

    My recollection (it was a while ago!) is that the detective specifically
    asked if Willow was home that night, as she claimed, and Drew blinked
    no. It was a lie, but Drew had a lot of justified anger toward Willow so
    I bet it was pretty satisfying to him.

    This week, Drew was offering to now tell the truth that Willow was home,
    and claim that he was misunderstood earlier. This makes Isaiah a more
    likely suspect in the non-crime of not helping Curtis and Jordan after
    their crash. Never mind the nonsense that Curtis and Rick believe that's somehow a defense to an assault charge.

    I'd say Curtis's suspicion that Drew can't be trusted is also well founded.
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Thu Aug 6 18:11:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR <SteveR3333@aol.com> wrote:
    On 8/5/2026 9:08 PM, marika wrote:


    I have to admit I only halfway paid attention to the proposed Drew
    testimony to help Curtis.
    So, if I misunderstood it, help me out.

    Fitz=cop asked Drew (albeit while locked in) what Willow was doing on the
    evening of JordanrCOs accident. He blinked to the cop that Willow was worth >> investigating.

    Will this possibly invalidate anything he is planning to say in support of >> Curtis attack on Isaiah?

    My recollection (it was a while ago!) is that the detective specifically asked if Willow was home that night, as she claimed, and Drew blinked
    no. It was a lie, but Drew had a lot of justified anger toward Willow so
    I bet it was pretty satisfying to him.

    This week, Drew was offering to now tell the truth that Willow was home,
    and claim that he was misunderstood earlier. This makes Isaiah a more
    likely suspect in the non-crime of not helping Curtis and Jordan after
    their crash. Never mind the nonsense that Curtis and Rick believe that's somehow a defense to an assault charge.

    I'd say Curtis's suspicion that Drew can't be trusted is also well founded.


    Omg thank you.

    I thought I was sleepy and just not understanding.


    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Fri Aug 7 18:35:19 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR wrote in <1152dhk$74a$1@dont-email.me>:

    <snip>

    This week, Drew was offering to now tell the truth that Willow was home,
    and claim that he was misunderstood earlier. This makes Isaiah a more
    likely suspect in the non-crime of not helping Curtis and Jordan after
    their crash. Never mind the nonsense that Curtis and Rick believe that's somehow a defense to an assault charge.

    Maybe in Curtis's demented way of thinking it would make Isaiah more
    likely to be guilty of causing the accident, but it certainly isn't
    relevant to the assault charges against Curtis. That Isaiah had it
    coming because Curtis had decided (without evidence) that Isaiah ran
    Jordan off the road and failed to stop is not an assault defense. The
    trial is not about what or whom caused Jordan's accident, but whether or
    not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. IMO, the only real defense Curtis could put
    up would be to claim that Isaiah had thrown the first punch and that he
    had been defending himself. But that didn't happen and there are several
    eye witnesses who can testify to that fact. IRL, Curtis's goose would be cooked.

    It's all so idiotic. Curtis's defense seems to ride on claiming that
    Isaiah ran Jordan off the road, saw it happen, and failed to stop and
    render aid, therefore he deserved to be punched in the face and to
    suffer the secondary injury. Without any proof whatsoever, and with a
    straight face, Martin told the jury that it was Isaiah who had caused
    Curtis's and Jordan's "near fatal accident." Wakey wakey, Molly!
    Objection! Prejudicial! Move to dismiss! That's not the only problem
    with this ridiculous trial, but it's certainly the worst so far. And
    I've only watched thru Wednesday.

    "Non-crime" is the perfect description of the other driver's
    involvement. As for the *real* non-criminal (BLQ)...she swerved to avoid
    an oncoming car that crossed into her lane, and suddenly she's Public
    Enemy #1, forced to cover up her non-crime to avoid losing family,
    friends, and livelihood.

    I'd say Curtis's suspicion that Drew can't be trusted is also well founded.

    Agreed. There's no way Drew doesn't have an angle. If he testifies about
    an issue irrelevant to the assault case, my head will explode,
    especially if it turns out to be the key to an acquittal for Curtis. But
    let's say Drew does that (because why write a story that resembles our
    Earth reality?) and he testifies that Willow was *not* at home that
    night. He could do damage to Willow *and* cause Curtis a lot of aggro in
    one fell swoop. Or he could testify that Willow *was* home and if the
    jury is made up of total imbeciles who acquit Curtis based on the
    idiotic defense that Isaiah caused the accident and deserved the
    whuppin', then Drew will in all likelihood come knocking on Curtis's
    door demanding his CEO job back. Should Curtis lose his cushy CEO gig,
    and should Isaiah win his civil suit, Isaiah will end up with the Savoy.
    And if Jordan ends up kicking that loser to the curb, he'll be living in
    a box under a bridge. Deservedly so. A few months of cardboard box
    living *should* teach Curtis some humility. But it probably won't.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SteveR@SteveR3333@aol.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Sun Aug 9 13:37:40 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    On 8/7/2026 2:35 PM, Kaitlin wrote:
    SteveR wrote in <1152dhk$74a$1@dont-email.me>:

    <snip>

    This week, Drew was offering to now tell the truth that Willow was home,
    and claim that he was misunderstood earlier. This makes Isaiah a more
    likely suspect in the non-crime of not helping Curtis and Jordan after
    their crash. Never mind the nonsense that Curtis and Rick believe that's
    somehow a defense to an assault charge.

    Maybe in Curtis's demented way of thinking it would make Isaiah more
    likely to be guilty of causing the accident, but it certainly isn't
    relevant to the assault charges against Curtis. That Isaiah had it
    coming because Curtis had decided (without evidence) that Isaiah ran
    Jordan off the road and failed to stop is not an assault defense. The
    trial is not about what or whom caused Jordan's accident, but whether or
    not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. IMO, the only real defense Curtis could put
    up would be to claim that Isaiah had thrown the first punch and that he
    had been defending himself. But that didn't happen and there are several
    eye witnesses who can testify to that fact. IRL, Curtis's goose would be cooked.

    It's all so idiotic. Curtis's defense seems to ride on claiming that
    Isaiah ran Jordan off the road, saw it happen, and failed to stop and
    render aid, therefore he deserved to be punched in the face and to
    suffer the secondary injury. Without any proof whatsoever, and with a straight face, Martin told the jury that it was Isaiah who had caused Curtis's and Jordan's "near fatal accident." Wakey wakey, Molly!
    Objection! Prejudicial! Move to dismiss! That's not the only problem
    with this ridiculous trial, but it's certainly the worst so far. And
    I've only watched thru Wednesday.

    That statement clearly should have called for an objection. Not only is
    it unduly prejudicial, but there was in fact no substantial evidence
    presented that Isaiah was the other driver. Only facts supported by
    evidence can be used in a closing argument. Curtis's unproven belief is
    not evidence.
    But I believe Ric just claimed without proof that Isaiah drove away from
    a "near fatal accident," not that Isaiah caused it. Or am I mistaken?
    Neither Jordan nor Curtis has ever said the other driver caused the
    accident. >
    "Non-crime" is the perfect description of the other driver's
    involvement. As for the *real* non-criminal (BLQ)...she swerved to avoid
    an oncoming car that crossed into her lane, and suddenly she's Public
    Enemy #1, forced to cover up her non-crime to avoid losing family,
    friends, and livelihood.

    I'd say Curtis's suspicion that Drew can't be trusted is also well founded.

    Agreed. There's no way Drew doesn't have an angle. If he testifies about
    an issue irrelevant to the assault case, my head will explode,
    especially if it turns out to be the key to an acquittal for Curtis. But let's say Drew does that (because why write a story that resembles our
    Earth reality?) and he testifies that Willow was *not* at home that
    night. He could do damage to Willow *and* cause Curtis a lot of aggro in
    one fell swoop. Or he could testify that Willow *was* home and if the
    jury is made up of total imbeciles who acquit Curtis based on the
    idiotic defense that Isaiah caused the accident and deserved the
    whuppin', then Drew will in all likelihood come knocking on Curtis's
    door demanding his CEO job back. Should Curtis lose his cushy CEO gig,
    and should Isaiah win his civil suit, Isaiah will end up with the Savoy.
    And if Jordan ends up kicking that loser to the curb, he'll be living in
    a box under a bridge. Deservedly so. A few months of cardboard box
    living *should* teach Curtis some humility. But it probably won't.

    Unfortunately, Curtis continues to become more and more annoying. All
    that unjustified self-righteousness, like he's the injured party. Plus
    all the insecurity, because Curtis is clearly threatened by Isaiah. In
    real life, that would suggest Curtis still wants to be with Portia on
    some level.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 03:06:54 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR wrote in <115adt6$2grkt$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/7/2026 2:35 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    <snip>

    Curtis's defense seems to ride on claiming that
    Isaiah ran Jordan off the road, saw it happen, and failed to stop and
    render aid, therefore he deserved to be punched in the face and to
    suffer the secondary injury. Without any proof whatsoever, and with a
    straight face, Martin told the jury that it was Isaiah who had caused
    Curtis's and Jordan's "near fatal accident." Wakey wakey, Molly!
    Objection! Prejudicial! Move to dismiss! That's not the only problem
    with this ridiculous trial, but it's certainly the worst so far. And
    I've only watched thru Wednesday.

    That statement clearly should have called for an objection. Not only is
    it unduly prejudicial, but there was in fact no substantial evidence presented that Isaiah was the other driver. Only facts supported by evidence can be used in a closing argument. Curtis's unproven belief is
    not evidence.
    But I believe Ric just claimed without proof that Isaiah drove away from
    a "near fatal accident," not that Isaiah caused it. Or am I mistaken? Neither Jordan nor Curtis has ever said the other driver caused the accident. >

    You are correct. I misspoke. Sorry!

    <snip>

    Unfortunately, Curtis continues to become more and more annoying. All
    that unjustified self-righteousness, like he's the injured party. Plus
    all the insecurity, because Curtis is clearly threatened by Isaiah. In
    real life, that would suggest Curtis still wants to be with Portia on
    some level.

    He's a very controlling person. I have the impression that he doesn't
    want Portia to be involved with anyone other than himself, and right
    now, he doesn't want her.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2