• WTH Was That?

    From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Sat Aug 8 21:25:56 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    After not objecting at all for the first day or two of the trial, Molly
    finally woke up from her nap and started doing her job. Little good that
    it did in this ridiculous send up of an assault trial.

    Because Curtis is the uncle of Molly's ex, she should not have been
    assigned to prosecute his case.

    No RL judge would ever have allowed the circumstances of Jordan's
    accident or the claim that Isaiah had committed a crime against Curtis
    to be entered into the trial record.

    The case as it should have been: Judge instructs the jury that the
    question before them is whether or not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. Curtis
    admits to it under oath (presumably because his attorney fails to advise
    him not to incriminate himself), several unimpeachable eyewitnesses
    testify to it under oath, and jury finds Curtis guilty of assault in the
    second degree.

    The ridiculous defense that Isaiah deserved to be punched in the face
    would IRL be a fast track to a guilty verdict, but my bet is that Curtis
    will be acquitted. Otherwise how could the drama continue with him
    behind bars?

    And while on the subject of Curtis and Jordan and Isaiah and
    Portia...Curtis and Portia really do need to get back together to keep
    the damage they do to others contained. Their current partners need
    several reconstructive surgeries each because of them. Who would want to
    become romantically involved with either of those two now? They really
    will have only each other in the future, so they might as well get the
    kissing and making up over with, the sooner the better for everyone,
    especially the baby.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SteveR@SteveR3333@aol.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Sun Aug 9 13:13:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    On 8/8/2026 5:25 PM, Kaitlin wrote:
    After not objecting at all for the first day or two of the trial, Molly finally woke up from her nap and started doing her job. Little good that
    it did in this ridiculous send up of an assault trial.

    Because Curtis is the uncle of Molly's ex, she should not have been
    assigned to prosecute his case.

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which
    Rick did. >
    No RL judge would ever have allowed the circumstances of Jordan's
    accident or the claim that Isaiah had committed a crime against Curtis
    to be entered into the trial record.

    The case as it should have been: Judge instructs the jury that the
    question before them is whether or not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. Curtis
    admits to it under oath (presumably because his attorney fails to advise
    him not to incriminate himself), several unimpeachable eyewitnesses
    testify to it under oath, and jury finds Curtis guilty of assault in the second degree.

    This whole trial plotline is migraine inducing. You are so right! No real-world judge should have allowed one bit of the testimony about the accident into evidence. It neither proves nor disproves guilt regarding
    the assault. Of course, we were not shown Molly objecting to that
    evidence, so maybe she never did. Putting aside that both Jordan and
    Curtis acknowledged that the other driver was not responsible for the
    crash, and that neither of them knows the other driver even saw the
    accident. If anything, it's just more evidence of what an arrogant
    hothead Curtis is, if he thinks his unproven belief justifies an assault.

    The ridiculous defense that Isaiah deserved to be punched in the face
    would IRL be a fast track to a guilty verdict, but my bet is that Curtis
    will be acquitted. Otherwise how could the drama continue with him
    behind bars?

    I'm also betting there will be a not guilty verdict. You are right, if
    Curtis is behind bars there can't be dramatic encounters with Isaiah
    every time those two meet. Although Jordan would still be fully able to criticize Portia and Isaiah at every opportunity for daring to expect
    Curtis to suffer consequences for his violent behavior. >
    And while on the subject of Curtis and Jordan and Isaiah and
    Portia...Curtis and Portia really do need to get back together to keep
    the damage they do to others contained. Their current partners need
    several reconstructive surgeries each because of them. Who would want to become romantically involved with either of those two now? They really
    will have only each other in the future, so they might as well get the kissing and making up over with, the sooner the better for everyone, especially the baby.

    Good idea! And that would leave Jordan and Isaiah free to get together.
    Didn't they have a brief romance or flirtation at some point?
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 03:05:38 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR wrote in <115ach3$2gcbo$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/8/2026 5:25 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    After not objecting at all for the first day or two of the trial, Molly
    finally woke up from her nap and started doing her job. Little good that
    it did in this ridiculous send up of an assault trial.

    Because Curtis is the uncle of Molly's ex, she should not have been
    assigned to prosecute his case.

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which
    Rick did.

    You mean Martin, I think. If Martin didn't advise Curtis to object to
    Molly's prosecution of the case, then he (Martin) must believe he can
    use the conflict of interest to his advantage in some way. Granted, once
    Curtis gave his consent, there can be no calling foul if things don't go
    his way, but there was a really weird conversation between Molly and
    Jordan in which trial strategy was discussed that made me very
    uncomfortable. Those two former in-laws should never have spoken at all
    until the verdict was in and the sentencing (if any) had been decided.
    Curtis might have given Molly the green light to prosecute, but it seems
    to me that the prosecution's case might have been compromised by a
    conversation that would never have taken place had Molly and Jordan been strangers to one another.

    No RL judge would ever have allowed the circumstances of Jordan's
    accident or the claim that Isaiah had committed a crime against Curtis
    to be entered into the trial record.

    The case as it should have been: Judge instructs the jury that the
    question before them is whether or not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. Curtis
    admits to it under oath (presumably because his attorney fails to advise
    him not to incriminate himself), several unimpeachable eyewitnesses
    testify to it under oath, and jury finds Curtis guilty of assault in the
    second degree.

    This whole trial plotline is migraine inducing. You are so right! No real-world judge should have allowed one bit of the testimony about the accident into evidence. It neither proves nor disproves guilt regarding
    the assault. Of course, we were not shown Molly objecting to that
    evidence, so maybe she never did.

    She never did. Martin was allowed to just blather on to the jury about
    Isaiah leaving Jordan and Curtis to die, as if it were established fact.

    Putting aside that both Jordan and
    Curtis acknowledged that the other driver was not responsible for the
    crash, and that neither of them knows the other driver even saw the accident. If anything, it's just more evidence of what an arrogant
    hothead Curtis is, if he thinks his unproven belief justifies an assault.

    They have acknowledged that Jordan crossed into the other lane, but I've
    never heard either of them admit that they're unsure if the driver of
    the car that swerved to avoid them actually saw them crash. To the
    contrary, they're both adamant that the other driver intentionally left
    them to die, as Curtis puts it. Curtis wants to nail Isaiah, and will apparently say and do anything to make that happen.

    The ridiculous defense that Isaiah deserved to be punched in the face
    would IRL be a fast track to a guilty verdict, but my bet is that Curtis
    will be acquitted. Otherwise how could the drama continue with him
    behind bars?

    I'm also betting there will be a not guilty verdict. You are right, if Curtis is behind bars there can't be dramatic encounters with Isaiah
    every time those two meet. Although Jordan would still be fully able to criticize Portia and Isaiah at every opportunity for daring to expect
    Curtis to suffer consequences for his violent behavior.

    When Jordan told Curtis she was tired and didn't want to go with him to Portia's to visit the baby, she pulled a face as he walked away that
    made it seem to me like she might not be entirely down with his
    vendetta. Or maybe she didn't like that instead of politely requesting
    to come see the baby, he *told* Portia he was coming over and told
    Isaiah to make himself scarce. So rude.

    And while on the subject of Curtis and Jordan and Isaiah and
    Portia...Curtis and Portia really do need to get back together to keep
    the damage they do to others contained. Their current partners need
    several reconstructive surgeries each because of them. Who would want to
    become romantically involved with either of those two now? They really
    will have only each other in the future, so they might as well get the
    kissing and making up over with, the sooner the better for everyone,
    especially the baby.

    Good idea! And that would leave Jordan and Isaiah free to get together. Didn't they have a brief romance or flirtation at some point?

    They did. But before they got very far, Jordan dumped Isaiah because she
    had to go undercover for her new job with Sidwell and thought that a
    romance with someone in Sidwell's cross hairs would jeopardize her work.
    Seemed lame at the time, but I guess they were already planning to clear
    the way for Isaiah to become involved with Portia.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 03:40:20 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    SteveR wrote in <115ach3$2gcbo$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/8/2026 5:25 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    After not objecting at all for the first day or two of the trial, Molly
    finally woke up from her nap and started doing her job. Little good that >>> it did in this ridiculous send up of an assault trial.

    Because Curtis is the uncle of Molly's ex, she should not have been
    assigned to prosecute his case.

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which
    Rick did.

    You mean Martin, I think. If Martin didn't advise Curtis to object to
    Molly's prosecution of the case, then he (Martin) must believe he can
    use the conflict of interest to his advantage in some way. Granted, once Curtis gave his consent, there can be no calling foul if things don't go
    his way, but there was a really weird conversation between Molly and
    Jordan in which trial strategy was discussed that made me very
    uncomfortable. Those two former in-laws should never have spoken at all
    until the verdict was in and the sentencing (if any) had been decided.
    Curtis might have given Molly the green light to prosecute, but it seems
    to me that the prosecution's case might have been compromised by a conversation that would never have taken place had Molly and Jordan been strangers to one another.

    No RL judge would ever have allowed the circumstances of Jordan's
    accident or the claim that Isaiah had committed a crime against Curtis
    to be entered into the trial record.

    The case as it should have been: Judge instructs the jury that the
    question before them is whether or not Curtis assaulted Isaiah. Curtis
    admits to it under oath (presumably because his attorney fails to advise >>> him not to incriminate himself), several unimpeachable eyewitnesses
    testify to it under oath, and jury finds Curtis guilty of assault in the >>> second degree.

    This whole trial plotline is migraine inducing. You are so right! No
    real-world judge should have allowed one bit of the testimony about the
    accident into evidence. It neither proves nor disproves guilt regarding
    the assault. Of course, we were not shown Molly objecting to that
    evidence, so maybe she never did.

    She never did. Martin was allowed to just blather on to the jury about
    Isaiah leaving Jordan and Curtis to die, as if it were established fact.

    Putting aside that both Jordan and
    Curtis acknowledged that the other driver was not responsible for the
    crash, and that neither of them knows the other driver even saw the
    accident. If anything, it's just more evidence of what an arrogant
    hothead Curtis is, if he thinks his unproven belief justifies an assault.

    They have acknowledged that Jordan crossed into the other lane, but I've never heard either of them admit that they're unsure if the driver of
    the car that swerved to avoid them actually saw them crash. To the
    contrary, they're both adamant that the other driver intentionally left
    them to die, as Curtis puts it. Curtis wants to nail Isaiah, and will apparently say and do anything to make that happen.

    A thing that seems to have got lost, unless I misunderstood the scene.

    Val is who eventually saved Jordan. He was on the run at the time, and couldnrCOt come forward.

    When Val was asked if there was anyone else on the road at that time. He
    had a very brief flashback showing that Laura had been there. Or at least,
    it seemed to me that was what they were trying to show



    The ridiculous defense that Isaiah deserved to be punched in the face
    would IRL be a fast track to a guilty verdict, but my bet is that Curtis >>> will be acquitted. Otherwise how could the drama continue with him
    behind bars?

    I'm also betting there will be a not guilty verdict. You are right, if
    Curtis is behind bars there can't be dramatic encounters with Isaiah
    every time those two meet. Although Jordan would still be fully able to
    criticize Portia and Isaiah at every opportunity for daring to expect
    Curtis to suffer consequences for his violent behavior.

    When Jordan told Curtis she was tired and didn't want to go with him to Portia's to visit the baby, she pulled a face as he walked away that
    made it seem to me like she might not be entirely down with his
    vendetta. Or maybe she didn't like that instead of politely requesting
    to come see the baby, he *told* Portia he was coming over and told
    Isaiah to make himself scarce. So rude.

    And while on the subject of Curtis and Jordan and Isaiah and
    Portia...Curtis and Portia really do need to get back together to keep
    the damage they do to others contained. Their current partners need
    several reconstructive surgeries each because of them. Who would want to >>> become romantically involved with either of those two now? They really
    will have only each other in the future, so they might as well get the
    kissing and making up over with, the sooner the better for everyone,
    especially the baby.

    Good idea! And that would leave Jordan and Isaiah free to get together.
    Didn't they have a brief romance or flirtation at some point?

    They did. But before they got very far, Jordan dumped Isaiah because she
    had to go undercover for her new job with Sidwell and thought that a
    romance with someone in Sidwell's cross hairs would jeopardize her work. Seemed lame at the time, but I guess they were already planning to clear
    the way for Isaiah to become involved with Portia.



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 13:58:26 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika wrote in <EKbeS.18939$YHa3.9331@fx15.iad>:

    A thing that seems to have got lost, unless I misunderstood the scene.

    Val is who eventually saved Jordan. He was on the run at the time, and couldnrCOt come forward.

    When Val was asked if there was anyone else on the road at that time. He
    had a very brief flashback showing that Laura had been there. Or at least, it seemed to me that was what they were trying to show

    Val helped Curtis save Jordan, but Laura hadn't been there. Val had been
    with Carly when they went to rescue Charlotte and Danny who had run out
    of gas or run the car off the road or something. Don't remember Val
    being asked if anyone had been on the road when he helped Curtis, and I
    don't think he testified at the trial. But I could have missed it. I
    blacked out so many times during the trial because my head had exploded
    that it's possible I missed quite a bit!
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 15:29:44 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    marika wrote in <EKbeS.18939$YHa3.9331@fx15.iad>:

    A thing that seems to have got lost, unless I misunderstood the scene.

    Val is who eventually saved Jordan. He was on the run at the time, and
    couldn|o-C-Ot come forward.

    When Val was asked if there was anyone else on the road at that time. He
    had a very brief flashback showing that Laura had been there. Or at least, >> it seemed to me that was what they were trying to show

    Val helped Curtis save Jordan, but Laura


    Lol. I wonder when I will stop calling Carly Laura because the actressrCO
    name is Laura. I donrCOt know how to cure myself of it.

    I cannot remember who asked Val, but it reasonably had to be Curtis,
    because he was really the only one who knew Val was on the road at the
    time.

    It was a few weeks ago the exchange took place.

    He, presumably Curtis, asked something like rCLdo you remember anyone else being on the road at that timerCY. I think he was trying to get Val to implicate Isaiah.

    When the question was posed, they showed Val doing a flashback of Laura in
    the car. Very brief, so brief you might miss it if you turned away for a second.

    Val then answered rCLnorCY.

    The possibility that someone involved in that flashback has not come up
    again. Wonder if it ever will?


    hadn't been there. Val had been
    with Carly when they went to rescue Charlotte and Danny who had run out
    of gas or run the car off the road or something. Don't remember Val
    being asked if anyone had been on the road when he helped Curtis, and I
    don't think he testified at the trial. But I could have missed it. I
    blacked out so many times during the trial because my head had exploded
    that it's possible I missed quite a bit!



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SteveR@SteveR3333@aol.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 14:16:23 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    On 8/9/2026 11:05 PM, Kaitlin wrote:
    SteveR wrote in <115ach3$2gcbo$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/8/2026 5:25 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    After not objecting at all for the first day or two of the trial, Molly
    finally woke up from her nap and started doing her job. Little good that >>> it did in this ridiculous send up of an assault trial.

    Because Curtis is the uncle of Molly's ex, she should not have been
    assigned to prosecute his case.

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which
    Rick did.

    You mean Martin, I think. If Martin didn't advise Curtis to object to
    Molly's prosecution of the case, then he (Martin) must believe he can
    use the conflict of interest to his advantage in some way. Granted, once Curtis gave his consent, there can be no calling foul if things don't go
    his way, but there was a really weird conversation between Molly and
    Jordan in which trial strategy was discussed that made me very
    uncomfortable. Those two former in-laws should never have spoken at all
    until the verdict was in and the sentencing (if any) had been decided.
    Curtis might have given Molly the green light to prosecute, but it seems
    to me that the prosecution's case might have been compromised by a conversation that would never have taken place had Molly and Jordan been strangers to one another.

    I did mean Martin. I easily confuse Ric and Martin, go figure.

    And that conversation between Molly and Jordan was weird and
    inappropriate. I had forgotten about that.
    <snip>
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Mon Aug 10 22:23:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika <marika5000@gmail.com> wrote:
    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    marika wrote in <EKbeS.18939$YHa3.9331@fx15.iad>:

    A thing that seems to have got lost, unless I misunderstood the scene.

    Val is who eventually saved Jordan. He was on the run at the time, and
    couldn|o-C-Ot come forward.

    When Val was asked if there was anyone else on the road at that time. He >>> had a very brief flashback showing that Laura had been there. Or at least, >>> it seemed to me that was what they were trying to show

    Val helped Curtis save Jordan, but Laura


    Lol. I wonder when I will stop calling Carly Laura because the actressrCO name is Laura. I donrCOt know how to cure myself of it.

    I cannot remember who asked Val, but it reasonably had to be Curtis,
    because he was really the only one who knew Val was on the road at the
    time.

    It was a few weeks ago the exchange took place.

    He, presumably Curtis, asked something like rCLdo you remember anyone else being on the road at that timerCY. I think he was trying to get Val to implicate Isaiah.

    When the question was posed, they showed Val doing a flashback of Laura in the car. Very brief, so brief you might miss it if you turned away for a second.

    CARLY CARLY CARLY NOT LAURA


    Val then answered rCLnorCY.

    The possibility that someone involved in that flashback has not come up again. Wonder if it ever will?


    hadn't been there. Val had been
    with Carly when they went to rescue Charlotte and Danny who had run out
    of gas or run the car off the road or something. Don't remember Val
    being asked if anyone had been on the road when he helped Curtis, and I
    don't think he testified at the trial. But I could have missed it. I
    blacked out so many times during the trial because my head had exploded
    that it's possible I missed quite a bit!







    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 15:29:43 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika wrote in <I7meS.8157$p1C.726@fx07.iad>:

    <snip>

    He, presumably Curtis, asked something like odo you remember anyone else being on the road at that timeo. I think he was trying to get Val to implicate Isaiah.

    When the question was posed, they showed Val doing a flashback of Laura in the car. Very brief, so brief you might miss it if you turned away for a second.

    Val then answered onoo.

    The possibility that someone involved in that flashback has not come up again. Wonder if it ever will?

    Carly and Val were out looking for Charlotte and Danny when they came
    upon Jordan's accident. Val got out of the car to help Curtis, and Carly
    drove off to look for Charlotte and Danny.

    Val probably answered "no" to Curtis's question because at the time of
    the accident, he was still a wanted fugitive and he worried that if it
    were known that Carly had been with him then, she could be charged with harboring. It's doubtful that his memory flashback was an indication
    that he was worried she could be implicated in wrong-doing because she
    happened to be driving on the road around the time it occurred.

    Later, after Val had been "pardoned" by the WSB, Carly admitted to the
    cops and told practically everyone in town that Val had been hiding in
    her attic for months, as if she had been "pardoned" right along with
    him. IRL, she would not have been, because hers was a separate crime.
    Yet in the PC universe she was never charged with harboring, so it's
    doubtful she would be charged for the non-crime of stopping to render
    aid at an accident scene. But who knows! BLQ's non-crime of *failing* to
    stop and render aid earned her a spot on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 15:30:06 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR wrote in <115d4ho$3c1o0$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/9/2026 11:05 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    <snip>

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which
    Rick did.

    You mean Martin, I think. If Martin didn't advise Curtis to object to
    Molly's prosecution of the case, then he (Martin) must believe he can
    use the conflict of interest to his advantage in some way. Granted, once
    Curtis gave his consent, there can be no calling foul if things don't go
    his way, but there was a really weird conversation between Molly and
    Jordan in which trial strategy was discussed that made me very
    uncomfortable. Those two former in-laws should never have spoken at all
    until the verdict was in and the sentencing (if any) had been decided.
    Curtis might have given Molly the green light to prosecute, but it seems
    to me that the prosecution's case might have been compromised by a
    conversation that would never have taken place had Molly and Jordan been
    strangers to one another.

    I did mean Martin. I easily confuse Ric and Martin, go figure.

    Two *not old* guys with silver hair? :D
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From SteveR@SteveR3333@aol.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 11:47:06 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    On 8/11/2026 11:30 AM, Kaitlin wrote:
    SteveR wrote in <115d4ho$3c1o0$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/9/2026 11:05 PM, Kaitlin wrote:

    <snip>

    Maybe, but I'd say that potential conflict is able to be waived, which >>>> Rick did.

    You mean Martin, I think. If Martin didn't advise Curtis to object to
    Molly's prosecution of the case, then he (Martin) must believe he can
    use the conflict of interest to his advantage in some way. Granted, once >>> Curtis gave his consent, there can be no calling foul if things don't go >>> his way, but there was a really weird conversation between Molly and
    Jordan in which trial strategy was discussed that made me very
    uncomfortable. Those two former in-laws should never have spoken at all
    until the verdict was in and the sentencing (if any) had been decided.
    Curtis might have given Molly the green light to prosecute, but it seems >>> to me that the prosecution's case might have been compromised by a
    conversation that would never have taken place had Molly and Jordan been >>> strangers to one another.

    I did mean Martin. I easily confuse Ric and Martin, go figure.

    Two *not old* guys with silver hair? :D

    That, plus I'm guessing two male attorneys, each with similarly VERY
    flexible moral compasses. Like I said, go figure!
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 17:00:59 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    marika wrote in <I7meS.8157$p1C.726@fx07.iad>:

    <snip>

    He, presumably Curtis, asked something like -odo you remember anyone else >> being on the road at that time-o. I think he was trying to get Val to
    implicate Isaiah.

    When the question was posed, they showed Val doing a flashback of Laura in >> the car. Very brief, so brief you might miss it if you turned away for a
    second.

    Val then answered -ono-o.

    The possibility that someone involved in that flashback has not come up
    again. Wonder if it ever will?

    Carly and Val were out looking for Charlotte and Danny when they came
    upon Jordan's accident. Val got out of the car to help Curtis, and Carly drove off to look for Charlotte and Danny.

    Val probably answered "no" to Curtis's question because at the time of
    the accident, he was still a wanted fugitive and he worried that if it
    were known that Carly had been with him then, she could be charged with harboring. It's doubtful that his memory flashback was an indication
    that he was worried she could be implicated in wrong-doing because she happened to be driving on the road around the time it occurred.

    Later, after Val had been "pardoned" by the WSB, Carly admitted to the
    cops and told practically everyone in town that Val had been hiding in
    her attic for months, as if she had been "pardoned" right along with
    him. IRL, she would not have been, because hers was a separate crime.
    Yet in the PC universe she was never charged with harboring, so it's
    doubtful she would be charged for the non-crime of stopping to render
    aid at an accident scene. But who knows! BLQ's non-crime of *failing* to
    stop and render aid earned her a spot on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

    True, but it may be driving that part of the story where, last week, she promised Chase she had no more secrets.



    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 17:19:55 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    SteveR wrote in <115fg68$4adn$1@dont-email.me>:

    On 8/11/2026 11:30 AM, Kaitlin wrote:

    <snip>

    I easily confuse Ric and Martin, go figure.

    Two *not old* guys with silver hair? :D

    That, plus I'm guessing two male attorneys, each with similarly VERY flexible moral compasses. Like I said, go figure!

    And who both have brothers with a similarly afflicted moral compass.
    They might as well be the same guy!
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 17:21:09 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika wrote in <fzIeS.11739$Jg3f.11537@fx05.iad>:

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:

    <snip>

    BLQ's non-crime of *failing* to
    stop and render aid earned her a spot on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

    True, but it may be driving that part of the story where, last week, she promised Chase she had no more secrets.

    Of course she told him that. She's not about to tell Dudley Do-Right
    that she committed a non-crime. He'd not only dump her on the spot and
    sue her for custody of Phoebe, he'll see to it that she's drawn and
    quartered and her bits scattered to the four winds.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 20:46:14 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika <marika5000@gmail.com> wrote:
    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    marika wrote in <I7meS.8157$p1C.726@fx07.iad>:

    <snip>

    He, presumably Curtis, asked something like -odo you remember anyone else >>> being on the road at that time-o. I think he was trying to get Val to
    implicate Isaiah.

    When the question was posed, they showed Val doing a flashback of Laura in >>> the car. Very brief, so brief you might miss it if you turned away for a >>> second.

    Val then answered -ono-o.

    The possibility that someone involved in that flashback has not come up
    again. Wonder if it ever will?

    Carly and Val were out looking for Charlotte and Danny when they came
    upon Jordan's accident. Val got out of the car to help Curtis, and Carly
    drove off to look for Charlotte and Danny.

    Val probably answered "no" to Curtis's question because at the time of
    the accident, he was still a wanted fugitive and he worried that if it
    were known that Carly had been with him then, she could be charged with
    harboring. It's doubtful that his memory flashback was an indication
    that he was worried she could be implicated in wrong-doing because she
    happened to be driving on the road around the time it occurred.

    Later, after Val had been "pardoned" by the WSB, Carly admitted to the
    cops and told practically everyone in town that Val had been hiding in
    her attic for months, as if she had been "pardoned" right along with
    him. IRL, she would not have been, because hers was a separate crime.
    Yet in the PC universe she was never charged with harboring, so it's
    doubtful she would be charged for the non-crime of stopping to render
    aid at an accident scene. But who knows! BLQ's non-crime of *failing* to
    stop and render aid earned her a spot on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

    True, but it may be driving that part of the story where, last week, she promised Chase she had no more secrets.


    I mean that part is obvious
    But

    This will play out interestingly with adoption, the real father and ChaserCOs obsession with WillowrCawhose murder attempt on Drew is ready for unmasking





    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From marika@marika5000@gmail.com to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 20:52:11 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:
    marika wrote in <fzIeS.11739$Jg3f.11537@fx05.iad>:

    Kaitlin <above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID> wrote:

    <snip>

    BLQ's non-crime of *failing* to
    stop and render aid earned her a spot on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted List.

    True, but it may be driving that part of the story where, last week, she
    promised Chase she had no more secrets.

    Of course she told him that. She's not about to tell Dudley Do-Right
    that she committed a non-crime. He'd not only dump her on the spot and
    sue her for custody of Phoebe, he'll see to it that she's drawn and
    quartered and her bits scattered to the four winds.

    I am still waiting for Trina and Kai to finally tell their secret about WillowrCOs murder attempt. They suppressed it for far too long. A surprise given how Trina herself had to undergo so much malice from Esme with that
    whole sex tape trial. You would think she would be much quicker to seek
    justice for others in spite of having obtained the info in less than
    legitimate means.

    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
  • From Kaitlin@above.stairs@bobbie's.diner.INVALID to alt.tv.general-hospital on Tue Aug 11 23:13:49 2026
    From Newsgroup: alt.tv.general-hospital

    marika wrote in <%XLeS.8160$p1C.7079@fx07.iad>:

    <snip

    I am still waiting for Trina and Kai to finally tell their secret about WillowAs murder attempt. They suppressed it for far too long. A surprise given how Trina herself had to undergo so much malice from Esme with that whole sex tape trial. You would think she would be much quicker to seek justice for others in spite of having obtained the info in less than legitimate means.

    Just another loose end that was never tied up. I hope they will
    eventually. Willow can't be tried again for trying to kill Drew, but if
    she's outed as the shooter, her chances of having any amount of custody
    with her kids will be zero to none. So maybe when they want to introduce
    *that* trouble for Willow, Trina and Kai will tell all.
    --
    K
    --- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2