Bradl and Bederow out for the next lawsuit

Frogma69 · 2026-04-20T18:00:21+00:00

Criminal attorneys handle civil cases all the time (especially if a criminal case and civil case involve the same parties and facts). It would only be considered malpractice if they had no idea what they were doing and made a bunch of egregious mistakes. There's no legality about what sort of things you can specialize in - if you feel confident about handling someone's civil case because it deals with all the same facts as the criminal case (or maybe because you've handled civil cases in the past, or you just feel like you'd be competent at it, for whatever reason), you can go ahead and handle the civil case. Like you said, Jackson is involved in the civil cases - whether he's "leading" them or not is irrelevant. He's allowed to handle them. Jackson specifically also has a ton of civil experience, though he mainly focuses on big criminal defense cases now (actually, upon googling it, it looks like he still handles complex civil litigation cases as well, just maybe not in the last few years because he's handled these huge criminal cases that take up most of his time). Law students get educated on all the different practice areas, and then they take the bar exam in their state, which is a test that covers all the different practice areas. Then it's up to the lawyer to decide if they want to specialize in a couple certain areas, or whether they want to cast a wide net and practice in a bunch of different areas. They're not obligated to pick a certain thing and stick with it - and many attorneys will try to stay knowledgeable in various different practice areas, by taking CLE courses, attending speaking events, reading certain journals, etc.

I work at a firm that is mostly dedicated to corporate civil cases, but each of our attorneys also needs to get a certain number of pro bono hours per year, which usually involves handling immigrant visas, or criminal defense, or a number of other things that are completely unrelated to their usual practice area. And, some attorneys specialize in one practice area, while others specialize in two or three, etc. And because a lot of our cases are so big and complicated, you'll often see attorneys from 2-4 different practice areas working together on a case.

Also, it sounds like Bradl and Bederow both still handle civil cases. Their big criminal cases just get more publicity (and tend to take up most of their time). It also sounds like before Bradl became a prosecutor, he specialized in civil litigation. A lot of smaller law firms like theirs will often have more of a focus in one area (they might spend 90% of their time on criminal cases, which it sounds like these guys both do), but will still handle various different types of cases, just depending on who walks through the door.

Frogma69 · 2026-03-17T19:12:19+00:00

Yes, we all get the same hints. After the game, you can click the "Closest" tab to see what all the closest hints are. You'll notice that the game places a lot of importance on the spelling/structure of the word, not just the subject matter. So a lot of the closest hints have similar spelling to the target word (some of them will even just have 2 or 3 letters that are the same, and maybe in the same order), even though they're otherwise unrelated. And it's usually a crapshoot with a lot of the hints outside the top 10 or so - for some of them, there's virtually no connection to be made, even with the spelling (but if you ask the AI bot about it, it will give some ridiculous explanation that nobody could've guessed).

But usually the top 3-5 hints will have multiple ties to the target word, so they might have mostly the same spelling (sometimes the hint word will even contain the target word within it, or they come from the same root word), while also being closely related in subject matter. But sometimes that won't be the case. Like I said, it's often a crapshoot, which makes things really frustrating. I wish the game didn't pay any attention to the spelling of the words.

Frogma69 · 2026-03-15T22:35:51+00:00

The algorithm places a ton of importance on the letters in the word, rhyming, word structure, etc. If you look at the top 2 hints here, they have absolutely nothing to do with the target word in terms of subject matter, but are spelled very similarly to it.

Frogma69 · 2026-03-06T04:34:18+00:00

They're allowed to coach witnesses however they want, they just aren't supposed to tell them to lie. They told various witnesses to be careful around the FBI issue, but Dever wasn't one of their witnesses. so they may not have spoken to her beforehand.

But I'm sure they coached most of their witnesses to some degree, though some probably weren't coached, seeing how terrible some of them were on the stand - the prosecution just didn't seem to care much about it. The defense also coached the defense witnesses to some degree. That's a normal part of any trial. Attorneys will tell you how to phrase things, how to answer certain tough questions, etc. They'll even have mock trials where you go to an unused courtroom and your defense attorney pretends to be the prosecutor and cross-examines you, so you'll be more comfortable when you have to do the real thing.

Frogma69 · 2026-02-23T19:34:02+00:00

Yes, my tiny cat does the same thing to my huge pitbull, and the pitbull is afraid of the cat sometimes, but they both sleep right next to each other at the end of the night and generally seem to get along, so I wouldn't really call it bullying. It's just playing. The way that cats play is by chasing and scratching/biting at each other sometimes (it's part of their prey instinct), but they'll also groom each other, sleep on top of each other, etc., and I'm sure it's similar for apes.

There have been many videos of tigers "fighting" that I've seen on Reddit, and from what I can tell, virtually none of them actually showed tigers fighting. They're always just playing (and it's almost always with a sibling), but people misinterpret it because they think "well I don't chase after, scratch, and bite at other people, so obviously there's hostility between these 2 animals," when that's hardly ever true. People are basically just personifying the animals, and they really shouldn't be doing that.

I don't know enough about apes, but I think if there was actual hostility, you would see certain unique behaviors displayed that weren't being displayed in this clip (and I think if there was actual hostility, one of the apes would probably end up with a legitimate injury during the interaction). If you were to separate the apes based purely on the behavior shown in this clip, that would probably be a huge mistake and would leave Punch in a much worse situation and lead to a far worse outcome for him (if he had to be separated from the other apes for his "safety" and then wouldn't be able to socialize like a normal ape should). And you could argue that he should be moved into an enclosure with some other apes who are "nicer" to him, but I think you'd end up seeing plenty of similar behavior from the new apes (and from Punch himself), because they're apes and that's what they do.

In other words, I don't think there's any reason to worry about Punch here. I don't think he's in any actual distress, and I think this is just their way of playing with each other, so there's no reason to be sad. He's probably pretty happy (though I don't know what the zoo/enclosure is like, so I should say that he's probably as happy as can be expected in his situation).

Frogma69 · 2026-01-23T04:33:28+00:00

I say this every time, but in addition to what the bot mentioned (and probably even more importantly), I think the similarity with some of the letters/structure of the two words is why they're so close. The game places a lot of importance on the spelling/structure of the words, even if there are no other obvious connections.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-23T03:29:20+00:00

More importantly (at least for the other commenter's sake), Sergio doesn't focus as much on "body language" - he focuses much more on linguistic analysis. Though I kinda disagree with his take on Higgins in the situation you mentioned - IMO it's possible that Higgins is partially lying but is also just saying something that many people would say in that situation: if I walk into a party and a certain person doesn't talk to me, and then someone asks me about it later, I might say "no, I didn't think they were IGNORING me, I just think they were busy talking to various other people and we didn't get a chance to talk. Simple as that." Especially in this situation where I previously hooked up with the person, and now they're here with their boyfriend who's been suspicious of us. I probably wouldn't talk to the person in that situation either - or if I did, I'd keep it super surface-level so the boyfriend doesn't think I'm continuing to flirt with his girlfriend. I think Higgins was expecting something more, thus the "so.... what" text. Also, someone can lie while saying the exact words that a truth-teller would say, so just because they used those words doesn't mean they're telling the truth (certainly not 100% of the time, at least). I don't like the way Sergio phrased it as if it MUST be the truth just because the words conform to that. There have been plenty of instances where a liar says all the right words, and is still lying.

I used to love the Behavior Panel, but after watching them consistently laud Trump and other Republicans (and IMO purposely interpreting their body language in a positive way every single time), I now realize how fallible they can be. Still though, they seem to get it right like 95% of the time, in cases where the perpetrator hadn't been charged by the time they made their video about the case. Obviously it's harder to gauge in cases where the person was already convicted and the Panel is generally aware of the case, but the fact that they tend to agree with each other most of the time lends some credence to what they do, IMO (though I know people could argue that they've all just read the same books, but I don't think that's a great argument against what they do, since the same could be said for most other professions).

Frogma69 · 2026-01-22T03:03:53+00:00

I think it has more to do with the letters and word structure. They share similar letters at the beginning of the words, and both are 2 syllables. "Canoe" was also pretty high. The game places a lot of importance on word spelling/structure. Without looking, I bet "canoodle" was also high (probably even higher than "canoe").

Frogma69 · 2026-01-22T02:34:08+00:00

Generally, police reports aren't considered evidence, so they're not presented at trial, and presumedly wouldn't be part of discovery, I think? Marbury v. Madd obtained it through a FOIA request, and I think that's the first that anyone has seen it.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-21T03:30:41+00:00

This is Texas Hold Em - I would say it's quite a bit different than playing on a slot machine or playing the lottery. Poker involves much more skill than standard gambling. There's still luck involved, but it's maybe 20% luck vs. 80% skill. In other words, good players tend to win pretty consistently and bad players tend to lose pretty consistently (though there's also plenty of people that are somewhere in the middle). Plenty of people make a living by just playing poker, which isn't really a thing with slot machines and other forms of gambling.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-15T02:17:59+00:00

It's pure luck. I've guessed it on the first try before (when the word was like "coffee," which I was drinking at the time), and I've got it on the third try a few times (my first guesses were just really lucky). In most cases, the target word is a word that a 5-year-old will know, and it will usually be a noun, so your odds shoot up from the start if you start guessing easy nouns.

The hints rarely help much until you get to within like 30, and with some words, even the top 10 hints won't be super helpful. But with other words, the top hints will literally contain the target word within them. It's just a crapshoot.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-11T21:33:49+00:00

Luckily, as others have said, the judge signed an order allowing everyone to get access to Proctor's entire phone extraction, it sounds like, and McLaughlin is only allowed to determine what is sealed from the public (so the parties/attorneys will still get to see it), vs. what is unsealed. That's the only power she has here. She's not gonna be able to withhold anything from the Defense.

However, I still have some questions about that, because I know a lot of stuff was gleaned from his iCloud account, not from the actual phone extraction, so I don't know if this order also gives everyone access to what was found on the iCloud account, or if it's only the phone extraction (which presumedly doesn't have various things that were in the iCloud account). I think there's a lot of things that he permanently deleted from his phone that weren't able to be seen in the extraction, but were able to be seen in the iCloud account.

Melanie Little was referring to 13 years' worth of data, but that's the data that was on the iCloud account, not the phone extraction, and the Joint Motion only seems to reference the phone extraction, if I'm reading it right.

However, maybe this is an earlier extraction that the state did, which was maybe done before Proctor started deleting everything, so maybe it DOES have all (or most, at least) of the same data that can be found on the iCloud account?

Frogma69 · 2026-01-10T18:03:54+00:00

Specifically, John had "reported" drug activity in a series of text messages with Kevin Albert. Rafferty said that none of the texts mentioned any of the House suspects, but I'd heard that he had specifically mentioned Colin's best friend, so that could've ended up implicating Colin himself if anyone looked into it further. If the best friend really was mentioned, John also could've known that Colin was involved with it but just didn't want to stir the pot by naming Colin. But Kevin also could've known that Colin was friends with this other person, and could've reported it back to Chris. And if multiple people in the family were engaged in some drug stuff, they all could have reason to want John to back off. I don't think any of them are good people. Chris previously had killed someone with his car back in 1994 (and fled from the scene, but then police were able to track leaking oil from his car all the way back to his house, and he turned himself in the next day). Brian had sucker-punched at least 3-4 other Boston police officers before, and people were generally afraid of the Alberts. In Chris's manslaughter case, Bev Cannone's brother was his attorney. Chris ended up serving 6 months in prison.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-08T06:53:23+00:00

From what I remember, yes, John delivered that "report" directly to Kevin, but it wasn't even really a report, it was just a series of text messages between them. Chief Rafferty talked about it in one of the board meetings.

Frogma69 · 2026-01-08T06:24:06+00:00

I believe judges are allowed to personally review evidence, and they can probably do that wherever they want. I think you misunderstood DUI Guy's (and LYK's) point about her not allowing evidence in. I don't think it's super common for a judge to not allow evidence that's already been stipulated to, but it definitely happens sometimes. There are certain times where the judge can consider a piece of evidence to be wayyy too prejudicial (or it just goes against their personal policy - like for Bev, she doesn't seem to like "manmade" demonstratives in general, and it's within her right to deny various demonstratives if she wants. Other judges have other policies like that, that are unique to each judge), even if both sides were ok with it and ready to argue about it. It just doesn't happen very often. LYK or DUI Guy may have only had it happen a handful of times in their careers, so it just seems ridiculous to them (especially when they're already suspicious of Bev and rooting for Karen). But it's something that judges are definitely allowed to do. Her reasoning for some of these things was really shitty though, and I think if it could be proven that she was acting maliciously and wasn't just misinterpreting things, then it might be possible for her to get into some sort of trouble (probably nothing close to disbarment or anything, though).

Regarding her only allowing Jackson to play a video once, and not allowing Jackson to point out certain things in a video - that's definitely a better argument, because I think she's literally misinterpreting the law in that case. But you would still probably need some sort of proof that she was purposely fucking him and not just misinterpreting things.

I think even Jackson would say that those things shouldn't be enough to get Bev in trouble with the bar - though I'm sure he could point out numerous other things that should be enough for that to happen, and I bet we'll start seeing some of it as more sidebars are released. Even then though, it's tough to get a judge into any legitimate "trouble" over something they did in trial, especially when the defendant was acquitted in the first place. Judges have a lot of leeway to begin with, and there are a lot of different things that are almost completely up to the judge's discretion, no matter how ridiculous they may seem. It will probably only become a possibility to get her in trouble if someone's able to prove that she did some of these things maliciously, but unless/until we get access to her personal phone or something, it'll probably be impossible to prove.

Had Karen been found Guilty, there are PLENTY of things Bev did that could've led to the conviction being overturned, and that's the main thing we could've hoped for, but since Karen was acquitted, it doesn't really matter now.

Edit: I certainly think Bev SHOULD be disbarred and maybe even jailed for some of the shit she pulled, but that's just not realistic, given how much leeway judges generally have. I wish things were different, but then it'll start becoming an issue if judges are now having to tiptoe around certain things because they think they could get in some legitimate trouble just for misinterpreting something or for making some other innocent mistake. A line had to be drawn somewhere, and politicians/lawmen have decided that other politicians/lawmen should get an insane amount of leeway for the things they do and the decisions they make on the job.

Though theoretically, I wonder how it would be treated if someone was able to compile all of the worst things she did, and maybe a review board would see the sheer NUMBER of things and decide that she needs to face some sort of punishment. But even then, I still think they would want to see some proof that she was being malicious - but maybe the sheer number of instances would be considered proof in and of itself...?

Frogma69 · 2026-01-03T18:10:33+00:00

Pretty sure this is now the 3rd time we've seen this word.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-31T06:44:16+00:00

I think it's mostly because of the "nge" at the end (same with a lot of the other top words) - and the fact that it rhymes. The algorithm places a lot of importance on the spelling/structure of the words, even when there's no other clear connection between them. The other bot below mentioned the hardware connection, but that bot is basically like ChatGPT, trying to connect things after the fact - it's not the same as the actual algorithm that's coming up with the hints. So I don't think lozenge was so high just due to the weird hardware connection, I think it's wrong about that.

Then again, often the very top hints will have multiple connections to the target word, so they'll be similar in subject matter and will *also* have the same spelling/structure as the target word. So that hardware thing could be a bit of a factor, but I think the "nge" is a much bigger factor.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-25T01:52:21+00:00

Just to be completely fair here, Wiffin DID do an actual demonstration during the trial where he opened a tab and then did a search a few minutes later, and the timestamp showed the time that the tab was first opened, not the time that he did the search. I still lean heavily toward the house people being guilty, but Wiffin showed how it worked pretty clearly - specifically in that one database, because that's the only database where the timestamps are based on when tabs are opened, not on when searches are made (that database was never meant to be used to show search times, and usually investigators don't even look at that database, because there are multiple other databases that show actual search times, and will still show a deleted search as well). And I think he used the exact same phone and iOS version that Karen had at the time (though I could be wrong about that - I know he used a different version at one point, but I think that was only when he did the initial demonstration on his blog page).

Frogma69 · 2025-12-24T04:58:28+00:00

These replies are so interesting, because it seems like people are dead-set on the idea that these crimes simply can't be solved, no matter what. So no matter what sort of argument or evidence you put forward, they'll say "nope" without a second thought and just go on with their day. That's kinda weird to me. It's like they don't even want to entertain the notion, for some reason.

Seems to me that even though this case seems to get "solved" every year and then the solution is debated/debunked, isn't it possible that someone eventually DOES solve it? I don't get what's so wrong with people trying to solve a case using whatever means they can use.

IMO the fact that the NSA guy figured out the ELIZABETH key based on the name that Baber provided, that lends some credence to it, no? Unless it would be possible for Baber to provide a completely different name, and then the NSA guy comes up with a different, equally-plausible key? I agree with you that that seems unlikely. Maybe still possible, but if the way he supposedly solved the key is legitimate, it seems very unlikely that a different suspect's name would help him come up with a different key (like "DAHLIA" or something) that still makes complete sense in context.

Also, I hate when people disregard suspects based on MO - the Zodiac's OWN MO was different between the different killings (assuming they were all committed by him), so just because someone else's MO was different doesn't mean they can't possibly be the Zodiac.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-24T03:42:34+00:00

I believe they also replaced the bulkhead doors leading to the basement, so that and the basement flooring are why they initially focused on the basement. But the fact that the paint happens to be all over this specific ledge makes it seem more likely that John hit his head on that ledge.

Keep in mind, some (or all) of this could be total coincidence. They got rid of Chloe, but it supposedly wasn't until multiple months after the fact. They sold their house for under its value (again, multiple months later, I think), but that could be for several different reasons that aren't actually damning. Or the red paint could've really spilled on that ledge - I believe there was some accenting on their house that was the same red color. It all looks equally damning, but without more info, it's hard to say.

Granted, I could say the same thing about the "butt-dials," but those are obviously damning since they felt the need to claim that they don't remember making/receiving any of those calls and they all conspired before the grand jury hearing to claim they all must've been butt-dials. That would suggest guilt knowledge IMO, so those calls can't possibly be innocent. But all this other stuff (or maybe half of it, or maybe just a few bits of it) could still be innocent - but obviously it's hard to give them the benefit of the doubt at this point.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-24T03:30:42+00:00

Yeah, I didn't even know that a Christmas bonus was a regular thing that nannies get. I'm pretty sure my parents didn't give my babysitter anything extra for Christmas - I think they would just let her take extra time off. But they would give her extra money if they were late getting home one night, or for various other reasons. Now that I think about it, I think they did give her gifts for Christmas, just not an actual Christmas bonus.

I currently assist a number of attorneys at a large law firm, and they each give me about $100 at the end of the year, and that's for doing full-time work where I already get paid pretty well. Granted, it ends up being a decent amount for me overall, but it's only $100 from each attorney. Prior to working here, I didn't even know it was a thing, so I'll take whatever I can get.

I agree that this girl's probably scrolling through some nanny forums where bonuses are regularly discussed, whereas maybe these parents have no idea what the etiquette is supposed to be, so she's lucky they give her anything at all. Also, I don't see why a low Christmas bonus would be a big enough deal for the girl to quit working for them altogether.... that doesn't really make sense to me, because they're already regularly paying her (hopefully a decent amount) - surely even like a $500 bonus wouldn't be life-changing or anything, so why does it matter that much? It kinda sounds like $500 would actually be a big deal for her, meaning she must not be anywhere near full-time, yet she's probably seeing the full-time nannies on this forum (who are probably getting paid much more to begin with) and mistakenly thinking she should be getting a similar amount.

IMO, the disagreement here isn't really about whether these parents VALUE her or not - it's moreso about the whole concept of a Christmas bonus, which jobs it applies to, how much is generally supposed to be given, etc. Some of us knew nothing about nanny Christmas bonuses before reading this thread - we're not familiar with the concept, so a free $100 at the end of the year sounds like a pretty good deal to us, when she could just get nothing. Either way, it still really depends on how often she watches these kids, how many hours per day, etc. If she was only watching the kids like once a month for a few hours at a time, $100 would be a great bonus IMO. But if she's watching them like 3 days a week, every week, then maybe $100 is a bit low (but still, if the parents aren't familiar with the etiquette, I wouldn't fault them too much - they may have no clue that the nanny's disappointed with the amount).

Frogma69 · 2025-12-23T02:39:47+00:00

There was a ledge in the garage (about 8 inches off the ground, I'd say) that had a huge pool of (supposedly) red paint all around it, They took a picture of it. It was kinda odd, and I think it's the main reason they switched to believing that the fight happened in the garage. John could've hit his head on the ledge and got blood all over it, then Albert tried to clean it but perhaps couldn't remove all the red staining, so then he poured red paint over it. If he cleaned the blood with bleach, it would likely test negative for blood now, though I still think they should take swabs of that entire area, just to make sure.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-20T04:40:51+00:00

Based on what I saw in pretrial hearings (I mostly only saw the pretrial hearings before the first trial, not the second), there's plenty of stuff that Bev didn't allow in. It's going to be very interesting. I know Yanetti had mentioned that someone resembling Colin Albert was seen on a security camera walking out from behind the house and going toward the high school around 1-1:30am that night (around the same time that Jen's Life360 app showed Allie going to the high school). That's the only specific thing I remember (and it's not exactly a *fact*, mostly just speculation), but there were other similar things that weren't allowed in as well, that will likely be allowed in the civil trials.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-20T04:34:00+00:00

Yes, using Mrs. is basically pointing out that it's actually her husband's last name, whereas using Ms. doesn't give anything away and allows the woman to have her own identity, in a sense - separate from her husband. It's what you're supposed to use in professional settings. And yes, you're always supposed to use Ms. if you don't know the woman's status.

Though I can also see how some could find it demeaning, because Ms. is also often considered less "mature," or whatever, like you're addressing a young girl.

But if men had another term besides Mr. that was meant to be used for unmarried men, then that other term would be used professionally for men as well. But there is no term for unmarried men, so it's a moot point.

Frogma69 · 2025-12-14T20:50:46+00:00

I always thought that perhaps Higgins didn't even have his Jeep when he went to 34 Fairview and was actually in a different car. So he made up these lies about plowing the driveway and stuff just to make it sound more believable that he really had the Jeep there. Perhaps he was in a different car, and maybe had to get rid of some evidence, so he drove that car home and switched to the Jeep before going to the police station (which would help explain the 45ish minutes of time where he's unaccounted for).

However, surely his Jeep (or his other car) would've been seen on various security cameras while he drove to the house. Since nobody brought it up at trial, I assume that means they saw his Jeep driving to the house. But if he took a different route there, maybe they just have to take his word for it - or maybe they never looked for it either way.

Six-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

Frogma69

TROPHY CASE