I really liked "Under the Table" when it came out, even though it wasn't particularly of a piece with anything else I liked at the time. I liked it enough that I went out of my way to catch a show. Cut to…

But what's interesting is that, if the show was so inclined, I'm sure they could dig in and raise some level of ambiguity about even this. So, how long was Don at lunch? Did anyone see him punch the time card himself or did he get his sketchy friend (who was once arrested for burglary!) to do it for him? Why was…

I simply think that seems much more unlikely than the "Adnan did it" story. And there's even less evidence for it taboot. Throw in the fact that Adnan just seems "off" in how he acts about everything and I'm pretty comfortable with his guilt if not his actual conviction.

I really would agree with you except for the fact that, to my mind, in the absence of a plausible motive for Jay making all this up, his version of events (that is, some mixture of the various versions) is still the most likely to be correct. I just can't get past that.

Agree 100%. Adnan's attitude towards Jay is completely bizarre. He's not a random eyewitness who incorrectly claimed that he saw Adnan somewhere at some time relevant to the crime. He's a relatively close acquaintance who concocted an entire, elaborate story out of whole cloth describing him as a premeditated…

I'll go on record here as predicting that there's not even a remote chance that any of this results in another trial for Adnan unless the IP finds some specific physical evidence pointing in another direction.

Everybody thinks this about their memory, but the research continually demonstrates that our memories are much less accurate than we think they are, especially regarding these kinds of details.

I agree that's the most interesting thing about the show, but that's not really what the thrust of it has been about for the past several episodes. I can see where my comments could be read otherwise, but I am not someone who needs the show to wrap things up in a neat bow - I'm someone who would love nothing more…

I'd be interested in that too and agree that it seems like that was something that should have been done.

Ah, that's a good point (the 'for instance') and would make more sense taboot given that an IP lawyer most likely knows her stuff.

I hear you on that, though I don't think it's mutually exclusive for him to have been coached and to be downplaying his own role.

You and I have different ideas of what counts as plausible (which is fine, of course).

Yes, bingo. The serial killer angle seemed like a particularly large waste of time given Jay's confession.

*Thank you* Josh for pointing out that there are really only two possibilities here!

This confused me as well. Why would any bar refrain from selling food altogether? By 11:00 people will be tripping over themselves to pay you $8 for a plate of store bought, toaster oven baked, half cooked, tater tots. Why wouldn't you want their money?

I'll remember to have a good laugh if I someday read the same info about you. Good times!

Everyone do yourselves a favor and refrain from googling Debralee Scott.

On the plus side he can hopefully punch some of the derps who have it coming too.

Scallops are often served with a bourbon-butter type sauce and vanilla is definitely one of the notes that bourbon hits.

What you say is all true, but it vastly overstates the difference between this and what you'll find at most large state universities.