I had a really tragic afternoon today. My dad showed up while a study group was meeting here at my condo. People started talking to one another and the discussion was about money changing hands. I don't know exactly why I ever agreed to such a thing, but my cohort mates were betting on whether or not I could outrun my father at a distance of 200 yards. Someone measured the distance. We ran and I lost. I got a much better start than he did and was ahead of him until probably the final 15 yards or so. Even he admitted that I would have beaten him in a real race, as no one races for 200 yards in an actual race. The man is something like fifty-one years old, and I'm not quite twenty-one yet. It was a pathetic display on my part. I would burn my running shoes were it not for the fact that the soles are rubber and would not burn very well.
Afterwards I was too disconsolate to continue studying, so I checked out things on the Internet while others were studying things that I already had committed to memory. I came across something a bit unusual.
True confession: I was disloyal to Judge Alex. I watched an episode of the Antichrist on the Internet, I would try to rationalize it by saying that 1) I'm not a Neilson Family;2) even if I were a Neilson family, I watching the episode on the Internet, where it could not be tracked by the neilson people, and The AntiChrist would under no circumstances credit. Still, disloyalty is disloyalty, and I admit to having been disloyal.
Disloyalty notwithstanding, the case was truly interesting if more for the back story than for the actual content of the case itself. It seems that the case was phony -- manufactured jointly by the plaintiff, defendant, and witnesses so that they could get a little cash and a free all-expenses-paid trip to Los Angeles out of the experience. The production staffs and the judges themselves on most court shows pride themselves on being able to sniff out a ruse, but either this case fooled everyone or both the production staff and The AntiChrist thought the case was too bizarre not to air even if it was not for real. I'm not sure which of my two possible scenarios is actually true in this case.
The case involved an accusation by the plaintiff that the defendant had thrown two TVs across the room, one of which hit and killed her cat. The defendant's defense was basically that he was too drunk to remember what happened on the night in question. The plaintiff in this case was clearly nervous about lying on camera under oath, but she explained it away by saying to The AntiChrist that she was fidgety. The AntiChrist probably thought she was coming down from a meth high.
Both the plaintiff and the defendant were respectable actors, albeit in an understated sort of way on the part of the defendant. Arguably the most talented actor involved with the case was the defendant's witness, who interjected that he had a scenario that proved the plaintiff was lying. Judge Judy cut him off by telling him he had not been present when the cat was or was not killed. The defendant's witness responded, "OK, Mama," to The AntiChrist. That had supposedly been the particular witness' entire objective in appearing in court -- to call The AntiChrist "Mama." Unfortunately, The AntiChrist seemed not to have heard him. She's gone Kate Gosselin on litigants for saying far less than that.
Lines from the hallterviews were among the best I've ever heard on The AntiChrist's show, or, I should say, were the best I would have heard if I actually watched her show on a regular basis, which I clearly do not. "He killed a dead bird and then lit it on fire." "They're straight; we hate 'em." 'Kate's nasty." ". . . underwear on the counter . . ." "The guy's crazy but he's not a bad friend usually." "If the cat died it was a mercy killing 'cuz Kate never fed the cat." "I didn't kill the cat. Jonathan didn't kill the cat. None of us killed the cat, because we only smash stuff outside." "It's ridiculous." "It's ridiculous, obviously." "I feel like my whole life is ridiculous, really."
The case is a classic, and all the more so because it was totally fabricated. Watch it if you're so inspired. http://www.snotr.com/video/4051/Who_killed_the_cat
I once read something written by Judge Alex on social media where he talked about the potential cost for anyone caught fabricating a case on his show. In addition to having to reimburse the producers for hotel fees, cash for meals, and transportation costs, the production company could even go after phony litigants for productions costs, which would be well into the thousands of dollars. I must ask Judge Alex if anyone ever tried to bring a phony case before him. My guess is that there's no way he would have ever fallen for this particular hoax, but then again, the case might have been funny enough that the judge would have been willing to look the other way in order to televise it.