2015.19: Get It?

Murray Newman is a witness in Ex Parte Temple. The writ hearing has been going on sporadically for several weeks. One of the issues is whether Kelly Siegler concealed exculpatory information from the defense. Newman testified early, and Siegler has been on the witness stand for at least four days (orthogonally: here and here are the transcripts of Siegler’s first two days of testimony).

So when Newman wrote this post, around his doctor and a cancer scare, I commented:

I was wondering when you were going to write about Siegler and the temple case. Thank you.

Murray’s commenters don’t get it.

I believe that my commenters come from a different tranche of the bell curve.

Prove me right.


7 responses to “2015.19: Get It?”

  1. We got it but just thought it was terrifcly uncouthe of you to bringing up leagle matters when murray was descussing his healthy. You trying always make us be stuped but we have alot of braines. Not just you. We smart TO!

  2. You do realize that a pun has been called the lowest form of humor right? And that’s keeping in mind that farting and burping are runners up in that category.

    Maybe it isn’t that my readers and I don’t understand that joke. Maybe it just didn’t rise to the level of us considering it as a “joke.”

    Oh, who am I kidding? I don’t get it.

  3. I’ve felt dumber than a bag of hammers on numerous occasions but I am going to go ahead and give it a try. Pat, I’d like to solve the puzzle.

    “Temple” is not capitalized. When Mark says “the temple case,” he is talking about the case of precancerous cells Murray just had removed from his temple, along with — apparently — his brain. But since it was an Aggie brain they figured the risk was low of hitting anything valuable.

    “Siegler” refers not to Kelly but to Sam. Dr. Sam Siegler, renowned primary care physician to many lawyers at the CJC and probably the man whose advice Murray ain’t tryin to hear.

    If I’m wrong, then I’m out of guesses. If I’m wright, then I’d like to be Charles Alan.

    • You are of course correct.

      I suspect that this is an example of target fixation in Murray’s readership: they are so devoutly hoping for the Second Coming of Kelly that they forget there are other Sieglers (even though the Siegler mentioned in Murray’s post is not Kelly); they are so incensed that Temple might get another trial that they forget there are other temples (even though the temple mentioned in Murray’s post is not David).

      Just between you and me, if I’d realized they would be so slow on the uptake I’d have made the pun a little bit less opaque, substituting “situation” for “case.” I don’t think it would have made a difference, but I want to give people at least a fighting chance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.