while most deceptions crash and burn, many go on for years ... the embezzler, the philanderer/bigamist being familiar models.

Because Madoff kept his "returns" low enough, even when whistles were blown, most of his investors chose to remain with him and "security" they felt related to their personal identity.

The point about Madoff's mother is particular naive .... read the NY Magazine article I linked below ... many many people around Madoff and elsewhere found themselves under investigation, having licenses pulled and the rest ... a few went to prison (like Martha Stewart) for common place infractions of the "everyone's doing it, but only some get caught, prosecuted and convicted" variety.

Their connections and their TALENT (track record of results) made them invaluable assets to the people still in the game, so they were never actually completely out of the game.

link on my name to the case of Jean-Claude Romand whose deception lasted 18 years ...

Working in health care, I've heard of several doctors' offices which were found to been embezzled of hundreds of thousands of dollars, generally over YEARS. The hospital I worked at was embezzled by two long-term employees for well over a million in an elborate scheme involving a major supplier.

Obviously there is some rationale for the initial theft(s)/deception/misappropriation ... but I suspect keeping the plates in the air becomes job #1.

I suspect it will take years for that other shoe to drop ... it took years for investigation into the misappropriated billions in Iraq to openly focus on some of the AMERICANS government-employees who "controlled" the funds that disappeared.

There must be "accomplices", even if "unwitting," who could have and should have suspected. Madoff does not sound like some "master criminal mind" but rather someone with the good sense to operate with a high profile but on a sufficiently low level (if in a very very wide fashion and with unbelievable consistency over a long period of time) to be able to avoid the auditors and investigators.

Long article in New York Magazine, link on my signature, regarding the lack of a "why."

The "how did he manage this for so long without detection" is the real can of worms, imho.

and gave better indication of each chef's strengths and weaknesses.

I thought all three finale meals were fairly unimaginative -- if well-cooked and/or technically impressive (which they weren't except for Hosea's mastery at cooking animal protein very well).

In that, I second the fois gras concern with an additional concern about ALL THAT PROTEIN ... big hunks of meat are bad for your body, bad for your wallet, bad for the environment, and for a those and other reasons have been increasingly "phased out" in favor of more varied, innovative use of foods, flavors and textures, colors, foams and the rest.

That the challenge was a "cook your best meal ever" but the cooks apparently did not get the opportunity to the grocery store ... I think the format/show's producers share the blame.

I also think they should all have been required to produce both a salad-like course and a dessert-like course ...

I think Hosea's meal had the most appeal .... but that's not saying much about his skills as a chef, even in that meal.

... at least before what appears to have been an equally dollar-signs-in-the-eyes inconsidered attemped move away from Bravo ...

The first two seasons of Project Runway has some genuine daring designers -- beyond the what became all to predictable drag queen, nightmare prom queen, hoochie mama ensembles.

Don't get eliminated became the watchword.

I've never much cared for the faux-or-not-so-faux drama, nastiness and backstabbing-ness of Top Chef ... or how little actual cooking technique and rationale of dishes, ingredients, etc. gets conveyed in an episode or season.

I alway half expect to witness actual sabotage, though apparently the producers (thank god) decided that would be over the top.

I only watched the last two or so episodes this season and was impressed by Colicchio's obvious deep personal dislike of Stefan's attitude and, at the judge's table, felt absolutely dismissed Stefan. It seemed to be an anyone-but-Stefan victory for Hosea. Carla might well have won without the double whammy of tough beef and irretrievably botched souffles.

though some trust fund babies likely should be careful tooo...

The real trick, of course, is finding a man who religiously USES a condom ... I'm certain they exist, though I've never met one.

and actually doing it ...

I am all for people being "responsible" to avoid unwanted pregnancy and, yes, some pregnancies are accidentally-on-purpose (and many are accidental by accident) so men SHOULD take responable precautions ...

But it's a BIG LEAP from those concerns to taking the Tabasco bottle into the bathroom ... taking off the lid ... getting that used condom ... well, you get the drift ...

It's some sort of antithesis or anti-matter of fun, romance, love, respect ....

... In my experience, the most paranoid and/or suspicious people either are -- already -- subverting you behind your back or will use their suspicions to justify doing so in the future .... see also Republicans