A few weeks prior, singer and mother of two, Kelly Clarkson, ignited a fervent discussion on the radio by sharing her views on child discipline, particularly regarding spanking. She expressed her concerns about the application of physical punishment on children.

Known for her candidness, Clarkson openly discussed her perspective on this divisive topic, revealing that she does not oppose the idea of physically correcting her children when they misbehave. This straightforward admission quickly garnered the attention of both listeners and the media, leading to a broader conversation about the appropriateness of spanking as a disciplinary method. Although Clarkson’s comments were deeply personal, they prompted a wider examination of parenting techniques. During her discussion, she articulated her strong belief in using physical punishment as a way to teach her children the difference between right and wrong.

Her remarks resonated with many parents, who found themselves aligning with her stance on physical punishment. While some parents view spanking as an effective strategy for maintaining discipline and helping children grasp the repercussions of their actions, they contend that it must be administered in a proper manner to be effective.

For 15 seasons, Pauley Perrette was synonymous with her character Abby Sciuto, a forensic specialist on NCIS.

But in 2017, she shocked fans by announcing she wouldn’t be returning to the popular crime show. At the time of the announcement, Perrette said it was a decision made a year earlier.

Since then, she has only appeared in the now defunct sitcom Broke, going from a fixture on television to rarely seen. Perrette now says she’ll “never again” return to acting.

“I’m not ungrateful for the benefits that it gave to me,” she said in an interview with HELLO! “But I’m a different person now and I want to be here for it – the good and the bad and the painful.”

“I want to be me all the time,” she continued. “And it takes a good amount of courage for me to say that to myself, but it’s authentically how I feel.”

“At this point in my life I have this deep need to find authenticity in everything, and being an actor, especially at certain points in my life, was a great escape; it’s like a drug because I didn’t have to be me, I could be somebody else. My character didn’t have all of the problems that I was having.”

But Perrette hasn’t completely turned her back on the entertainment industry. She’s now producing films, specifically documentaries; her most recent project being Studio One Forever in 2023.

“It’s why I only watch documentaries, I want the truth. For me, going back to being an actor would be taking away from this life of true authenticity that I’m living 100 per cent of the time.”

Days after Perrette’s final NCIS episode aired in May 2017, she wrote on social media that she’d endured “multiple physical assaults,” implying that was the real reason she had exited the program.

Fans remained devastated, hoping she’d return, but the actress insisted she wouldn’t. In June 2019, Perrette implored the public to stop asking if she’d ever reprise her role, claiming she was “terrified” of former co-star Mark Harmon, “and him attacking me.”

There were reports that the two clashed on set because of a dog bite, but that has never been confirmed.

CBS later announced that Perrette had shared workspace concerns before exiting the show and that the network had investigated. Perrette expressed her appreciation for both the studio and the network.

NCIS is still on the air – its 22nd season premieres on screens this month.

### Puzzle Details:
1. **Frank says:** “I didn’t do it.”
2. **John says:** “Frank is lying.”
3. **Peter says:** “Frank is telling the truth.”

### Analyzing the Statements:
Let’s analyze the implications of their statements:

– If **Frank** is telling the truth (he didn’t do it):
– Then **John** is lying (since he claims Frank is lying).
– If John is lying, that means **Frank** is indeed innocent.
– **Peter** is telling the truth by claiming Frank is honest.

Thus, if Frank is telling the truth:
– Frank = Innocent
– John = Guilty (because he lied)
– Peter = Innocent

– If **Frank** is lying (he did it):
– Then **John** is telling the truth (as he says Frank is lying).
– If John is telling the truth, then Frank is indeed guilty.
– **Peter** is lying (as he claims Frank is telling the truth).

Thus, if Frank is lying:
– Frank = Guilty
– John = Innocent
– Peter = Guilty (because he lied)

### Summary of Scenarios:
1. **Frank is Innocent:** (Frank: Truth, John: Lie, Peter: Truth)
2. **Frank is Guilty:** (Frank: Lie, John: Truth, Peter: Lie)

### Conclusion:
– If Frank is innocent, John’s statement indicates he is guilty, which means Peter must be innocent.
– If Frank is guilty, then John is innocent but Peter must now be guilty.

**In both scenarios, we can determine that John cannot be guilty at the same time as Frank.**

Thus, the only consistent solution appears to be:
– **Frank is guilty.**
– **John is innocent.**
– **Peter is lying.**

Therefore, only one man is guilty, which is **Frank.**