crime.” Bowie, 232 F.3d at 929. But all else must be analyzed under Rule 404(b). As a practical matter, it is unlikely that our holding will exclude much, if any, evidence that is currently admissible as background or “completes the story” evidence under the inextricably intertwined test. We reiterate that the purpose of Rule 404(b) is “simply to keep from the jury evidence that the defendant is prone to commit crimes or is otherwise a bad person, implying that the jury needn’t worry overmuch about the strength of the government’s evidence.” Taylor, 522 F.3d at 735-36. “No other use of prior crimes or other bad acts is forbidden by the rule,” and one proper use of such evidence “is the need to avoid confusing the jury.” Id. at 736 (emphasis added). See also Simmons, 679 F.2d at 1050 (<HOLDING>). Thus, most, if not all, other crimes evidence
holding testimony that would violate the confrontation clause if introduced for the truth may nonetheless be admissible if offered for the limited purpose of impeachment holding that rule 408 exclusion does not apply to evidence of a settlement agreement if it is offered for another purpose ie for a purpose other than to prove or disprove the validity of the claims that the agreement was meant to settle holding that evidence must be offered for a proper nonpropensity purpose that is at issue in the case recognizing that the purpose is to afford  full information in connection with the estate  in order that the necessary steps may be taken for its preservation recognizing that other crimes evidence may be admissible if offered for any nonpropensity purpose and identifying the need to provide necessary background information about the relationships among the players as a proper purpose